Who Should Be SUPERMAN Reboot Villain?
With the debate over who will be helming the new 'Superman' movie firmly settled, it's now time to get down to the serious business of content and players. With rumours raging over who will play the lead, it is becoming increasingly frustrating to read that the new movie will be yet another origin-type movie, though one hobbled slightly by the rights battle that has robbed Nolan and Co of the right to use krypton in the movie
Let's cut to the chase here: why exactly do we need it to be an origins movie? Superman as an artistic property is about as recognisable as Coca-Cola, and I don't think it would be a massive or bold departure to claim that everyone already knows his origin story. The supposed need for an origin story is based around one thing only, a reckless presumption that viewers (even those familiar with the property, since it is they who most heavily populate comic book movie audiences) need to be retold a story they are already familiar with simply because a film is different from a comic book. Come on, be brave and offer a script that accepts that the audience knows enough about what you're writing about for that knowledge to form the foundation for a compelling narrative.
The danger is - and sadly, it looks like the mooted script direction is already falling to it - that director Zack Snyder and producer Chris Nolan will be seduced by the success of the reboot of the Batman universe and believe that the formula will work again with Superman. The difference of course is that Superman's origin is pretty much set in stone - Krypton died, he was jettisoned to Earth, grew up on a farm and then had an epiphany to use his powers for good, coincidentally that one day he groggily put his pants on in the wrong order. Batman's on the other hand was just vague enough (and had been fleshed out by subsequent comic book origin stories) for 'Batman Begins' to be a necessary addition to the comic book film universe.
There was also the small matter of narrative expediency: Batman is human, without any powers and consequently vulnerable, so a story that establishes exactly why he chose to pull down his cowl and fight crime was also necessary. Superman, on the other hand is a bloody demi-God alien-type, instilled from birth with the importance of moral goodness and the value of humanity by his human foster parents (and unconsciously learned Kryptonian ethics). His decision to become a superhero is pretty much a given, so why exactly would anyone really want to see him juggling the decision while he back-packs across America on some fucking road-trip to the centre of himself?
The current fascination with perpetually rebooting, or re-originating a property is incredibly devaluing and entirely unnecessary: personally, I don't see why movie adaptations have to be classed as individual and alien from the comic book universe (hence the apparent need to explain who every character is with an origin story). The films should be included as episodic additions to the same body of work as the comics; taking a leaf out of that medium's approach to non-linear and branching alter-narratives that can often co-exist with entirely different plots. With that in mind, I would much prefer to see a Superman film that focuses on a later time period in his caped career, meaning increased narrative depth and detail without the stultifying need to needlessly establish back-stories for everyone who appears on screen. I also despise the idea that in order to make a superhero compelling to watch on screen, they have to be reduced to a cipher of humanist concerns (which is exactly what the world-travelling Superman of Nolan's suggested script is) or an awkward teenager in a film that clumsily juxtaposes their adaptation to their powers with the the developmental pains of puberty. I want my superheroes super for God's sake: is that too much to ask?
And to sweeten the deal, an older Superman would be ideally suited to either Bruce Campbell (though I know no-one is going to agree) or Patrick Warburton- actors with gravitas (and both under-estimated levels of talent) and poise, whose physiology means they look like they could not only carry the weight of a role but pull of the physical demands of the role. Better either of them than casting someone because they look like Christopher Reeve, or some imagined universal truth of how Superman is supposed to look...
Anyway, aside from the decision over who will don the blue tights and red pants combo of the most wholesome of wholesome superheroes, the greatest quandary facing director Zak Snyder, Chris Nolan and and the writing team will be who should play the new movie's nemesis.
The problem with Superman has always been that his rogue's gallery simply cannot match up to Batman's collection of nemeses - there are some compelling figures, but nothing like the range of his sometime caped colleague in crime-fighting. So, the question remains; who should Nolan and Snyder choose to fill the villain slot for the forthcoming new movie?
Below, I have offered a run-down of who I would ideally love to see lined up opposite Superman in the new movie (ignoring the leaked details of the script of course), who I think has a good chance, and who flat-out shouldn't be at the races.
Left-field Choices
This first section is dedicated to characters that, as I fan I would love to see involved, though in all likelihood they wouldn't even figure in preliminary discussions at any of the Nolan/Snyder creative meetings.
Lobo; Just imagine how brilliant it would be for Lobo to appear, whether as the employed charge of another shady villain (it would surely have to be Lex Luthor pulling the strings) - he is probably the most arrogant, full-of-swagger rogue since Wolverine, and he would pose a genuine threat to Superman thanks to his immortality and a frightening durability. And my choices to play him: it'd have to be a toss-up between Ron Perlman and Kevin Durand.
Himself: Red Kryptonite has the rather unfortunate effect of turning Supes into a raging, villainous version of himself. Playing on the same appeal of Venom (though also potentially open to the same pit-falls as marred 'Spider-Man 3'). Nothing's quite as compelling as a hero torn in two: if I had my way (and presuming they will go with a young Superman) it would be Patrick Wilson playing both sides of the Superman coin, but I cant really see it happening.
Superboy Prime: An incredibly appealing villain (though probably way too new to be considered), Superboy-Prime is an alternate-reality version of Superman in whose reality the DC superheroes are just fictional comic book characters. Initially starting as a hero, Superboy-Prime's defection to the dark side (thanks to a misplaced belief that the superheroes he sees in Superman's dimension are more like villains) is one of the most compelling aspects of the Infinite Crisis event, but let's face it, the intricacies of that narrative, and the other requisite back-stories would mean either a six hour film or one painfully short on detail or action. his inclusion would simply require too much compromise. I'd love to see Topher Grace in this role, as he was one of the only good things to emerge from 'Spider-Man 3'.
Mr Mxyzptlk: he attracts a lot of hate, thanks to being a sort of intergalactic leprechaun (and occasionally way too similar to Fred Flintstone's sometimes tormentor The Great Gazoo), but the unpronounceable trickster imp from the 5th dimension possesses some intriguing abilities that make him an interesting option. If you ignore the fact that he is essentially just Rumplestiltskin (saying his name backwards banishes him to his own dimension), his malevolence and seemingly undeserved torment of Superman is entertaining. They'd have to go with the Post-Crisis version of the character though who was abated only when he decided his challenges had been met sufficiently, rather than leaving in such a throw-away device as the name-trick. Casting wise you'd have to be looking at someone with that creepy je-ne-sais-quoi that makes them sure-fire choices for oddities: I'm thinking Steve Buscemi, with CGI to make him look the part.
The Also-Rans
The following three characters were discounted from being top inclusions due to the problem film-makers would have faced in bringing them convincingly to screen, and hanging their hats on either as the main villain of the film:
Darkseid: If it really has to be an origin story, why not test the new Man of Steel by pitting him against one of the most powerful villains of the DC Universe? The idea of Supes finding himself and gauging his powers would be cemented perfectly by him coming face to face with a foe he would have no possibility of defeating if he hadn't totally accepted his fate as a superhero.
Sadly, Darkseid has little chance of being chosen because of the way he looks- it is infinitely more affecting for an origin story in particular to have a villain with at least some humanity to him. I'm a big believer in the profundity of the unexpected empathy an audience is made to feel for a villain - whether through sympathy or their charm - that further enhances the disgust we feel when their villainy is fully revealed. The casting here wouldn't be important- a stuntman would take the majority of the responsibility, with his physical performance supplemented with a strong vocal performance.
Solomon Grundy: a personal favourite from the various cartoon adaptations, Grundy perhaps doesnt have the same kind of charm or appeal that a more intellectual character would, and the track record for CGI monsters of his sort (Van Helsing and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). If you went for the non-CGI approach the result would effectively just be a giant hulk of a man with limited brain power and no gravitas to carry the demands of a strong narrative.
Doomsday: Another character who would require some CGI, due to his hellish appearance, but he may arguably be more worthy of the extra concerns by virtue of his legendary status as Superman's murderer (in "The Death of Superman") and his adoration among fans. His origin story, in the distant past on Krypton (which would be a problem with the rights issues of course) and his genesis in a heinous world that encouraged him to become a terrible berserker monster would also make him a good counterbalance to Superman's morality, especially considering they came from the same place.
The Top Five
I have to say these are in no particular order, and I'll leave it to the readers to choose their own favourites.
General Zod: Apparently, if rumour is to be believed, Zod is already on the writing team's radar. You can see why - he has an understandable motive for wanting to kill Superman, aside from pure malice and Terence Stamp's versions of the character in 'Superman 1' and '2' proved he is capable of providing the right counterbalance to Superman. However that effect would rely heavily upon finding someone able to bring the same kind of performance as Stamp, and these things are often easier to suggest than to actually find. Personally I''d love to see Zachary Quinto in the role: looking at his performances as Spock and Sylar he has both the poise and the range to channel some of the spirit that Stamp brought to the role, with charisma and talent to make the role his own.
Bizarro: One of the most touching and compelling back-stories make Bizarro a very alluring possibility - though he may well drag attention and audience empathy away from Superman's own story, thanks to his Frankenstein-like conflicts. In all honesty Bizarro's story is far more tragic than Machiavellian as he isn't fully in control of his powers, thanks to his child-like demeanour, but I'm a huge fan of him in the comic universe, and couldn't resist the fantasy of his inclusion here. The only way he would work as a villain would be in conjunction with Lex Luthor (who created him according to one branch of DC's Bizarro story)- as an elaborate henchman- or in the current DC mainstream continuity's cross-over story involving the Joker stealing Mr Mxyzptlk's powers and creating Jokerworld.
But then, three villains don't always work in superhero sequels... Casting wise, you'd have to re-use whoever is chosen for the auspicious duty of playing Supes himself.
Brainiac: One of the fan forums' favourites to be in the Snyder film, hence his inclusion here, though I personally don't believe that his city-shrinking tendencies would be enormously difficult to bring to the screen. He does look pretty damn cool though and is my second choice; and I cant help but think that Hugo Weaving would be brilliant as him.
Lex Luthor: 'Superman Returns' may well have entirely misused him, and subsequently poisoned opinion against him, but the fact remains that Luthor is the light to Superman's darkness. He is the closest we have to being Supes' antithesis and his human malignanceis the perfect counter-weight to Superman's alien goodness.
I would prefer a more recent version of Luthor that returns him to his mad scientist roots (rather than the Machiavellian president he became at the height of his power), emphasising further the distinction between Superman's might and Luthor's rich intelligence- the archetypal battle of brains and brawn. And who'd play him? Well, having been underwhelmed by Kevin Spacey's take on the character, and the unfortunate lack of explosive energy bubbling under the surface, I'd definitely take a different approach and go for Josh Brolin, simply on the strength of his performance in 'Wall Street 2'. If we had an older Superman, I'd definitely plump for Lost's Terry O'Quinn as a (perhaps incarcerated) Luthor, not merely for the physical resemblance, but also thanks to the enormous passion he brought to his performance of Locke.
Ultra-Humanite: He gains a top five position solely because he was the first villain that Superman ever faced, and because he was so cruelly replaced way back in 1940 when Luthor was preferred as Superman's arch-nemesis. Call me simple, but I also think it would be nice to have the original villain matched up to an origin story as well - especially as he effectively offers the same thing as Luthor.
Both started as mad scientists, and both were proficient in technological ability as well as incredibly intelligent (though Ultra-Humanite outstrips Luthor easily), forming the brainy antithesis to Superman's strength and invulnerability. The difference with Ultra-Humanite (and I'm not referring to his Simian super-human guise of later DC stories- rather the broken bodied scientist of the 30s) is that he is vulnerable and terrible in the same instance, relying on the same dependent relationship with Superman that exists between Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson in 'Unbreakable'.
Now this is one that would be perfect for Terry O'Quinn, since he already has experience of playing a character with a physical debilitation and he could play the ego required perfectly.
And Who It DEFINITELY Shouldn't Be
I was tempted to include Lex Luthor in here, but let's face it, he is the darkness to Superman's light, the Man of Steel's bona-fide antithesis and throughout the history of Supe's comic career Luthor has commanded some seriously compelling story-lines (hence his inclusion above). So with that in mind, here are the offenders who simply should not even be considered as a potential villain for the film:
Toyman: why? Because he uses toys to do his evil bidding. He's nothing but a joke really. Kru-El: why? There is just no place for an evil family member in any of the possible futures where this Superman could be a success. And the name is way too contrived. Titano: why? He's a giant ape who pretty much shoots Kryptonite rays out of his eyes. Need I say more? Deathtrap: basically just the Jigsaw of the DC universe, Deathtrap thinks up elaborate traps to erm, trap Superman. Would be a terrible choice thanks to the Saw likeness, and would infinitely cheapen the whole project. Magpie: a jewel thief who steals gems named after birds. Not exactly compelling.So there you have it, a run-down of my humble opinions surrounding who should and shouldn't be considered as the villains for the new film. In the interest of parity and without going into detail, my choices for the other Superman mainstay characters read as follows:
As a final side-discussion, I also think it would be a great idea to include the delectable Power Girl in the new film - hang the fact that her origin relies upon a ridiculous amount of back-story establishing, she is by far and away the best of Superman's super-human/alien associates. Plus, it would give us all the opportunity to see a white-lycra-clad Diora Baird, who would definitely be my choice for the role based on her physical resemblance to the character (who the hell cares if she can act, looking like that?!)
Please, do get involved in the debate and tell us exactly who you think you Nolan and Snyder should choose to face off against the Man of Steel.