1 - Because the original story is too big to fit into one film and this is simply inspired by it, not meant to be the comic to the letter.
2- Lex Luthor is the most recognizable Superman villain. A lot of people not familiar with the comics will be watching this. They need to provide a villain the audience can already care about to some extent.
And the monster did kind of come up out of the blue. Yes, he was discovered by Lex's team, but it was a total freak thing that there happened to be Doomsday down there. Lex isn't directly responsible for him, and there was no "moral" involved with that aspect of the story at all. Not sure what you're getting at.
3 - JLA isn't in it because it'd be superfluous and would cut down on the time. This is a Superman movie with only 75 minutes of story time. Best not to drag tons of other heroes in to steal the spotlight. Yes, seeing Doomsday beat the crap out of them was cool in the comics, but it's not in any way integral to the story. This film still shows that Doomsday is merciless and nearly unstoppable without the JLA battle.
4 - Two people in love being intimate with one another is not immoral in any way.
5 - Doomsday is not the co-star, the film's title is Superman: Doomsday, not Superman AND Doomsday. It's not about the two of them palling around for an hour. Doomsday is a plot device. That's all he ever was. "How do we kill Superman?" He's the answer to that. The film's story is the death, mourning, and return of Superman. Doomsday is in act 1, the death, and that's the ONLY part he needs to be in. Even in the original comics, he was only part of the beginning of a very large story.
In fact, I don't think they even refer to him by name in the movie.
6 - Again, the story would have gotten messy trying to include the 4 other Supermen. Given your distaste for clones, you wouldn't have liked Superboy anyway. Also, the clone Superman in the film is not necessarily evil, just Superman without the moral center and human side, as he's been taught by Luthor.
reply
share
gleebley2002
17 years ago
I freely admit I'm not a regular reader of the current comics, though with Lois and Clark being married for the past decade plus, what I'm about to say isn't affected by my lack of knowledge of the current comics:
For thousands of years, most societies have considered pre or extra marital sex as immoral, even if the two parties are in love.
The only other "official" outlet we've seen Clark do such a thing is in Superman 2. (Tom De Haven's "It's Superman" Novel is not "official.") So, please understand that for a cartoon, even though it's rated PG13 and violent, to be pretty blatant in showing the Supes and Lois are screwing is a bit jarring to us long time fans. It isn't something Clark has done and seems totally out of character for a character who has always been better than us all.
I don't begrudge Superman his feelings, but I was shocked to see 7 decades of character history thrown out the window in a children's cartoon.
reply
share
dvd-buff
17 years ago
I agree, why change the story.
I think that this story was worthy of a 10 part series. Sure they would have to make it late night TV, but I believe it would have been more beneficial to do this, after all it is a made for TV/DVD movie.
It may have cost a substantial amount more to make, but with some of the crappy shows they have on now they could have done this.
Or if they had no choice but to make a movie then why not break them up into 3 movies, Would have covered the majority, (if not all) of the story in the books, and if timed correctly between movies could have raised high expectations to a point that could have surpassed everyones beliefs.
Although I did enjoy Superman Doomsday, I thought it was a good movie, I just think that it could have been sooo much better.
Thank you, I hope you enjoyed reading my opinion, No disrespect to Bruce Timm either I think he did a fabulous job with Batman: The Animated series in the mid nineties.
reply
share
SleepNeeded127
17 years ago
the reason why they cant do that is that they need a large group of people who have not read to the comic to buy this and if u break it up most will not want to but 3 different DVD's.
who have to remember this is not just for the comic fans but the whole superman fan base many of which do not read comics.
reply
share
nashknight-1
11 years ago
I heard a lot about how the comic book saga is epic and great and how this movie, which I found quite good doesn't do it justice, so i got the original saga and I'm reading it currently (got to the part when Superman died)and I have to say it's cheesy as hell. It' a run-of-the mill, trashy 90s comic book with no depth whatsoever. It may be my problem cos I expected something like Watchmen, but all in all the comic is actually WORSE than this cartoon!
reply
share
BertramWilberforceWooster
10 years ago
The first volume was terrific. The second was decent. The third was down-right dreadful. And I say that as a longtime comic fan.
--
If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!
reply
share
MrsBuckyBarnes
9 years ago
i think the death of superman saga is a product of it's time - i was epic when it was published, but is dated now. however it can still be appreciated for the plot and a menacing villain. it does have depth, but only if you had been reading superman and had an affection for the character.
i have just started watching this, and apart from finding the artistic style rather unattractive - what is the deal with those weird cheekbones - i am really taken aback at the dynamic between lois and clark/superman. i have no problem with them being in a sexual relationship (although it is worth noting that the comics never showed them in bed together until they were married), but the idea that superman would have sex with lois before revealing his true identity is really out of character. in the comics he is in a relationship with wonder woman now and of course, he told his name before he screwed her brains out. i also got the impression from the comics that lois has far too much self respect to regularly put out for some guy that doesn't trust her enough to tell her his name. i mean, how do you label a relationship like that? they aren't acting like friends with benefits, or casual hook ups or a couple in love. it is just odd and awkward. far better to have just shown her knowing he is clark from the outset of the movie imo.
edit: ok, i've finished the movie and i agree with the op: this would have been more suitable either as a 2 parter or incorporated into the superman animated series, as the death seemed rushed. i would have liked to have seen the founding jla included, with perhaps diana out of the picture (say off world on another assignment) and getting crushed before the main event. i thought the clone story was poorly handled as well. all in all, a disappointment.
before we get started, does anyone want to get out?
reply
share
C.S.Wood
9 years ago
I'll admit, I haven't read the comic the movie was based on, so my opinion is purely as an outsider, made worse by the fact that I've never really liked Superman as a character because I've always felt he had too many powers and only one weakness, so if there's no Kryptonite around I know he's never in real danger.
Although the movie isn't perfect, I did really enjoy it for the fact that Superman is weakened for the much of it and he has to battle a clone version of himself that's at full power.
This dynamic created a real sense of danger that the traditional character has always lacked and I was actually worried Superman might die (again).
Revenge is the most important meal of the day.
reply
share