Man of Steel ::: 14 June, 2013

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I really hope that image has been messed around with, and that it's not what the actual suit will look like.

I'm more alarmed by the side-burns. He looks like something off a Marlboro cigarette ad circa 1975.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'm more alarmed by the side-burns. He looks like something off a Marlboro cigarette ad circa 1975.

At least Superman does not die of smoke inhalation. :*p*:

saint mark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'm more alarmed by the side-burns. He looks like something off a Marlboro cigarette ad circa 1975.

At least Superman does not die of smoke inhalation. :*p*:

Well I wish he would. Anything would be preferable to those mutton-chops he's sporting and that absolutely dorky hair style he's sporting.

This is Superman:

New trailer for MAN OF STEEL:

http://latino-review.com/2012/12/11/man-steel-trailer-here/

While I'm sure it's going to be better than III or IV, it feels like we've been there and done that already. Yet another arse-rippingly frustrating movie about a superhero having to hide his secret powers (i.e. stay in the closet) and wrestle with him/herself about whether to save the world, and whether this is justice or revenge. Cavill's voice in the last few seconds of the trailer actually sounds like Brandon Routh.

This movie may be a hit...who knows..but I am still left wondering with all the money being thrown at this film, why didn't WB just go ahead and make a direct sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS rather than start this shiz all over again?

A sequel to RETURNS wouldn't have worked. There was nowhere to go and too much baggage. And that frakking kid. What a mistake that was.

I'm on the fence concerning this movie. I'm in "wait-and-see" mode and feel it could go either way. I'm concerned about the navel-gazing and about the colourless look of the photography. I'm all for a meditation on heroism with this particular character. Just hope it ain't too srs.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

A sequel to RETURNS wouldn't have worked. There was nowhere to go and too much baggage. And that frakking kid. What a mistake that was.

I'm on the fence concerning this movie. I'm in "wait-and-see" mode and feel it could go either way. I'm concerned about the navel-gazing and about the colourless look of the photography. I'm all for a meditation on heroism with this particular character. Just hope it ain't too srs.

Nowhere to go? So retreading Superman and Superman II was the way to go? We've got a Lois Lane that is 10 years older than Superman, two villains that have already been used before (where is Braniac? Darkseid?), a film that goes through all the motions of the hero wondering who he is (which was already covered in I,II, and Returns), and a trailer that, through its first 60% focuses on nothing but Clark trying to downplay who he is. That was kind of the problem with RETURNS,which was that it needed to be a straight-up arse-kicking action film, but was saddled with trying to be too pretentious and "real". This series seems to be stuck in a sort of Ground Hog Day-esque dilemma: it keeps repeating the same tropes, the same themes, and the same mistakes over and over and over.

Not saying MOS is awful, but it sure feels like we've been through this all before. What new does it bring to the table? So far I haven't seen anything that makes me want to rush out and see this. It is FAR FROM A MUST SEE at this point.

RETURNS giving us nowhere to go and MOS possibly being a retread are two separate issues. Hey, at least it's not Lex Luthor as the villain.

I'll give Zod a shot, even if I'm not keen on the casting. I like the actor, but for Zod? I'll certainly miss the flamboyance of Stamp and will keep saying in my head while watching the film, "KNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!" That line will be the elephant in the room when he's on screen.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

RETURNS giving us nowhere to go and MOS possibly being a retread are two separate issues. Hey, at least it's not Lex Luthor as the villain.

I'll give Zod a shot, even if I'm not keen on the casting. I like the actor, but for Zod? I'll certainly miss the flamboyance of Stamp and will keep saying in my head while watching the film, "KNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!" That line will be the elephant in the room when he's on screen.

And the actress playing Faora, no matter how talented she is, will ever be as good as Sarah Douglas.

I'm not so sure RETURNS gave us nowhere to go. This is comic book fiction. Any number of scenarios could have been used to work itself out of the corner Singer painted himself and the series into. It would be more challenging, but doable. I certainly never felt a drastic reboot of a reboot was necessary. Whatever RETURNS flaws were, it was merely the launching pad to a new series. I never expected it to do anything more than restart the series. Never did I imagine that, even with $400 million at the box office, that WB would reboot it all over again so quickly.

The Man of Steel will likely rust at the box office.

Maybe "run it's course" is a better way to put it. Regardless, I think rebooting it was the right way to go. MOS may not itself be the right way to go, but I think starting from scratch is.

I still have major concerns with the tone. And I don't like Pa Kent saying that "maybe" Clark should have let the kid die, and Pa Kent being the one saying Clark should hide himself. Pa Kent is supposed to be where Clark's morality comes from (not Jor-El), and frankly every version since (especially SMALLVILLE's) has come up really short next to Glenn Ford's brief perfect scene.

But! I must admit this trailer (like the Jor-El VO teaser) stirred something in me.

I love the line where young Clark says "What was I supposed to do? Just let him die?" not in a "Am I doing the right thing?" way, but rather in the sense of a rhetorical question, as if saving the kid was something he didn't, and would never question, because it was the right thing to do.

That's the kind of ingrained morality and heroism Superman needs to have, and I hope has through the whole film.

If there needs to be the theme of "what is heroism?" etc. addressed, then the way I would hope it is approached is to have Superman be the sole voice for morality and heroism in a world that has lost faith in that kind of behaviour. To have everyone doubting Superman, rather than Superman doubting himself. Y'know, the Army being convinced he must be a scout for an Invasion (which, with Zod's arrival, would be a likely conclusion to jump to), and the reporters asking themselves "what's in it for him?" and everyone being stupified by the idea of someone doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do. But Superman himself should never waver in his goodness. He should be the lone voice in the woods, calling for people to take a stand. And thereby become an inspiration to others. I can see the potential for that, and I hope it's what we get.

(Whereas RETURNS tried hamfistedly to address similar issues but failed to make it's hero a paragon of virtue and failed to demonstrate that the world did, in fact, need him. Supes in that film actually causes more harm than good by returning).

Also I would rather have Amy Adams at 38 playing prize-winning journalist Lois Lane than 23 year old Kate Bosworth failing to be believable as the same role only also with a five year old kid -- Bosworth was younger than the actress playing Young Lois at the time on Smallville!!

Since it's all shot digitally, I kinda wanna see a version where the colour saturation has been bumped in the other direction, just to see if I like that better. I feel like the dour visual styling is half my problem at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa9BnyzvK-s

Superman: The Movie trailer done Man of Steel style.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

That's the kind of ingrained morality and heroism Superman needs to have, and I hope has through the whole film.

If there needs to be the theme of "what is heroism?" etc. addressed, then the way I would hope it is approached is to have Superman be the sole voice for morality and heroism in a world that has lost faith in that kind of behaviour. To have everyone doubting Superman, rather than Superman doubting himself. Y'know, the Army being convinced he must be a scout for an Invasion (which, with Zod's arrival, would be a likely conclusion to jump to), and the reporters asking themselves "what's in it for him?" and everyone being stupified by the idea of someone doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do. But Superman himself should never waver in his goodness. He should be the lone voice in the woods, calling for people to take a stand. And thereby become an inspiration to others. I can see the potential for that, and I hope it's what we get.

That's exactly what I want. Superman remains true to his nature, and the conflict comes in dealing with the world around him.

Aside from Superman, I want that kind of nobility in movies again, particular ones about superheroes. They've all become so cynical, even in STINO where the whole thing is an extreme sports club rather than a service. So I hope MOS is going in that direction, with Supes being the man he his depsite the world around him.

I was also a bit shocked by Jonathan's "maybe".

I'm hoping that "Maybe" is the first part of a larger speech. It would be really awful to have a movie where Superman avoids saving people in order to keep his identity a secret.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I'm hoping that "Maybe" is the first part of a larger speech. It would be really awful to have a movie where Superman avoids saving people in order to keep his identity a secret.

Unless it's set up to be a mistake that sets off an undying guilt, or illustrates to Clark that he can't stand by. I'm not saying he should be motivated by guilt. I wouldn't be against Clark making the wrong choice of standing by just once, and then vowing to never do so again.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I'm hoping that "Maybe" is the first part of a larger speech. It would be really awful to have a movie where Superman avoids saving people in order to keep his identity a secret.

Unless it's set up to be a mistake that sets off an undying guilt, or illustrates to Clark that he can't stand by. I'm not saying he should be motivated by guilt. I wouldn't be against Clark making the wrong choice of standing by just once, and then vowing to never do so again.

That could work, although that's more or less Spider-Man's origin.

Frankly, I was bored by that trailer, though at least there are some glimpses of action which make it a marginal step up from that introspective, way-too-serious bullshit of a teaser. It's Superman for Christ's sake. And what's with that awful grading?

Jack Wade wrote:

Frankly, I was bored by that trailer, though at least there are some glimpses of action which make it a marginal step up from that introspective, way-too-serious bullshit of a teaser. It's Superman for Christ's sake. And what's with that awful grading?

It's Superman AS Christ. We *get* it. Really wish the directors of these films could move on and show us butt-kicking action rather than working out their pathos and psychology degrees on Superman.

Whole video is.....meh.

Returns pushed the Superman-As-Christ thing as far as it can go, I think.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I'm hoping that "Maybe" is the first part of a larger speech. It would be really awful to have a movie where Superman avoids saving people in order to keep his identity a secret.

Unless it's set up to be a mistake that sets off an undying guilt, or illustrates to Clark that he can't stand by. I'm not saying he should be motivated by guilt. I wouldn't be against Clark making the wrong choice of standing by just once, and then vowing to never do so again.

That could work, although that's more or less Spider-Man's origin.

Oh yeah. Nevermind. Good from the get-go is the way to go.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I love the line where young Clark says "What was I supposed to do? Just let him die?" not in a "Am I doing the right thing?" way, but rather in the sense of a rhetorical question, as if saving the kid was something he didn't, and would never question, because it was the right thing to do.

That's the kind of ingrained morality and heroism Superman needs to have, and I hope has through the whole film.

That's what struck me too when watching it.

As for Pa Kent's "maybe", I feel there's more to what he's saying but the trailer doesn't give enough. My guess is Pa Kent says that in the heat of an argument because it all comes down to not wanting his son to be taken away after exposing his powers in public. He's proud of his son doing the right thing, but scared as hell about the consequences.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I'm hoping that "Maybe" is the first part of a larger speech. It would be really awful to have a movie where Superman avoids saving people in order to keep his identity a secret.

Maybe now we have an explanation for why Bond let the art dealer get shot.

trevanian wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I'm hoping that "Maybe" is the first part of a larger speech. It would be really awful to have a movie where Superman avoids saving people in order to keep his identity a secret.

Maybe now we have an explanation for why Bond let the art dealer get shot.

Is that who he was? I was wondering why he stood by.

Arguments have been going on about the morality of that for pages in the Skyfall threads, thanks to tiffanywint.

Realized something amusing. So the Smallville bits actually reminded me a lot of the Smallville pilot with the vibe, look, and the portrayal of Clark and Pa Kent. Then I realized the big difference is that for once 14 year old Clark is actually played by a 14 year old, as opposed to how the Smallville pilot had a 14 year old Clark played by a 24 year old Tom Welling.

This photo was just leaked. It still boggles my mind that Nic Cage actually got the role at one point. The fuck.