Man of Steel ::: 14 June, 2013

Blunt Instrument wrote:

A Superman trailer that starts off looking like a trailer for a moody arthouse flick about fishermen? Erm, OK .

That was my first thought. Seems a bit too hoity-toity, especially for Zack Snyder. Looks like Chris Nolan might have his fingerprints all over this one.

It almost plays like the teaser for BATMAN BEGINS too.

Yeah, Nolan's fingerprints are all over this.

Can't say the trailer gets me excited. I wanted an exuberant, pulpy Superman film.

That's one thing I don't quite understand. Gritty Batman makes sense because Batman is a bit more grounded in reality than other superheroes. But Superman? He's an actual superhero. And an alien. I don't really see the sense in getting too fancy with it. (I say all that with no real knowledge of Superman source material, though.)

Jack Wade wrote:

That's one thing I don't quite understand. Gritty Batman makes sense because Batman is a bit more grounded in reality than other superheroes. But Superman? He's an actual superhero. And an alien. I don't really see the sense in getting too fancy with it. (I say all that with no real knowledge of Superman source material, though.)

Having Nolan be associated with Superman at all is a huge mistake. His sensibilites are extremely wrong for it. At least he's not directing it. I'd take J.J. Abrams over Nolan in that regard.

Here's the Comic Con trailer, MUCH more stuff in it than the official trailer.:

Hurry before WB takes it down.

That looks a bit better. Still not sure I dig the whole Terrence Malick thing going on.

I dunno. It doesn't look bad to me. I'm just hoping it's not another SUPERMAN RETURNS, or I'll end up calling it SUPERMAN RERUN.

I would prefer something with a bit more jovial spirit, though.

Fails to rev the engine somewhat.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I dunno. It doesn't look bad to me. I'm just hoping it's not another SUPERMAN RETURNS, or I'll end up calling it SUPERMAN RERUN.

I would prefer something with a bit more jovial spirit, though.

I think going for something like THOR would be ideal, it would be fun and different enough from the Reeve films.

I'm thinking more like the Max Fleisher cartoons. Ditch the whole idea of treating it like a reality, throw the "dark 'n gritty" trend right out of the window, embrace the red underpants, and have some fun.

In fact, if I made a Superman film, "embrace the red underpants" would be my creative mantra.

Harmsway wrote:

Yeah, Nolan's fingerprints are all over this.

Nolan's, or the studio's?

They appointed Nolan to oversee the direction of the Superman reboot, given his success with bringing Batman back to life. After the disaster that was SUCKER PUNCH, the fumbling attempt to revive Superman with SUPERMAN RETURNS and the way studios have rushed to produce superhero films that have been dismal failures - I'm thinking of GREEN LATERN and THE GREEN HORNET here - Zack Snyder and Warner Bros. probably want to play it safe. I don't think we're going to see anything ground-breaking in MAN OF STEEL; everyone involved will probably be aiming for a solid, if conservative final cut that will get bums on seats and justify a sequel where they can maybe try for something a little more challenging.

Nothing about that trailer looks safe or conservative to me.

You didn't notice the way it played out like the teaser for BATMAN BEGINS, then? It's basically just copying what worked for another film, dressed it up with a popular ADHD director and added voiceovers from Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner for dramatic effect.

Zack Snyder + Chris Nolan = ADHD + Autism

This film's going to be special.

Says the man with the Brozzersaurus avatar ...

The ComicCon trailer gives me some hope about the flick, and I have some confidence in Snyder mostly because of WATCHMEN.

Anybody have access to the Superman II: Hybrid Cut? I'm dying to see it. I thought about doing my own edit with the two versions, but this one seems to do most of what I'd want to do and more. And better than I could without Final Cut.

My one concern with this movie is that if it takes Clark Kent an hour and a half to decide that using his powers for good is the right thing, like if that's his central dilemma in the movie, whether or not to use his powers for good, I'm gonna be right annoyed.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

My one concern with this movie is that if it takes Clark Kent an hour and a half to decide that using his powers for good is the right thing, like if that's his central dilemma in the movie, whether or not to use his powers for good, I'm gonna be right annoyed.

Yeah, that issue has really no place in Superman. What can be an issue is whether Superman uses his powers for good too much. Here is a character that potentially runs the risk taking control of the world to save it.

Hello, SUPERMAN IV.

But I really don't want another po-faced superhero movie about the superhero sitting around trying to figure out whether or not he should save the world. Just like I don't want another Bond movie where Bond does anything but his fcuking job. In the old days a superhero would want to save the world, no question. And the movie went right on it's way with a villain and plot where he has to save the world and stuff. You'd think it'd be easy to figure out.

See, it's acceptable for Spider-Man to brood about what he should do. Because Spider-Man is kinda about learning the difference between doing things for yourself and doing things for others. It's about learning responsibility. And Peter Parker is a young man, he questions himself.

And Batman can, to an extent, question what he's doing as well. Not so much, am I doing the right thing, but why I am doing this? Am I going too far? Etc.

But Superman, the whole idea is that he was raised with this great Midwestern morality by his parents and knows that he must use his powers for good. He's a hero because of Pa Kent, not because of Jor-El, which is one thing the Reeves movies got wrong in favour of literalizing a Jesus metaphor. But yeah, his dilemma should never be "Should I do the right thing? Should I get involved?" Superman's dilemma is that he has to be damn careful about what he's doing. He has to make an effort to be non-lethal because it'd be so easy for him to simply crush everyone and reign as a king. Human life is fragile to him. And the instant you have a Superman who isn't a moral paragon, he goes from being a heroic character to a damn terrifying one.

I've been reviewing SUPERMAN II (Lester) as I'm gonna try my hand at a hybrid cut. Got my mitts on Final Cut (long story). But I didn't used to be a fan of the Reeve movies. Now they're among my personal favorite superhero films. Some know of my love of SUPES III (I know it's shit, but it's so absurd and for me it totally works in it's own fucked up way), and I've rather watch IV than many superhero films. But the first two are so nice and breezy and colorful and fun. Yeah, Luthor's schemes are a bit of a waste in terms of him just wanting land. His motivations could be more interesting to be sure, but I really enjoy the hell out of these films, in spite of their flaws.

Will MOS be "fun"? Dunno. "Breezy and colorful"? Doubt it.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

See, it's acceptable for Spider-Man to brood about what he should do. Because Spider-Man is kinda about learning the difference between doing things for yourself and doing things for others. It's about learning responsibility. And Peter Parker is a young man, he questions himself.

And Batman can, to an extent, question what he's doing as well. Not so much, am I doing the right thing, but why I am doing this? Am I going too far? Etc.

But Superman, the whole idea is that he was raised with this great Midwestern morality by his parents and knows that he must use his powers for good. He's a hero because of Pa Kent, not because of Jor-El, which is one thing the Reeves movies got wrong in favour of literalizing a Jesus metaphor. But yeah, his dilemma should never be "Should I do the right thing? Should I get involved?" Superman's dilemma is that he has to be damn careful about what he's doing. He has to make an effort to be non-lethal because it'd be so easy for him to simply crush everyone and reign as a king. Human life is fragile to him. And the instant you have a Superman who isn't a moral paragon, he goes from being a heroic character to a damn terrifying one.

If I could change the Reeve movies. Keep Donner on board until at least the third film. And keep Glenn Ford alive. An yeah, have him instill Clark with his sense of what he should do, instead of the 12 years of standing in the Fortress of Solitude.

Maybe kill Ford in the first film, but only after we've seen more of him with Clark than just one scene right before his ticker goes.

Not too sure about that. His death is the most moving moment in the original film, IMO.