Epic? New Man of Steel Trailer

ChrisW wrote:

The Batman voice doesn't work too well in live-action, but it would probably be great in a cartoon, where Bruce Wayne and Batman are clearly the same people, but a talented voice actor could make one seem like a ditzy playboy and the other seem like the only monster in a city full of them who protects the innocent.

Kevin Conroy's been doing it brilliantly for decades. Of course, Christian Bale isn't as talented.

ChrisW wrote:

Back at "Dark Knight", I don't think Keith Ledger was a good Joker.

Heath

Chris, your Superman movie plot has me wondering something, who would you say is Superman's 'Greatest Foe'? The answer could be obvious or maybe not. I just figured you might have given this very subject some thought. One word or a thousand, plenty of bandwidth here, right Joe? and only if you feel like it of course.

I would say Luthor. He's earned it. Reading early Siegel/Shuster "Superman" stories, they were clearly building up the Ultra-Humanite to be, well, Lex Luthor without actually being Lex Luthor. He's already started changing bodies. Someday I will review Superman Chronicles Volume 2. I have much to say about it.

I respect and admire how Alan Moore made Mr. Myxyzptlk into a major villain in "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow", I could (theoretically) see Brainiac being a similar credible villain. I have no patience at all for Kryptonian villains, even General Zod - and no one else even comes close. Luthor is Superman's greatest foe. I still laugh and point fingers at villains like Terra-Man, the villain out of a Western. Jeez, Captain Strong could eat some "sauncha" and take the top spot, if that's all you want.

I think you've covered the bases very succinctly, good answer! I'm pretty much in agreement. I do have a soft spot, in my head, for the original Braniac as possibly his greatest foe. In the Silver Age, he was one of the few characters that operated on a cosmic level, he collected interstellar cities as a hobby fer gosh sakes. He was also one of the few villains capable of putting Supes into an actual state of panic and fear. But physically he was not intimidating in the least, drawn as just another bland human albeit green. I think that is why he's been transformed in subsequent reboots to humanoid cyborgs and robot intelligences, to encourage the fear factor. Can't disagree with you though. In many ways Luthor is the anti-Superman and Supes the anti-Luthor. They were made for each other-- to hate!

Braniac is a great idea for a villain. I've hardly read any stories that feature him as the villain [unless you count the Superfriends cartoon show when I was little] but from the green guy with a head full of lightbulbs to the awesome looking robot with a ship, it should work. It doesn't, and I don't know enough about Brainiac to say why it doesn't. He's brilliant, he's physically dangerous to Superman. Ok, that makes him some what of a generic alien monster - Mongul, Doomsday, Darkseid, Lobo - whereas Luthor is actually from Superman's adopted planet.

Now Brainiac II, him I could see great things for.

If you want a decent Brainiac story. You should read "Superman: Brainiac" by Geoff Johns & Gary Frank, the book was good, way too short. And they are making one of them direct to dvd animated movie adaptations of it too, if it's anything like All Star Superman, the book will be way better.

ChrisW wrote:

Back at "Dark Knight", I don't think Keith Ledger was a good Joker.

Heath [/quote]

Whatever. He's no Caesar Roman, or Jack Nicholstein.

In Grant Morrison's recent ACTION run, the Brainiac character is a little more diffuse. It's still a sort of collector of worlds that goes around saving parts of doomed planets. In this version, it latches on to whatever the native machine intelligence of the planet is, and uses that as an archive of the planet's collective knowledge, and also takes control of the local machinery, and also shrinks a random city to keep in its spaceship.

So, in this scenario, Brainiac was the name of the planetwide AI that helped the people of Krypton, before it was destroyed. When it gets to Earth, the collector tries to take over the planetwide network called Internet. Cute, eh?

The problem is, as you can see, that I am having a hard time even remembering the actual name of the villain of this story. It wasn't quite Brainiac. It wasn't quite Collector. Did Morrison ever really name it? I just don't know. Now, maybe that's my fault for not paying close enough attention, or maybe it's Morrison's fault for making a story that was hard to follow or understand.

Have any of you fine gents seen Man of Steel yet?

We saw it last night. 

I'll try and avoid any spoilers...

Great fun. Very intense. A great deal of property damage. Bigger and longer and more destructive than most Superhero films. The stuff you wanted to see in a fight between Thor and the Destroyer. Or the Hulk and anything.

Great cast. Everyone. This guy is a great Superman. One odd moment. It was slightly jarring having two Galactica cast members showing up within seconds of each other.

It reminded me of two movies. Thor, and Richard Donner's Superman2. Mostly in the "here is how you doi it" way. The movie seemed to be very similar to Thor story wise, but taken to a much more epic scale. Where Thor uses a gimmick to end the anti-climactic battle, Man of Steel takes the long way around and makes everyone fight for their lives the hard way.

It reminded me os Superman two for much of the same reason. Where Donner's superman uses gimmicks to win, and even takes advantage of his powers like the scene whete he get revenge on a diner bully, this new film makes Superman earn everything the hard way, and doesnt go back to beat up the bully, in this film he has much too much respect for his powers.

The thing that strikes me most about it was unlike Ironman3 and StarTrek Into Darkness, there weren't big obvious plot holes. I'm not saying it was a flawless film, just for me, nothing glaringly wrong enough to take me out of the moment while watching. Or jump out at you on the drive home.

 Where Donner's films had iconic mythic qualities, Man of Steel has scale, heart and depth, it succeeds where Superman Returns failed, giving us a vulnerable human character, with both great strength and weakness, this is certainly one great Superman film.

What did you think about...

MASSIVE SPOILER:

SPOILER:

I thought the part in question is acceptable.  It has been done in comics before, so it is not exactly anti-canonical.  

I also thought the movie did a good job at including the subtle references to creators without being too overt.

I liked the movie, tho I had some problems with it.

I liked all the actors, everyone did a great job in their roles.

I liked the special effects, especially the parts on Krypton.  Those parts, I felt like, "Wow, this is something I have never seen before." (Though of course it has echoes of earlier comics and films.)

The parts of Superman flying, punching, lifting, just being super, those were all great.

I did watch a lot of the trailers and promo videos beforehand, and now I regret that.  I wish I had come to it with fewer expectations, and I wish that more of the dialogue had been a surprise.

My problems had to do with a few things: the use of suspense in a few scenes was ham-handed and unconvincing, especially when contrasted with the used of wanton mass destruction in other scenes immediately before and after.  There are tons of scenes where buildings are collapsing and exploding left and right, and clearly thousands or even millions are dying, and the superfights just carry on at superspeed.  But then suddenly there will be a scene where the camera stops and focuses on just one or a few bystanders, and we are asked to care more about these folks than all the rest.  

One of the classic character traits of Superman is that he cares about everybody and wants to save everybody.  So those few moments of individualized attention were sudden reminders of what we were missing in the mass destruction sequences.  The mass destruction scenes felt more like scenes from MIRACLEMAN, or INVINCIBLE, comics where the horrible consequences of superheroes are more prevalent. While it felt more modern to have that point of view reflected in a Superman story, it felt less like a Superman story.  Maybe that wasn't such a bad thing, maybe it was time for Superman to grow up in this way, but it still felt shocking to me.

I also felt like the Superman/Lois relationship is so different here that it was jarring to me. Don't get me wrong, I liked both characters, and I liked their relationship, but when they eventually kissed, I was like, "Where did that come from?"  Looking back now I can understand it a bit better, but I still feel like it could have been developed better, though I'm not sure how.

JamesCarter wrote:

What did you think about...

That didn't bother me. For much the same reasons as Ted mentioned.

Did that bug you?

Only two things I would have changed, but didn't bother me at the time, maybe it will on future viewings.

SPOILERS...

There was no "Kneel before Zod" moment, (or did i missit?)


I agree with Peter, there should have been some at least token attempts by Superman, to minimize the property damsge/ death toll. Every once and a while see some people in the way and try to steer away, grunting like this new Superman does. Maybe because of the sheer length of the fight, it might have started to look humorous, trying not to hit anyone, like when Adam West's Batman just couldn't get rid of that bomb on the old wharf. In the old sixties Batman movie.

I wouldn't have minded a few more obvious mements of heroism and winning the people over. Like in Spiderman one with the newyorkers tossing stuff at Green Goblin. Maybe it would have been over-kill, the one in Spiderman two, where spidey saves the elevated train. Best hero/people bonding seen ever.

Quote :

I wouldn't have minded a few more obvious mements of heroism and winning the people over. Like in Spiderman one with the newyorkers tossing stuff at Green Goblin. Maybe it would have been over-kill, the one in Spiderman two, where spidey saves the elevated train. Best hero/people bonding seen ever.

Yes Yes Yes!!!  That scene in "Spider-Man 2" is still the high-water mark for real superheroes bonding with the people they're (theoretically) there to save.  Even better is that they didn't actually make much difference.  Spidey nearly killed himself to save a runaway train.  Other than keeping him from falling to his death, the passengers did nothing for him.  But it was a great dramatic scene where they pulled his unconscious body back inside.  It was a little too cutsey to have a small child hand Spidey's mask back and say 'don't worry, we won't tell who you are,' but when Doc Ock breaks in and demands they hand over Spider-Man, it's still one of my favorite scenes in any movie anywhere.  One passenger steps forward and says "You want Spider-Man, you've gotta go through me."  And then two or three others step forward.  And then the whole crowd steps forward.  And then Ock flings out his arms, drops them all to the floor and takes what he wanted in the first place (Spidey.)  If there's a better way to demonstrate the "superiority" (not the right word, but the closest I can get) of superheroes to the ordinary masses, I've never seen it, despite the high points of "The Avengers" and "The Incredibles."  Even Superman Himself has never reached that point.

In Superman's case, I'm not sure it's possible.  You can look on the previous page of this thread for what I think Superman should be doing.  For the thousands of people and millions of dollars required for a movie, I don't ask much more than a few decent scenes like Christopher Reeve (or George Reeves) provided.  You don't even have to humanize the character, just make him a believable hero.  If he wastes time getting a cat out of a tree and lets a bank robbery happen, that's on him.  He'll struggle with it, and hopefully overcome it by the end of the story.  But rescuing the cat is what he's there to do, no different from stopping the bank robbery or stopping whatever villain is currently active.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I probably will, and even if I don't, if anybody responds to this, don't worry about spoilers.  My love for Superman runs far too deep and wide to be ruined because someone reveals that his father is his cherished sled or something.

Joe Lee wrote:

That didn't bother me. For much the same reasons as Ted mentioned.

Did that bug you?

HUGE SPOILERS FOLLOW:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yeah, I didn't like it at all.

Though it wasn't an actual issue with the movie itself per se, the portrayal of Superman in Man of Steel is far and away from my idea of the character. In my mind there are two superheroes who are entirely noble, they always do the right thing, hearts of gold, never break the rules and are perhaps held to ideals -embody ideals- that are impossible to for one person to realistically accomplish. It's that impossibility that make Spiderman, and even more so Superman, the great superheroes they are. Superman is, to my way of thinking, the basis on which all other superheroes are measured. When Peter Parker broke a promise made to a dying man I wrote The Amazing Spider-man off, and when Superman kills his enemy my judgement of Man of Steel dropped considerably from what was already shaping up to be a fairly low opinion of the film.

Basically, my Superman finds another way. The death of Zod was just icing on the cake by that point, because as others have mentioned I was already questioning the amount of off-screen carnage. I first raised an eyebrow when Superman tackles Zod, ramming him through a gas station which subsequently exploded. The film was careful to show a woman leaping out of the way and an empty courtyard out front, but surely there was a clerk of two inside. The idea that Superman would direct his attack toward the only populated area for probably several hundred miles really rubbed me the wrong way. Yes it was extremely cool watching the characters tear up Smallville, but their entire reason for being there -Superman pushing Zod in that direction- went against any version I've ever known. My Superman tackles Zod out into the fields. It wouldn't have made for as great an action scene, but Zod could have just as easily of tackled Superman and pushed him into Smallville.

Then later of course, we're treated to the virtual collapse of half of Metropolis, which again was some top notch action. Yet here we have the same problem, those buildings full of people, thousands dying, Superman making no effort at all to lead the fight out toward the ocean, into space, the forest, the mountains, desert, etc. All that coupled with Clark's 14-15 year Batman-style journey of wandering around the Earth set alarm bells off. I wanted to see the Clark Kent/Superman thing going on. But all of that is personal opinion, the film had plenty of issues by itself to make it something I won't be viewing again. (for what it's worth, I didn't like Amy Adams' Lois Lane either)

My biggest issue with Man of Steel is that the first half drags enormously. Until we reach the action many of the scenes are far too long, and even repetitious. We see the destruction of Krypton (which in and of itself was well done) but then have to sit through a scene of Jor El explaining the entire thing to Clark. As the audience, we don't need to hear it. We've see it already and now you're just wasting time. Too much time was also spent on Clark struggling with his powers/growing up/learning lessons and so on. We get it, how many times do you have to hammer home the point?

Pa Kent's death was also ridiculous as I fail to believe anyone, especially Superman, wouldn't save their own father if they had the means to do so. Sure his old man had been teaching him to not display his alien-abilities etc etc, but kids disobey their parents. Superman sees a life about to be taken away right before his eyes, as every opportunity to save that life, and does nothing. Maybe Batman lets people die, Superman does not. I'm going back to my idea of the character VS the movie version, however my main point is that I just didn't believe Clark wouldn't save his dad.

Lastly, before I bore everyone to death if I haven't already, the entire plot of Kryptonian DNA being kept in a special maguffin was far too convoluted. Having the characters fight for the future of each race was good. Even the idea of Zod wanting to terraform Earth when there were obviously plenty of other planets available was fine as it suited the vengeful madness of his character. All the Kryptonian DNA codes (or whatever) being secretly inside Superman was stupid, and made the ending pointless. Zod's last hope to save the future of Krypton now lies in Superman, so what does he try to do? Kill Superman. Surely Superman would have been better off telling Zod not to worry, they will find a way. Or defeating Zod to the point where the villain disappears, swearing to return for those ever-so-special DNA maguffins once he's got the resources.

Also, Henry Cavill looked dumb as Clark. I appreciate that it must be difficult to make a lantern-jawed movie star look like a tweedy journalist, you don't have the same liberates a comic book artist does, but at least make a little more effort than slapping a pair of glasses on his face. Sure his appearance as Clark was only brief, but even some attempt on Cavill's part to appear like something else other than Superman-in-glasses would have been nice. Hunch your back a little, maybe act slightly nervous -don't strut around smiling broadly like you're trying to give the game away.

Bah, anyway. Man of Steel gets a 4/10 from me and it's only that high because the action scenes were so good.

  SPOILER   SPOILER

I don't mind the suspending disbelief for weird science so much as long as there are no contradictions within the context of the movie. Like Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3. Why did they NEED Khan alive, there were 72 more genetically engineered blood farms on ice. And why didn't Stark yell "House Party Protocol" during the attack on his house at the beginning of the film after he gave out his address to the terrorist?

Plus, the whole DNA thing gave us a great theme within the movie, Pa Kent wanted Clark to not waste his gifts and find his true purpose, Jor El wanted his son to save Krypton by creating new Kryptonians like himself, Zod proved that wasn't possible with old leftover Kryptonians like Zod still around. In the end Superman decides for himself, as a kansas boy not a Kryptonian, that "Krypton had it's chance." I thought that was a powerful moment, he chooses his own destiny, finding each of his three father's options lacking on some level.

Pa Kent's death? I found it shocking, but it didn't come out of left field, they set it up right and I thought it rang true enough, it helps set up the whole choice thing for later.

How did you feel when the George Reeves, Superman killed people?

I haven't seen the George Reeves Superman, but yeah, it doesn't sound like a version of the character I would be interested in. Superman to me is above killing, impossibly noble. Which isn't to say he's my favorite superhero or I don't dig superheroes who kill, far from it. I love the Punisher, Iron Man, even Daredevil can run around wasting people if he likes. But not Superman, he finds another way or he fails.

*************SPOILER ALERT************SPOILER ALERT************







You want the boyscout Superman who cries more than an abused wife, keep reading the comics. I'm all for this MOVIE Superman.
Did he blatantly disregard human life by smashing kryptonians left and right into any building in sight? yes. But you know what I was thinking the whole time while watching those scenes? How if two or more "super powered" being went at it in real life it would basically turn out just like that. As much as Superman would do all he could to save lives, being outnumbered 4 to 1 with equally powered beings things were not going to turn out great for anyone hanging around. That's why my sister chuckled when Superman said "stay inside" and the one person locked the door to his establishment, yeah like that was gonna keep them from harms way.

Smallville and Metropolis basically turned into war zones, and the military  equally had as much a disregard for civilians as the supers.

You can give any explanation why Superman shouldn't have bull rushed Zod into a gas station and whatever else was in the way for 100 miles, but you gotta understand, dude just threatened his mom! lol

About the only thing that bothered me about the movie is that Lois already knows Clark is Superman. Although the way she found out was cool, she used her investigative skills to figure it out.

Sure, in real life it would be a mess. But this isn't real life, it's fantasy. In fantasy you can have a flying man who both defeats his enemies and does everything in his power to stop the deaths of thousands of people (including his enemies).

I'd be pissed if someone attacked my mum, anyone would. Even Superman. The difference is, my ideal of Superman can measure his anger against the risk to innocent life and act accordingly, he can do the things the rest of can't -which is what makes him a super man.

I'm glad you liked the movie, plenty of people did (although not Chris Sims at ComicsAlliance, evidently). As I mentioned above, the film had more issues than just veering far away from "my" Superman. Oh well.

JamesCarter wrote:

...But this isn't real life, it's fantasy. In fantasy you can have a flying man who both defeats his enemies and does everything in his power to stop the deaths of thousands of people (including his enemies).

But in Fantasy there can be a wide range.

We have both Adam West Batman and Christian Bale Batman. Both fantasy to be sure, but very different and both are great fun.

I think an argument can be made that in a realistic interpretation Clark Superman, can't control the damage as much as he does in a less realistic fantasy like the Chris Reeve version. That being said I would look forward more to a Man of Steel version of Darkseid, than I would a Chris Reeve Superman version. Darkseid would probably be in cahoots with Lex and Otis.

My first exposure to MY Superman was the old George Reeves show. And later the Bud Collyer radio show. Superman was a confident, no-nonsense, guy without self-doubt and angst. He had a code he lived by and made life and death decisions without regret. Then there were the sixties cartoons with Bud Collyer, which weren't too far off from the comics at the time. Then came the Superfriends, yech, and then the Chris Reeve films, the first of which was great, most people like this version. But the second film gave Superman questionable motives that wasn't MY Superman, and the rest of the films were a joke. Then "Lois and Clark" gave and "Smallville" gave us two more completely different versions of Superman etc, etc, were any of them your Superman?

The closest to perfect for me was the version from the animated Superman that went from his own show through to the Justice League and Justice League Unlimited.

Did anyone else notice the plot similarities to Thor?

SERIOUSLY...

• First part of the movie has a big battle  at heroes homeworld, (in Asgard/Frost Giants, Zod's forces on Krypton)
• A son gets exiled to Earth by a wise father
• There is an attempted coup d'état by (Loki/Zod)
• A McGuffin is also sent to Earth (Hammer/Kryptonian DNA thingie)
• The hero finds a pretty girl to talk to and save (Natalie Portman/Amy Adams)
• The government investigates the hero (Shield/Army)
• An unstoppable armored force attacks Earth (The Destroyer/Zod and pals)
• A big battle ends with a hero making a revelation (Humility/Krypton had it's chance)

Joe Lee wrote:

Then there were the sixties cartoons with Bud Collyer, which weren't too far off from the comics at the time. Then came the Superfriends, yech, and then the Chris Reeve films, the first of which was great, most people like this version. But the second film gave Superman questionable motives that wasn't MY Superman, and the rest of the films were a joke. Then "Lois and Clark" gave and "Smallville" gave us two more completely different versions of Superman etc, etc, were any of them your Superman?

Hard to say, the only one I even vaguely remember was from Lois and Clark. If you apply my description of how I envision Superman to those you mentioned, each should be clear which I'd prefer and which I wouldn't. His character didn't get explored all that much because it was an ensemble cast, but I loved the version in Darwyn Cooke's The New Frontier. Surprisingly enough Mark Millar's Red Son also has a great (imo) version of Superman (at least at his core).

For my money the best version I've ever seen is, funnily enough, the Superman written by Garth Ennis. Hitman #34 in particular is a single issue story where the main character Tommy meets Superman by chance on a rooftop, and what follows is a beautiful exploration of Superman, his morals and why even an hired gun like Tommy admires the man in the red cape. Ennis wrote Superman a time or two after that issue and continued to offer a superb Superman, though Hitman #34 is really where it's at. If you've not read Hitman I highly recommend at least picking up issue #34, it should stand on its own without any trouble.

Joe Lee wrote:

Did anyone else notice the plot similarities to Thor?

Yes, but who would win a fight?!

So most Supermen are not your Superman?

I like some of most, more or less. Some of Lois and Clark was really very good, often putting a clever cute spin on a mundane moment, it couldbe quite  endearing when it wasn't being silly. I love the goofy fun scienceof the  older comics, but I also love the two fisted, tough guy from the radio show and early comics.

I guess I'm just saying that I don't understand why people aren't more open to interpretation. Right now there are three very distinct versions of Sherlock Holmes in the public eye. Each with its own merits, and have enjoyed all three. None are my Sherlock Holmes, but all are enjoyable interpretations. Just like the comics, there is very little consistency their either. New creative teams all the time doing their Superman.

I haven't read the new52 yet is it any good?