Epic? New Man of Steel Trailer

JamesCarter wrote:

Joe LeeDid anyone else notice the plot similarities to Thor?

Yes, but who would win a fight?!

Science answers the tough questions. I don't know how this remains legal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M5pYyW6lLw

So, still not seeing the movie [and I noticed the buzz has died out, which probably means it'll be on DVD in a couple of weeks] it sounds like the new Superman doesn't meet the standard set by "The Avengers" and "The Incredibles" where there is immense destruction in populated areas, but movie-making magic makes it work.  At least "Avengers" had tributes to 'The Fallen', but during the battle scenes themselves, there was little-if-any disturbing death or violence to unfamiliar characters.  Both movies' final fight scenes were cool partially *BECAUSE* we were distanced from the human cost.  The Hulk is smashing through a heavily-populated office building to jump out onto the alien monster, which crashes into buildings and eventually lands on one.  The alien invasion started out by blasting a traffic jam where civilians would have no opportunity for escape.  It looks so cool that we don't question it.

I do think that Superman should be above this.  Avengers and Incredibles can brawl through a sprawling metropolis and we don't have to think about the results because the fight is so Kirby-level awesome, and then only at the happy ending.  Superman is for protecting everybody, no matter what.  If he isn't clearly doing that, he's closer to Rob Liefeld's "Supreme" than anything else.  Even Batman can (somewhat believably) blow up cars and buildings because he's fighting a war and sacrifices must be made.

Joe Lee wrote:

So most Supermen are not your Superman?

I guess not. Nonetheless, the movie had plenty of other issues beyond Superman being 'realistic'.

ChrisW wrote:

Superman is for protecting everybody, no matter what.

Yes indeed.

Ohh! I always thought Thor would win, incidentally. Reason being, Superman's what? 20-30 years old and has maybe 15 years at most fighting people. Thor's been in combat for hundreds if not thousands of years, he wins on experience.

Terry M (Ditko Fan) wrote:

JamesCarter wrote:

Joe LeeDid anyone else notice the plot similarities to Thor?

Yes, but who would win a fight?!

Science answers the tough questions. I don't know how this remains legal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M5pYyW6lLw

That was surprisingly enjoyable!  Great special effects on what must be a tiny budget, and even the characters were well done!  And I agree with the verdict.

JamesCarter wrote:

Ohh! I always thought Thor would win, incidentally. Reason being, Superman's what? 20-30 years old and has maybe 15 years at most fighting people. Thor's been in combat for hundreds if not thousands of years, he wins on experience.

That's a very reasonable argument.  But Superman beats older opponents all the time.

My feelings on the matter are probably not rational, but I just like Superman being at the top of the heap for all superheroes.  Even when facing opponents with significant advantages, Superman always finds a way to win out and save the day.

JamesCarter wrote:

Ohh! I always thought Thor would win, incidentally. Reason being, Superman's what? 20-30 years old and has maybe 15 years at most fighting people. Thor's been in combat for hundreds if not thousands of years, he wins on experience.

I agree with Peter, but this is absolutely the best Thor vs. Superman argument I've ever heard.

JamesCarter wrote:

Thor's been in combat for hundreds if not thousands of years, he wins on experience.

What if all that combat experience got thrown into the sun or what if Superman could just fly around the planet backwards until he went back to a time when Thor had less experience.

Or even better...

Superman could just ask Batman how to kick Thor'a ass.  Because we all know, given enough time to prepare...

Joe Lee wrote:

Quote :

Superman could just ask Batman how to kick Thor'a ass.  Because we all know, given enough time to prepare...

And Batman would say, "Hell, no!  I'm telling Alfred to make up some popcorn.  I'm gonna enjoy watching this!"

We had a Superman movie marathon last night. I was hoping to go with this list...

Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve 2 - The Richard Donner cut
Quest for Piece
Superman Returns

The kids wanted cartoons, and most of us hadn't seen unbound yet, so we ended up wth...
All-Star Superman
Superman Unbound
Superman/Batman: Apocalypse
Superman/Batman: Public Enemies
Superman vs. The Elite

We tried a Chris Reeve mini marathon last weekend, Superman and  Superman 2, (the Donner cut too). I won't watch the original version anymore. S2 is still flawed but the director's cut less so.

There was a certain charm to those films, sure. But I did find myself wanting to go see the new one again, or maybe looking forward to other villains finally, like maybe Brainiac, Bizarro, Parasite, Metallo, or maybe even Darksied. Imagine what the current crew would do with one of these guys.

Imagine Lobo or Titano. Or even Ultra-Humanite. The albino ape version. Or how cool would it be to get a 10" PVC Doomsday, movie style?

I might pick up a copy of Superman Returns if I ever see a cheap copy at Target or Walmart, but I don't think I will ever watch Superman 3 or S4 Quest for peace, ever again.

The point people miss about filming Superman is that most of it involves proper casting. Early DC editor-moving-to-Hollywood Whitney Ellsworth pointed out that "Superman is invulnerable. Even bad scripts don't hurt him." Chris and George Reeves pulled the character through some horrible scripts, and you don't even question it. They make the character work. No question, either of them steps on-camera wearing the uniform, and you know that the *ONE TRUE SUPERMAN* has arrived (even though there's more than one of them.) The Bruce Timm cartoons are the only alternative which come close (or the Fleischer 'toons.)

Heh, my father told me way back when that Superman III would have worked better as a Brainiac story than the movie we actually got. Jus' saying...

ChrisW wrote:

The point people miss about filming Superman is that most of it involves proper casting.  Early DC editor-moving-to-Hollywood Whitney Ellsworth pointed out that "Superman is invulnerable.  Even bad scripts don't hurt him."  Chris and George Reeves pulled the character through some horrible scripts...

Casting is important to most any film, I would imagine. But I agree characters like Superman take a special touch to pull off, or you have a character that sounds like The Tick or the old Adam West Batman.

George Reeves pulled it off by just playing it straight, like a dad. Clayton Moore pulled it off too. Just by sincerity. He really seemed to believe what he was saying.  Casting will be even tougher on Captain Marvel. There is a character who has to sound like the Adam West playing The Tick but in the Real World. Or worse if they go with the modern interpretation won't he have to be more like Tom Hanks in Big?

 BTW it's George Reeves and Christopher Reeve. (If ya can't be nit-picky on a comic book message board where can ya?)

No one has mentioned him but speaking of casting, Ben Affleck pulled of a great George Reeves/Superman, in Hollywoodland. He brought a nice subtle touch to the portrayal, I'm  sure he understood many of Reeves frustrations, like what it's like not to be taken seriously as an actor sometimes.

Joe Lee wrote:

No one has mentioned him but speaking of casting, Ben Affleck pulled of a great George Reeves/Superman, in Hollywoodland. He brought a nice subtle touch to the portrayal, I'm  sure he understood many of Reeves frustrations, like what it's like not to be taken seriously as an actor sometimes.

I liked Hollywoodland, he really did a nice job with Reeves character. And Argo was very good.

It's hard to forgive the man for Daredevil, but he's done several good movies with comic book themes. Besides Hollywoodland, and Chasing Amy, Argo had a comic book connection, in that the fake sci-fi film actually used Jack Kirby art for supposed production, and he co-starred with Batmanuel and Green Lantern in Smokin' Aces.

Also Gone Baby Gone is a great crime movie.

Anyone remember the Ruby Spears cartoon?

It had the old George Reeves opening narration combined with the Christopher Reeve movie soundtrack. The animation looked a little like a Superfriends episode with extra details, the occasional extra colors and shading.

Legendary comic book artist Gil Kane provided character designs. And legendary comic book writer Marv Wolfman was one of the story editors.

The stories were better than the Superfriends, still not quite the quality of the "Superman: The Animated Series" (1996-2000) and "Justice League"/"Justice League Unlimited" Animated Series (2001-2006), but no worse than "Superman: Brainiac Attacks" Animated Movie (2006). Lots of moments taking cues from the Christopher Reeve movies, like Superman and Lois flying together, holding hands, or Lois falling from helicopters, Lex is played like a Gene Hackman's movie performance but he has a new assistant, Jessica Morganberry, that's just like Eve Teschmacher from the movie.

I believe that series ran the last time I had a third shift job, so I was too fried to watch cartoons on Saturday mornings.

From what I heard, for the time it was pretty decent.

Yeah, it's on DVD now, or actually, has been on DVD long enough that you can get a cheap copy online now, most are around $8-9, but I got one for $5 by just putting one in my cart and waiting until they dropped the price.

Fun cartoons, pacing is a little slow, like Star Trek The Animated Series or Flash Gordon from Filmation.

I saw Man of Steel again, and I was taking to some guy saying he saw a satellite in the film with the Wayne Enterprises logo on it, just when Zod destroys it. I didn't see it. I think I talked him into seeing Lone Ranger.

On second viewing, I gotta say I didn't miss the overt boyscout stuff. He seemed like a normal guy doing his best to minimize damage and save people when he was presented with an opportunity, but when things were moving fast, it was just some guy doing his best not to get killed.

And the Zod death, it totally worked. They painted the hero into a corner, and he he didn't whine about it. That's old school Superman, decisive, no angst.

Joe Lee wrote:

And the Zod death, it totally worked. They painted the hero into a corner, and he he didn't whine about it. That's old school Superman, decisive, no angst.

He could have flown up.

BAM!  Dats right yo, I gots the mad skillz.

JamesCarter wrote:

He could have flown up.

And back to the large scale destruction and killing?

Superman should Just keep playing defense, hoping not to slip up, allowing Zod to find a new victim, and continue destroying property and killing on a huge scale...

I just don't see that as any more heroic. Not killing Zod, would mean death to innocent victims.

Its IM3 i have the issue with. If you had a "House Party Protocol" why not use it earlier before the the bad guys trash your house?

Joe Lee wrote:

JamesCarter wrote:

He could have flown up.

And back to the large scale destruction and killing?

Superman should Just keep playing defense, hoping not to slip up, allowing Zod to find a new victim, and continue destroying property and killing on a huge scale...

Why not? It didn't seem to bother him in everything leading up to that moment.

JamesCarter wrote:

Why not? It didn't seem to bother him in everything leading up to that moment.

Or was he concentrating on the fight?

I don't know, I can see it, if he had not been completely focused on stopping Zod he wouldn't he have been complicit in the loss of life on epic scale. And how do you wage a super powered battle with a trained military guy, yet remember to look concerned over the loss of every single life. But staying focused on Zod. It seemed to me he was concerned over many things all at once about, the top priority being stopping the loss of life by stopping Zod. He did save people when he could. He just didn't do a Christopher Reeve comedic double take to show his internal struggle. And remember he was new at this, it was his first epic battle and his opponents not only outnumbered him, they were all trained warriors.

Obviously Killing Zod wasn't his first choice. Zod wanted to die, rather than struggle to find a new purpose after defeat.

Terry M (Ditko Fan) wrote:

It seemed to me he was concerned over many things all at once about, the top priority being stopping the loss of life by stopping Zod. He did save people when he could. He just didn't do a Christopher Reeve comedic double take to show his internal struggle.

I think they could have made a scene with Superman clearly trying to steer Zod away from the city or clearly trying to prevent their fight from killing people, and done it without it looking "comedic."

I'm just saying on my second viewing, I didn't see it as a glaring omission. It was just handled in a mature, realistic way. That worked for me. Especially the death of Zod.

JamesCarter wrote:

Joe Lee wrote:

JamesCarter wrote:

He could have flown up.

And back to the large scale destruction and killing?

Superman should Just keep playing defense, hoping not to slip up, allowing Zod to find a new victim, and continue destroying property and killing on a huge scale...

Why not? It didn't seem to bother him in everything leading up to that moment.

This guy gets into the ending a bit...

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/09/24/man-of-steel-writer-david-goyer-addresses-films-controversial-ending/