Shortpacked: Man of Steel reaction

[espanolbot]

Reaction to the most recent trailer, it's silly but it made me smile.



And the trailer, as it's revelant to the main post so people can get the joke.

Personally? I'm looking forward to this movie. I know people are having complaints (it's too grey! Why is Superman so glum?!), but enough of the background details are about to make it interesting in its own right without being a repeat of the Christopher Reeve film.

Because they already remade the Christopher Reeve Superman films, with Superman Returns... and it didn't do a very good job.

Plus, all indications suggest we'll get a better Lois than last time, Laurence Fishbourne is playing Perry White, Zod's actor Michael Shannon is amazing in almost everything he's in, and we're getting a female Jimmy Olsen! Heck, the gender balance is already better than in the Christoper Nolan Batman movies, and since he's only attached to this as a producer maybe the female characters will get a better deal in this new (potential) trilogy.

Plus the Justice League film depends on this one doing well, which is the closest we might get to having Wonder Woman in a movie, so, again, I really hope it does well.

Comments

[mrstatham]

I'm just not entirely down with what they seem to have done overall with Zod, personally; It's like they were so desperate to avoid the Terrence Stamp version or any trace of campiness that they've managed to end up with something that - to me - looks goofier than Stamp's take. In that sense, it's almost like the New52, where they seem so determined to wipe out anything pleasant or things that could be perceived as remotely funny that they end up with some goofy, stupid stuff anyway.

I also find it ironic that, for something seemingly determined to distance itself from the Reeve movies by not having anything familiar like the Williams music or Lex Luthor as a character, that they've selected probably the second most iconic element of Reeve's films after his take on Superman in Zod.

[espanolbot]

Lex is in it, he's just not the villain yet.

And it's a new take on the franchise, having the Williams music would be contradicting that. It'd be like using Danny Elfman's soundtrack in Batman Begins.

[arilou_skiff]

Which, to be fair, was awesome.

I still hum Elfman's Batman theme occasionally, I can't remember any music from the Nolan series.

[espanolbot]

DESHI DESHI BASARA BASARA!

[mrstatham]

No!

FISH FISH PASTA FISH FISH PASTA PASTA!!

[rdfox]

DISHY DISHY PASTA BRA PASTA BRA!!

[chrisdv]

"It means 'To Rise'" my ass, it translates as "COMING COMING SOON SOON"!

Also - to rise my ass.
*snigger*

[mrstatham]

I remember people going nuts for the Joker's theme in TDK - which was admittedly tense, granted - but I couldn't really see what the fuss was about, given it sounded like something Trent Reznor could've farted out in his spare time.

But.. Yeah. There is some good music in the Nolan films, but Elfman's is more memorable to me overall, to the point where I have various bits and pieces of my iPod.

[khaosworks]

God, I hope they distance themselves. Then it has a fighting chance.

It was precisely the *lack* of distance in "Superman Returns" that made it such a chore to sit through. If you're going to want me to judge your movie on its own terms, for Christ's sake don't keep reminding me of how awesome the original movie was.

[mrstatham]

I don't think Returns would have been such a bad movie if they hadn't just gone in a horribly, horribly bizarre direction with Lois and Clark/Superman. The cast was half-decent - if you're going after someone to do a Chris Reeve impression, Routh was pretty good, and Spacey was obviously having fun - but there was just something so skeevy and off about the idea of Superman being Lois' baby-daddy and then despite the link and the connection between them, he just fucks off into space and leaves her to become bitter and angry at him. I mean, yes, Lois is competitive and pretty awesome at challenging Clark in the Donner movies, but to put her on awful terms with both Superman and Clark just.. It didn't work.

So I don't think it was the lack of distance that hurt the film, but more that they just picked entirely the wrong direction for most of the characters; In terms of escalation for sequels, I thought Luthor's plan with the crystals fit perfectly with the 'OTISBURG?!' stuff from the first movie - that the land he made was blatantly impossible to live on was kind of neither here nor there, I guess, because he's a mad genius. So I don't think the lack of distance hurt it, but more the choices, both in characters and in tone; I mean, you go from scenes like Lois' kid playing at the piano with the henchman and Luthor comically screaming 'WRONG!' to the pretty vicious scenes with Superman getting the shit kicked out of him. It was just so uneven.

[chrisdv]

I lost all interest in this film the moment the trailer showed Jonathan Kent tell Clark that maybe he should've let a school bus full of kids drown rather than save them & possibly reveal he has powers.

[espanolbot]

He seems to make up for that seemingly momentary lapse in the third trailer (above).

[mrstatham]

Yes, but that line makes more sense when you take in the idea that if enough people know what Clark is, then he might end up being taken away from his parents. No father would want to lose his child because he's different, and I think every parent is entitled to say slightly irrational things at times when it comes to protecting their children.

[thatnickguy]

I firmly believe that people are misinterpreting that. He's not saying Clark should've let the kids die. He's saying it like, "I don't know. Maybe?" because seriously, how do come to terms with the idea that your adopted son has the powers of a god? What does a parent do or say when their entire life - theirs and their child's - could be turned completely upside down if people found out?

I get the feeling we're missing key parts of the conversation, like where he says afterwards, "No. No, of course not" or something.

Keep in mind that nine times out of ten, the filmmakers have no say in how the trailer is made. It's very likely whoever put it together figured it would create controversy and get people talking.

[leoboiko]

Gray?

This is the most teal/orange movie I've seen in a while, and there's competition… I'm sure they'd have Supe's cape orange, too, if they could get away with it…

[mrstatham]

I think that argument you link to lost me around the point they mistook the notion of Tron Legacy's deliberately 'dark and bright' concept design with the idea of colour grading.

[theflames]

It *is* colour grading when those colours still persist when they leave the digital world, and it did.

Still an epic film though.

[mrstatham]

But they don't state or show that in the article - they just use the colour grading argument to rail on actual design choices. They picked pretty much the worst set of images to try and include Legacy in their argument.

And it's still not as jarring as the average Michael Bay movie's appearance. But.. Yeah. Epic film, although I am guilty of loving nearly anything with Jeff Bridges in it.

[leoboiko]

"Argument"? Well, even if you think the color scheme in Tron was justified (does "dark and bright" have to be, specifically, teal AND orange?), for me the idea that "modern Hollywood depends too much on teal and orange" is not an argument. It's a self-evident observation. I mean, basically every time I go to the movies to see an American film, or even look at the posters, I'm throughly annoyed by this. It's even more irritating than Trajan, pre-climax kisses, and trailes starting with "In a world where…".

[mrstatham]

Well, yes. When they're making a point for the overexposure of that style of colouring in movies, it is an argument. Much like I made an argument that the post-war style of housing in the UK owed a great deal to Le Corbusier during my final year in university.

The argument just fell short to me with the Tron section because they deliberately picked scenes from the interior of the computer, yet ignored the scenes with the paler blues and whites and other selections of colour. If that had been an essay or a dissertation, that section would have undermined the whole thing. If they hadn't included Tron - or, as has been said, they'd used scenes outside the computer world - then I wouldn't be making such a fuss.

[bardbrain]

They'd better not...

(Gestures to avatar.)

The tonal palette is a little wrong

[karmakaze]

It looks like a decent enough movie, I just think the tone is wrong for Superman. I find if I just think if it as an Elseworlds, though, it's all just fine. In that context I can deal with it being an interesting take on Superman while still missing the mark on some key cannon points.

[Especially if you're thinking of a Worlds Finest or Justice League movie in the future, I think it's a real mistake to drag Superman to the grim and dark tone that's really Batman's realm. It's the contrast between the characters that makes those stories work and this looks too much like Grim and Grimmer when paired with the existing Batman movies. It's not that I think Superman needs to be taken all the way to silly, as with the Reeve movies, but Superman needs a brighter palette and a more optimistic outlook in order to be Superman and not Yet Another Flying Brick.]

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[mrstatham]

I think it's a mistake to assume that the earlier, superior Reeve movies were 'silly' - I think the first two in particular were quite well balanced, even if they did play fast and loose with Superman's abilities (but so did the books of the time). The first Reeve movie, after all, has that utterly terrifying bit with Lois dying in a landslide and Superman being unable to save her, balanced by the manner in which he makes it so he can save her.

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[theflames]

His flying back in time and method in which he did had huge ethical problems....

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[mrstatham]

Maybe so, if you're thinking about it way too hard and comically, then yes, Superman pretty much just killed everyone on Earth, probably, by turning it the other way.

But then I think you have to have some level of disconnect when the guy's an alien and using his abilities to spin the planet in the other direction and turn back time; So I never worried about it too much.

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[theflames]

No, I'm actively thinking about the fact that he *turned back time*, he changed the course of things when he shouldn't have.

Lois died, yes, and when he turned back time he gave her a chance at life again, but since he could change that, imagine all the other things that happened in that time frame that, because of his intervention, went on a new path.

People in surgery who would've lived in the original timeline might've lost their lives in the new one he produced, people who just met, got hitched, might have never done so, people who had *survived* fatal accidents like Lois might have now taken a turn for the worst.

That's what always got to me, if he managed to save Lois with that trick, other things probably changed to. :|

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[mrstatham]

Well, I don't think that's how it worked. It's an interesting thought, but the only real change we see is the one he deliberately enforces when he's there to save Lois instead of not being there to save her. Everything else probably proceeded as normal.

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[sadoeuphemist]

I don't particularly see how that's different from acting in the first place. Like, say Superman saves a plane from crashing, maybe someone who would've stayed home to watch the news goes out and gets into a car accident instead, etc. If we all worried about the unpredictable butterfly effect our actions caused, we'd never do anything.

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[theflames]

Well no, because in the first instance, when we're *not* turning back time, we are not *actively changing* outcomes that have already played out.

When we decide to change things via time travel - we'd be actively messing with other, equally important people's lives.

The ethical problem is taking such things into your own hands when it's not your place to do so. Your example doesn't match up since Superman has no control or responsibility for that man in the present. But when he does go back in time, his actions are the direct cause of all the other results in the new timeline, the good and the bad.

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[sadoeuphemist]

But why doesn't he have a responsibility for that man in the present? Superman flies around doing grand world-changing shit all the time, which obviously interferes in other people's lives. Why is it okay for him to go around causing major changes in the world, but not if he's traveled through time?

Say that I'm forced to decide between killing a man or sparing him, and I choose to spare him. Later I decide that I made the wrong decision, and travel back in time to kill him instead. How would I be any more responsible than if I had chosen to kill him in the first place?

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[theflames]

Because in the present, all our choices are out own, and things that happen by accident to us, cannot be blamed on anything else but the universe. If Superman doesn't save the guy in the present, because he was preoccupied by something else, couldn't, too far, or even didn't want to - then fine.

But if he goes back in time, he's changing and taking into his own hands the fate, choices and experiences of an entire planet. And since he's doing it for just one person he's personally in tune with, it's not fair, nor does it balance any scales.

Basically, you can't control what's happening then and there, and it's not your fault if something goes wrong. But if you decide to use time travel to sort out *relatively small* issues, then you have to take responsibility for being the ONLY reason everyone elses life has possibly taken a different path, for the good and the worst.

That last example you've given is majorly confusing. You'd still be responsible for killing him *directly* in both situations.

I'm saying that Superman in this time travel situation is directly harming people *by* time traveling, since he's the only one who can do it, and is the reason for their lives taking a different turn, possibly for the worst.

In the present, since he's not directly affecting their lives. He's not responsible.

Basically if Superman kills an innocent man, that is bad.

It's also bad if that innocent man died via butterfly effect, because Superman decided to time travel to save the love of his life.

the butterfly effect without time travel is near-meaningless, with time travel it gives us the control to induce it needlessly.

Re: The tonal palette is a little wrong

[sadoeuphemist]

Here is my argument: the butterfly effect is important with or without time travel. I mean, we came up with the butterfly effect in real life, without involving the concept of time travel, because a meteorologist discovered that making a tiny change in his initial variables would radically change the expected outcome. We can't change the past, but we still try to predict the future consequences of our actions.

You say that what happens to us by accident can be blamed on "the universe", but even freak accidents can be traced back to specific actions in retrospect. If someone slips and falls and breaks her neck, then whose fault was it that the floor was slippery right at that moment, why was a stool placed in that specific area for her to hit her head on in just the right way, and so on. That's not "the universe", those are specific things that specific people caused. We just don't blame people for them because the butterfly effect says that even the most innocuous actions will have unforeseen consequences.

If Superman travels back in time and saves Lois, the butterfly effect doesn't happen just because he travels back in time. If he time travels, but doesn't interact with the past at all, obviously nothing changes. Things change because he makes a series of specific actions while saving Lois. Maybe he lowers the air pressure in a certain area while flying to her, or displaces a rock while trying to get to her, or whatever. But he would still make changes like these even if he didn't time travel, if he had decided to save Lois in the first place. The butterfly effect doesn't just exist with time travel, it is an integral part of existing in and interacting with the world.

[salinea]

And the trailer, as it's revelant to the main post so people can get the joke.
clever ;)

[filthysize]

HE FOUND A LOOPHOLE. RELEASE THE GAS.

[icon_uk]

Have no fear, the s_d team of ninja assassins have been dispatched.

[nezchan]

Um...they're all over there, giggling about how their name has "ass" in it twice.

Last time we get killers on discount.

[ablackraptor]

I had to double check that bit about a female Jimmy Olsen, I'm surprised but I don't think I have much problem with that. I am looking forward to this, but like some people I hope its not too glum.

[mrstatham]

As much as people rag on Rises for it's faults, I personally found that one the most satisfying film, because it did that super-rare thing of giving Batman a happy ending - which is rare for comic characters full-stop. From some of the stuff I've seen in this trailer, I'm just worried about it being TDK-levels of grim.

And I don't hold out much hope for Snyder, personally. His last film was one of the biggest messes I think I've ever seen.

[bradygirl_12]

Superman as grim? Will probably be a big hit! If people aren't dying and there isn't blood and gore splattered all over the place, it isn't 'edgy' or 'cool' enough. An optimistic Superman doesn't fit into today's jaded, violence-loving society.

I'll just consider it an Elseworlds as I do Smallville. My blood pressure will thank me. :)

[espanolbot]

The previous trailers have been kind of glum, but this one seems really upbeat. Especially considering Jor-El's speech seems to indicate that he hopes his son will become some kind of messiah to help humanity get better and stuff.

[bradygirl_12]

I certainly hope the movie will be good, but as I was saying to my LCS guy today, I get excited by the anticipation of the film but not too much since I've been disappointed so many times in the past. He agreed and said he's always surprised if a superhero movie is good since the track record isn't that great. We both agreed to just wait and see and hope for the best. :)

[silverhammerman]

I still find the whole "It means hope" thing weird. It always strikes me as a bit silly for the symbol to have some pre-established meaning, be it as a family crest or whatever, like a bit too much for me. Yeah Superman's shield should be a symbol of hope, but only because he gives it that meaning by being Superman, otherwise to him and everyone else it would just be a weird looking S. My ideal solution would be to just have the basic shape, the diamond shield, be a Kryptonian symbol of what have you, and Clark adds the S for Superman, embracing both his Earth and Krpytonian identitites, but that's just me.

I actually really like the trailer though, I think it's leaning a little to the darker side and they're kind of overplaying the messiah thing, but it's not terrible. The thing to me is that I think Marvel kind of has the fun, breezy, self aware superheroics covered, so for DC to have a more original tone they have to go with something grander and more awe inspiring. DC could set their movies apart by diving wholeheartedly into the idea of "Oh shit, these are basically gods walking the Earth, fighting actual monsters." I mean, that's just my take on the tone, but whatever.

I really liked how they handled the Superman in chains shit from the first poster, I thought it meant things were going to be gritty and boring, but I think Clark's demeanor in the interrogation room shows that he's clearly just humoring them and his attitude is mostly spot on as far as I'm concerned.

And who else got a little choked up by the "you are my son" moment? Like holy shit, it was just so right. I still feel like this movie looks to be emphasizing Krypton's role in creating Superman and his morality a bit much, but if that scene was any indication the Kents will still get a fair shake.

The only things I don't really like about this trailer are that the costume still looks like an awkward onsie without the trunks or even a proper belt to break up the shape, and Zod made me roll my eyes every time he was onscreen. It's not that Zod is a bad villain, but I think it could make the whole movie way too much about Krypton, since you have the origin on Krypton and then a villain from the villain from there as well. I really feel like Zod is a second movie villain. I feel like Brainiac would have been a better choice, it gives you someone who can go toe to toe with Supes, while not having them totally tied to Superman's origin, and he lets you hint at a grander universe.

Still, overall this trailer looks much better than the first one.

[viridian5]

I still smirk over what I call the Superman: Deadliest Catch trailer.

[stolisomancer]

Lois Lane, shown here in the fall offering from the Helena Harper collection...

[mola_ram]

Lois...
Please...
Please dont insult the alien race that humanity has just made first contact with by referring to a symbol that they put great value into by referring to it as a simple letter, and what it should stand for on Earth.
You might as well just lean towards him, go full Samuel Jackson on him, and shout into his face; ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!
(Perhaps that's what makes Zod attacks Earth ;) )

I don't know why Michael Shannons performance as General Zod gives me a "young Malcolm McDowell wibe", but I like it. ( even though the last movie I saw with him was Caligula, and people who KNEEEEEL BEFORE HIM in that movie, tend to be exposed to things that would make Joffrey Baratheon wet his pants)

Also, I had forgotten how good an actor Kevin Costner can be when he gets a decent role to sink his teeth into, because when Papa Kent says "You are my son" it really hits home.
As I was raised by a loving stepfather who took me in as his own, I can relate to Superman (who would have thought that;) ) and i expect i might have to bring a knife and a bag of onions to the cinema to cut during that scene ;)

Finally, It's a shame they're not using the iconic Superman theme by John Williams, but seeing as they're distancing themselves from the earlier movies, who got progressively worse, I can accept it.
Besides, the theme used in the trailer, isn't half bad.

[flash_fan]

Am I the only one who doesn't think the new trailer comes off as tonally dark?

[espanolbot]

I said that I didn't think it was, though a lot of people think that it will be because of the colour template... which is a touch silly.

They said they were going for something that is tonally Superman, but in a realistic setting, so bright, technicolour would be contrary to the style they're going for.

[bruinsfan]

In the new one it's mainly the aesthetics of Krypton that bother me. I think they'd have been better going in a John Byrne's Man of Steel direction if the crystalline look of the Donner movies wouldn't do. With this, I expect a leather-clad Vin Deisel or Kate Beckinsale to leap out of the shadows and start beating Jor-el up at any moment.

The scenes with Jonathan Kent and Lois Lane definitely give me a good feeling about the overall tone.

Aside from the cape I don't really like the suit redesign, but whoever made the trailer was wise enough to silence my objection by showing Cavill out of it.

[espanolbot]

I do find the origin that they seem to have gone for with Clark and his costume in this new franchise kind of interesting.

It seems that in this new Krypton people are genetically engineered specifically for whatever caste they are destined to work for within Kryptonian society. This has been the way for hundreds of years, but going against these entrenched rules Clark is the first Kryptonian conceived and born naturally, born out of love rather than what society happens to need. THAT is why Kal-el is special within the new DC Cinematic Universe.

And the suit apparently is a Kryptonian bit of clothing that all of them wear, only with extra bits stuck on depending on what caste they're in, Zod is in the soldier caste so his is more spikey with an armourish look, for example. Which, admittedly, is different but an interesting new spin on where Clark gets his outfit, rather than Ma Kent somehow being able to craft a costume out of indestructible alien fabric.