NoScans: Black Adam trailer dropped

[icon_uk]

A couple of dodgy CGI moments to one side, and it looks perfectly competent, if not groundbreaking.

Watch on YouTube

But the tone...?

So we have a movie about an oppressed slave turned anti-hero, if not outright villain, one who is quite prepared to kill to achieve his ends (whatever they might be, because the trailer gives no hint as to what they might be), played by one of the most family friendly names in the film industry.

We have scenes of him casually killing people, and then scenes of him doing a near comedy double take as someone tries to hit him with a crowbar, followed by a Goofy/Wilhelm Scream moment.

This just seems a little... disjointed as a trailer, though I'm hopeful the movie will be more.

Comments

[numeronone]

"Warner Bros. Studios Presents: THE SCORPION KING: LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN"

[dragontail]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeep.

Friends of mine who still work in the professional wrestling industry (I'm a recent retiree from same) opined: "This looks like the most expensive way yet to placate Dwayne." I fear I feel the same.

I'm saddest that Hawkman, Dr Fate, Atom Smasher and Cyclone's chances of great break-out live-action performances could be hobbled by this, if it's not good. Hopefully there's a lot more to this film than the trailer indicates.

[icon_uk]

I came SO close to making a Scorpion King joke! :)

The only reason I didn't was that it might make some innocent soul go watch the Scoprion King (Or even just the horrendous GCI bit in The Mummy movie) and I didn't want that on my conscience.

Thuogh, out of curiosity I just googled "The Scorpion King" and discovered that even with that first movie, it got FOUR striaght to DVD sequels... and a possible reboot in the works!

[numeronone]

Also, I watched "Red Notice" earlier this year. I wouldn't recommend it (think "The Hitman's Bodyguard" as re-constructed by a committee), but it does now serve the purpose of being a story in which Black Adam and Wonder Woman do sexy heists together while Deadpool watches.

This is the curse of superhero movies. Kind of like how "Inherent Vice" is now the movie which ends with Thanos busting down the Joker's door and eating all his weed in front of him.

[dragontail]

I jokingly referred to the most recent adaptation of "Les Miserables" as "Wolverine battles Jor-El for the fate of Catwoman's daughter"...

[numeronone]

Or how about "The Lighthouse"...

[windleopard2]

Remember when Nick Fury recruited Bullseye to be part of his SWAT team and they had to stop Hawkeye from helping a dangerous criminal escape their custody?

[owlbrigade1]

Heroes don't kill... That isn't what Zod told me.

The current DCEU roster does little but kill, they have a collective body count higher than some small wars.

If you a hero who kills to be a shocking subversion, then maybe have some heroes who go out of their way to preserve life and generally act heroic in the first place. It'd be more a subversion if we had someone who wasn't in Team Murder first.

Ach, weel. I suspect this will still make all the money nonetheless.

[deh_tommy]

Superman killed ONCE, very reluctantly, and never again. He’s done pretty much nothing but going out of his way to preserve life. Unless you count Darkseid and Steppenwolf, in the former’s case that was just a zombie animated by Lex Luthor and in the latter’s it was justified self defence.

[blueprintstyles]

Hard agree. I don't why that scene is such an issue, there was no alternative. No prison, no reasoning with Zod, no convenient MacGuffin to depower him. It was a formative moment that'll make Superman think harder and more creatively to subdue villains without killing.

[cyberghostface]

Yeah IDK why people were pushing the “Man of Murder” meme so much. It’s on par with Batman killing Two-Face in The Dark Knight.

[super_fly]

Sucks that a fictional character has no other options in a scenario engineered by writers who have no control over events in a fictional medium

[windleopard2]

That's how fiction works. If you're going to criticize Superman killing because "that's what the writer wanted", then this applies to everything that he has done. Frankly, I've never understood why this is controversial but almost everything else that superheroes do like torture or child endangerment gets a pass.

[deh_tommy]

* Doomsday, not Darkseid. Whoops.

[icon_uk]

If Superman summararily executing his opponent is the only ending they can think of for their movie, it suggests that the creators might not be buying into the pretty much entirely non-cynical, inspirational nature of Superman's heroics for the majority of his history. (Which Snyder was clearly not a fan of, based on things like Pa Kent suggesting letting innocent people die to protect Clark's secret is likely a fair trade off). And that's leaving aside any of the possible sci-fi possibilities that might be available, andwuld also leave Zod available for sequels.

Plus whilst the killing of Zod was his only direct killing, the bodycount due to the battle he fought against him, in the middle of a major urban population centre is considerable, Snyder himself put it at likely 5000, others put it far higher based on how many people would have been working in the middle of an equivalent city.

[numeronone]

Did not help that Snyder's explanation was that killing, like cigarettes, is something you need to try out once to find out whether you like it or not.

[b_i_beast]

That's ....a concerning thing to say. Has anyone checked his tool shed or basement lately?

[numeronone]

Source, if you need it.

It's disturbing that he compares it to the act of putting on the glasses, but between "Sucker Punch" and his fervent interest in adapting Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" it's clear the man's moral compass has no needle.

[thezmage]

He also likely didn't factor in the effects of inhaling all that decimated city dust. That whole Daily Planet staff was doomed midway through the fight no matter what happened

[windleopard2]

Killing a villain in and of itself is not cynical. Otherwise, the MCU and the Wonder Woman movie are far more cynical than anything that happens in MoS.

Anyone who pays attention to the fight will see that the majority of the damage is caused by Zod. Superman has been having battles in urban areas for decades, and yes, there really isn't much difference in how the fight in MoS went down compared to previous or recent versions. Remember when Superman punched Zod through several buildings in the Justice League Unlimited finale? And that was an experienced Superman who didn't have the excuse of having never been in a fight before.

[akodo_rokku]

It's cynical *as a take on Superman.* That entire movie went out of its way to take out everything that makes Superman and replace it with cynical drek.

[windleopard2]

Agree to disagree. Even as a take on Superman, it isn't cynical. I've read the comics for years and seen other adaptations. This is far from the darkest or most cynical thing ever attached to Superman. I've met people who talked about how this film helped them feel more hopeful after years or decades of being depressed.

[cyberghostface]

Zod was seconds away from murdering an innocent family and forced Superman’s hand, it’s not the same as what Black Adam or even Batman in this universe is doing.

[beeyo]

I mean...if he's strong enough to break his neck he was probably strong enough to move his head slightly upwards, no? Or fly him up. Or even cover his eyes with his hands.

[cyberghostface]

In the context of the scene it’s pretty obvious he’s just barely holding onto Zod.

[windleopard2]

Does the word "murder" have a different meaning online now? It seems to be almost as misused as "mary sue" and "grimdark".

The first thing we see adult Clark doing is saving people from an oil fire and Lois confirms that he was saving people from before he put on the suit.

Wonder Woman spent as much time in her first movie saving people as she did killing proto-Nazis, if not more. She doesn't kill anyone in her second movie.

Aquaman doesn't kill anyone besides Parademons unless you count Black Manta's father whom he did try to rescue before the guy shot at him. Same goes for Cyborg and Flash.

This take is as tired as it is inaccurate.

[blueprintstyles]

I'm really happy for Dwayne, he's been trying for 15 years to get this movie going and it's finally happened. I really hope it's the anti-Ironman and he's kicking out American and corporate interests exploiting his country.

I know it's been years but Tony Stark being cheered for "Privatizing world peace" makes my skin crawl.

[deh_tommy]

Privatising world peace how? His whole arc in the first film is getting out of the weapons manufacturing gig and the Avengers were essentially a non-profit team of volunteers.

[filthysize]

That's the line that he said at the beginning of Iron Man 2 after proving how his privately-owned technology is better than world governments' armies and after he said it the crowd chered.

[deh_tommy]

Oh, right. Sorry, I haven’t really seen it since it came out.

[super_fly]

Him going over to fight bad guys in the middle east smacks of "It's bad if I sell weapons to the US military for use in foreign intervention, but it's ok if *I* use the weapons in foreign intervention."

[dan_ingram]

To be fair, Stark's response would be more surgical and precise than a government response

[super_fly]

Like a drone strike, perhaps?

[mazway_75]

I like how it almost seems a shot at Iron Man/Thor (see the flying by jets shot) only as a darker type. Johnson does fit the role and see how it works (at least not the crap show the Flash movie is now turning into...)

[thezmage]

Honestly, it looks fine. Doesn't really stand out one way or another. I might see it.

Although frankly something like 99% of the enjoyment I get out of watching DC movies has been steadily stamped out by people on nearly all sides of the discussion. The Snyder-led era has been over for years now, more non-gritty films have come out than gritty and dour ones, can we stop talking about DC films like they're all Batman V Superman? Or that they all should be Batman V Superman, for that matter?