Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[Admiral_Young]

We saw a planet explode in the trailer though.

I'm not sure where they're getting the idea that it might not be destroyed. Reading the snippet, perhaps Zod isn't aware that Krypton has been destroyed and this is why he decides to enact his plan on Earth.

 

[The Lensman]

Well, I haven't seen Transformers 3, but I saw 1 and 2 and I hated them, so I didn't watch it, yet I know its bad.

Kid, there's a big difference between "bad" and "I didn't like it". Learn it. Or get a broader vocabulary. There's plenty of movies I don't like...that doesn't make them "bad", it makes them movies I don't like.

If I hate The Dark Knight and Rises, then what are the chances I'll like The Dark Superman of Steel Rises?

The exact same as any other movie that comes out.

All the movie clips have horrible stuff in them (like Pa Kent telling Clark to let kids die),

Since it's abundantly clear that you don't know, let me help you: when movie trailers are put together, sometimes two parts of a scene (or different scenes) might be put together to make it seem like something happens in the movie one way, but in the actual movie, it happens a different way.

This is called "editing". And this "editing" is done in such a way for trailers and or previews for t.v. shows to generate interest or misdirect. For example, in the new Star Trek trailer, there's two shots of the Enterprise burning in orbit followed by a shot of a different ship crashing in the water. The intent is to make the viewer think that it's the Enterprise that is crashing thus generating excitement or interest.

You still with me?

So when Clark asks "What was I supposed to do...Let them die?" you don't know if Pa says something else completely in the movie. His "Maybe" might be the answer to something else completely but edited in the trailer in such a way in order to elicit a response from viewers.

Hey, let's have some fun....did it occur to you that Pa's response in the movie could be "Maybe" pause "No, of course not son, you did the right thing and I'm proud of you."

I'm gonna go with no.

and it looks like the whole thing will be Superman brooding and otherwise being another Nolan "dark" "hero".

A brooding hero is not considered a "dark" hero. Wolverine is a "dark" hero. The Punisher is a "dark" hero. The Superman we see in these trailers is nowhere near being a "dark" hero. In fact we really don't know what he's going to be like since we've seen less than three minutes of Henry Cavil's performance in a two hour movie.

It's probably best that you stick to cartoons or funny books for your superhero fix anyway.

There is a better chance of me growing wings than liking this movie.

There is a better chance of you growing wings than you ever approaching something with an open mind.

I don't like the movie,

You cannot "like" or "dislike" anything you haven't seen.

I think Nolan should be put away for crimes against humanity for his hack work, end of story.

Hate to break it to you kid, but Nolan has the respect of his peers. He's working in his chosen field and he's not only successful, he's crazy successful. When you reach even a tenth of that, get back to us.

 

[The Lensman]

There's an interesting rumor concerning the absence of

Spoiler: ?...

Kryptonite in this film. Supposedly it's because Krypton hasn't exploded and still exists...

You can go over at io9 for more details.
Spoilers, obviously.

Well, there is a brief shot (very brief as it's edited with another explosion) of a planet blowing up. Right here in fact:

This is at the 2:29 mark in trailer #3.

Spoiler: ?...

If there's no Kryptonite in the movie, it's more likely that the producers don't feel like they need it. They've got three or four Kryptonians who can duke it out with Supes, they don't need Kryptonite so the humans can kick him around ala SR.

And really, does the lack of this even constitute a spoiler? If so, then I hope it never shows up in the current series because that just shows how cliche and predictable it is to have it.

 

[marksound]

Since it's abundantly clear that you don't know, let me help you: when movie trailers are put together, sometimes two parts of a scene (or different scenes) might be put together to make it seem like something happens in the movie one way, but in the actual movie, it happens a different way.

THANK YOU.

It's exhausting to read all the reviews of a movie written by people who have only seen a few trailers and tv ads.

 

[Set Harth]

How can someone review a movie they haven't seen?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I just read about a BIG rumor going around the net on IO9.

Spoiler: the rumor, which if true is a HUGE spoiler, and my reaction.

Apparently they are saying that Krypton will not be destroyed in Man of Steel.
I'm not going to say this is going to ruin the movie, but as a Superman fan, I don't particularly like this idea. Like they said in the article it does kind of go against the whole history of the character. Superman has always been a survivor from a destroyed planet who finds a new home on Earth, and it seems odd that they would decide to change that in the movie. I don't mind minor changes, like the new suit, a Black Perry White, or "Jenny" Olson, but this is one that I don't like. If it is true I hope there is a damn good story reason for it, because if not it just feels like changing things just to be different, which isn't really enough of a reason for me.

There's an interesting rumor concerning the absence of

Spoiler: ?...

Kryptonite in this film. Supposedly it's because Krypton hasn't exploded and still exists...

You can go over at io9 for more details.
Spoilers, obviously.

Spoiler: About that

Well if Krypton doesn't go boom, it could just be that everyone on the planet is dead after some other disaster that left a nice big graveyard world behind

 

[JarodRussell]

If they ever use Kryptonite again, I want Superman to man up and don't be a pussy. In every film he turns into a wimp just because he is weakened to human levels. Especially laughable in Superman II, when he gets bullied, and after he gets his powers back, he becomes the bully. That's a pretty ugly character. Run Lois, run.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I just read about a BIG rumor going around the net on IO9.

Spoiler: the rumor, which if true is a HUGE spoiler, and my reaction.

Apparently they are saying that Krypton will not be destroyed in Man of Steel.
I'm not going to say this is going to ruin the movie, but as a Superman fan, I don't particularly like this idea. Like they said in the article it does kind of go against the whole history of the character. Superman has always been a survivor from a destroyed planet who finds a new home on Earth, and it seems odd that they would decide to change that in the movie. I don't mind minor changes, like the new suit, a Black Perry White, or "Jenny" Olson, but this is one that I don't like. If it is true I hope there is a damn good story reason for it, because if not it just feels like changing things just to be different, which isn't really enough of a reason for me.

There's an interesting rumor concerning the absence of

Spoiler: ?...

Kryptonite in this film. Supposedly it's because Krypton hasn't exploded and still exists...

You can go over at io9 for more details.
Spoilers, obviously.

Spoiler: About that

Well if Krypton doesn't go boom, it could just be that everyone on the planet is dead after some other disaster that left a nice big graveyard world behind

Tales from the Crypt on Earth, then? Superman, like Batman, doesn't need explanation. If the film thinks it needs to explain the character, then I've no use for it. They'll be hard pressed to do better than Clark at Pa Kent's grave saying "All those powers, and I couldn't save him.'

 

[Gojira]

If they ever use Kryptonite again, I want Superman to man up and don't be a pussy. In every film he turns into a wimp just because he is weakened to human levels. Especially laughable in Superman II, when he gets bullied, and after he gets his powers back, he becomes the bully. That's a pretty ugly character. Run Lois, run.

Kryptonite can kill him not just weaken him.

 

[kirk55555]

Well, I haven't seen Transformers 3, but I saw 1 and 2 and I hated them, so I didn't watch it, yet I know its bad.

Kid, there's a big difference between "bad" and "I didn't like it". Learn it. Or get a broader vocabulary. There's plenty of movies I don't like...that doesn't make them "bad", it makes them movies I don't like.

Everything is relative. In my opnion, Nolan's movies are not just bad, they're terrible. Its my opinion, its not wrong, and its not neccessarily right, if you don't agree with it. To me, its a bad movie. Just because his stuff is loved by critics doesn't make it good. Just like my thinking its bad doesn't make it bad to other people. Still, to me, its bad, and its my opinion.

If I hate The Dark Knight and Rises, then what are the chances I'll like The Dark Superman of Steel Rises?

The exact same as any other movie that comes out.

That makes no sense. Its a Nolan movie. I hate Nolan movies. Thats like saying I might love almonds if I try them in a cookie, even though I hate almonds every time I've tried them in other kinds of food. Its his "style" and idiotic way of doing things that make any movie he does something I hate. This will be no different.

Since it's abundantly clear that you don't know, let me help you: when movie trailers are put together, sometimes two parts of a scene (or different scenes) might be put together to make it seem like something happens in the movie one way, but in the actual movie, it happens a different way.

This is called "editing". And this "editing" is done in such a way for trailers and or previews for t.v. shows to generate interest or misdirect. For example, in the new Star Trek trailer, there's two shots of the Enterprise burning in orbit followed by a shot of a different ship crashing in the water. The intent is to make the viewer think that it's the Enterprise that is crashing thus generating excitement or interest.

You still with me?

So when Clark asks "What was I supposed to do...Let them die?" you don't know if Pa says something else completely in the movie. His "Maybe" might be the answer to something else completely but edited in the trailer in such a way in order to elicit a response from viewers.

Hey, let's have some fun....did it occur to you that Pa's response in the movie could be "Maybe" pause "No, of course not son, you did the right thing and I'm proud of you."

I'm gonna go with no.

So, either Pa Kent is saying Clark should let children drown, or the people editing the trailers think thats what the movie should show. Either way, it is not helping the movie, and its really stupid.

A brooding hero is not considered a "dark" hero. Wolverine is a "dark" hero. The Punisher is a "dark" hero. The Superman we see in these trailers is nowhere near being a "dark" hero. In fact we really don't know what he's going to be like since we've seen less than three minutes of Henry Cavil's performance in a two hour movie.

It's probably best that you stick to cartoons or funny books for your superhero fix anyway.

Without those cartoons or "funny books" you wouldn't be watching this crappy movie, just so you know. Not that Superman is any good in the comics right now (DC in general is producing a lot of horrible stuff). He's going to be a dark, brooding hero because Nolan doesn't have the ability to do anything else (also, bearded hobo Clark is a good indication of some angst ridden stuff, and thats definately Nolan's style). Note: I don't know if he's actually a hobo in those shots, its my nickname for bearded clark wearing hobo like clothes, so don't start accusing me of making another assumption about the movie

There is a better chance of you growing wings than you ever approaching something with an open mind.

Again, this doesn't make much sense. If I hate everything someone does, down to their very way of doing things, then its not overreacting to say I'll hate the next thing they're doing. I can be open minded, but not with Nolan (or JJ abrams, or the team of Orci & Kutzman, but thats not something for this thread). There are just some people that do horrible stuff. I wouldn't care so much if they didn't keep getting jobs ruining stuff I like. Why would I have an open mind when everything i've seen with those people I've hated?

I don't like the movie,

You cannot "like" or "dislike" anything you haven't seen.

Of course you can. I've already said it. If you hate all of someone's work, then you'll probably hate everything they do.

I think Nolan should be put away for crimes against humanity for his hack work, end of story.

Hate to break it to you kid, but Nolan has the respect of his peers. He's working in his chosen field and he's not only successful, he's crazy successful. When you reach even a tenth of that, get back to us.

Micahel Bay is crazy successful. He also has few defenders among people who aren't 13 year old boys who just want explosions and boobs. You don't need to be good to be successful. Bay is the poster child for that. Popularity/success doesn't always equal good. I know I keep going with Bay, but his similarities to Nolan and others is weird.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Why do you persist in calling "Man of Steel" a Nolan film? It really isn't. This is Snyder's film 100 percent. I don't know if you keep calling it a Nolan film because that supports your viewpoint on the film or not, but you're factually incorrect. Your dislike of Nolan is not giving Snyder the credit he deserves. Nolan did script polishes, and hired Snyder, but he hasn't been hands on the film since he started to concentrate on "The Dark Knight Rises".

Your continued lack of acknowledging the actual director of the film baffles me. Yes obviously with the people involved in the film Nolan's influence will be felt, but to continually ignore Snyder, or to consider him some kind of "puppet director" is wrong and incorrect.

 

[sojourner]

I'm just confused how someone so determined to not like the film spends so much time in this thread.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Not just not like the film, but I'm pretty sure he's stated he has no intention of seeing the film. I could be wrong with the latter, if so I apologize to the poster, but I am pretty sure that I recall him posting that in the past.

 

[marksound]

I'm just confused how someone so determined to not like the film spends so much time in this thread.

It's the internet. What else is he supposed to do?

 

[Nerys Myk]

^ Why do you persist in calling "Man of Steel" a Nolan film? It really isn't. This is Snyder's film 100 percent. I don't know if you keep calling it a Nolan film because that supports your viewpoint on the film or not, but you're factually incorrect. Your dislike of Nolan is not giving Snyder the credit he deserves. Nolan did script polishes, and hired Snyder, but he hasn't been hands on the film since he started to concentrate on "The Dark Knight Rises".

Your continued lack of acknowledging the actual director of the film baffles me. Yes obviously with the people involved in the film Nolan's influence will be felt, but to continually ignore Snyder, or to consider him some kind of "puppet director" is wrong and incorrect.

Yeah, call it "Watchman of Steel" or "Super Punch".

 

[Aragorn]

I'm just confused how someone so determined to not like the film spends so much time in this thread.

Did you see the Battlestar Galactica or Enterprise episode threads while they were on the air? You had people watching the entire series from start to finish who hated every moment yet had the most posting activity.

 

[sojourner]

^But at least they watched the shows.

 

[Corran Horn]

I'm just confused how someone so determined to not like the film spends so much time in this thread.

It's the internet. What else is he supposed to do?

Not only that, but, if you are a really big Superman fan this film will either:

a) succeed such that a sequel will likely be very similar to this

b) fail

...and as such will absolutely affect filmed Superman for the next 5-10 years.

 

[kirk55555]

^ Why do you persist in calling "Man of Steel" a Nolan film? It really isn't. This is Snyder's film 100 percent. I don't know if you keep calling it a Nolan film because that supports your viewpoint on the film or not, but you're factually incorrect. Your dislike of Nolan is not giving Snyder the credit he deserves. Nolan did script polishes, and hired Snyder, but he hasn't been hands on the film since he started to concentrate on "The Dark Knight Rises".

Your continued lack of acknowledging the actual director of the film baffles me. Yes obviously with the people involved in the film Nolan's influence will be felt, but to continually ignore Snyder, or to consider him some kind of "puppet director" is wrong and incorrect.

The Dark Knight:
Story By: David S. Goyer, Christopher Nolan
Producers: Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven

Man of Steel:
Story By: David S. Goyer, Christopher Nolan
Producers: Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven, Deborah Snyder

Snyder's influence can't beat out the fact that its still written and produced by the same people as TDK and Rises (minus Snyder's wife, but she's not much of a factor). Snyder has had ok stuff, I guess (the watchman movie was mediocre, but it still made the story actually watchable, unlike the unreadable comic) but everyone else is Nolan's people. They've worked with him on atleast 2-3 movies, and they do things his way. There is absolutely no way this isn't Nolan's movie. A director is important, but I'm pretty sure the writers and producers combined have more influence in a movie than the director by himself. Plus, who's to say snyder isn't a huge fan of Nolan's? Maybe he likes Nolan's horrible style too, meaning this movie would have no one in charge who wasn't Nolan or a minion.

^ Not just not like the film, but I'm pretty sure he's stated he has no intention of seeing the film. I could be wrong with the latter, if so I apologize to the poster, but I am pretty sure that I recall him posting that in the past.

I'll see it on DVD when the library gets it, but thats it. I can't see any movies anyway, not even the good ones like Iron Man, but I wouldn't waste money on it if I could. As for why I post about it, its a superhero movie. I'm a superhero fan, so its something I consider worth posting about. Its a big event when it comes to superhero stuff, its hard to stay silent on it. I try to, since I know how I get when I have to deal with Nolan stuff, but sometimes it just comes out. Its grating to see him basically be declared the second coming with DC movies.

I just want to see some good DC superhero movies, done by people who think brooding, moronic, whiney characters aren't what superheroes should be. Nolan's idea of a superhero is a crybaby with laryngitis who doesn't actually want to be a hero and who has to be as realistic as possible. That means beards, angst, and generally being a moron, apparently. To be fair, the only other Nolan movie I've seen besides his batman stuff, The Prestige, has almost all of that as well (except the realistic part), but it atleast had a few twists and wasn't out to ruin a famous character.

So, while I think the movie will be terrible, it definately counts as something I take an interest in, being superhero related. I'm honestly not wanting to create a big argument, I just felt like posting my opinion.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm not even sure how to respond to what you just typed...