Superman - Man of Steel news [Archive]

View Full Version : Superman - Man of Steel news

Pages : [1] 2

Raph's Girl

07-11-2008, 12:13 PM

Casting calls have gone out for extras and stand ins for the upcoming Superman movie "Man of Steel"

More info here: http://www.omelcourtesycasting.com

JetsAndHeels

07-11-2008, 04:08 PM

Awesome, I'm there!! :)

gobo

07-11-2008, 04:47 PM

Don't forget about us when you make it big in extraing! ^_^

JetsAndHeels

07-11-2008, 09:01 PM

Don't forget about us when you make it big in extraing! ^_^

Ha, I doubt that would happen. I do have a friend though who has been an extra in a few movies. He said it was the most boring, yet easiest work ever. Basically they sat around the set all day until they were needed for a scene.

cqb101

07-11-2008, 10:18 PM

So they put out a casting call for extras, yet they still don't have a director? That's not a good sign.

Raph's Girl

01-30-2011, 02:22 PM

Wow... I was surprised to see this thread is still here. Anyways. The Tudor's Henry Cavill has been reportadly cast as Clark Kent/Superman! Now generally they go for uknowns to play the big guy so this is a bit of a switch. Maybe he's an uknown to those who've never seen the Tudors or any of the other films/tv shows he's been in in the last decade? *lol* Oh well. Henry's a good actor and he's got the right looks and acting chops to play Supes. Should be fun.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/125177-henry-cavill-to-play-superman

The film is to be directed by Zack Snyder.

http://cdn.superherohype.com/images/stories/henrycavillsuperman.jpg

Candy Kappa

01-30-2011, 02:28 PM

awesome! Looking forward to a new Superman movie

Samhain

01-30-2011, 03:24 PM

Looks good to me. Def looking forward to it.

ToTheNines

01-30-2011, 03:52 PM

Boooooooo, this sucks.

Slow-mo Snyder is directing and I'm not feeling this guy for the title role... Looks like Superman's never gonna good modern movie.

Candy Kappa

01-30-2011, 04:03 PM

snyder is perfect to direct the slo-mo scenes in superman :P

Rikirk

01-30-2011, 04:17 PM

So are they gonna give him a shave and haircut, or is he gonna look like that?

The Stryker

01-30-2011, 05:34 PM

Boooooooo, this sucks.

Slow-mo Snyder is directing and I'm not feeling this guy for the title role... Looks like Superman's never gonna good modern movie.

The most cliche complaint ever award goes to....

I like it. Shave,haircut and maybe a hours in the gym and the dude could easily pass for Superman.

ToTheNines

01-30-2011, 06:06 PM

The most cliche complaint ever award goes to....

I like it. Shave,haircut and maybe a hours in the gym and the dude could easily pass for Superman.

I'll admit I might be jumping the gun on the casting choice, I am grateful that they went with a relative unknown though.

But I really don't think the selection of the director will be redeemed.

Rikirk

01-30-2011, 11:59 PM

http://io9.com/5747149/whos-zack-snyders-new-superman-tudors-actor-henry-cavill?skyline=true&s=i

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/01/picture_96.png

Barkworm

01-31-2011, 12:08 AM

Isn't the guy a bit small to play Superman?

GK Punk

01-31-2011, 12:10 AM

Isn't the guy a bit small to play Superman?

And aren't you a bit short to be a Storm Trooper?

Raph's Girl

01-31-2011, 12:14 AM

Hmm.... so Man of Steel is coming out December 2012?? So this will be the last thing everyone sees before the end of the world? :P

Rikirk

01-31-2011, 12:20 AM

You mean you guys never heard the theory that Superman is akin to jesus.?

Or was that John Lennon?...

*OBLIGATORY DISCLAMER---I in no way meant any offense with my last post to anyone, be they active supermen or guys named jesus.

god I hate this PC world.

GK Punk

01-31-2011, 01:10 AM

John Lennon, Jesus, I've heard it both ways.

Candy Kappa

01-31-2011, 06:12 AM

holy crap! that image looks awesome!

cqb101

01-31-2011, 01:59 PM

This is the first bit of news about this film that gives me any desire to see it.

ToTheNines

02-01-2011, 08:15 AM

So has anyone seen the mass amount of bitching elsewhere on the internet about this guy being British as opposed to American?

Crazy stuff.

Raph's Girl

02-01-2011, 03:15 PM

So has anyone seen the mass amount of bitching elsewhere on the internet about this guy being British as opposed to American?

Crazy stuff.

Yeah. It's stupid. Nobody's complained over Andrew Garfield or Christian Bale. I mean so what. The top 3 heroes are now played by Brits (well Christian Bale is Welsh but still). Big woop. American heroes are played by brits and British characters (Uh helloo people...Sherlock Holmes..) are played by Americans. It's called ACTING. :P Sides Henry Cavill doesn't have a noticable accent in the first place. At least he didn't in The Tudors.

Barkworm

02-02-2011, 07:56 AM

The top 3 heroes are now played by Brits (well Christian Bale is Welsh but still).
Your posts are an infinite source of hilarity.

Fugitoid Jones

02-03-2011, 01:49 PM

Isn't the guy a bit small to play Superman?

Check out the screentests Christopher Reeves did for the original Superman. The dude was way scrawny. Plus, Christian Bale played an anorexic dude in The Machinist before he did Batman Begins, and he got huge for that. So I have faith that the dude will get to the right size for Supes.

And if anything happens in the world of Hollywood news, you can be sure that Raph's Girl will be there to report it! :trazz: I <3 Raph's Girl

ToTheNines

02-14-2011, 03:41 PM

Rumor has it that Zod and Ursa will be the baddies, but Snyder's denying it.

This would be... not so good. I actually really like Superman II so I feel no need to see them on the big screen considering we still haven't seen a good Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Brainiac, Parasite or Metallo yet.

Krutch

02-28-2011, 08:42 AM

Nooooo Zod please. Zod is my least favorite villain of his entire rogue gallery(and thats saying alot). Its always the same plot with him, trying to turn Earth into New Krypton. On top of that, time for some fresh villains we havent seen.

Personally I wouldnt mind seeing the first movie being Braniac and Lex, the second being Doomsday(where he dies) and the third being... iuno.. I guess Bizarro would work. Having everyone think that Superman is dead just for this new more ruthless Superman show up might be an interesting plot. I think they'd have to exchange his stupidity for menacing for it to translate well on film but it could work.

But Lex should be in each film, even if its just a background presence. He's too much a part of who Superman is. Its not the same when comparing Joker to Batman. I was going somewhere with this but its 9:42am and I think i should get some sleep lol.

Raph's Girl

03-03-2011, 03:15 PM

Diane Lane has been cast as Martha Kent (Lane...haha er uh). Rumours are still going about that Kevin Costner will be Jonathan.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b229108_which_oscar_nominees_joining_superman.html

Raph's Girl

03-17-2011, 09:21 PM

Aaaand it's official. Kevin Costner is now Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Kevin-Costner-Superman-1030858.aspx

oldmanwinters

03-17-2011, 09:30 PM

Aaaand it's official. Kevin Costner is now Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Kevin-Costner-Superman-1030858.aspx

Well... at least he has a history with midwest cornfields.

Raph's Girl

03-17-2011, 09:34 PM

Well... at least he has a history with midwest cornfields.

Clark: "Yeah and when I was a kid my pa built a baseball field on our farm cuz he kept on hearing voices...."
Lois: "......"

oldmanwinters

03-17-2011, 09:51 PM

Clark: "Yeah and when I was a kid my pa built a baseball field on our farm cuz he kept on hearing voices...."
Lois: "......"

Clark: "And then they found me in a spaceship wrapped in a red cape!"
Lois: "Remind me again... it's kryptonite that kills Superman, right?"

Raph's Girl

03-27-2011, 03:12 PM

And Superman now has his Lois Lane! Oddly in a former Smallville freak of the week!

Amy Adams, who many of us saw in the first season of Smallville in the 7th ep as a meteor freak who was kinda vampire-ish, has been cast as Lois Lane! Now I liked Amy in Enchanted, Julie and Julia, and Charlie Wilson's War. Only problem I have with this casting is she's a red head. Will she still be a red head or will she have to change her hair colour? Either way the next film we'll see her in is The Muppets.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/03/27/amy-adams-will-be-lois-lane/

oldmanwinters

03-27-2011, 03:44 PM

Amy Adams?!?

It's funny, after seeing National Treasure 2, I thought she'd be perfect for a live-action April O'Neil. And now she's been cast as the original danger-prone reporter. lol

gobo

03-27-2011, 05:36 PM

And Superman now has his Lois Lane! Oddly in a former Smallville freak of the week!

Amy Adams
F*** yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thyper::thyper::thyper:

Raph's Girl

04-10-2011, 04:59 PM

Michael Shannon, who is currently in Boardwalk Empire as Prohibition agent Alden, has been cast as Zod. Uh... "Kneel before no more alcahol!! Now I must whip myself after staring all stalkerish at pictures of Lois!" :P

http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/1104/10/index.htm

cqb101

04-10-2011, 05:07 PM

Awesome. Michael Shannon is one of the best actors working today. This is the first bit of news from the film that makes me think i may end up giving it a rental afterall.

gobo

04-10-2011, 05:18 PM

Ooh, yay! Another Zod movie! -_-

ToTheNines

04-10-2011, 05:31 PM

:( Where's Brainiac? Or Parasite? Or Metallo?

The Stryker

04-10-2011, 06:14 PM

Ooh, yay! Another Zod movie! -_-

Yeah.....two.

What a high number. Two.

I'll take anything that isn't Luthor.

ToTheNines

04-10-2011, 07:02 PM

Yeah.....two.

What a high number. Two.

Relative to the zero movies that other (cooler) Superman villains have, two is a very high number.

GK Punk

04-10-2011, 07:05 PM

Zod is the go too villain these days. Between Smallville and the Comics, I'm rather sick of him. I'll still check this movie out though, that's not enough to ruin it for me. Was just hoping for someone like Parasite.

gobo

04-10-2011, 09:31 PM

[This message is hidden because Stryker is on your ignore list.]

Give it up; get a freaking life; get on with it! I have no interest in anything about you and I will keep sending you the above messages to you and the other 0 I have blocked. Perhaps it'll take you a while to realize I have no interest in you or your trash talk. Good day.

Krutch

04-11-2011, 12:34 AM

Zod is my least favorite villain. This is horrible, horrible news :(

ToTheNines

04-11-2011, 11:53 AM

Also, this makes me hate Zack Snyder even more. Remeber how adamant he was in swearing that Zod wasn't going to be in the movie? Saying "the internet knows nothing"?

Douche.

Revan

04-11-2011, 12:10 PM

Just make an exciting movie. Superman should be busting skulls! He has almost unmeasurable strength and yet he didn't throw a single punch in Returns. Boring. At least with Zod we might get to see the man of steel actually fight someone.

Krutch

04-12-2011, 02:35 AM

Superman should be busting skulls!

I think you've confused Superman with Casey Jones :P

Superman Returns was by no means a perfect movie(in many ways its pretty damn flawed) but I applaud it for staying true to the character. Yeah he didnt throw a single punch but we used all his powers and saved tons of people. It wasnt a popcorn flick, and I really dont think it was trying to be. But I digress...

I also dont hate Snyder. He has very strong visuals and... well, thats about it. His main problem is he doesnt know how to draw the best out of his performers. Alot of the times I watch a scene and go "that was the best take?". I think hes one of those directors who are just excited to film the next action scene. I have my expectations very very low for this film so I'm sure I'll enjoy it for what it is. I'm just pissed they're using Zod. I ****in' hate Zod.

Jester

04-12-2011, 02:47 AM

ToTheNines

04-12-2011, 02:56 AM

Of all the big superheroes seems Superman has the weakest rogues gallery, but I could be very wrong...

I was trying to think of a villain besides Lex (or Zod) who could be in the flick and they all rang too "obscure" despite being major members of Sup's Rogues Gallery. My first and second thoughts were Metallo and Parasite, but how many (even more) casual (than me) Superman fans know who they are.

Heck, maybe they could do Bizarro. Or Brainic

First of all: Brainiac.

Secondly: Doesn't matter. A good villain is a good villain. Do you think that many people were familiar with Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow or Carmine Falcone before Batman Begins? I feel like Parasite and Metallo would do just fine.

And I wouldn't mind Bizzaro, I guess. Only problem is he can't really break out of the "pawn for Luthor" role if it's going to show his origin and all that jazz.

Jester

04-12-2011, 03:02 AM

Secondly: Doesn't matter. A good villain is a good villain. Do you think that many people were familiar with Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow or Carmine Falcone before Batman Begins? I feel like Parasite and Metallo would do just fine.
I was thinking about that as well. I was running through the Batman rogue's gallery in my head and thought, "Who had heard of Ra's Al Ghul when Nolan used him in Batman Begins?" So I guess they could use one of the other characters...anyone but Zod. He's been done. I mean, why not Brainiac? He was used in Smallville well enough.

Redeemer

04-12-2011, 06:17 PM

First of all: Brainiac.

Secondly: Doesn't matter. A good villain is a good villain. Do you think that many people were familiar with Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow or Carmine Falcone before Batman Begins? I feel like Parasite and Metallo would do just fine.

And I wouldn't mind Bizzaro, I guess. Only problem is he can't really break out of the "pawn for Luthor" role if it's going to show his origin and all that jazz.

All very good points. I knew who Rahz and scarecrow were jst bc of Batman TAS, but they weren't characters I really like, but there interepretations of them made me love them in the movies.

Turo602

04-12-2011, 07:29 PM

gobo

04-12-2011, 07:41 PM

Just as long as it ends with Darkseid.
A few thousand times better than Smallville's would be preferable though.

Turo602

04-12-2011, 07:44 PM

A few thousand times better than Smallville's would be preferable though.

LOL, yeah. I don't like that they keep dragging him out. They're focusing too much on wrapping things up and introducing new things from the DC universe along with things that make Superman well Superman that they have lost focus on Darkseid himself.

Raph's Girl

04-27-2011, 04:54 PM

Aaaand Zod's got his love interest! German actress Antje Traue has been reportadly cast as Faora.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118035968?refCatId=13

Andrew NDB

04-27-2011, 05:47 PM

I was trying to think of a villain besides Lex (or Zod) who could be in the flick

In the order I'd like to see them:

1) Darkseid and Apokolips
2) Mongul and Warworld
3) Brainiac
4) Doomsday
5) Conduit/Kenny Braverman (look him up)
6) Imperiex

I wouldn't even put Parasite or Metallo on the list. They're kind of crap villains.

Fugitoid Jones

05-04-2011, 04:58 PM

(Another pessimistic rant starts here-)
Retelling Superman's origins, using Zod as the villain, apparently Hollywood can only draw story inspirations from the previous movies. And do we need to see Superman's origins again? Who the hell doesn't know his story by now? I can understand a quick overview at the very beginning during the credits, but you know it will probably take the entire first half of the movie until we get to Metropolis and Superman doing Superman things.
I just want to see something new and original in a new Superman movie. Hell, at this point, I'd even take Mr. Mxyzptlk, at least we haven't seen him in a movie.
(-Another pessimistic rant ends here)

I will say that I am pleased with the casting of Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Ma and Pa Kent.

Raph's Girl

08-02-2011, 10:55 PM

Welp... Perry White has been cast...um... he's er uh... played by Laurence Fishburne.... *blinks*

http://collider.com/laurence-fishburne-superman-man-of-steel/107255/

The Stryker

08-02-2011, 11:11 PM

WHAT?!

Perry Black?! This is just the worst thing to ever happen to me.

Voltron

08-03-2011, 02:23 AM

I think Luthor is best to be the side villain of the movies, assuming there will be more. He could still be Superman's arch nemesis and the reason for some of the villains. I would also like Braniac, Bizzaro, Metallo, and maybe Parasite to be in the movies. Just as long as it ends with Darkseid.

That'd be so bad ass.

I feel that Superman is one of, if not the hardest character to write for. To make someone comparable to God relatable is really difficult.

ToTheNines

08-03-2011, 10:48 PM

That really doesn't matter. It's Perry White we're talking here... it's about a big of a deal as Commissioner Loeb being black in Nolan's Batmovies.

The Stryker

08-03-2011, 10:52 PM

Nope. Childhood ruined. I'm boycotting this movie.

cqb101

08-04-2011, 09:10 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v352/bebiriki/manofsteelsupermanbig.jpg

Turo602

08-04-2011, 09:26 AM

The costume looks awesome. He fills it out it out a hell of a lot better then Brandon Routh. And the boots, they got it right. Although, I can't tell if he has the red undies. It's not Superman without the red undies. And they also got rid of his signature curl. Either way I can't wait to see how this movie turns out now.

Slap-Happy

08-04-2011, 03:20 PM

Looks great. I only hope that the actual movie isn't as desaturated as this picture.

And hell no to the red undies. It works for Reeve and the comics, but not for a film that's supposed to be the most modern and realistic depiction of Superman.

Venom

08-04-2011, 03:36 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v352/bebiriki/manofsteelsupermanbig.jpg

Wow, what a classic feel!

That's the first time in a couple of decades that a picture of a cinematic Superman has caught my attention.

Also, IIRC New Superman doesn't have the red trunks.

ToTheNines

08-04-2011, 04:08 PM

Sorry to nitpick, but for some reason I don't like the hair. Everything else looks fine though.

Andrew NDB

08-04-2011, 04:20 PM

Looks great. And it's pretty hard for anyone to try and justify the trunks on the outside.

Jester

08-04-2011, 04:22 PM

That really doesn't matter. It's Perry White we're talking here... it's about a big of a deal as Commissioner Loeb being black in Nolan's Batmovies.
Or Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin?

azrael

08-04-2011, 05:06 PM

http://ffritts.blogspot.com/2011/08/man-of-steel.html

click to enlarge but I saturized the pic

You can see everything better with better color.

Peanut

08-04-2011, 05:07 PM

Nice way to bring in bogus hits to your blog.

azrael

08-04-2011, 05:15 PM

I try.... :D

cqb101

08-04-2011, 07:52 PM

I hate the texture on the suit. Also, whats up with what looks to be some sort of pads or armor on the thighs?

Spitfire

08-04-2011, 07:56 PM

I hate the texture on the suit. Also, whats up with what looks to be some sort of pads or armor on the thighs?

When it comes to hero costumes on the big screen spandex is always out and rubber is always in. I agree the texture makes him look like a reptile.

Leo656

08-04-2011, 11:21 PM

I seriously don't get the big deal with the trunks. He's always had them, it doesn't have to make sense. His suit was originally based on a circus performer's costume, it's kinda garish on purpose. Everything from the clashing primary colors to the cape to the trunks is designed to draw your eye immediately. Superman as a character is supposed to stand out; corny or not, outdated or not, the trunks help the look. The trunks are what makes the suit say "super-hero costume", rather than "I'm going swimming with dolphins". A lot of artists who have drawn the books say Superman's costume is their favorite to draw because it is elegant in its simplicity, and that the shorts work from a design standpoint because they break up all the empty blue space of the main suit.

I know, I care too much. I also fear change, but we all knew that already.

Any case, LOVE the picture the more I look at it; only one small nitpicky problem. Looks like they changed the upper corner of the S shield. It's barely noticeable, but I'm very particular about how it's drawn. One of the few things that bugged me about Returns was the way they did the shield and was hoping they'd fix it for this one. Could be the angle of the shot, though.

I know, nitpicky bastard. 9.5 outta 10, though.

Turo602

08-05-2011, 10:32 AM

http://ffritts.blogspot.com/2011/08/man-of-steel.html

click to enlarge but I saturized the pic

You can see everything better with better color.

Nice. It looks very good.

I seriously don't get the big deal with the trunks. He's always had them, it doesn't have to make sense. His suit was originally based on a circus performer's costume, it's kinda garish on purpose. Everything from the clashing primary colors to the cape to the trunks is designed to draw your eye immediately. Superman as a character is supposed to stand out; corny or not, outdated or not, the trunks help the look. The trunks are what makes the suit say "super-hero costume", rather than "I'm going swimming with dolphins". A lot of artists who have drawn the books say Superman's costume is their favorite to draw because it is elegant in its simplicity, and that the shorts work from a design standpoint because they break up all the empty blue space of the main suit.

I know, I care too much. I also fear change, but we all knew that already.

Any case, LOVE the picture the more I look at it; only one small nitpicky problem. Looks like they changed the upper corner of the S shield. It's barely noticeable, but I'm very particular about how it's drawn. One of the few things that bugged me about Returns was the way they did the shield and was hoping they'd fix it for this one. Could be the angle of the shot, though.

I know, nitpicky bastard. 9.5 outta 10, though.

^This. Superman's costume and overall look is too iconic. I don't like that they're messing with that in the reboot and possibly in this movie. Although, from what we can see of the costume so far, I love it.

Raph's Girl

08-05-2011, 03:31 PM

I seriously don't get the big deal with the trunks. He's always had them, it doesn't have to make sense.

The reason for the costume change is because DC loses the rights to the original and several other things in 2013 to the heirs.

Which is why in the comics he has no tights, he can't really fly, and the Kents are both dead.

Leo656

08-05-2011, 11:39 PM

No no, believe me I know more than I ever wanted to know about the lousy new Superman relaunch. I was commenting on how I'll never understand why his trunks just bother people so much. Some people have been wanting them gone for ages, so I'm not shocked they finally have an excuse.

I'm going to boldly predict that not having trunks isn't going to suddenly turn the franchise around.

Revan

08-06-2011, 07:06 AM

^ I think it's because they remind people of underwear or a speedo and it looks stupid

gobo

08-06-2011, 07:26 AM

I always assumed it was just a point people liked to joke about rather than it being an actual problem. I've never seen anyone get all butt-hurt over Supes puttin' his stockings on before the undies. I assume that'd be because it isn't really a big deal.

Ninjinister

08-06-2011, 08:44 AM

Was it ever actually pointed out to be trunks? I thought it was just a different color on the spandex or whatever.

Turo602

08-06-2011, 12:46 PM

Was it ever actually pointed out to be trunks? I thought it was just a different color on the spandex or whatever.

lol, I thought the same thing. I think people just started to call them trunks so it kinda stuck.

Leo656

08-07-2011, 02:04 AM

Well, there's belt loops all the way 'round, so it kind of suggests being a separate layer, but then again a lot of pro wrestlers have gear that look like tights/trunks/belt nowadays and it's just one piece, so maybe it's an illusion with Superman.

Actually though, he carries his spare cash in his belt buckle (Obscure Superman Fact #190), so the belt itself is probably real at least. Trunks still could be just a color patch and not a separate article of clothing, but that sure would make the belt even more out of place.

This is why it's not healthy to think about stuff like this for too long.

KROW

08-07-2011, 11:06 PM

At least there aren't any nipples.

Slap-Happy

08-08-2011, 01:18 AM

Actually though, he carries his spare cash in his belt buckle (Obscure Superman Fact #190), so the belt itself is probably real at least. Trunks still could be just a color patch and not a separate article of clothing, but that sure would make the belt even more out of place.

You'd think that after all he's done for Metropolis, he'd never have to carry cash ever again (at least as Superman).

Leo656

08-08-2011, 02:05 AM

I'unno, he does do a lot for everyone but A) sometimes a guy just has to have a cup of coffee or a hot dog, and Superman of course supports small local merchants, always has, and B) I promise you he spends a fortune paying off the people whose cars/stores/shopping malls/garden parties are wrecked by his weekly super-villain fistfights all over Metropolis.

Like in Superman Returns he spends all that energy saving Metropolis, then decides to just casually flatten a few cars with the Daily Planet globe. You couldn't have just, I'unno, flown up and put it back, you prick? :lol:

Raph's Girl

08-31-2011, 01:35 AM

Jester

08-31-2011, 01:46 AM

So, crap... Good to know. :(

Slap-Happy

08-31-2011, 11:38 AM

So. If you ever wanted to know what the DCNu Superman costume would look like in live action.... *sighs* Take a look at these shots from the set of Man of Steel:

http://www.kryptonsite.com/manofsteelnews/1178/close-up-shots-of-henry-cavill-in-the-superman-costume
Oh, come on. It doesn't look anything like the DCNU costume besides the fact that both don't have the underwear, and both are red and blue.

I think it looks great. Very alien like. Only problem I have is the coloring. There should be more saturation in there. You can barely tell that his belt is supposed to be a yellowish color.

Turo602

08-31-2011, 12:17 PM

I hate when they add stupid designs to the costumes. First Spider-Man now this? That first Superman pic was very decieving. Superman never needed a change in costume to begin with. It's too iconic.

Zachatello00

08-31-2011, 02:05 PM

Superman, Superman, does whatever a Super can, can he swing, from a web...

Raph's Girl

08-31-2011, 02:48 PM

Superman never needed a change in costume to begin with. It's too iconic.

Well we're losing the original costume design to the heirs in 2013 so we get a new costume in both the comics and the movie (which arrives to theatres in 2013).

Revan

08-31-2011, 02:56 PM

I think the costume looks fine. It's really not any less practical than the original costume. When you really think about them both, they seem silly. Blue spandex with a big red cape?! K...

That being said, I do think superman should stay with the blue costume and red cape. I'm just saying...

I do agree that the original costume was iconic, but it might be time for a change. The last 3 superman movies were mediocre and best. Time for a change, IMO. I'm more interested in the script and direction than the costumes anyway. Just make a good superman movie

Candy Kappa

08-31-2011, 03:37 PM

Not overly impressed with the costume in that picture

ToTheNines

08-31-2011, 09:03 PM

Complete with cape and Kryptonian chode.

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/images/2011/8/henry-cavill-skin-tight-superman-man-of-steel-hollywoodgrindcom.jpg

Jester

08-31-2011, 09:08 PM

I do agree that the original costume was iconic, but it might be time for a change. The last 3 superman movies were mediocre and best. Time for a change, IMO. I'm more interested in the script and direction than the costumes anyway. Just make a good superman movie
Because the reason the last 3 movies were bad was the costume? :P

KROW

09-01-2011, 03:28 AM

Complete with cape and Kryptonian chode.

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/images/2011/8/henry-cavill-skin-tight-superman-man-of-steel-hollywoodgrindcom.jpg

That hair just screams, "Rimmer" to me.

Revan

09-01-2011, 07:51 AM

Because the reason the last 3 movies were bad was the costume? :P

The costume was good. The movies weren't so much.

Similar to this.
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb94/kalaneutrino/teenagemutantninjaturtles-tmnt-psptheme.jpg

I thought the designs were good but the movie wasn't very successful. And not surprising, they are not using these designs again.

Jester

09-01-2011, 08:01 AM

True, but there are a lot of design similarities between that and the Returns costume...a whole lot more differences, but whatever. :P

I guess I'm just of the "INSERT SUPERHERO HERE's costume is iconic. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." mindset. I know the big thing with Clark is copyright now...which in itself is kinda dumb. Is the estate of Shuster and Siegel planing on releasing a competing comic book called Shuster and Siegel's Superman. Heck, how long before the Superman copyright is split between them. "Jerry created the look. Joe, the backstory...time to separate them to the respective parties."

Leo656

09-01-2011, 11:33 PM

Superman Returns was good. It wasn't perfect but there wasn't much "wrong" with it either. Definitely not "bad".

This thing though... ehhh, I'm suddenly not as optimistic as I was. I always get what they try to do but damn it, I just wanted to see "the" Superman costume finally done right in a movie and now I never will, ever, and it bugs me. There were little things I didn't like about each of the suits, even Reeve's, but I was hoping the new one would finally nail it. Wasn't counting on a redesign. Bah.

They'll get my money either way, and I'm sure I'll end up liking the movie but damn, I just hate when people change things that I was perfectly happy with in the first place.

Fugitoid Jones

09-02-2011, 01:52 AM

Leo656, what was wrong with Reeve's costume? I thought that one was perfect.

And now I'm here to tell you all that the suit could be worse, oh so much worse...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6xoH967aC00/TPpLC_MNqdI/AAAAAAAAbiQ/70F9JteVPa0/s1600/reign045-3.png

Leo656

09-02-2011, 02:04 AM

It was 99.9% on, I love the Reeve one best. It was just very minor things, like the cape was too small and the colors were a tiny bit off. The blue and red tones of Dean Cain's Superman costume, along with the longer cape, would have been a perfect fit with the overall look of Reeve's suit. That's the suit I've always wanted to see in a movie and it sucks that I'll never get to, but the Reeve suit was as good as it's ever gonna get. Makes me sad in a way, but eh.

And yeah I've seen that pic, that's horrible.

Raph's Girl

10-04-2011, 06:58 PM

oldmanwinters

10-04-2011, 07:07 PM

And here we have our first look at Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Jor El's looking a little pudgy there. :P

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/04/article-0-0E381B2D00000578-694_468x770.jpg

Eh, Brando had a much better sense of Kryptonian style! 8)

Slap-Happy

10-04-2011, 07:31 PM

And here we have our first look at Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Jor El's looking a little pudgy there. :P

http://www.kryptonsite.com/manofsteelnews/1189/man-of-steel-first-look-russell-crowe-as-jor-el/

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/04/article-0-0E381B2D00000578-694_468x770.jpg

I think it looks great, except for those shoulder pads.

ToTheNines

10-04-2011, 08:58 PM

I like the design, but Crowe just looks awkward lol

Shreddhead

10-04-2011, 09:03 PM

Godzilla

10-09-2011, 02:31 AM

And here we have our first look at Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Jor El's looking a little pudgy there. :P

http://www.kryptonsite.com/manofsteelnews/1189/man-of-steel-first-look-russell-crowe-as-jor-el/

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/04/article-0-0E381B2D00000578-694_468x770.jpg

Production photos can be unflattering. I'm sure it will look much better in the film. Crowe as Jor-El should be pretty cool. :)

KROW

10-18-2011, 09:13 AM

And here we have our first look at Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Jor El's looking a little pudgy there. :P

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/04/article-0-0E381B2D00000578-694_468x770.jpg

Not as pudgy as Brando was.

Russell Crowe, eh? I don't know why, but something about this picture made me giggle.

TurtleTitan97

03-30-2012, 05:09 PM

New poster art for the film:

http://moresay.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/poster-art-for-man-of-steel-movie-june-2013.jpg

Slap-Happy

07-21-2012, 07:15 PM

Teaser
zpvOT6HJCmg

Jor-El Version
Zld8i2mRxb0

oldmanwinters

07-21-2012, 07:26 PM

Saw the trailer at Dark Knight Rises [Kevin Costner one, I think]

I went "meh."

As a Popeye trailer it would have had me excited though. But as a Superman primer? *meh*

But I'm still supportive of DC's live-action film efforts. Lord knows somebody has to be optimistic... :roll:

TurtleTitan97

07-21-2012, 07:54 PM

I'm really excited for this film. I loved the shot of Superman flying upward and creating a sonic boom in the teaser trailer. :)

Raphael86

07-21-2012, 08:00 PM

I hope and pray that this movie is good. Superman deserves another quality movie. I love the trailer. I'm enjoying the notion that he is struggling with his decision to become Superman, as opposed to just diving in and doing it like in Superman: the Movie. He's having to do some soul searching.

Mr.Turtle

07-22-2012, 12:51 AM

Man of Steel... i chuckled at that title...

Zulithe

07-22-2012, 02:14 AM

So here is the thing.

In both this trailer and the SDCC 2012 trailer, a little boy in a cape is featured. We are lead to believe this is Clark.

What I want to know is why would Clark be wrapping a makeshift towel/blanket around him as a cape? If you think about it, kids didn't wear capes for play until AFTER Superman, right? He's the one who ushered in that entire era of cape popularity! And Clark is not shown all the stuff from his ship until long past his boyhood years.

Did they change this or is it just an oversight?

ZariusTwo

07-22-2012, 05:25 AM

As a Popeye trailer it would have had me excited though:

I love this wise and powerful man.

Mr.Turtle

07-22-2012, 12:07 PM

i wonder wut's the rating of this movie?

Leo656

07-23-2012, 01:52 AM

The original teaser for Superman: The Movie in the 70s had ZERO film footage and placeholder music, it was just an aerial shot of actor's names followed by the S shield.

I know we're used to getting a lot more these days, to the point where we're a little spoiled, but a "teaser" isn't supposed to give you very much more information than "Oh, this movie is coming out". It's fine. Not surprised they don't focus much on the suit, they're gonna have a tough time selling that thing.

Green Machine

07-24-2012, 09:06 AM

Sorry if this has been posted already. But have you guys seen the trailer they showed at Comic Con? Someone recorded it on a phone and uploaded it to Youtube. It looks awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO9LsNnixCc

discordiatookie

07-24-2012, 12:48 PM

Candy Kappa

07-24-2012, 06:33 PM

ToTheNines

12-11-2012, 12:09 PM

TUTGhNgP1ks

:D

TMNT_Guy

12-11-2012, 01:27 PM

"You have to keep this side of yourself secret"
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?
"...maybe."
What the hell?

Zulithe

12-11-2012, 02:10 PM

New trailer is pitch perfect. I'm more excited for this than i was for The Dark Knight Rises.

The Stryker

12-11-2012, 02:23 PM

Cautiously optimistic. It looks good so far but I really hated Dark Knight Rises. So that cloud is still there.

ZariusTwo

12-11-2012, 03:22 PM

Candy Kappa

12-11-2012, 04:03 PM

DKR is awesome because it pisses off self-entitled Bat-purists who fear change and reinterpretation.

Sure, that was the reason the movie was a big "meh"

Which in my opinion is a bigger crime then being a terrible movie.

The Stryker

12-11-2012, 04:28 PM

DKR is awesome because it pisses off self-entitled Bat-purists who fear change and reinterpretation. Just as MOS is gonna be awesome because it'll probably piss off self-entitled Superpurists who fear change and reinterpretation.

I couldn't care less about the changes. It's a Batman property, changes are part of the fun.

I just didn't like that it was an inconsistent mess of a movie.

Redeemer

12-11-2012, 07:44 PM

Is it me or does Super-man still look like a shrimp??
The movie looks pretty good overall, hopefully it will deliver!

Raven

12-11-2012, 09:04 PM

What the hell?

I have a feeling were only catching a small bit of the dialogue, I could easily see this scene turning into one of those great Pa Kent inspiration moments. I don't think it will play out the way its coming across.

Brodie

12-11-2012, 09:11 PM

The new trailer is pretty good. I spent a bit of time talking to Stryker about this. We're both big Superman fans, and I know I'm cautiously optimistic. It looks great, and the dude looks like the closest interpretation of Supes that's hit celluloid.

It looks like Superman is actually doing stuff--Striking, I know, considering the last movie just had him hanging out on a boat.

I'm excited to see how the Boardwalk Empire guy comes off as Zod, for sure. He's been a great foil for Steve Buscemi's shady character, I'm wondering how he'll do as the foe to someone actually heroic, etc.

The "Maybe.." makes sense, to me. It seems like something a protective father would think. But like people have mentioned, its probably just a partial thought.

TheCanadiandrome

12-12-2012, 01:09 AM

New trailer looks good, I can't wait to see this movie

Candy Kappa

12-13-2012, 04:01 AM

Is it me or does Super-man still look like a shrimp??

Supes don't really need to look buff to be a super strong guy. He can bench press 5.972 sextillion metric tons, at that point, I don't think he need to look like Schwarzenegger or even a 40's construction worker.

Garfield

12-13-2012, 02:29 PM

can't wait until this comes out.

Lampy

12-14-2012, 11:38 AM

saw the trailer and it got me psyched for this movie even more. greatest part about the trailer... it barely gave anything away. all the more mystery the better once we get to the seats. june 2013 needs to come sooner.

Threat

01-05-2013, 07:33 AM

Here's my remix: "Man of Iron" :)

3CSGFtGRyzk

STORMSHADOW__210

04-11-2013, 01:17 PM

Entertainment Weekly recently had the chance to sit down with the cast and crew of upcoming summer blockbuster Superman: Man Of Steel. During the interview,director Zack Snyder chimed in when asked if Kryptonite would play a role in the film...

"The emotional weakness that Cavill brings up is also a point that director Zack Snyder mentioned about the film, in response to "Will we see Kryptonite in the movie?"

"I'll be honest with you," said the director. "There's no Kryptonite in the movie. It's all emotional Kryptonite."

Check out the full story below!

Source: SuperHeroHype.com (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/176121-cast-and-crew-talk-man-of-steel)

Last night, a whole slew of new photos for Man of Steel were revealed by Entertainment Weekly. The upcoming Superman reboot is the cover story for their latest issue and they spoke to the cast and crew about the film in their extensive article.

"Imagine what it would be like to be someone like Clark Kent/Kal-El," said star Henry Cavill, "and feel like a stranger amongst even those that you love, never developing full relationships with people for fear of them discovering how much of a freak you are. Even you don't understand exactly what you are. It's just a lonely existence. With someone who has that much power and responsibility. Although he is not susceptible to the frailties of mankind, he is definitely susceptible to the emotional frailties."

The emotional weakness that Cavill brings up is also a point that director Zack Snyder mentioned about the film, in response to "Will we see Kryptonite in the movie?"

"I'll be honest with you," said the director. "There's no Kryptonite in the movie. It's all emotional Kryptonite."

While it sounds like there will be plenty of 'emotional Kryptonite' in the film, the new photos make the film's antagonists (Michael Shannon's General Zod and Antje Traue's Faora) out to be a great physical match for Superman as well.

"He actually has some affection for anybody who's a Kryptonian," Shannon said of his character. "Including Superman. He doesn't really have any malignant feelings toward him; he just wants him to be patriotic."

Antje Traue's character on the other hand will be a little less subtle. "Faora is a psychopath. She is an engineered being, and driven by the need and pleasure of killing."

This does seem to fit the new interpretation the filmmakers have created for the character's mythology, as David Goyer says most babies on Krypton aren't born, they're engineered.

"People were bred to be warriors or scientists or what-have-you, and there's a whole element in the movie about nature versus nurture. Kal-El is unique among Kryptonian babies because he's a natural conception, free from genetic manipulation to choose his own course in life --- which also makes his existence highly illegal."

One thing that many fans can't stop wondering about is if this film will lead into the long rumored Justice League movie, and the film's producer seems to indicate it will pave the road for future films.

"It's setting the tone for what the movies are going to be like going forward," said producer Chris Roven. "In that, Man of Steel is definitely a first step. Nolan's Dark Knight series was deliberately and smartly positioned as a stand-alone. The world the films lived in was very isolated, without any knowledge of other superheroes. What Zack and Chris have done with this film is allow you to really introduce other characters into the same world."

Not an outright indication one way or the other, but screenwriter David Goyer was more open to teasing if we'll see any references to other DC characters in the film.

"I would love to tell you yes or no, but I think it's going to be more exciting for people to keep a beady eye out and find what they can find."

In the action adventure, starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Christopher Meloni, Russell Crowe, Michael Kelly, Harry Lennix and Richard Schiff, a young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man, he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind. Man of Steel opens in 2D, 3D, and IMAX theaters June 14.

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm428/Taurus_070/Man-of-Steel_zpsf268051c.jpg

ObiWanFan4life

04-11-2013, 01:25 PM

The movie now has a run time of 148 Minutes

Slade

04-11-2013, 02:02 PM

Didn't know this thread was here. So anyway, I was super stoked when I first heard about this movie. Then I saw the suit and hated it. I wasn't as excited anymore. It's grown a good bit on me recently and as of late I can't wait till June. I'll prolly catch hell for this, but I've been waiting for a great Superman movie for a good while, I don't like the others all that much. I think Reeves was a crappy Supeman. :tcouch: and I don't even consider Returns.

So here's hoping Sndyer and Cavil knock this out the park!

ObiWanFan4life

04-11-2013, 02:13 PM

OK, i know people are going to get PISSED when i say this but....i liked Superman Returns :tcouch:

TheCanadiandrome

04-11-2013, 05:12 PM

OK, i know people are going to get PISSED when i say this but....i liked Superman Returns :tcouch:

i....kinda did also...... *looks away* :tcouch::fshifty:

Leo656

04-14-2013, 03:26 AM

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Superman Returns, it's just become hip to hate on it in recent years. It made tons of money and was one of the highest-selling DVDs of that year. It wasn't perfect, but just like the Star Wars prequels it was another movie that everyone loved until they all just decided they didn't. It didn't make quite *enough* money, as it cost a fortune, but at the time it was considered a big success, even if that was just for a few months.

Some of it kinda dragged in the middle, and I know everyone loves to hate on the subplot with the kid, but at least Singer tried something new that hadn't really been attempted in the Superman franchise before. If the planned sequels had gone through, we could have seen some truly unique stories in the Superman universe, and I'm kinda annoyed we'll never get to see them. Plus I loved everyone's acting in the movie itself, although Routh's Superman barely got to speak outside of the deleted scenes. I know the film was long as it was, but some of the stuff they cut should have stayed in. Routh gets flak for a weak performance but I don't agree at all, and much prefer his Clark Kent over Chris Reeve's overly-bumbling interpretation.

I'm excited for the new film. I don't love the suit, but I get what they're going for. I'm an old-school purist, so I wish they'd kept the trunks and at least not changed the S shield (In WHAT way was it necessary to change the logo, exactly?!), but I'm hoping the actual plot will distract me from it. And I love how they have the cape look. The tone looks right. It should be great, I just hope enough people give it a chance, instead of being all "Whatever, it's Superman, I don't give a sh*t."

ryukenden

04-15-2013, 10:31 AM

Superman Returns not being its own thing and being shackled to the Reeve films was one of the biggest reasons it gets a lot of flak over.

Slade

04-15-2013, 01:50 PM

I think we're about to get off track, but I have to say I didn't like cus it's the cool thing to do. I really don't like it. I don't like the other films all that much either, but I do love Superman. The kid part of course I wasn't happy with. Also while different, Lex's plan felt to much like the first movie's.

Anyway, has anyone seen the you are not alone video on Facebook?

Zany Orange Dude

04-24-2013, 04:26 PM

I'm pretty excited about this film. I look forward to seeing what they will do with him.:tsmile:

Slade

05-02-2013, 11:15 PM

http://io9.com/the-man-of-steel-rumor-that-would-change-superman-for-t-487577190

What's everyone's thoughts in this?

Leo656

05-03-2013, 02:47 AM

Bad idea, but wouldn't shock me. They've been DYING to get that idea over on film for over 10 years, and it's snuck into pretty much every potential script since 2000 EXCEPT "Superman Returns". The basic idea being "Superman needs to be more like Star Wars", so the "dark second act" of a potential trilogy would theoretically involve Kal-El's return to Krypton, then trying (and failing) to prevent Krypton's destruction, thus giving the character the "dark" edge he supposedly needs to be relevant in modern times, or some such nonsense.

Didn't J.J. Abrams first pitch the idea in his godawful "Lex Luthor is an alien posing as an X-Files Agent" Superman script? In that script, replace "Zod" with "Luthor" and keep the entire scenario the same and you have "Man Of Steel". I had a feeling they'd fall back on the pile of aborted ideas for this new film. I'm sad to see I was likely right.

It won't be the *worst* idea ever in a Superman script, and I'm sure the movie will still be really good in most respects, but it shows the filmmakers are still going for spectacle while entirely missing the point of what makes Superman different. From now on (at least in the movies), Superman will protect Earth NOT because he has the power and moral obligation to do so, because it's the right thing for someone in his position to do, it will be because in MOS2 he will more or less have caused his home planet's destruction somehow (you KNOW that's where it will lead to, it almost has to), so instead of being a beacon of hope, he'll be just another morose "woe-is-me" super-hero with survivor's guilt, atoning for past sins and whatnot.

They don't get it. Ah well.

chrisdude

05-03-2013, 03:33 AM

http://io9.com/the-man-of-steel-rumor-that-would-change-superman-for-t-487577190

What's everyone's thoughts in this?When I saw it, I thought, "Nah, they wouldn't do this. That's as wild as alien turtles." But the more I think about it, the more it matches up with things from the trailers.

-Krypton apparently at war. Or, at least, Jor-El's location was under attack. Why? Isn't the world's destruction enough? Or was this conflict the real reason they sent Kal-El away?

-The mere fact that no footage shows Krypton exploding, which is defining origin stuff that you'd likely want to point out when introducing the character.

-Zod, on Krypton, saying something like, "You think your son is safe? ... I will find him!" Why would Zod know Kal-El was being hidden? Would this exchange be taking place if the people knew the planet was doomed? Maybe Kal-El is being sent away for another reason.

-The voiceover about a child aspiring to be something more than society intended. Who's society? Jor-El is speaking, not Jonathan Kent, so it must be Krypton's society that he's talking about. Why would Kal-El be a misfit in his society as an infant? It falls in line with talk on the web of Krypton being a class society, where people are designated to their roles.

-Superman saying, "On my world, it means hope." That may not be verbatim, but the red flag is present tense. He's shown in his Kryptonian ship or fortress saying "I have so many questions." So he probably has talked to a recording/being/robot, and would know if Krypton was doomed when he left.

-Superman's voiceover about how his 'father' was convinced that when the world found out who he really was, they would reject him, that they weren't ready. At first, it seems he's talking about 'Pa Kent,' but in this light, I wonder if he's actually referring to Jor-El.

-All the talk of Snyder coming up with some genius way of making Superman relevant again, leading us to believe whatever they're doing is different.

None of it is proof. But if the rumor turns out to be true, it's definitely enough for us to look back and say, "Well, the signs were all there." For the record, I'm saying yes. I think it's true.

ZariusTwo

05-03-2013, 04:28 AM

If the movie is sound, I don't think it matters...after all, everybody loves Batman 1989 despite the fact it revealed The Joker killed Bruce's parents.

Slade

05-03-2013, 08:29 AM

If the movie is sound, I don't think it matters...after all, everybody loves Batman 1989 despite the fact it revealed The Joker killed Bruce's parents.

Ahh yes, that's true, but his parents still died.

Now I'm not really wanting them to do this with Krypton. I'm justinh hoping this rumor is exactly that, a rumor. From all the trailers, I had figured all the Krypton parts would take place before Jor-El sends Kal to Earth. Then I just assumed the planet would explode after. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe it doesn't blow up, but whatever war is going on wipes the population out?

Edit: supposedly this isn't going to happen and Krypton will explode. It's in the MoS junior novel and children's book.

ZariusTwo

05-03-2013, 02:26 PM

Edit: supposedly this isn't going to happen and Krypton will explode. It's in the MoS junior novel and children's book.

Novelizations have lied before...Iron Man 3's has a drasticly different outcome for one.

Leo656

05-06-2013, 09:09 PM

I've seen evidence supporting either theory. I'm not sure they WILL do it, but they HAVE thought about it before and pushed hard for it; the only thing that stopped them in 2003 was every Superman fan saying "Of course Krypton blows up, that's how it goes, what are you, stupid?" So they tried a more "traditional" approach with Returns. Which believe it or not, was by far the most like the actual comic books out of ANY Superman film in history, which is part of why I liked it so much and get cranky when other people hate on it. Visually there was SO much taken directly from images in and on the covers of the comics, even the homage to Action Comics #1 (a bit too "on the nose", but I gave 'em credit for trying), and Bibbo's "Ace O' Clubs" tavern (Jack Larson playing Bibbo was just gold). They didn't screw with the origin, the suit was about 95% perfect, they didn't give him all kinds of screwy new powers like the "classic" films everyone loves, all they did was tell a new story, "What if Superman had a kid with Lois and then took a hike because he didn't know about it?" That's not some kind of mortal sin, it was just a new story. Turns out fans didn't want to be told that story, but that doesn't change the fact that for all the flaws, "Returns" is still the closest film to the actual source material. I'm betting once MoS is out, that will still be true, even if they still blow up Krypton.

I'd argue not blowing Krypton up would be a bigger change than the Joker killing Bruce's parents in Batman '89. It was a bit too "everything comes full circle", but it worked for the story Burton was trying to tell with the film, which was emphasizing how Batman and Joker can be two sides of the same coin, in a sense, so the symmetry worked for that particular story. I prefer the classic "Joe Chill" version of the origin, but it would have cluttered up Burton's film which was already juggling quite a bit of stuff. Not destroying Krypton until later on (and possibly having Kal-El play a hand in it somehow) would change his entire motivation and character.

I've seen a lot of evidence that it may just be a planted rumor, but I wish they wouldn't screw with people like that. I know Hollywood thinks people want to be "surprised", especially with these kinda movies, but the truth is that people (especially comic fans) tend to like what they like and not particularly want to be surprised. Most people would rather be flat-out given something they want rather than "surprised" with something they may not have asked for or wanted.

I'm still betting it will be a really great movie overall, though.

chrisdude

05-06-2013, 09:19 PM

So you're saying Superman Returns was more like the comics than Superman: The Movie? I mean, the Superman movies did some goofy stuff, but it was all post-Donner, 2 and later. I didn't read the old comics, I've just never heard anyone point to something the first movie being done poorly or changed too much.

Leo656

05-06-2013, 10:29 PM

Well, it's an interesting point to discuss and debate over, because "Superman: The Movie" was the NEXT closest one to the actual comics, and in truth a case could be made either way, but I would still argue that "Returns" came a little bit closer. Some of the ways are minor, but as an obsessive reader of Superman comics from every era, I love to nitpick the holy hell out of this stuff.

I wish the original film had a better balance of action and heart versus comedy. Some parts were terrific - pretty much everything Superman said to any of the bad guys he caught on his first night out in Metropolis, for example - and some of the comedy bits just slowed the film down and/or made no sense in context. A lot of the Luthor/Otis bits, while humorous, could have been toned way down or made shorter. I liked Hackman's portrayal of Luthor very much for what it was, but that's just it: It was his own version of Luthor, which bore little to no resemblance to Lex either in modern times or the contemporary 1979 version. Spacey's Lex was mostly a riff on Hackman, since "Returns" was an homage, but it still walked the line a little closer to Lex from the books, particularly his more cold, calculating demeanor.

As far as comedic bits that I didn't care for, I never liked the part where the little girl's mom hits her for trying to tell her about Superman, I just think it was too "WTF?" and drags what should be a cute scene down, like they weren't sure how to end that scene. It suddenly skewed dark for no reason. And the very first person to see Superman being a pimp... eh. It's like "Let's interrupt an iconic scene to reinforce racial stereotypes!" In the script it was originally much worse, as Telly Savalas would have been on hand to ask Superman "Who loves ya baby?", lollipop in hand, so we're lucky they toned it down to the point they did. But still, the original movie's humor is a little dated and hit-or-miss, which went on to be a consistent problem throughout the four.

I also hated how his powers were misrepresented in the old films. Granted, it wasn't a huge deal until Part II and onward, where he could suddenly teleport, levitate, rebuild things with his eyes, but the "spin-the-Earth-backwards" stuff by itself is maybe more ridiculous than all that stuff combined. The very climax of the movie revolves around Superman using a super-power he doesn't have, to do something he would never do, in a situation that raises more questions than it answers and makes you go "Ok... so, I guess that just happened." I love Superman: The Movie, but I've NEVER liked the ending at all. I'm well aware it wasn't the original ending, and was in fact supposed to be the ending for II, but it doesn't work there, either. It's just a bad idea, because not only can he not do that, he wouldn't. If Superman could go back in time and stop ANYone from dying, why not keep spinning until Krypton comes back, too? It's just an idea that shows they were out of ideas by that point.

To counter, some say it's beyond Superman's powers to bring a gigantic land mass laced with Kryptonite to the edge of orbit, as he did in "Returns", BUT there is historical precedent in the books where Superman has, several times, had short-term boosts to his powers and invulnerability after coming in close proximity to direct sunlight, and I would be a little surprised if the creators did not use the books as a reference when scripting that scene. It's an extreme example, but it makes sense, especially given that the effort ends up almost killing him regardless. I would argue that flying back in time would be more outlandish and take a lot more effort than juggling a giant rock, Kryptonite or no.

One thing both Returns and the original had in common was a subpar Lois. Kidder's version, like Hackman's Lex, was entirely her own creation bearing no resemblance to the comics at all. I didn't find her very likable. While we're at it, go ahead and toss the "Can You Read My Mind" scene as the worst thing in all 5 films, even worse than anything in the wretched part IV. That film was an entire train wreck, but Lois's awful, awful poetry in the middle of a touching scene of her and Superman flying was corny as hell and it's impossible to watch the movie with an audience and not have people laugh at how awful it is, and it's clearly not supposed to be funny. "Returns" gets heat for re-doing a lot of the same scenes from the original, but in many cases - and in this scene especially - they far surpassed the original by using it as a blueprint for what NOT to do. But Lois wasn't well represented in Returns, either, she was practically wallpaper and had none of the attitude Lois displays in the books. Teri Hatcher and Erica Durance both did Lois much better, because her character benefits greatly from long-term character development that you just can't do in movies.

Both Reeve and Routh were great as Superman, but Routh sadly wasn't given as much to say when he wasn't Clark. All Superman's best lines ended up in the deleted scenes. It's hard to give an edge to either actor as far as Superman, but I much prefer Routh's Clark over Reeve's bumbling interpretation. Reeve's Clark WAS extremely close to the comics... of the 1930s and 1940s, but by 1979 his Clark was already outdated and a bit too silly, as the character in print had long since become more assertive, much more like George Reeves's or Dean Cain's Clark Kent. I liked Routh's Clark, a little less bumbling and a little more shy and introverted. You got the feeling in the original film that rather than just being a guy people ignored, Clark was genuinely disliked by pretty much everyone he worked with except Jimmy. In "Returns", you could tell that people actually liked Clark, he just happened to be the type of guy who didn't do much to be noticed, but he wasn't a peon. I would argue that Routh's Clark was a little more accurate to the contemporary comics, but in truth, Dean Cain came the closest of all to how Clark Kent really acts when he's not Superman.

The one thing the original had going for it was a more accurate Superman costume. I never liked the colors in the Returns suit; if it had used the same colors as the original it would have been a perfect update, even if they had kept all the same flair they added to the belt, boots, etc.

I'd say based on characters, visuals, tone, and powers, "Superman Returns" is about 95% comics-accurate (They've even done many stories where he goes out into space for long periods of time before coming back), and "Superman: The Movie" is about 90% comics-accurate. It's a slim margin, but I swear Returns is closer to the books. Love 'em both, though, but there's parts of the original I really can't stand while nothing about Returns really bugs me that much.

If we really want to split hairs (and there's nothing wrong with that at all!), "The Adventures of Superboy" TV show was by far more comics-accurate than any live-action Superman project ever, even though it was fairly low-budget and focused on Superboy rather than Superman. But the guy playing him is clearly in his early-20s so I always zone out and pretend it's a Superman show. Worth checking out, if you haven't. Michael J. Pollard as a clearly-drunk Mr. Mxyzptlk is hiiiiilarious. :lol:

Interesting article which provides some compelling evidence that Krypton does in fact bite the big one in "Man Of Steel". I still say it could go either way, but at least people are discussing the movie.
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/man-of-steel-rumor/12124

redsai4lex

05-12-2013, 03:24 AM

Just... Wow!

Leo656

05-12-2013, 04:57 AM

ZariusTwo

05-12-2013, 05:24 AM

You know your super-s*it Leo. Devilish detail there.

And I would definitely recommend the Superboy series...some great silver age throwback storytelling in that at a time where the Byrne upgrades were just getting off the ground.

Leo656

05-12-2013, 05:38 AM

Even then, it did work in a fair bit of the then-new mythology. It was a great blend of classic and modern, and Gerard Christopher's terrific portrayal of the young Man Of Steel has been sadly overlooked JUST because he played "Superboy" rather than "Superman", despite the character being in college and the actor being in his 20s. It's an awesome show that deserves a full release on DVD, for sure. I mean, "Roads Not Taken", come ON, man! And Stacy Haiduk's Lana? Me. Ow. 8)

Yeah, it's an obsession. :) I learned to read from Superman comics and the passion's never waned. I have my preferences, but I'm just constantly immersed in the entire mythology. People who hate the character have sadly never really bothered to explore him.

redsai4lex

05-12-2013, 10:01 AM

:lol: Yeah... I know. In high school my strength was writing analytical essays and I've never been able to turn it off. I also think way too much about comic books, movies, and movies based on comics. :lol:

It's all good, it's actually a good thing. When you need to write an essay, at least it won't be a problem for you. Believe me, I wish I could organize my thoughts in a similar sequence. It is a good feat to be skilled at. Great analogies!!

Leo656

05-15-2013, 03:34 AM

Slade

05-16-2013, 10:13 PM

The more I see, the more I really am getting excited for the film. I'm going out on a limb and saying I expect this to be better than "Dark Knight Rises", which I and others quite enjoyed, flaws and all. The action looks good and the tone feels right. It just looks really big and epic.

www.supermanhomepage.com has tons of awesome stuff, trailers, interviews about the movie, etc. Dig it. This is gonna be the longest month of my life, since... well, 2006. :lol:

Me freaking too. You gunna try for the early viewing tickets at Walmart Saturday? I'm debating, but at the same time I'm not good with lines especially early in the morning.

Hasn't even thought of it passing TDK, but I do hope it blows Iron Man 3 out of the water.

From the looks of things, this should turn out to be the best Supes film yet.

chrisdude

05-17-2013, 12:42 AM

It's funny. A buddy of mine is a huge Superman film, and he resents the other films. He's not so much a fan of the oldschool, "boyscout" Superman, from those movies and the Fleischer cartoons. And that's the stuff I grew up with. We kind of have different views of Superman, but we're both extremely excited about this movie.

This difference being that he thinks this will be the first movie that does Superman justice, and I'm just hoping it's as good as the first movie.

Slade

05-18-2013, 09:47 AM

Went my Walmart an hour after they started and ended up picking up 3 advanced screening tickets. So yeah I'll be there.

Leo656

05-20-2013, 09:32 PM

I'm not thrilled about giving Wal-Mart money. I may just settle for doing opening night at Midnight.

It should easily be as good if not better than the first film. Earlier in the thread I discussed how the original, while great, is very flawed and more than a little dated, as well. I honestly think "Returns" holds up as a technically "better" film, as long as the viewer removes themselves from the fact that it has the fatal flaw all sequels/remakes have, which is the film could not exist without an earlier film in the series. It borrows a lot of the same ideas, but does them better.

There are choices the production team made for Man of Steel that I'm not a huge fan of, particularly the suit, but I'm impressed with the level of action and dramatic weight we've seen so far. It *may* be the first film to truly "get" Superman... OR it could turn out to be just "the first Superman film to please the action movie fanboys who only care about what blows up and who hits who", which is also what I'm a tad worried about.

Still having flashbacks to last time, when all summer people were insisting X-Men 3 was "great" and Returns wasn't, when in truth X-Men 3 was a train wreck. But it had a lot of pretty explosions, so there ya go. Man of Steel at least looks like a "summer blockbuster", I always insisted that Returns was more of a Christmas movie in spirit; it should have been released at a time of year when people are more sentimental and less distracted by counting all the CGI explosions. Ah well.

redsai4lex

05-21-2013, 01:23 PM

I don't consider X3 to be a real X-Men movie... It's that horrible! At least I enjoyed myself watching Superman: Returns... I wanted to throw eggs at the screen while watching X3... I was furious!

chrisdude

05-22-2013, 01:15 AM

Vivi

05-22-2013, 01:27 AM

Xav

05-22-2013, 03:33 AM

I'd put X-3 over the first two movies, simply because it doesn't totally revolve around Wolverine. I hate that guy so much.
Why do you hate him?

chrisdude

05-22-2013, 08:54 AM

I just can't stand his attitude. The way he talks. That pissed off look he wears on his face, 24/7. The whole bad boy kind of thing. He's always been my least favorite. I 'm not knocking Jackman, either, because I felt the same way as a kid, watching the the 90's cartoon on Saturday mornings. I just wanted him to leave...

Baxter Stockmen

05-22-2013, 11:11 AM

Every time I see a trailer for Man of Steel, I get goosebumps. Can't wait. It really did need a better reboot than Superman Returns. Even tho, they tried to act like it wasn't a reboot, and he just left for a bit.

redsai4lex

05-23-2013, 01:08 PM

I'd put X-3 over the first two movies, simply because it doesn't totally revolve around Wolverine. I hate that guy so much.

The only movie that made me want to throw eggs at the screen is the new Star Trek. I seriously considered walking out, so I at least know how you feel.

X1 was also about Rogue, and
X2 had a lot to do with plenty of characters, but
X3 was a complete embarrassment to the most devoted X- fans... There is nothing redeeming about that movie. Even Origins: Wolverine was more entertaining than X3, and that movie was horrible... X3 was just as much about Logan as the first movie was... The third film was mostly about Dark Phoenix, and that turned out worse than what they did to Deadpool in Wolverine... :tlol: ok, maybe not that bad, but still... :tlol: I love X-Men, it's my favorite part of Marvel, but X-3 almost turned me homicidal!

ObiWanFan4life

05-23-2013, 01:12 PM

NinjaPug

05-23-2013, 10:06 PM

X-Men 3 is an abomination. 1 and 2 aren't masterpieces by any means but aren't close to the train wreck that 3 is.

chrisdude

05-23-2013, 11:06 PM

He has that attitude because of his tortured past. Did you even READ the comics?No. I said I don't like the guy.

Watched the 90's cartoon religiously, though. Didn't like him then, either.
"*grumble-grumble* Bub. *grumble-grumble*"

Leo656

06-14-2013, 06:37 AM

Saw the midnight showing in 3D. 3D was fine, but not essential since the movie wasn't shot for 3D and was instead converted later on. I liked it... mostly. I think it will be very divisive, very "love it or hate it". My girl haaaated it, despite loving almost everything else Superman-related. It was in many ways a relief, because a lot of things I was afraid they were going to do, they didn't do. In many ways, it does surpass all the other films as far as accuracy to the comics, but the tone is he biggest dividing factor. If the consensus with "Superman Returns" was basically "all heart, no action", one could be forgiven for saying "Man of Steel" is "All action, no heart." The heart IS there, but at times it's easily lost in the mayhem.

The problem is, it's the exact Superman movie everyone's been asking for for years, the "summer blockbuster action movie" version, but that's not necessarily the "right" way to do Superman. Actually seeing it done that way sort of emphasizes that. It fully addressed every single "problem" people had with the last movie - lots more action, completely separate from the older films, no over-repeated elements like Luthor or Kryptonite, actual fight scenes (and LOTS of them, believe me) - it gave everything people said they wanted to see in a Superman film. But you sort of lose something in that, a sense of the fantastic that you usually get from comic movies in general, in Superman specifically, and that is actually much more present in films like Star Wars and the newer Star Trek films, that "Man of Steel" tries hard to emulate.

It tries hard to be like Star Wars - and that's a very big part of Superman's mythology, and they're absolutely right to go for that in a big-budget action film - but the darker tone and lack of humor or "fun" makes it fall short of what it could be, and sort of misses why those other films are so enduring, and what generally makes Superman so endearing. I like that it takes itself so seriously. I don't necessarily dislike how "Star Wars" it is, visually; that's just a visual choice of how Krypton is represented, and I can accept that this is how "they" see Krypton. I don't like how much it reminded me of "Dark Knight", as far as tone. That's not specifically who Superman is. It's a darker movie than it probably should be. The swearing adds nothing, is put in specifically to push the PG-13 rating, and only makes the movie less appropriate for kids; it's a good thing they stop using it less than halfway through. And one or two plot twists are either perfectly fine or totally unacceptable, depending on your specific idea of who Superman is or how he'd react in certain situations. (Spoilers Below)

The fight scenes were great, the super-powers were all very well done, and it has tons of inside comic references. Everyone's acting was fine. How heavily you feel a Superman movie should go into science fiction territory probably says a lot about how much one can enjoy the movie. I, for one, was relieved they didn't change more than they did, and nothing they did change was huge or hadn't been done before. It wasn't exactly the movie I wanted to see, but it could have been a lot worse, and I'm comfortable with the idea of more movies based on this story. I think I'll like it more the more I see it, but it could have been almost perfect if they did just a few things differently. It's not for everyone, unfortunately. If someone doesn't like Superman, I don't think this movie will change that. But I think it's really good for what it is and what it was trying to do.

PROS:
-Acting. Everyone was great, especially Cavill and Crowe. You could believe in the characters. And Faora was hot.
-Effects. Obviously a ton of work was put into them. How they establish Krypton is a matter of personal taste. For a change, it is depicted as a fully living planet, although one a little too far entrenched in the "Star Wars" vein, visually. There is a scene involving Jor-El and a flying beast early on that is incredibly reminiscent of both Lord of the Rings and Attack of the Clones, and that's kind of Krypton in general. Lots of stuff blows up or gets destroyed. Some say it's overkill. But it did feel representative of what would happen if Superman fought a group of equally super-powered beings in a major city. It felt like the movie Superman II tried to be but was 30 years too soon.
-Super-powers. Terrific all around. Nothing added that wasn't established in comics, so it gets a nod over the first four films for accuracy. Heat vision is MAJOR and done very well.
-Not as bad as it could have been. In short, Krypton blows up. But it's not as dramatic as you'd expect and is almost anti-climactic. An iconic moment like that needed to be bigger, especially after all the twisting they did to tease all the way to opening night how Krypton *might* have a different fate this time around. Glad common sense prevailed, though.
-Lots of comic character nods and references. Prof. Emil Hamilton, Kryptonian robot Kelex, Quex-Ul, Pete Ross, Lana Lang and Steve Lombard all make cameos. Even Father Leone has a brief but crucial scene with Clark, although you only find his character's name in the credits and he's virtually nothing like the character as portrayed in the "For Tomorrow" story in the comics. It got to a point I was more upset by who was NOT in it - namely Lex Luthor and Jimmy Olsen, although at one point a LexCorp banner is prominently displayed in "can't miss it" fashion, which bodes well for the sequel. Also, while the Gen. Stanwick character was fine, it had me wishing the character was written as Lois's dad, Gen. Sam Lane, instead. It could have added even more depth to everything from a story standpoint.

We also get "The Phantom Zone" but not a whole lot is done with the concept past naming it.
-Character. Everyone acts true to character - except for one or two scenes I'll get to in a second. Despite some initial confusion, Clark avoids Smallville-style moping and quickly emerges ready to embrace his destiny as the hero we know and expect him to be. It's telling that in the entire film, one of the only times we see anyone laugh, or even smile, is when Kal-El takes to the skies for the very first time. Far from "woe is me, I have this burden of being Earth's protector", which is what the movie could have been and many were fearing it would be, Clark's emergence and first flight has the necessary jubilation, that feeling it needs of "I'm F*cking SUPERMAN!" The character has a very controlled manner of using his powers, and does so with a very relaxed attitude akin to Byrne's depiction. While young Clark struggles with being different, and rightly so, adult Clark/Superman has had a lifetime of practice and is fully at ease with what he can do. He embraces his power while remaining humble. He is at once thoughtful but quick to act, both introspective yet not letting his uncertainty hamper his instincts. In a smaller but powerfully important scene, Clark is urged to follow "what your gut tells you", and that really is a lot of who Superman is and why some good writers over the years have told some poor Superman stories: Superman's gut instinct of right and wrong has always been his greatest ability, and when you start replacing that with self-doubt and constant introspection, you lose a lot of what makes the character work. In the film, when asked "What does your gut tell you?", Clark responds with no hesitation, and his actions follow in turn.

In one of my favorite scenes ever explored in Superman's entire mythology, Zod confronts Kal-El near the climax. The scene is of vital importance to who Superman is and what motivates him. Zod blames Superman for Krypton's essential destruction, and damns him for choosing to preserve Earth and protect humanity, rather than help rebuild a new Krypton. Clark's response, "Krypton HAD it's chance!", is long overdue in cinema and television, as in the past there have been writers lacking ideas who have engaged in a sort of sad necrophilia involving Kal-El's fascination with his dead homeworld, almost as if Earth had become boring and beneath him. It is vitally important to the mythology that Superman embrace Earth more than Krypton. As Jor-El explains here, Kal-El is meant to be a bridge between both worlds, not a Kryptonian exile pining for his lost homeland. He was born and raised on Earth, and it is Earth, not Krypton, he chooses to save in the end. Why? "I don't believe they (the Kryptonians) are interested in sharing this planet..."
Superman's characterization is terrific throughout. Except for one or two little things...

Leo656

06-14-2013, 06:38 AM

CONS:
-Music. It's Hans Zimmer, so it's good, but... not great, not great at all. I know it was a choice to make the music "humble", like Clark in the film, but it was a mistake. The character can be humble, the music needs to sweep you up in the spectacle of everything that's "Super" about Superman. The music just was barely memorable at all and far below the standards set by the Williams score. Little kids will NOT be humming the music for the next 20-30 years while pretending to fly. Very disappointing.
-Tone. It's very dark. A huge part of Superman's audience is kids, and between the swearing early on (I don't think we needed to hear Lois make a joke about "measuring dicks" to have a "mature" film, but whatever), some of the fight scenes, and a big scene at the end, it may not be appropriate for everyone. Even a lot of adults who can handle and even enjoy "dark and mature" super-hero films are arguing that this may have skewed too far in that vein for Superman. It's also very dark visually. And if you hate science fiction, don't even bother, because there is a very deliberate attempt to plagiarize "Star Wars" from beginning to end. I think it's acceptable for Superman, others may feel it's too much.
-Plot holes. There's always a couple, and they don't seem to be a huge deal. One thing that bothered me a lot was... If Pa Kent had given Clark the S-key, and they established that his own ship was hidden in the barn, why exactly did he have to track down that ancient probe ship hidden in the arctic to use the S-key and activate Jor-El's AI? Why didn't he just plug the key into his own ship? Wouldn't that make more sense? Wouldn't Jor-El have made it so the key would interact with the *very same* ship it was being carried in? How could he have even known that probe ship was on Earth, or that Clark would find it? To me, it just seemed like, "The mythology says he has to go to the arctic to discover his heritage and embrace his destiny, so let's get him to the arctic." Having Lois along for the ride was a bit clumsy, as well.
-Twists on the myth. I'm ok with Lois knowing from the start that Clark and Superman are one in the same. It's a choice some won't agree with, but I understand why they feel the need for a new direction as far as their relationship. Part of the fun has always been the cat and mouse game between them, but it's also fun when she's in on it, helping Clark coordinate his excuses and his secret identity baggage. To some, it's blasphemy, but I think it fits in this case. Zod murdering Jor-El isn't necessary, but fits the story they're trying to tell. I'm ok with that as well. I liked the exploration of genetic engineering on Krypton, and Jor-El's encoding all of Krypton's genetic samples into Kal-El, thus truly making him "Krypton's Last Son". I liked all those things, but some really, really won't like some or all of them.

And there are two things which are HUGE, and depending on your idea of who Superman is, one or both of them may make you hate the movie. HUGE Spoilers...
1. Clark lets Pa Kent die, because saving him in this case would expose Clark's super-powers to a large group of people, and Pa was insistent the world "wasn't ready". This, I have a huge problem with. Clark would never, under ANY circumstances, simply stand back and watch his father die, whether his father wanted him to or not. He would find a way to save him, and he would do it at minimal risk of exposure, because that's kind of what Superman always finds a way to do. He does not simply stand there and watch someone die, especially not his adopted Dad. This scene only exists because in Hollywood, there is a belief that one cannot become a hero without experiencing an intense and visceral trauma, such as witnessing the death of a parent or loved one. So we have Superman's equivalent of Bruce Wayne watching his parents get shot in front of him. Except Bruce was a frightened, helpless child, and Clark in this case is a full-grown (Super)man who fully could have done something, and his failure to act -regardless of reason - undermines the character greatly. I get that there is an odd fascination with killing Pa Kent across all media, but having Clark do nothing to save him is horrible. To me, this was the greatest offense of the entire film, and the scene itself was poorly done, on top of it all.

And in the movie's climax... (Last Chance....)
Superman kills Zod. On purpose. And in front of witnesses. He does it to save lives. He does it, because he knows in his heart that Zod means every word of what he threatens - to punish Kal-El for failing to save Krypton, Zod will not hesitate to wipe out the entire human race, one by one. Left with seemingly no alternative, Superman breaks Zod's neck. I wasn't expecting it, but it's happened before. Indeed, one of my favorite stories of the Byrne era had Superman kill the Zod, Faora and Quex-Ul of an alternate reality after they'd murdered all of Earth's population and threatened to find a way to Superman's reality to do it all over again. In both cases, it could be seen as justified and perhaps even unavoidable. And it's a tricky thing you have to deal with whenever you let Zod out of the toybox; you either HAVE to send him back to the Zone or kill him outright. But it raises a frightening precedent, and changes a very important basic rule about the character: Superman does not kill. Part of the reason, is because he is Superman and therefore should not have to, because he has more options. But in this case, a huge part of the film is about Superman getting the people of Earth to trust and not fear him. To that end, killing someone - even Zod - in front of witnesses would do little to assuage anyone's fears about just what this "Super Man" is capable of, or what his values are. We know Zod is bad, but all the humans have to make them trust Superman is his word, and I really don't think they'd be all that trusting after seeing him completely destroy an entire major American city in a fight with another super-alien, and especially not after watching him demonstrate just how completely above the law he is; indeed, after turning himself over to military authorities to demonstrate how trustworthy he is, Superman later commits a public execution with NO REPERCUSSIONS WHATSOEVER! Just how do the humans know he isn't one bad day away from being just as bad as Zod? They don't. In fact, for all the talk of how Superman is meant to inspire hope, by the end of the film, it feels a lot more ambiguous, and a lot less hopeful.

I liked the movie, even though it wasn't exactly what I wanted, they did a lot more right than wrong and it had a very "epic" feel. They finally made their "Superman Meets Star Wars" movie they've wanted to make for 20 years, only time will tell if that was the right way to go with it. I will say this: A few years ago, at the midnight premiere of "Superman Returns", the audience cheered enthusiastically. Tonight, nobody said a word, everyone just sort of left, and a few people looked kind of pissed off. It was odd.

I give it an A... but not as enthusiastically as I wanted to. And I can see why some people are gonna HATE it.

The Stryker

06-14-2013, 07:00 AM

I actually agree with you Leo.

I'd just give it a lower score overall. Mine comes out to about a C. I just felt the whole movie had this overbearing sense of blah and gray. Not once did I feel like 'Yeah. This is Superman and this is awesome to see'.

A lot of things happen and the reaction by the characters to most events are pretty much 'Huh. That happened. Next scene.'

Leo656

06-14-2013, 07:26 AM

I'm consciously ticking my score upwards because WB have been tempted to try some horrible things in the name of rebooting Superman over the years: Black leather and daggers, non-exploding Krypton, Lex Luthor the Secret Kryptonian/X-Files Agent, Superman in psychological counseling, Brainiac's gay robot sidekick, gay Jimmy Olsen, Superman magically impregnating his "soul" into Lois upon his own death and hyper-incubating into his own full-grown offspring within a day or so... Frankly, I'm just glad they didn't totally derail the f*cking thing, because they've come close a hundred times before someone slapped some sense into them.

Seriously, anyone who says "Returns" or even "Man of Steel" was awful needs to go on wikipedia and read about the hundred Superman movies they DIDN'T make before these last two. They're about as far apart from each other as it gets, but they're both very right-on as far as representing Superman.

Except, as you observed, the sense of wonder and exultation one normally associates with Superman. Other than his first flight, it's pretty "serious" and heavy, and it can be smothering. And yeah, things seem to be glossed over a little too "matter of fact-ly" at times. Both probably part of the edict to distance this film as far from the last as possible. "Returns" had a sense of wonder, and the characters explained themselves and their actions and much time was then spent on the consequences. "Man Of Steel" has very little sense of wonder, and nobody really dwells on anything. People and even entire worlds die, and the reaction is pretty much, "Yep".

In that, it's very much a "summer blockbuster". But I've said many times, I'm not sure that's the "right" way to explore Superman. But there is TONS of sequel potential in this universe, and since this is the universe we're getting for the next few years, I'm ok with that.
I mean, Lexcorp exists. Which means it's only a matter of time until we see Lex. By all evidence, this will be a Lex we've never seen on film, a Lex accurate to the comics. I cannot tell you how excited I am for that possibility.
If they are careful with it, when all is said and done this new franchise *could* end up equaling or surpassing the Reeve series. I wouldn't have ever thought so, and they're off to a shaky start, but if they continue to maintain comics-accuracy while lightening up the tone a little bit, I don't see why the sequels can't improve on the foundation this film sets. It's got problems, but they're fixable, mostly.

The Stryker

06-14-2013, 07:48 AM

The problems could easily be fixed with future sequels but I can't say I'm really that excited to see them immediately after the movie ended. I kinda reacted to the film like a character in the movie "Well...Ok then."

It wasn't awful by any means but I'm struggling to put it anywhere above just alright. It's really hard for me to explain how I felt because I barely felt anything about it and that bums me out.

ZariusTwo

06-14-2013, 03:46 PM

Just saw it. Overall it's a nice blend of brill and blah. Action sequences got tiresome after a stretch, but I loved that they had a more clued-in Lois and took a page from the Byrne era of Supes where

He did kill

Mark Waid took issue with the movie apparently.

Raph's Girl

06-14-2013, 05:00 PM

I absolutly loved Man of Steel. I thought it was a unique take on the mythos.

I liked that Jor El got some action in for once! We got a long take on the events leading up to the destruction of Krypton. The creatures and effects were really cool.

I like that Lois figured it out fairly quickly about Kal El and that she knows Clark is Superman.

When Superman snapped Zod's neck I was like "Whoa!" and then he cried out in anguish over killing one of his own. This will probably be the reason why in the next films he's got the no kill policy.

The whole thing with Emil Hamilton was kinda amusing. Especially in the arctic when the older actor had scenes with Alessandro Juliani who portrayed Emil in "Smallville" :lol:

I wonder tho how many people died in the film. Cuz geesh was there alot of distruction!

zodiac brave

06-14-2013, 05:50 PM

Zulithe

06-14-2013, 06:31 PM

Saw it in IMAX 3D. Wish they'd went with standard IMAX like with Nolan's films since I feel it added so little, but at no time was it bad. I liked it a lot. I'd probably rank it somewhere around a 7.5 or 8 out of 10, depending on my mood.

I acknowledge a lot of the shortcomings, especially easily fixable stuff like many dialog choices. And there's definitely one too many ridiculous disasters happening around Clark at every turn, it got a little eye-rolling at times. Anytime there was action on screen, or CGI (which really was marvelous, some of the best ever), I felt it was perfect. Film gets brutal and has a dark tone to it, which for me worked. Superman, being such a pure hero needs an adequately dark situation for his light to really shine through. But it really was darker and more violent than I'd have imagined going in.

I really praise them for trying to fit so much into the movie, because as a comics fan it definitely pleases me. But if you examine it just as a film then Man of Steel is a prime example of the limitations of the format. Even if you extend your film beyond 2 hours to the 140-200min mark it's just not enough to give the creators enough time to do everything justice and give the pace a proper flow.

I don't care, warts and all, it was awesome and it did so much right that it definitely has my approval. I want it to do well so we can get more Superman and DC films in general. Superhero and other genre films have proven over and over that the second entry can be where the real fun starts if all the creators know what they are doing.

Liked the score, just a shame it's so low-key and without any iconic themes... but we're used to that after the Nolan batfilms and a lot of Zimmer's other recent work.

It's been fun reading a lot of the other reactions and criticisms in this thread. I agree with a lot of it.

CyberCubed

06-14-2013, 06:40 PM

So is it better than Superman Returns?

Zulithe

06-14-2013, 07:00 PM

Well you can tell the two films are trying to be very different things about the same character... but for me, I think I'll end up rewatching Man of Steel more often going forward. Still, I think the two films make good companion pieces. They compliment one-another well, both have their weaknesses and strengths in almost polar opposite areas.

I'm gonna try to do another viewing this weekend. I should have rewatched the 'trilogy' (superman 1, 2 [theatrical] and superman returns) before going, but wasn't able to

Krutch

06-14-2013, 09:01 PM

This movie hurt me.
If you discount the TMNT, Superman is my favourite superhero. And to me, This isn't who Superman is. He crosses too many lines for me to get behind. For that matter, the only characters who felt as they should were Zod(if a little one note), Perry White, and Martha. Not exactly the top three characters I was looking forward to.

I did dig the nods to Smallville though, with Lana looking half Asian instead of a redhead and even Whitney gets a name drop!

This movie needs to lighten up.

Zulithe

06-14-2013, 10:01 PM

Valid opinion and many share it. I love when they take themselves seriously though. Reminds me more of the comics, which don't have lots of jokes and stuff like that. We have Marvel films for lighter stuff, I kinda like that DC is going for a different feel. It's too bad they botched Green Lantern though. All the space parts in Man of Steel just reminded me what a missed opportunity Green Lantern really was. Green Lantern could have been their Iron Man -- take a hero that is mostly ignored outside of comics an animation and give them a grade-a treatment, spawning all kinds of new potential... but nope. They didn't take the time and get the right talent it deserved.

Now watch as Marvel hits Guardians of the Galaxy out of the park and makes WB really regret their poor choices.

Leo656

06-15-2013, 02:38 AM

Zarius: I'd be interested in reading what Waid had to say, where is it? I'll take it with a grain, since Waid wrote "Birthright", which is STILL the worst take on the origin I've ever seen, and I've never been 100% in line with how he writes Superman or DC characters in general (I have issues with anyone who acts like Super-Friends was NOT corny as hell and that the 70s comics never ended; Waid's Silver Age fetish is a little tiresome to me), but I'm curious nonetheless.

So is it better than Superman Returns?

That's really a loaded question and depends a lot on personal taste, as well as how you see the character(s). A lot of people who are more into movies than they are into Superman seem to prefer "Man of Steel" because it's darker, shorter, more serious, and has lots more explosions. On the other hand, some people who care more about seeing Superman "done right" than about seeing another big explodey action film are seemingly preferential to "Returns", as it has a much lighter tone, more character moments, and is more uplifting in general.

"Man of Steel" is a very good way to represent Superman, but it's pretty relentlessly down-beat. Even by the end, I would argue that little to nothing has been done to establish Superman as a symbol of hope in this universe. He's just shown to be willing and able to destroy more public property than the other aliens if it means getting what he wants; to us, that means "stopping the bad guys" but to the citizens of Smallville and Metropolis, after ALL THAT I wouldn't want any of them hanging around any city where I live, frankly. I always joke that Superman is "Mr. Property Damage" as far as his methods of stopping villains, but it was played way, WAY up here, and to some it was a bit too much. If anything, the entire human race would be terrified of aliens in general and him (or at least his kind) specifically, after all the destruction they caused. The ending is good, but a little too quick-n-easy after everything that is shown leading up to it.

My wife's still refusing to talk about it, other than "If I wanted to see a bunch of random sh*t blow up I'd watch a Transformers movie, and if I wanted to see a guy riding a giant dragonfly or whatever I'd watch Avatar." She's way over-selling it, and frankly I have NO idea exactly why she's so against this particular Superman movie, but it does expose that WB has apparently decided that to make Superman "work", they have to rip off other, more popular films: "Dark Knight" for the tone, "Avatar" and "Star Wars" for the visuals, and "Transformers" and movies of its ilk for the action (You know the type, "NO time for talking, MORE EXPLOSIONS!").

I can't really blame them, because movies are a business and it's only about money, but obviously some folks who are really, really into Superman are not all about the way they've done this movie. Personally, I think it's a little too dark to be the best representation of who Superman is, and that "Returns" is still more true to the heart and the tone of what Superman's universe is about. But they're entirely different types of films and it's really, really hard to compare them. Other than the main character, they have nothing in common at all. It's like asking if "Rocky" is better than "First Blood"; same leading actor, entirely different movies, both entirely worth seeing on their own merits.

It really depends on who "your" version of Superman is. I think both are very good films, but that it was a mistake to take all the fun out of "Superman" in the name of "dark and gritty" this time out. I honestly felt "Returns" was as "angsty" as Superman ever needs to go, but that's me. Even the most positive reviews are absolutely begging for something lighter that they can take their kids to see next time. One thing they got right is that while the world around him is dark, Superman himself is not an especially "dark" character. Well, mostly...

I find it very interesting - and a bit unsettling - that in our established modern films, we've established that Batman will never kill while Superman will. Superman also apparently lets people die despite being able to save them, IF they tell him not to bother. It shows how they're so desperate to make the character "modern" "dark" and "hip" that in some ways, they're entirely missing the point of who he is. If this film leads to a generation of kids who grow up "playing Superman" and expecting Superman to kill the bad guys, then it will be a colossal failure historically.

I think everyone should go see it and decide for themselves how they feel. I will say, I've already talked to a few people who like both films, but have a little more appreciation for "Returns" than they did before. I think somewhere in between "Returns" and "Man of Steel" is the "right" way to do the character on film. Both got it totally right in some places and way, way off in others.

I wish I could recommend it more than I can. I'm happy with it, and I'm glad it seems to be hitting the mark for others as well, but since some of the biggest Superman fans I know are having completely unpredictable reactions to it based on the tone I can only say that, like "Watchmen", you'll either think it's terrific or completely unnecessary.

Archon_Turtle

06-15-2013, 03:46 AM

This is relevant! And super awesome!

http://geekologie.com/2013/06/what-would-happen-if-superman-punched-yo.php

Krutch

06-15-2013, 04:52 AM

I will say, I've already talked to a few people who like both films, but have a little more appreciation for "Returns" than they did before.

Funny, this was my very first thought when the end credits hit. Returns is one of my favourite movies and as far as I'm concerned criminally underrated. I had a feeling Man of Steel would wake people up to how much it got right instead of complaining about his lack of punching.

ZariusTwo

06-15-2013, 01:44 PM

chrisdude

06-15-2013, 09:08 PM

Saw it last night. Been thinking about it all day...

The Good:

- The story. I think their take on the origin and Clark's early years was fresh and worth telling, even though we all know the basic story by heart.

- The cast. I think Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon were great.

The Bad:

- So. Much. Death. If 9/11 killed 3,000 people, tens of thousands died with that gravity machine. They didn't have time to evacuate. On top of that, Superman and Zod's fight collapsed SO many buildings. And before you say the buildings were empty, the area was never empty. Shots of running and hiding people are dispersed throughout the battle, all the way up until the end. They didn't get away. Tens of thousands dead, with no reverence paid, nothing spoken of it. You're not even supposed to think of it. I had similar complaints about The Dark Knight, but this takes it to a new level. And I know it's just for the sake of spectacle. Zack Snyder wasn't thinking, "And we'll kill hundreds here, and a thousand here." Most would be too wrapped up in the spectacle to think about the bodycount.
Then they tried to make a big emotional scene of Zod almost cooking a few people. Give me a break.
The only thing more disturbing than this, is that only one of the five other people I went to the movie with had even considered it before I brought it up, later.

- The flashback storytelling made for awkward pacing. It all felt rushed, except for the fighting. I suppose it was there way to spread the action around - which was all pretty ridiculous, anyway. Who's surrounded by one life-altering disaster after another? The bus, the oil rig, the tornado - any normal person would write a book about any one of those experiences. Clark is just a magnet for $#!%storms, I guess. :roll:

- Too much fighting. Good lord. What was it, 45 minutes from the attack on Smallville til the end? My head was lolling. By the time Superman actually faced off with Zod, I was waiting to go home. Punch, throw, slam, slam, throw, punch. It just got repetitive and exhausting. And, retrospectively, I have to blame that for the rest of the movie feeling so rushed.

- Superman killed. I understand that he didn't want to do it. I understand that this was a formative time for Superman. But couldn't they have at least given us a moment where Superman swears to never kill again? I'm just afraid the kids are just gonna think it was "badass."

I still enjoyed the movie. If this is Superman for the next generation, I'm not exactly heartbroken.
But let's put a lid on this killing business.

Leo656

06-15-2013, 11:06 PM

I actually agree with a lot of Waid's opinions in his review. As exciting as the action was throughout, nothing seemed as "triumphant" as it should have, considering it's Superman.
The destruction WAS insanely over-the-top, even by action movie standards, and for the few people Superman deigned to save (who all really did seem like after-thoughts), he basically let thousands more die, if visual evidence is to be believed. I don't have the same feeling he does about killing Zod, specifically since it's happened before, but I agree, the build-up wasn't quite there and it didn't seem entirely like he had NO other choice. To me, Clark willingly letting his father die is the inexcusable part no matter what the context of it.

He's hardly the final say on things but it does illustrate that the movie has some pretty big flaws. I still like it, but I wish there was less to NOT like about it. I was honestly hoping we'd finally get a Superman movie almost entirely free from serious criticism that would still stay close to the source material, but we're still waiting. I'd put it at overall equal quality as the last one; equal amounts satisfying yet somehow disappointing. They each have their own entire set of problems with them despite all they do right. Maybe next time they'll take the best of what worked for each movie and finally get it right "all the way".

Slade

06-16-2013, 10:07 AM

NinjaPug

06-16-2013, 08:30 PM

Man of Steel set June box office records and opened with $125 million domestically. WB has already fast tracked a sequel with Snyder and Goyer returning. Nolan will be back in a more limited role.

TigerClaw

06-16-2013, 10:36 PM

I saw the movie on Saturday and really enjoyed it, I liked how this version of General Zod was a lot more fleshed out then the Superman 2 version. Plus with the success of this movie, it'll let up to more sequels and supposedly the Justice League movie.

CyberCubed

06-16-2013, 10:50 PM

Its inevitable Lex Luthor will be in the sequel, I just hope its not a boring rehash of all the other Lex Luthor confrontations in the movies.

chrisdude

06-17-2013, 06:45 AM

Man of Steel set June box office records and opened with $125 million domestically. WB has already fast tracked a sequel with Snyder and Goyer returning. Nolan will be back in a more limited role.Opening weekend box office numbers are only a hype measurement, and not a reflection of how good the movie is. The reviews aren't great, and opinions are mixed. I'm not saying the movie isn't a hit, but it's not Dark Knight, where everyone you talk to says "It's awesome, you gotta go see it." It could drop a bit by next weekend. But I guess they just make these decisions quickly...
I wish they could proceed without Snyder. I think everything I disliked about this movie was probably his decision...

Its inevitable Lex Luthor will be in the sequel, I just hope its not a boring rehash of all the other Lex Luthor confrontations in the movies.I feel like it's gonna be Lex, too. If they tried to go with another superpowered villain, they'd have a hard time raising the stakes or making the action bigger. If it were me, I'd go for something more personal and intellectual.

NinjaPug

06-17-2013, 07:30 AM

Here's what I'd do for the sequel:

Superman struggles with the tremendous property destruction and loss of life the battle caused, as well as taking Zod's life. Vows to never kill again. Lex Luthor uses his $70 billion dollar fortune to rebuild Metropolis, becoming beloved by the public, and labels Superman as a "public menace" based on the Battle of Metropolis in MOS. Creates Metallo (introduces Kryptonite).

The Stryker

06-17-2013, 07:44 AM

I wish they could proceed without Snyder. I think everything I disliked about this movie was probably his decision...

I kinda disagree here. It was obvious that Snyder was hired to be a visual director and not much else while Nolan's people handled the rest and I thought
all of the imagery was pretty damn good and shot well (for the most part)

If I wanted to 'blame' anyone for the stuff I didn't like in the movie I would put it on Goyer and whoever was in charge of editing the movie.

Bauer536

06-17-2013, 08:06 AM

oldmanwinters

06-17-2013, 10:45 AM

If I wanted to 'blame' anyone for the stuff I didn't like in the movie I would put it on Goyer and whoever was in charge of editing the movie.

Just having watched the movie for the first time last night, I got the sense that there is probably a whole bunch of deleted scenes that might have added characterization to the various supporting cast members. It's like the movie expected us to care about Perry White and "Jenny" Olsen's survival during the city destruction scene when we barely had any introduction to them prior to that.

The Stryker

06-17-2013, 10:55 AM

Just having watched the movie for the first time last night, I got the sense that there is probably a whole bunch of deleted scenes that might have added characterization to the various supporting cast members. It's like the movie expected us to care about Perry White and "Jenny" Olsen's survival during the city destruction scene when we barely had any introduction to them prior to that.

I got that sense too when it felt like the movie had barely started and he was already in the suit and flying around with no questions asked and the whole Lois' quest to discover coming to end in like 3 minutes. They barely fit in characterization of the main characters. I definitely didn't feel like Superman evolved all that much by the end except he has new clothes to wear.

The writing is still an issue since the dialouge was outright bad in spots. Lots of weird things going on in the film.

sdp

06-18-2013, 10:41 PM

I liked the movie quite a bit, the ending didn't bother me, hell I'm more bothered by Batman Begins having a similar scenario. I thought it was done very well. I welcome a DC Movie Universe set in this world.

Cure

06-18-2013, 10:48 PM

My biggest problem with the movie was the scene with young Clark just discovering his powers in school. He runs to the closet and his mom has to be called in.

"Clark, what's wrong?"
"The world is too big!"
"Then make it small!"

What the f*ck? Who talks like that? How about saying you f*cking hear everything and can see people's hearts beating in their f*cking chest? Awful writing.

Great action scenes, though.

sdp

06-18-2013, 10:57 PM

haha yeah.

I remember now what I actually thought was the biggest problem with the movie I was fine with Lois finding his identity but not so much them falling in love so quickly in the movie.

Leo656

06-19-2013, 11:25 PM

Cure: That scene was ruined by the dialog, absolutely. I couldn't wait for it to end. I got the feeling that, and a lot of other scenes, were conceived entirely for how they would play in the trailers for the movie, and not the movie itself. The evidence of that is exactly what you said: Characters often talk in sound bites, grouping words together in ways no person ever would in real life. Yet somehow, with the right music telling you exactly how you're supposed to feel at that exact moment, that kind of corniness can seem "epic" during a 2-minute trailer.

Can't wait to see Lex in the sequel; the fact they had that "You have to be blind not to see this" LexCorp banner all but promises it, it will be hard or impossible to wait for the third one, and frankly, it needs to be sooner rather than Later; he is THE prime nemesis. NinjaPug's idea is almost exactly what I was thinking of and am hoping for, storyline-wise. I really, really hope for a comics-faithful version of Evil Billionaire Lex, but that they avoid what Smallville tried to do and make him overly-sympathetic. Lex shouldn't be a tragic figure, he should be the exact opposite of Superman. Clark chooses to be a hero, Lex *chooses* to be an assh*le, and we should never feel bad for Lex, ever. I loved Spacey's portrayal of Lex; it had the comic character's vital essence even with a different backstory. He was just such an unrepentant prick.

Reviews one week in really haven't been as strong as expected. Wouldn't it just be the very definition of irony, if the film that was conceived from the beginning to do "right" everything "Superman Returns" did "wrong", ended up having its greatest impression be simply that it made many people go back and say "Y'know, 'Superman Returns' really wasn't that bad after all..."? Seems like that may be it; I think the Rotten Tomatoes reviews actually have MoS scoring lower than SR. Not that any of that matters in the big picture, I just find it interesting.

sdp

06-20-2013, 04:10 PM

I want to re-watch Superman Returns, I remember liking it the first time but being a little disappointed then the second time it felt a little too long and boring. I also want to watch TMS again since my mind was in another place during the movie and didn't enjoy it fully.

It is ****** that TMS's complains from critics seem to be the things people hated from Superman Returns.

Voltron

06-20-2013, 08:47 PM

Wasn't fond of it. Thought the story was a bit lazy and glossed over his formative years, which are so important in the big picture. Also, the reactions of some characters to huge revelations were just laughable. When Supes tells Ma that he found his culture, she just kind of says "Oh, that's nice." That's it? Your son, whom you found in an alien spacecraft in a field, whom has amazing powers beyond comprehension, comes to you and says "I have a lot of answers" and you give him a shrug? In extension of this, she is almost completely unphased to learn that her son can 1) fly and 2) wears a one piece that wouldn't be out of place in the seedy underbelly of some BDSM fetish sex club. It would raise questions in Greenwich Village on Halloween, and he's prancing around Kansas with this thing on? You expect me to believe that no one cares? At all?

Here's what I'd do for the sequel:

Superman struggles with the tremendous property destruction and loss of life the battle caused, as well as taking Zod's life. Vows to never kill again. Lex Luthor uses his $70 billion dollar fortune to rebuild Metropolis, becoming beloved by the public, and labels Superman as a "public menace" based on the Battle of Metropolis in MOS. Creates Metallo (introduces Kryptonite).

I thought the same thing as I left.

Another avenue that they could use: The homing beacon is picked up by Brainiac. :o

redsai4lex

06-21-2013, 09:19 PM

Man of Steel :tthumbsu::tthumbsu:

Krutch

06-22-2013, 05:48 AM

I can't wait for this to come to bluray, as I fully intend on making my own cut of the movie. I've made a ton of notes and while I don't think I can save the movie, I can damn sure avenge it.

ZariusTwo

06-22-2013, 11:40 AM

I can't wait for this to come to bluray, as I fully intend on making my own cut of the movie. I've made a ton of notes and while I don't think I can save the movie, I can damn sure avenge it.

We think alike. I've been doing tons of Superman edits lately and this is definitely going on my to-do list.

A lot of like-minded fans have already thought about putting all the flashbacks in chronological order, I'm thinking of even omitting Supes killing Zod and having his last apperance be when the ship crashes

Krutch

06-22-2013, 03:22 PM

Yup yup! I don't think putting all the flashbacks in order is really going to help the movie, s it wouldn't change anything story wise. But I'd radically change or remove many Johnathan Kent scenes. Here's some of my notes off the top if my head...

-Cut out Krypton intro, as it is later reiterated via JorEl and Zod
-Cut out Zod vs Superman, allowing it to be believed Zod was killed in ship crash
-Cut out Lois Superman kiss, as it doesn't feel earned
-Cut out Perry/Jimmy surviving, as we don't care enough about them and the action scene is far too long already
-Cut Superman stealing clothes
-Cut out JK "Maybe" and play with dialogue to make JK less sinister
-Cut out tornado scene, as we discover later he died via tombstone. And this way there's no "choice" in Clark "letting" Pa die in a very unSupermanly scene
-Cut out Clark as a kid with a cape(who exactly is Clark emulating by wearing a cape?)
-Cut out mean spirited dialogue in Smallville (dicksplash, etc)
-Hopefully cut out Codex subplot(simplify Zods motives)
-Cut out Pearl Jam
-Maybe there's a way to make it seem that Superman is destroying the "dub step machine" in metropolis? It just doesn't feel right that Superman chooses to fight the one away from metropolis
-Cut out Clark taking out glasses In elevator
-If possible, let certain scenes play out longer
-Check out deleted scenes, insert any that work/help

ZariusTwo

06-22-2013, 03:51 PM

Solid cut list there. I never caught that Pearl Jam was heard in this actually...I must not be that aware of their music...

I agree on cutting out the plight of the Planet crew...just ridiculous how they're the only people still bouncing around Metropolis.

I sort of had the idea of starting the movie with Clark entering the church and telling the priest Zod and co are looking for him, then the first act of the movie occurs as a flashback

Krutch

06-22-2013, 04:01 PM

That's a neat idea! I've been struggling with where to start my cut. But yeah, the dialogue in the church scene serves as a nice "in" for flashbacks.

Candy Kappa

06-23-2013, 02:22 AM

I really liked this movie, very bombastic, but not in the way i thought it was going to be. And the movie was a lot more bittersweet then triumphant.

All the characters felt like real people despite the lack of screen time and corny dialog. They looked like real people and not super models wandering around on a set. Unlike movies like Transformers, Avengers or other movies where major destruction is happening to a big city, it felt much more "real", bigger stakes and seeing people being crushed by falling buildings and that gravitation pulse was a lot more horrifying then mentioned movies when there are no comedic moments and sassy/plucky comments made while destruction was going on.

There was way too much explosions in the movie, I guess it's the last time Metropolis builds their skyscrapers out of TNT...

The hearth string tugging, it was corny, but I still ate that up.
Superman after taking Zod's life was very gripping.

-Maybe there's a way to make it seem that Superman is destroying the "dub step machine" in metropolis? It just doesn't feel right that Superman chooses to fight the one away from metropolis

Wasn't it stated in the movie that both machines had to be destroyed, since one could still do mass scale destruction on it's own. And all the baddies was in the one that was sucked into the black hole?

I hope the next movie will be more triumphant.

Leo656

06-23-2013, 04:54 AM

I'm very much hoping that the sequel - with the origin and "angst" out of the way - can lighten up the tone and get the feeling of triumph back into "Superman". The scene from "Returns" where a stadium full of people cheered and hailed the return of the hero they wished had never left? We need a lot more of THAT. In fact, for all the criticism that movie gets, the plane rescue scene is still one of the 3 coolest Superman moments ever put to film. Partly because it felt so damn RIGHT for who/what Superman is. I'm being generous, actually. If I'm being honest, it's my favorite live action Superman scene, by far. As soon as we see the boots, and that blast of heat vision... sh*t. Everyone in the theater was like, "Here we GO, mother f***ers!" Whether the rest of the movie lived up to that scene is debatable, but I'm hard-pressed to find anything in even the Reeve films that tops it. And much as I like "Man of Steel", absolutely nothing in this film does, either. And that's it's problem. It's clinically, technically, very accurate, but it lost that feeling of triumph, wonder and even whimsy in the name of making it "dark" and "more action-y".

Maybe it's because Superman doesn't "save" very many people so much as stop things from getting much worse, but even that's debatable. The big-city fight scenes are SO destructive, a cynic can (and will) argue that Superman had to have killed at least as many innocent people as Zod and co., IF you take every explosion and collapsing building literally. "Symbol of Hope" exactly HOW? "Hope" he doesn't one day randomly decide to go evil, because if he does Earth is f*cked? It just rang hollow.

I can't wait to see more, but I've officially given up on Hollywood ever "getting it right" with Superman. "Returns" was as close to marrying the spirit of the comics to the medium of film as it will ever get, and people chose to not appreciate it, so now we have what we have, which is fine, but a step backwards from the true character and still not universally satisfying. Even the first film trumps it, because after watching the first Reeve film, even a novice can say they have a basic idea about all the important areas of Superman's mythology. MoS glosses over or excludes vital areas of the myth (the secret identity, interaction with the Daily Planet staff, Jimmy Olsen, Lex Luthor, even Kryptonite) in the name of "not slowing the movie down", meaning we don't *need* to see Clark earn his stripes at the Planet, or introduce Kryptonite or Lex into the myth, but we DO really need to see Clark punch Zod a little more. And I have a problem with that type of thinking.

When you begin or reboot a film franchise, the first film should tell you EVERY important bit of information. It should be inherently assumed that "part one" will have the most attention and the largest audience, and every effort should be made to encompass all the important pieces, even if only to expand on them in sequels, they should at least be there. Someone could watch "Superman: The Movie" in 1978 never having read one comic and afterwards say, with some conviction, "I know Superman". MoS leaves far too much open to be explored in sequels (a similar problem "Returns" had; don't these people know by now that nothing is guaranteed?!) and isn't the all-encompassing re-introduction the franchise truly needed.

Really good super-hero action movie, though. I liked it a lot; but I wanted to LOVE it, and I didn't.

Plasticplayhouse

06-24-2013, 04:11 AM

Maybe it's just me, but I loved the movie. I got everything I wanted flaws and all. I guess I can say that because as blasphemous as it sounds for a Superman fan, I don't like the Reeve films all that much. I don't know if I'm right on this, but I feel like those who don't like the movie still want it to be exactly like those films. I'll say I'm glad it showed destruction. I loved that it showed what would happen if super powered beings existed and actually fought. There would be chaos and destruction. Man of Steel is a perfect origin for me. Almost like it's Superman begins(which I've seen people call it). He's a rookie. Which makes me feel like the sequel will be so much better and help to establish who Superman is.

I am a fan of the Reeve's films and I still liked this. I grew up watching the original SM and I still love it but that doesn't mean I can't like this one as well. I totally agree about SM was finding his way in this movie and the next will be a little different. For me the the thing I liked most about this movie was SM's passion and emotion. That was something I always thought the original lacked. I also loved Amy Adams as an really intelegent Lois who was in the know. I give it an 8 out of 10. One of the better dc movies.

ZariusTwo

06-24-2013, 06:08 AM

For me the the thing I liked most about this movie was SM's passion and emotion. That was something I always thought the original lacked.

You must have been watching STM with blinders on and cotton wool in your ears. Watch the scene where Lois dies and how Supes reacts to it. THAT is passion and emotion and it mops the floor with Cavil's performance in MOS.

I also loved Amy Adams as an really intelegent Lois who was in the know.

Margot Kidder's Lois clued herself up to who Clark was in the classic films as well, the only thing that obstructed that at the end was b.s magic kiss/turning back time shananegins which they thankfully didnt repeat here

CyberCubed

06-24-2013, 03:36 PM

After watching this movie I just couldn't get over all the scenes of baby Supes penis. Did we really need to see that? I'm surprised they didn't censor that or cut away with the camera.

Really disturbing.

Candy Kappa

06-24-2013, 03:51 PM

It's just a penis, you oversensitive weirdo

CyberCubed

06-24-2013, 03:53 PM

Yeah, but we had like 5 different shots of it. And it disturbs me because its not something I liked seeing. The least they could have done was show him with rags over it or something.

Candy Kappa

06-24-2013, 03:59 PM

well then. I hope for your sake you never become father if you are scared of a naked baby.

Diaper changing would be terrifying.

CyberCubed

06-24-2013, 04:07 PM

well then. I hope for your sake you never become father if you are scared of a naked baby.

Diaper changing would be terrifying.

I don't need to see a random baby's penis. Especially since I didn't know about scenes like that and I heard the parent sitting next to me tell her 7 year old daughter to close her eyes.

sdp

06-24-2013, 05:22 PM

What's wrong with non-sexual nudity? I don't even remember said scenes or maybe I didn't even think about it so it slipped by. Can't wait to see the movie again.

CyberCubed

06-24-2013, 05:57 PM

What's wrong with non-sexual nudity? I don't even remember said scenes or maybe I didn't even think about it so it slipped by. Can't wait to see the movie again.

Nudity from adults is fine, nudity from kids (or infants) is disturbing.

They did the same thing with Bart in the Simpsons movie, but since that was a cartoon it didn't matter as much. But here....ew.

Slade

06-24-2013, 08:48 PM

They also did it with an older little boy in Superman the Movie back in the day....

Jester

06-24-2013, 08:54 PM

My works websence blocked this page of discussion because of the word "penis."

Websence = Cybercubed.

chrisdude

06-24-2013, 08:58 PM

For me the the thing I liked most about this movie was SM's passion and emotion. That was something I always thought the original lacked.http://i.imgur.com/ab9fjlJ.jpg

Please watch 'Superman: The Movie' again.
You obviously fell asleep, the first time. :trolleye:

Voltron

06-24-2013, 09:03 PM

I think his penis lacked emotion and passion. I mean, it didn't even react when it was being shot with that codex laser and WHAT THE HELL? Is this what we really talk about here now? It's not like the movie was 2 hours of a dong being smeared all over the camera. It's not even like the baby was being sexualized in any way. It's just a naked baby. If you can't handle the human body in its purest form, then you need to take some time and think about how you fit in with society.

Leo656

06-25-2013, 01:01 AM

LMAO this has taken a turn towards wackiness. I go to work and this happens... yeesh.

Nah for real dude it's a baby, I've seen that ish in so many movies by now I'm surprised anyone notices at all. I think it's one of those cases where it says more about the person who gets offended by it.

I was more offended by the bad language and repeated use of the word "dick" in a Superman movie, than I was by actually seeing one, especially the "you practically have to be looking for it to see it" one of a child. And the language was unnecessary, but it only really bothered me because it was "Superman", anything else and it would've just been "oh well, they're trying to be 'edgy'."

I mean if you wanna let it bother you, I guess, but it just serves to further my theory that getting offended at all, about anything at all, is simply a personal choice one makes.

Slade

06-25-2013, 06:55 AM

I mean if you wanna let it bother you, I guess, but it just serves to further my theory that getting offended at all, about anything at all, is simply a personal choice one makes.

I'd go ahead and say that's fact.

I do wonder if the little guy paid extra:lol:

CyberCubed

06-25-2013, 11:52 AM

General Zod is just a really boring villain. I don't understand why they keep using him when Superman has so many fantastic villains to use.

Even someone like Metallo or Parasite would make great movie villains.

Luke795

06-25-2013, 09:36 PM

Zulithe

06-25-2013, 10:21 PM

How about Brainiac?

I'm rooting for a Lex/Brainiac combo. Every since Batman Returns set the standard for the dual villain superhero film I've loved the formula.

I'd love Lex to be involved regardless of what they go with, but I'd prefer that they don't use only him as the previous superman films and live action shows have relied on him heavily. I want something new.

I thought Zod & co. in MoS was a good take but also happy that they handled it in such a way that we don't have to worry about them reusing him again this cycle.

Leo656

06-26-2013, 04:03 AM

Zod is all of the power of Superman with none of the restraint; how can that possibly be boring? I don't get that at all.

Much as I love Superman, I don't know if I could even name a dozen movie-worthy villains to fight. Let's see... Luthor, Zod, Brainiac, Doomsday, Metallo, Darkseid, Cyborg Superman, possibly Conduit but he's kind of obscure. Any of them could possibly exist in this movie universe, but a few of them might require an unwieldy amount of set-up, like Darkseid or Cyborg. And almost all of them might push the "sci-fi-ness" too far for some people. I'm ok with Superman having a decent amount of science fiction in it - the original film was more of a modern fairy tale than a super-hero movie, very much on purpose, but that was a simpler time with a smaller budget - but a lot of people already thought MoS had a little too much "Star Wars" in it for them. I'd love to see either Brainiac or Metallo, too, but by that point you risk 80-90% of the movie being green-screened. Depending on which version of either character they might use, like Brainiac 13 or early-2000s Metallo, it could look like Superman fighting a giant Transformer, which, while bad-ass, might look silly to some.

I'm not sure where I stand on a Lex/Brainiac team-up, at least not right away, unless you can do it in a way that establishes Lex right away as his main villain and doesn't over-shadow him with Brainiac. And I'll go so far as to completely disagree and say I hate the "two-villains" set-up. It almost always clutters up the movie for the sake of selling a few more toys and Halloween costumes. Neither villain is almost ever given the right amount of set-up or execution. I for one hate the way they pulled it off in "Batman Returns" (which actually had three villains, or 2.5, Schreck was the real bad guy and Catwoman was a little less of a villain, but again, that whole movie is a jumbled mess anyway), and actually that entire series never recovered from it, as the rest of the films became all about "Cram In More" excesses. "Spider-Man 3" sucked because of the same problem, cramming in more bad guy characters at the expense of the story. The Dark Knight Trilogy did it well, but those were extremely rare exceptions and in each case the "extra villain" did not make themselves known until late in the game, and in each case the reveal or "heel turn" was a logical extension of their character arc.

I wouldn't be against a Luthor/Brainiac duo, especially because it's entirely consistent with their history, but only if it was done in a way that made them appear equal in the story. It wouldn't be too hard, but it would also be easy to screw up.

Zulithe

06-26-2013, 05:45 AM

It's not that Max couldn't be categorized as a villain, but his role was more of a catalyst made larger by the memorable casting choice. Just look at the box art if there is any confusion over what I meant by it being a two villain film.

It's taken time for superhero movies to evolve to their current state. We went from Batman carrying a giant lit bomb through a crowded dock and fighting off shark puppets to people comparing The Dark Knight to something like The Godfather Part II, and people actually take that seriously. Batman Returns was one of many stepping stones to get us there. We had to put up with silliness like penguins with weapons attached to their backs, but I actually admire it for that. It's a product of where the source material was back then, still emerging from the fallout of frank miller's TDKR. And I do think it is an improvement over 1989 Batman in a number of ways. It's just really hard to top the Joker, so it will always have that. I think Returns had a lot more atmosphere, emotion, evocative music, and yes, compelling co-stars that further set the stage for subsequent superhero films. It's just a shame that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin started going down a tangent path seemingly inspired more by 60s batman than the tones Burton was trying to establish.

Sequels up the odds because the filmmakers always want them to be bigger than the last. Pretty much everyone who's seen Spider-Man 3 would agree that it's excess was to its detriment. If we'd seen a film that only focused on harry (since this was already set up perfectly from SM2) and one other villain instead of two others, maybe we could have ended up with an very fine trilogy. And you could say that if SM3 focused *only* on Peter/Harry/MJ maybe it could have been yet better still, being able to devote adequate time to all the character stuff it deserves... but these huge blockbusters are complicated beasts, the need to add new elements to get butts into seats in equal to or larger numbers than the previous entry. It may be BS but that's how it operates. Things like this are why my expectations are always in check. Superhero films will always be mired by problems because lots of concessions have to be made for the studio to decide they are worth making. So I try to focus on the bits they get right, and MoS had lots of that for me.

The good news is I think SM3, while it failed in a lot of ways (definitely not financially), has important lessons to teach about how to approach a multi-villain superhero film. I feel 2 can be balanced well enough, as has been demonstrated many times. 3 is a very difficult for a 2 or 2.5 hr film to do justice.

So too does MoS learn from Batman Begins. BB is looked back on very fondly now, but it didn't really get the acclaim it deserved until TDK was released and built upon all that it setup. BB took the time to really follow Bruce's journey from child to lost man seeking purpose and finally to Batman. it focused so much on the origin that it had less actiony payoff as a result. This probably had an impact on its box office cume, which seems paltry compared to its contemporaries.

In MoS, Clark's journey wasn't done the same justice, instead opting to get him into the suit faster and to the action. It was a very deliberate choice, not just to play to the director's strengths, but an attempt to fix perceived wrongs in BB and Superman Returns. Fixes that are carefully calculated to increase the haul. Because movies. I'm not attempting an argument here, just rambling :lol:

CyberCubed

06-26-2013, 09:26 AM

I could see Luthor and Metallo being the villains for the next movie easily. I think they would save Darkseid for a Justice League movie, if they ever make one.

chrisdude

06-26-2013, 06:38 PM

CyberCubed

06-26-2013, 07:46 PM

It seems the third movie in most movie series tend to be the weakest anyway:

- Batman: Forever was a step down from the first two movies

- The Dark Knight Rises was weaker than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

- Spiderman 3 was terrible

- X-men III was terrible.

- TMNT III is viewed as the weakest movie

etc.

chrisdude

06-26-2013, 08:17 PM

While I'd disagree, and say that I think X-Men 3 was the only X-Men movie to feel like and X-Men movie until First Class, I think you're right.

Typically, the first movie is what it is. Second movie is more of what worked before, but ups the ante. And the third movie is where they aren't sure what to do, and start flailing. More of the same would be dismissed, and new directions don't usually work. Almost everything starts to go downhill at three.

Slade

06-26-2013, 08:48 PM

Cure

06-26-2013, 09:29 PM

It seems the third movie in most movie series tend to be the weakest anyway:

Toy Story 3 is way better than the first two. So is Madagascar 3. Mission: Impossible 3 is tons better than 1 and 2 (though Ghost Protocol is even better). Bourne Ultimatum is the best out of all them. So again, let's not overgeneralize.

Zulithe

06-26-2013, 09:43 PM

Sam Raimi just wanted to get Venom out of the way. He's basically said as much. There was a panel where he basically said, "Sometimes you have to do what the fans want." He's just an oldschool Spider-Man fan, and that's why he opted for an old-school villain like Sandman over Venom (who I think originated in the 80's).

He should have just done the lizard dammit! While I do like a lot of the lizard stuff in ASM, I didn't like the design they went with. I think Raimi would have went with a more classic approach.

But yeah I get the impression that there was a lot of pressure to use venom both from the fans and the studio, but instead of just doing a venom film he wanted to try to have it both ways and just use everything... we see how that worked out. I still dig parts of SM3 though

chrisdude

06-27-2013, 07:18 AM

He should have just done the lizard dammit! While I do like a lot of the lizard stuff in ASM, I didn't like the design they went with. I think Raimi would have went with a more classic approach.

But yeah I get the impression that there was a lot of pressure to use venom both from the fans and the studio, but instead of just doing a venom film he wanted to try to have it both ways and just use everything... we see how that worked out. I still dig parts of SM3 thoughThere was plenty to work with, between Harry, Sandman, and the suit. I think the climax should have been using the suit to battle Harry and/or Sandman, and Eddie Brock getting the suit should have been the last scene. Then Venom could get his own movie, as he deserves...

Voltron

06-29-2013, 11:00 PM

I wouldn't be against a Luthor/Brainiac duo, especially because it's entirely consistent with their history, but only if it was done in a way that made them appear equal in the story. It wouldn't be too hard, but it would also be easy to screw up.

I think they'd be fools NOT to use Brainiac. He's such a convenient villain, with a pretty easy back story. I'm just terrified that they WILL screw up a double villain. Superman Returns had a hard time fitting in two villains, and one of those villains was a large rock. . .

Metallo would be an awesome choice, too.

CyberCubed

06-29-2013, 11:03 PM

Mettallo would probably remind casual movie-goers of the Terminator series, so I think they might avoid him for that reason alone.

Leo656

06-30-2013, 02:32 AM

I could see that, but if anything Metallo's character predates the Terminator by decades. Although he/it didn't really resemble a Terminator until the '86 revamp (I'm sure the movie's success was a big reason for that), and Metallo has two things that would make him more interesting than a Terminator: A Kryptonite heart and a human brain.

In fact, screw it, now that I think of the story that re-introduced Metallo in the comics, that's exactly what I want to see in the sequel: A version of the story from Superman #1 from the 1980s, it would conveniently introduce Lex, Kryptonite, and Metallo to the MoS mythology, and Brainiac could work just as well in part 3, better even once some history between Lex and Superman is established. It would be easy as hell to tweak the story from the comic and expand it in parts to give Lex a proper introduction; it was literally one issue and gives all the basic information one would need on Metallo and Kryptonite. I'd love to see that more than anything else, now that I think of it. It would just be SO easy to do, and they could do it SO well.

raph27

07-01-2013, 04:05 PM

Toy Story 3 is way better than the first two. So is Madagascar 3. Mission: Impossible 3 is tons better than 1 and 2 (though Ghost Protocol is even better). Bourne Ultimatum is the best out of all them. So again, let's not overgeneralize.

And Goldfinger is an awesome movie.:D