"Man of Steel" trailer set for mid-2012

Just seen it, liked it, now officially pumped up from it! End of the story!!!

Apologist Puncher wrote:The description was 100% accurate.

We know that now!!! Except there was no Faora scene, only a scene of Lara watching Krypton's destruction.

Now in regards to Johnathan Kent's "Maybe" speech... Yeah I'll have agree although I know I'll be getting a negative reception for this but that scene where Johnathan Kent saying "Maybe!!!" after Clark asking if he should let those kids on the bus die which seems/sounds pretty callous even for someone who's raising the future's greatest hero/protector. But hopefully that scene isn't what most right now are making it out to be!

I can already tell his "maybe" was something he didn't really mean as you can tell by his expression and delivery. He's conflicted, he's proud his son saved lives but at the same time is scared as hell about what the consequences might have been and can't process that, hence his hesitant "maybe".

As for the rest of the trailer. I am not fan of the desaturated color pallet, and that's about the only real complaint I have. Everything else looks damn good to me. While the teaser from last summer felt like Nolan, this one feels a lot closer to Snyder's sensibilities with the emphasis on dramatic composition. It feels a lot more like a comic book adaptation than the Nolan films too for sure.

Hopefully like 2011's Thor it will have a bit of levity to it. Wouldn't want a Superman film to be too po-faced.

James Stocks wrote:I can already tell his "maybe" was something he didn't really mean as you can tell by his expression and delivery. He's conflicted, he's proud his son saved lives but at the same time is scared as hell about what the consequences might have been and can't process that, hence his hesitant "maybe".

As for the rest of the trailer. I am not fan of the desaturated color pallet, and that's about the only real complaint I have. Everything else looks damn good to me. While the teaser from last summer felt like Nolan, this one feels a lot closer to Snyder's sensibilities with the emphasis on dramatic composition. It feels a lot more like a comic book adaptation than the Nolan films too for sure.

Hopefully like 2011's Thor it will have a bit of levity to it. Wouldn't want a Superman film to be too po-faced.

To me, that could be the real tragedy of this movie. When I saw the Singerman teasers and trailers, the sinking feeling just wouldn't go away. This time it feels like the character is in not just good hands but the right hands. But it may tank it even worse than Singerman did because WB sure doesn't seem to care about promoting it very much.

But I guess the good news is that (apart from douchebag Apologist assholes fretting about a single line of dialogue that could be totally out of context) this trailer seems to have built up a lot of good will and interest. Even so, the fact remains that if MOS works out, it'll be in spite of WB's best efforts.

If MOS works out then it will no doubt be due to excellent word of mouth. Look at Avengers. Sure, Avengers was promoted well but it without a doubt became the behemoth it did due to raving word of mouth & repeat viewings. I can see a similar thing happening with MOS. WB may not give a crap due to all the legal garbage but then Superman soars again in spite of themselves. So what do duh brothers do then? How do they give themselves an 'out' when fans are crying for a MOS trilogy?

non_amos wrote: I'm still getting a SMALLVILLE vibe from young Clark which ain't necessarily a bad thing.

Just to add a little "fuel" to this:

Young Clark in 'MOS':



Young Clark in the 'Smallville' pilot:

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:The description was 100% accurate.

We know that now!!! Except there was no Faora scene, only a scene of Lara watching Krypton's destruction.

You're an idiot.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

non_amos wrote: I'm still getting a SMALLVILLE vibe from young Clark which ain't necessarily a bad thing.

Just to add a little "fuel" to this:

Young Clark in 'MOS':



Young Clark in the 'Smallville' pilot:

I also noticed those other shots of young Clark dressing similarly to Tom Welling what with the plaid shirts & all. Ain't there even scenes of Cavill like this in the film? I know I've seen stills of him like this. And that tornado scene you speak of? They ended SMALLVILLE SEASON ONE with a tornado cliffhanger. Now in MOS I only see a fleeting image that goes by so fast I'd have to pause it to study it but what I get from it is that Clark has a young kid in his arms that he's rescuing. Gee, where have I seen that before?!

Ya know, we used to sit around here saying things like how we'd like Welling to get the part but then we were afraid that instead of it being a Superman film that it'd simply become SMALLVILLE: the MOVIE. Complete with any continuity trappings that maybe we didn't want for a film. Which brings me once again to David Goyer. Even recently in one of these articles I believe at SHH Nolan commented (again) on MOS & how Goyer had approached him with a 'unique' take on Superman which 'sold' him on the idea. You know what I think? I think Goyer had been watching Smallville all along. I think he also saw the abortion that was SINGERMAN PEEPS. So in all the debating afterward about whether to continue or reboot, Goyer 'magically' comes up with a 'unique' take on Superman that's 'more real' & 'more human'. Coincidence? You tell me. Personally I think Goyer was well familiar with SV & Nolan wasn't.

So in a sense we get a film version of Smallville without it really being a direct interpretation. So we get to have our cake & eat it too so to speak. Which like I say, ain't necessarily a bad thing. But do you suppose duh apologists have picked up on this yet or are they really that dense? Let the hypocrisy spew forth!

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:The description was 100% accurate.

We know that now!!! Except there was no Faora scene, only a scene of Lara watching Krypton's destruction.

You're an idiot.

Hey douchbag... The description clearly illustrates the trailer featured a scene describing "Faora standing back towards camera looking at flames." which by the way was proven to be false and was actually a scene involving Lara witnessing explosions assuming it's taking place on Krypton during it's final hours!

Re-read the description and re-watch the trailer then let me know if I made you consume your own words with a side serving of a middle finger!

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Hey douchbag... The description clearly illustrates the trailer featured a scene describing "Faora standing back towards camera looking at flames." which by the way was proven to be false and was actually a scene involving Lara witnessing explosions assuming it's taking place on Krypton during it's final hours!

Re-read the description and re-watch the trailer then let me know if I made you consume your own words with a side serving of a middle finger!

That description is correct in the essentials; the viewer simply mistook Lara for Faora. But a Kryptonian chick stood there watching towers burn. The "error" is in the name, not the fact of what ended up in the trailer.

non_amos wrote:I also noticed those other shots of young Clark dressing similarly to Tom Welling what with the plaid shirts & all. Ain't there even scenes of Cavill like this in the film? I know I've seen stills of him like this. And that tornado scene you speak of? They ended SMALLVILLE SEASON ONE with a tornado cliffhanger. Now in MOS I only see a fleeting image that goes by so fast I'd have to pause it to study it but what I get from it is that Clark has a young kid in his arms that he's rescuing. Gee, where have I seen that before?!

Yep. As has been said, I don't think Clark wearing a blue shirt of the same basic shade as his later Superman body suit is a big coincidence either. SV may not have invented that little trick but they sure perfected it.

non_amos wrote:Ya know, we used to sit around here saying things like how we'd like Welling to get the part but then we were afraid that instead of it being a Superman film that it'd simply become SMALLVILLE: the MOVIE. Complete with any continuity trappings that maybe we didn't want for a film.

Not to split hairs on your point but I, esp toward the end, wanted Tom Welling in the role specifically so that it would be a continuation of SV. Sure, there were some problems with the SV story but, by numbers, no more than any other Superman adaptation. It never made sense to me to use Welling in a reboot.

That was actually my argument with the Apologists. "Bring Back Routh!" Why? "He's sooooooo associated with the role." Okay. But Welling is too, and probably more so. "Pfah, nobody watches Smallville." That's not an argument against using him. "But he'd bring all of SV's baggage with him!" Didn't you just say nobody watches the show? If that's true, no significant part of the audience will realize the "problem". Plus, you've just made an amazing argument against recasting Routh.

Anyway...

And for the official fucking record, I've supported a reboot (ie, no Welling, no SV, nothing) for a long time now. A new foundation always seemed like the best option. The only point I was making up there is that a little fucking intellectual honesty goes a long way.

non_amos wrote:Which brings me once again to David Goyer. Even recently in one of these articles I believe at SHH Nolan commented (again) on MOS & how Goyer had approached him with a 'unique' take on Superman which 'sold' him on the idea. You know what I think? I think Goyer had been watching Smallville all along. I think he also saw the abortion that was SINGERMAN PEEPS. So in all the debating afterward about whether to continue or reboot, Goyer 'magically' comes up with a 'unique' take on Superman that's 'more real' & 'more human'. Coincidence? You tell me. Personally I think Goyer was well familiar with SV & Nolan wasn't.

So in a sense we get a film version of Smallville without it really being a direct interpretation. So we get to have our cake & eat it to so to speak. Which like I say, ain't necessarily a bad thing. But do you suppose duh apologists have picked up on this yet or are they really that dense? Let the hypocrisy spew forth!

...

This hadn't occurred to me, actually. I'd figured Snyder had watched some SV here and there and obviously liked some of their ideas (and that's still on the table) but Goyer being so influenced by the show... yeah, hadn't crossed my mind. But you'd have one hell of an up hill battle to argue otherwise at this point.

Well hell, the entire Dark Knight trilogy was adaptations of some of the best Batman books written, why wouldn't Goyer adapt what's already out there for Superman.

Speaking of the pilot, the MOS photo actually reminds me of Clark rescuing Lex from drowning after the bridge crash.

Definitely makes me miss early Smallville to be honest.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, I'm actually glad the picked an actor that was the right age for a young teenage Clark, compared to the Smallville pilot with 24 year old Tom Welling playing 14 year old Clark.

OK, after watching the trailer a few dozen times and letting it sink in, and getting over the disappointment of basically no Shannon in it, I am ready to comment on it.

I don't like how dark the film looks, visually. I don't like that the suit looks dark. Yes, the teaser already hinted at that. But I guess I relied on the CC footage a bit too much (everything seemed brighter there). I always defended the MOS costume by showing how bright and full of color the suit can be under different lightning, but in this trailer it's all bleak and muted. Of course, at least the red actually looks like red even in darker circumstances, thanks to the fact that it actually IS red.
I'll probably get over this purely for the fact that the film actually looks wonderful and unique. But right now, I am not too happy about it.

Another concern of mine is David Goyer. I fear that the script will be plagued by crappy dialogue, overblown self importance and who knows what else. The trailer did nothing to ease me on this front, the opposite really. But I admit I need to hear a lot more before passing judgment

Now is just me, or does Cavill look less impressive physically then he did on the set?? I mean in terms of his physique and height. First of, in that shirtless on fire clip, he looks kind of thin to me. Which is dazzling because he clearly packed on a good amount of mass and lean muscle. Did that get lost in translation to the camera? Or is it just that shot? I mean, I look at the on set photos and then that shot and I just don't get it. But I can't make comparison photos now. He also looks kind of on the short side. I know he's ´´only`` 6'1 which is a mere and irrelevant 2 inches less than the characters height in the comics, but is he really 6'1? He looks great on his own but with Lois and Ma Kent, he seems kind of short.
Now im definitely not complaining about Cavill himself because the man sure has the face and the presence I have not seen since the days of Christopher Reeve (no offense to Cain and Welling) but I was kind of hopping for a definite Superman representation physically and im not sure I'll get this here.

I am also concerned by the lack of any fun to be had. I don't expect Marvel levels of fun and I am glad that they are treating Superman seriously and with respect but the film seems to carry itself a bit too seriously. I have seen no indication of any fun whatsoever in anything I've seen so far from the film and that worries me. The public and the critics won't like that and neither will I.

I am however glad that it looks like a Snyder film. Like James Stocks already mentioned, his flare for dramatic composition is well intact and the film does look like a comic book adaptation way more than any of the Nolan's Batman flicks did, imo. I also like that they seem to be going for a grand scale. I am intrigued by the designs of the Kryptonian ships and technology and I think the action looks marvelous. It does feel like an adventure film and when stuff is blowing up, it looks exciting, both from the way it's shot and from the way it looks. I also see Snyder has some new toys to play around it, called lens flare and shaky cam. But it seems that he actually uses those to a great effect. The CGI however, seemed a tad unfinished to me in places. Kind of surprising given how long they've been in post-production. Hopefully everything looks flawless by June.

That's it for now. The trailer did grow on me, it's very good and I'm sure that at the very least I'll like the film, but for now I still have one concern too many to be truly hyped and ready to love it with all I've got.

Oh and the trailer seems to have caused a decent amount of hype. I really hope WB doesn't just rest on that for 3 months and do nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if they did though.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Hey douchbag... The description clearly illustrates the trailer featured a scene describing "Faora standing back towards camera looking at flames." which by the way was proven to be false and was actually a scene involving Lara witnessing explosions assuming it's taking place on Krypton during it's final hours!

Re-read the description and re-watch the trailer then let me know if I made you consume your own words with a side serving of a middle finger!

That description is correct in the essentials; the viewer simply mistook Lara for Faora. But a Kryptonian chick stood there watching towers burn. The "error" is in the name, not the fact of what ended up in the trailer.

Actually, he's a fucking IDIOT because he says "durrr weez nose dat know!!!" after I said the description was accurate. And I posted it within an hour of the trailer making it online.

What kind of MORON says that, when I was confirming a previous story's validity?

Bradleyxhoward wrote:Well hell, the entire Dark Knight trilogy was adaptations of some of the best Batman books written, why wouldn't Goyer adapt what's already out there for Superman.

It was?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Bradleyxhoward wrote:Well hell, the entire Dark Knight trilogy was adaptations of some of the best Batman books written, why wouldn't Goyer adapt what's already out there for Superman.

It was?

I know, me too.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Bradleyxhoward wrote:Well hell, the entire Dark Knight trilogy was adaptations of some of the best Batman books written, why wouldn't Goyer adapt what's already out there for Superman.

It was?

I know, me too.

OY!

Apologist Puncher wrote:
Actually, he's a fucking IDIOT because he says "durrr weez nose dat know!!!" after I said the description was accurate. And I posted it within an hour of the trailer making it online.

What kind of MORON says that, when I was confirming a previous story's validity?

Maybe is because after seeing the trailer we know then that the description was accurate but due to a minor misconception that was notice during the trailer the description was only 98% accurate.

I suggest you take the truth for what it is and what is worth instead of embarrassing yourself by portraying yourself as a arrogant, know-it-all, nitpicking prick!

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Maybe is because after seeing the trailer we know then that the description was accurate but due to a minor misconception that was notice during the trailer the description is was only 98% accurate.

I suggest you take the truth for what it is and what is worth instead of embarrassing yourself by portraying yourself as a arrogant, know-it-all, nitpicking prick!

Fuck's sake, man, you're the one nitpicking. The description said generally "a chick watching buildings collapse". The fucking trailer showed a chick watching buildings collapse. So except for nitpicky details, precisely what is wrong with the statement?? It's generally correct. You're making this a bigger deal than it has to be.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Maybe is because after seeing the trailer we know then that the description was accurate but due to a minor misconception that was notice during the trailer the description was only 98% accurate.

Guess what, shit for brains? 98% right means IT WAS RIGHT.

I seriously think there's something wrong with your "brain", asshole.

I suggest you take the truth for what it is and what is worth instead of embarrassing yourself by portraying yourself as a arrogant, know-it-all, nitpicking prick!

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Bradleyxhoward wrote:Well hell, the entire Dark Knight trilogy was adaptations of some of the best Batman books written, why wouldn't Goyer adapt what's already out there for Superman.

It was?

I know, me too.

Hasn't this been pretty well documented? Correct me if I'm wrong. Begins was damn near a straight rip of Miller's Year One and also The Man Who Falls (which was included with the Begins DVD) Ledger's Joker was from The Killing Joke and TDKRises is Nolan's version of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. I'm surprised some of you guys hadn't seen the similarities. while I love the series, I've always thought Nolan got too much credit for this being an original take on the character when it was obvious, to me anyway, that these stories came from comic stories.

BHoward wrote:Hasn't this been pretty well documented? Correct me if I'm wrong. Begins was damn near a straight rip of Miller's Year One and also The Man Who Falls (which was included with the Begins DVD) Ledger's Joker was from The Killing Joke and TDKRises is Nolan's version of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. I'm surprised some of you guys hadn't seen the similarities. while I love the series, I've always thought Nolan got too much credit for this being an original take on the character when it was obvious, to me anyway, that these stories came from comic stories.

You raise good points. Me, I'm still trying to find the in-continuity pre-Nolan comics where Henri Ducard is an alias for Ra's, Jonathan Crane is a GQ cover model with about as much depth, Ra's is an Irishman, Batman would give up the gig because his girl died, the Joker wears face paint, Bane sounds like Rafiki from the Lion King and looks like Scorpion from Mortal Kombat, Bruce waited until he was almost old enough to buy alcohol before starting his training and other things.

I can live with the fact that the Waynes died after seeing a play rather than The Mark of Zorro. I think that is and should be absolute canon at this point but I'm willing to let it slide because WB doesn't own the rights to it. But some of the changes up there aren't small potatoes; they go right to who those characters are and why they do what they do. None of that shit comes from any comic book I've ever read.

Nolan is good at taking elements from comics (Bane breaking Batman's back) but he really sucks at translating the meaning and intent of those things (Bane broke Batman's back to establish what a badass he is and to open the door for a more murderous alternate Batman while Nolan did it to illustrate Batman's hubris/death wish). And you know what? I don't have a problem with that. Nothing says he has to use those things in the same frame work the comics did. But if he's not going to take that approach, you can call what he did anything you like but it doesn't really meet my definition of the word "adaptation". He just basically threw a bunch of well known comic book lore into a blender, hit 'High' and poured some of it into his realistic take on the character.

Goyer, as Nolan's side kick, bears some responsibility for those unnecessary changes.

If you dig on Nolan's Batman trilogy, more power to you, but it wasn't and never will be my thing.

thecolorsblend wrote:

BHoward wrote:Hasn't this been pretty well documented? Correct me if I'm wrong. Begins was damn near a straight rip of Miller's Year One and also The Man Who Falls (which was included with the Begins DVD) Ledger's Joker was from The Killing Joke and TDKRises is Nolan's version of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. I'm surprised some of you guys hadn't seen the similarities. while I love the series, I've always thought Nolan got too much credit for this being an original take on the character when it was obvious, to me anyway, that these stories came from comic stories.

you can call what he did anything you like but it doesn't really meet my definition of the word "adaptation". He just basically threw a bunch of well known comic book lore into a blender, hit 'High' and poured some of it into his realistic take on the character.

Goyer, as Nolan's side kick, bears some responsibility for those unnecessary changes.

If you dig on Nolan's Batman trilogy, more power to you, but it wasn't and never will be my thing.

Maybe that's a better description than straight adaptation. I enjoyed the trilogy for the most part, but the fact that I don't own TDKR blu ray speaks volumes for me. I think Begins was the last Batman movie we've seen. Funny how Nolan chose to use The Dark Knight instead of Batman. That was done intentionally.

I know this is impossible but if MARVEL STUDIOS had done a Batman reboot then we would've gotten something like we did with Avengers. Even if it hadn't been a word for word adaptation it still would've had so much comics mythos thrown into it that it would've rocked even the hardcore fans! And they wouldn't have apologized either for being 'too comic booky'.

Just sayin'...................