Man of Steel

'Man of Steel' preview footage so good it brought tears to the eyes of fans
Michael Santo
July 15, 2012

"Man of Steel" footage presented Saturday in Hall H at the Warner Bros. presentation was so good it brought tears to the eyes of at least one fan, according to a report. "Man of Steel" is the second reboot of the Superman franchise; 2006's "Superman Returns" was the first.

Director Zack Snyder and star Henry Cavill were in attendance for the "screening." According to the report, one fan was "reduced to a blubbering mess as he said how much he loved it [the footage]. Another said, “Any doubt I had was gone with that trailer."

The footage showed Clark Kent both as a boy and as an adult, with Cavill wearing the iconic Superman costume. It also gave fans glimpses of co-stars Amy Adams (Lois Lane) and Russell Crowe (Superman's Krytonian father, Jor-El).

Don't expect a reprise of John Williams original score. Snyder said, “We had to act as if no film has been made. When we approached it, we had to say 'this is Superman for the first time,'. And you can’t say, ‘Oh, now let’s steal a little music.’ So yes, it’s awesome music but Hans [Zimmer] is going to do something awesome.”

Considering that Christopher Nolan co-wrote the story with David S. Goyer and is one of the producers of the film, the involvement of his composer of choice, Hans Zimmer, is no surprise.

Snyder said that the new film less makes Superman of a "big blue Boy Scout." It's something that the hero has been derisively called by villains in the comics, too.

"The big challenge, of course, is if you can make people feel, 'What would you do it you were Superman? How would you feel?' How to make it personal, I think that's the thing we went after."

The Superman trailer will be shown before "The Dark Knight Rises" when it premieres this coming Friday, which brought a comparison from Snyder, who when asked who would win between Batman and Superman said, "I love Batman. He is awesome — like, literally awesome — but, really?"

http://www.examiner.com/article/man-of-s...he-eyes-of-fans

The emotions talked about above probably had a lot to do with the music. Where have I heard this score before? Something about John Williams???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhBBWBa_-5M

Story by:
Christopher Nolan
David S. Goyer

Directed by Zack Snyder


Talk about a stacked cast...

Henry Cavill
Russell Crowe
Amy Adams
Kevin Costner
Diane Lane
Michael Shannon
Christopher Meloni
Laurence Fishburne


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/

I hope this turns out good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8q3ZFCMhpY

The above trailer is the Kevin Costner teaser. He plays Superman's earth father. Below is the Russell Crowe version. He plays Jor-El.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWP4LFJdx2E

You know I hope this is pretty good. The cast is great, I'm always in the mood for a good Superman movie, my only concern is Snyder himself. I just don't like his movies, but hey who knows maybe he'll surprise me?

I don't want my cynicism rewarded.

EDIT - If it's any consolation, the cinematography looks gorgeous, Malick-esque almost.

maybe with nolan as producer he may make the movie better. but, yea with superman i am iffy with it because i really dont care for superman (batman is my fav superhero). the first two christopher reeves were good...every movie after that was either 'eh' or terrible. the movie looks kind of dark which is always positive.

I don't know about anyone else but I really liked Superman Returns. A lot of people didn't. But what did it for me was the obvious Christ analogy in the film.

Snyder hasn't done many movies but I won't write him off. I liked 300 a lot. The Watchmen was interesting. But even Emily Browning couldn't save Suckerpunch. Dawn of the Dead was mediocre.

As for this one, Snyder has said he approached it like there has never been another Superman movie. So he's really starting fresh. And, as one article said, and the trailers imply, Clark/Superman being good isn't a "done deal." Instead of being inherently good, he has to make the choice. It's my understanding that he's also portrayed as a more rough and tumble Superman. Somebody who can beat your head in. Less polished, if that makes any sense.

My problem with SUPERMAN RETURNS (which had good intentions) was that it might've made the mistake of trying to explore Superman's full pathos. You can do that with Batman because that's part of his gimmick and it's endlessly fascinating, what with his rogues gallery representing slices of his psychology. (Not to mention I didn't think RETURNS had an interesting story quite honestly.)

Superman...I think is much more a symbolic myth, which has attracted most filmmakers who've tackled him. Created by two Jewish cartoonists, his origin was heavily inspired by Moses, and well he was born in 1938 and well in historical context it adds even more fascinating value. (Worth checking out online is a cartoon Siegel/Shuster did for I think Life magazine where Superman swooped in and captured both Hitler and Mussolini and presented them to the League of Naions for trial. This not-so-subtle propaganda got Superman banned in Nazi Germany.)

I like to think that if Batman broods naturally, Superman seems to hold it on his sleeve. If Batman is a night creature who shys away from the public, Superman is all public and daylight, no mask. Superman can get away with fighting the ridiculous giant monsters/aliens while it never seems right Batman doing it. The same with those Superman mythos elements like Supergirl, Krypto the Super Dog, the bottled city of Kandor, all those different types of Kryptonite, etc. Ridiculous sure, but it fits a fairy tale figure like Superman like a glove.

I disagree with the contant complaint that Superman is "boring," it's just you have to present him a good, captivating, entertaining story and context. If you ask me, I really loved what Grant Morrison did with his All-Star Superman comics from recent years. Definately worth reading.

I even liked the cartoon from the 1990s that were made by the same people behind BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. They actually produced a Superman that was truely highly entertaining and exploited his mythos.

Well, from the looks of it, we may just get an even fuller exploration of Superman's pathos in Man of Steel. Which is fine with me if it is done right.

I think what WB should worry about with MAN OF STEEL isn't the movie, but the damn nerds. So many of them online are so bitchy about how TDKR should be more "light" like AVENGERS or whatever nonsense they're believing at the moment, those reactionary little morons.

I mean if that attitude carries to a Nolan-produced Superman movie next summer, I can believe them pre-emptively not giving it a chance at all and really get themselves carried away with trivial complaints when missing the big picture.

Watched both MOS trailers, and honestly I think I prefer the one with the narration by Jor-El, using lines that I'm pretty certain were taken verbatim from Morrison's ALL-STAR SUPERMAN and delivered with chilling power by Crowe.

EDIT - I was right.

That's true, Ronnie. These Comic-Con type geeks can make or break a movie a year before it's released. They have entirely too much say.

Oh and Superman 75 years ago today made his first appearance in Action Comics #1 on April 18, 1938. (Lois Lane also made her debut in that issue.)

Hopefully MAN OF STEEL is the perfect birthday present.

Never really have been a superman fan, but I have started reading the new 52 comics of it. I did like the first two superman movies with Christopher Reeve. I am looking forward to Man of Steel, and hope that it will be great.

Another question is, are they going to try and make the justice league movie. If they do, I honestly can't see it being good.

Why not?

Its not so much that but that they think they matter more than they really do. Its like a political campaign. You want to capture independent, centrist swing voters but also don't want to lose your party "base." For these sorts of movies, its general moviegoers who might or might not have ever read a single comic book while the base are the hardcore fans who you can depend on to go see (unless they're pissed off.) You need both groups.

Or worse, they aren't open to the idea of diversity in a genre. I mean look at westerns. John Ford made many good ones. So did Sergio Leone of a different generation with differnet filmatic standards and political concerns. Genres thrive on diversity of talent, stagnation of ideas and filmatics leads to genres dying. Like the western.

Christopher Nolan and Marvel can't produce every single Comic Book/Superhero/Fantasy/Sci-Fi property out there. And not every single one of them can be a universal audience friendly summer blockbuster. Superman is not Batman, X-Men is not Batman, Fantatsic four is not X-Men, and so forth. (A reason if you ask me why GREEN LANTERN flopped a few years back: It basically ripped off BATMAN BEGINS and IRON MAN, but added nothing to the filmatic narrative for itself.)

Consider last year. THE AVENGERS and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES were both in my book great summer blockbuster spectacles. Both different takes on what is a "universal-friendly" superhero movie. Whedon's movie was fueled by humor and paying off a larger than life universal "cross-over" event. Nolan's movie was run by psychology and down to Earth yet still fantastical angle. Both produced to sell toys and lunchboxes.

Then we also got DREDD, based off the Judge Dredd comics from the U.K. Those filmmakers understood that a big screen Dredd film can only work if its incredibly over the top R-rated violent. Really a throwback to the 1980s action film. They also knew that the character himself is the least interesting, most bland element The "stars" are the metropolitan environment of this bleak dystopic future, and the fantastical adversaries and obstacles (usually satirical) for Dredd to prevail over. He exists simply to kick ass, nothing more. That movie wasn't made to sell lunchboxes. Very good movie.

And to give Nolan/WB and Marvel credit, they understand the stagnation concern. That's why they're planning to expand themselves to untapped territories if you will. WB is rumored to finally get ready to produce a Wonder Woman movie, which I actually think can absolutely work. (It can totally backfire as well, but that's the same concern for any property adaptation.) Marvel is planning to do Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther and Dr. Strange and Ant-Man and Ms. Marvel and so forth.

Running Time: 2 hours 23 minutes

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman_movies/news/?a=79586

Able to leap tall buildings with a single bound.......only George Reeves will be Superman in my mind. I had a mini-crush on Lois Lane.

Really starting to get into the mood for this movie...

http://glyphcreator.manofsteel.com/

Snyder directed this.

http://twitpic.com/cu1tq5

WB really wants to destroy the box-office next weekend, don't they?

I imagine they will. I'd be surprised if there's a bigger movie this summer/year.

Bigger than IRON MAN 3 and its $1,183,729,665? I have trouble seeing that.

But we'll see.

I did a full-length review for Richard Donner's SUPERMAN from 1978.

SPOILER: It's still terrific.

http://awardswatch.com/showthread.php?33185-Superman-(Donner-1978)

I am not into any comic superheroes except Superman for some reason. Anyway, I'm thinking of maybe taking the grandkids (ages 11, 9 & 6) to see it. I know it's rated PG13. Is it ok for younger kids ya think? Is the rating for violence?


TIS

The rating was for the blood, but it's not gory or a bloodbath.

I don't know about the 6 year old since this is a pretty loud VFX disaster movie-level of spectacle, but its fine for kids in general.

I saw it again and liked it more the second time around. I got more out of it and seeing it on a mammoth screen certainly helped. It's not perfect but I just might give it 3 out of 4 stars.

I watched Man of Steel yesterday with a friend of mine, after the first one hour I noticed my friend wiping his tears and I was like what's wrong? He didn't say anything during the movie, after the movie was done he told me the movie reminded him of his late father, his dad was a huge fan of the classic Superman films.
And another strange (well not that strange but uncommon during a comic superhero movie) when the end credits started rolling the people in the cinema started clapping for like 2-3 minutes, it felt so strange coz in the end its a comic superhero movie & Omanis aren't into comics, maybe some teenagers are and plus on that the last Superman movie "Superman Returns" was so horrible. lol
Superman truly is a worldwide phenomenon.

RIP Christopher Reeve.

My qualms at the movie aside, it is nice that Superman is back. Took WB what, 25 years or so to finally get that franchise successfully back on its feet?

But man for a movie that's trying its best to tell a story, emotionally it struck out for me and especially the climax ending's supposed power isn't earned. At all. (And really, why would Superman react as he does afterwards? Think within the movie's internal logic and character-development and explain why he would. Forget comic book lore.) Why would Lois Lane be in love with him? Why would he? This movie has full of good ideas it just doesn't exploit, just really drops the ball on. This feels halfbaked.

I said it elsewhere, but that moment Supes has with Meloni where fear and ignorance is defeated by simple decency made me feel more than any of the origin flashbacks (though the Krpyton Space Opera opening I did enjoy, with vibes of David Lynch's DUNE.) I really wanted more human interactivity moments.

But beyond that, that finale fight really bothers me. Nevermind the pacing issues where the movie is over when your big supposed show-stopping climax happens. How about the fact that nothing about it was really memorable and added nothing to the story and character development?* It was just punch punch smash smash, it could've been found in any other blockbuster CGI spectacle.

Contrast that with THE AVENGERS, which I loved because (among other reasons) of the memorable character moments during that 3rd act that spoke volumes about the characters. Hulk smashing Loki, Hawkeye's no-look bullseye shot, smartass Tony Stark willing to bite the bullet if push came to shove, Captain America commanding this squad and laying out a rather logical military strategy that you usually don't find in such movies. Not to mention the characters tag-teaming in kicking ass. MOS didn't have such moments for me. It was, to use my words in the other thread, "mayhem porn." MOS for me works only as a semi-engagable disaster movie.

Or hell I'll bring up another film I saw on TV the other night, which arguably is the best superhero film ever produced: THE INCREDIBLES. Not just the best action-directed (helps being a cartoon movie I suppose, since most movies' FX anymore are cartoony anyway) but it goes through a full range of pathos and emotions. That scene when Mr. Incredible really believed his family was murdered by the villain? More emotion in that moment than in all of MOS.

Of course I'll defend MOS against one criticism that it is "humorless." Nonsense, there are legit laughs in the film.


*=The filmmakers have said that ending and the massive destruction will be fundamentally dealt with in the sequel, which is quite a good idea.

Snyder did mention that he had cut out a hour's worth of footage. If a director's cut/extended version was ever released, I would be willing to give that one a chance.

I haven't seen the movie but it seems like the people like it more than the critics do (which really isn't new. I disagree with critics most of the time) I keep hearing it's very DARK and not the Superman we once knew. Any thoughts?



TIS

IMHO it is to Superman what the Christopher Nolan movies were to batman. Easily the best Superman movie ever made. Ronnie, you have some good points, but the whole way they treat the Lois Lane relationship -- I should say re-invent it, addded with the ending, clearly is setting us up for another film or two.

Excellent post ronnie! You nailed it dead on! Well said.

While a part of me did like the movie, the slight twists that didn't make it the same old Superman story, I was not impressed with the length of anti climactic fighting that took place for most of the movie.

I liked the movie....but did not love it.

Ahh, Hollywood...

'Man of Steel': How producer Jon Peters Could Earn $15 Million -- for Doing Absolutely Nothing

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/man-steel-how-jon-peters-570675

Same Jon Peters who started out in the business as Barbara Streisand's hairstylist, if I remember right. His infamous never-produced SUPERMAN LIVES project from back in the 1990s would've had Sean Penn as Supes, Brainiac the villain with a gay black sidekick, a giant robot spider*, and other crazy shit you can't make up.

*=He later produced the Will Smith flop WILD WILD WEST, which did have a giant robot spider. Ummm...

My daughter went to see the movie with some friends, and then the theater caught fire and they were evacuated. Luckily, everything was fine, just a small but very smoky fire. However, the theater didn't refund their money! They told them to hold on to their tickets and they could see the show for free another day. Now, what are the chances everyone will save their stubs?

I took my grandkids to see it in 3D this afternoon. I am not an expert on special affects, or CGI but it obviously was loaded with them. Don't know the guy who played Superman but he was good in the role. Kevin Costner & Diane Lane were good as Clark's parents.

The 3D glasses were a plus (the grandkids loved them) but it seems parts of the film you really didn't need them.

On the minus side, for my taste anyway, I'd prefer more of a Metropolis type story than the storyline of the battle between Krypton and Superman, tho I must admit that I found Russell Crowe very good as Jorel (very reminiscent of Brando who played the same part in the first Superman).

AND what's up with Lois Lane knowing Clark is Superman even tho, I know the glasses tend to be the only disguise LOL) AND why is Clark getting a job at the Daily Planet AFTER he saves the world at the end of the movie?

By the end there was plenty of explosions, fights. Movie was a little too long.

The grandkids liked it but when I asked my grandson said he liked Iron Man 3 better (which he just saw with a friend). Then again, he didn't know that much about Superman. I gave the kids a crash course before we went in.


TIS

I was going to go with co workers this afternoon to see it, had to work at last minute, and missed the movie. Glad I did, all three said it was not so great. One hated it, other two said it was average, not worth seeing in theatre. I will wait for it to come on cable, maybe catch it then. I have yet to have anyone who saw it tell me they liked it a lot.

We went to the brand new I-Max here which open last Friday. What a place. The best place I have ever been to see a movie in. The seat were so nice and comfortable. The sound system was over the top. Surround sound on steroids!
We watched Brad Pitts new film which opened Friday -WWZ and then went over to watch The Man of Steel. Both were well done and very enjoyable.

Each theatre held I think 360 people and they were no seats that blocked any of your view. Not even a hint of a person sitting in front of you. Arm rests were removable and the seats reclined just right. They were made of a very nice material which didn't heat up after seating for a long time. You weren't always trying to get comfortable for those hours in the seats like in the older places.

You had to take an elevator up three floors to get to the top of the place and the front rows look like they were way down there. People down front looked like ants- That screen was supersized is the only way to say it. Yet the screen felt like it was right in front of your face.

Both 3 D versions was easy to watch, the glasses were easy on your face and the hours went by quickly as the stories keep your interest. WWZ is very fast paced at times. Man of Steel was very loud and your mind could sense the buildings falling around you with the sound system. You couldn't miss a sound even if you were hard or hearing.
You know the shows are just take ment to entertain you not to be picked apart as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe that is how you have to look at them to enjoy them.

I think that the place you see the films in makes the differnce, as the large screen, great non-obstructed views and premium seats and super sound systems can really upgrade the experience!

It was a great time to get out of the heat. Bonus was getting a $5.75 soda for a $1.00 with my movie card and it came with free refills-

Price was $17.00 per show. Which here in CNY is a bit steep (for many people/kids) as Reg. shows without 3d or Imax runs $9.00
with a early afternoon show being had for 2-3 dollars less if you get there that early.

I am sure that in NYC or other big places this is the normal price for a movie, but we are talking upstate New York here.

i liked the christpher reeve version better. i also liked the richard donner cut of the second movie that had more marlon brando scenes.

when lois dies superman yells no and begins to cry.
in man of steel superman utters the same line after killing zod.
in superman II superman decides not to fight the 3 evil bad guys from krypton because innocent people are being hurt.
in man of steel superman destroys not only smallville but metropolis as well.
young clark in superman is respectful of his adopted father.
in man of steel clark tells his adopted dad, "You aren't even my real father."

a wtf moment for sure.

Looking back, some things worked. Others didn't. In hindsight, I think Superman Returns worked better for what it was trying to do (despite not getting the credit it deserved).

Man of Steel is total garbage. I wrote this about it: http://www.indiewire.com/article/why-thi...an-man-of-steel

"Superman Returns" was pretty good and made plenty of money back in 2006. I was surprised they scrapped the formula and started from scratch so fast .

now they are going to have a superman and batman movie which will feature both characters together.