Full length trailer shows Zod and more!

Click here--->>> Man of Steel

---

I don't know... it still seems like a big teaser trailer. The viewer still gets no real idea who the villain is or what it's even about.

I get the impression they're retelling the origin too. It's so not necessary, just get to the good stuff!

On film yeah, but there was Smallville and the Supes animated series as well as being alluded to in Superman Returns. Everybody and his brother knows the origin of Superman.

I don't see how it relates to DC creating their own movie universe either. Plus, if they absolutely have to retell it, just do it quickly during the opening credits. This looks like it will be drawn out just like in the '78 original.

No one ever needs to put Superman, Spider-Man or Batman's origin on film again. It's a waste of time and bores the viewers. The last Superman film was such a complete pile that watching this (while slick looking) I still have the bad taste in my mouth of the previous dud.

---

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

You think you're better than you are cause you're not very good so you can't see how bad you are. - Greg Capullo

The villain is Zod. You can see him in the trailer. Another villain I've heard might be in the film is Brainiac. Of course they aren't going to reveal a whole lot in trailers but I think this might be the Superman movie us comic geeks have been waiting for.

---

Comics fans love seeing their favorite heroes' origin story be retold by different writers and artists. It's a fun, unique experience where each creator can put his own spin or stamp on an iconic event. But this is the movies we're talking about. Spending tens of millions of dollars on something for the big screen that eats up precious time that you literally only get to have once every few years (at the most frequent) is just a big waste of time to me. Give us something new that we haven't seen--that also goes for redoing the villain in this one.

Based on the first teaser trailer (and now this one), I'm under the impression that a big theme of the movie is Clark making the "choice" to become a hero. That actually bothers me quite a bit. To me, one reason Superman is heroic is because he helps humans (a race of people he has no relation to) because it's simply the right thing to do. Because Supes has these great powers and he uses them for the benefit of mankind at great personal sacrifice to himself (see Superman II). To me, there really was no choice for him in deciding to become Superman--he just DID it. There was no "quest", no journey to find out what he wanted to do with himself. Bringing him down to our level and giving him a soul-searching quest to find himself (which looks A LOT like the tone of Nolan's quest for Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins) may be interesting storytelling, but to me it really degrades what makes Superman a hero in the first place. He's supposed to be better than us, less conflicted.

Who knows. Maybe that's not the point at all and I'm reading into it wrong. But personally, I think Man of Steel is going to be the film (after the financial duds of Superman Returns, Watchman, Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, etc) that finally causes Warner Brothers to stop throwing money at these DC properties.

I guess I might be wrong, but didn't all those movies (except Jonah Hex) make a decent chunk of change? certainly they all turned a profit.


EDIT: Just checked. Indeed they did. In fact Superman netted Warner over 200 million. (I realize that isn't all profit, but over 200 million is considered a decent money maker)

None of that was profit. The production costs on Superman Returns (per boxofficemojo) was $270 million.

The foreign take was $191 million, so it did net $121 million overall, but that's not "a lot" in terms of what this level of film should do. Plus, it sucked.

Watchmen: $130 million budget, $107 million US + $78 million foreign = $55 million net

GL: $200 million budget, $116 million US + $103 million foreign = $19 million net

Jonah Hex: $47 million budget, $10.5 million US + $356 THOUSAND foreign = $36 million net LOSS

And just to include all the non-Bat movies since 2000...

Catwoman: $100 million budget, $40 million US + $42 million foreign = $18 million net LOSS

---

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

You think you're better than you are cause you're not very good so you can't see how bad you are. - Greg Capullo

Swifty, you're arguing apples and oranges. Many movies nowadays (even the successes) don't make hefty profits in their original theatric release. While you did think to include the international box office, you left out DVD, merchandise, TV rights etc.......

Movie studios nowadays, have a FAR different business model than they used to. It's why, at the start of movies you no longer see just ONE studio logo. You see three or four usually. Even at the start of Warner Superhero movies, you have to sit through 3 or 4 studios' "opening bit". Movie studios diversify and utilize various means of turning profits and minimizing risks.
The fact that even "disspointing" movies like Superman Returns, Green Lantern and Watchmen managed to turn a profit before they even hit secondary markets or before all the merchandising is taken into account, was likely seen as a nice chunk of change for the studios.


BTW.....I never argued for Jonah Hex, or Catwoman. They were both commercial failures for sure, by any measure.
Although, I will sheepishly admit, I liked and own Catwoman.

BTW 2.....Naming a movie that netted over 100 million dollars in Pure profits, before it even hits the secondary markets, a failure, is, frankly, wrong. That's a lot of scratch for any movie to make.
I will give in to the argument that it was a disspointment, but it WASN'T a failure.

Double check that. None of those movies made a profit in their domestic run.

On the other hand, it almost doesn't matter anymore (profitwise) if a movie turns a profit domestically. The foreign markets have opened up so much (even in the past few years) that domestic totals are far less than the foreign. The latest Bond film was releases pretty much everywhere before it even appeared in the United States. That should tell us how important the foreign markets are now. When you also add in DVD sales--yeah, it's pretty hard for a movie these days to not turn a profit (although it still happens).