| Welcome Guest | Active Topics |
CCL Messageboard
»
The Water Cooler
»
Movies
»
MAN of STEEL full length trailer!
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Forum Admin, Guru, Media Host, Member, Moderator
Joined: 6/17/2007
Posts: 18,972
Points: 56,691
Location: DrFate's Sanctuary
|
Full length trailer shows Zod and more! Click here--->>> Man of Steel
Hey, true believers! Join your fellow comic book and sci-fi lovers on my NERD NATION Facebook page! Join us today and get your nerd on! Nerd Nation
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Beta, Guru, Member, Moderator, Movies Host, Subscriber, TV Host
Joined: 1/5/2007
Posts: 12,733
Points: 60,932
Location: Redding, CA
|
Looks freaking awesome! I can't wait! I do have one nitpick about it, though. In the trailer it mentions that Clark's dad didn't think the world would ever accept him for who he is, and even goes as far as saying maybe Clark should have let that bus of kids die. In the comics, Clark's dad is probably his BIGGEST influence in becoming Superman.
Make sure that you read and understand the forum rules here
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
|
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!
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Guru, Marvel Host, Member, Moderator
Joined: 5/9/2007
Posts: 8,553
Points: 42,018
Location: Orleans, Ontario
|
KingZombie wrote: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! If this is the film that kicks off DC's movie universe, they absolutely have to redo the origin. Besides, the last full origin of superman on film was the first flick anyway, which was almost 35 years ago. As far as the trailer goes..meh. I'm not all that interested in seeing this. Cavill looks awesome as Supes when all clean shaven, but the suit itself is a little too dark and murky. I wasn't expecting Christopher Reeves "bright", but the whole film seems saturated in grey.
 Make sure that you read and understand the forum rules, here.
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
|
SpidermanGeek wrote:KingZombie wrote: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! If this is the film that kicks off DC's movie universe, they absolutely have to redo the origin. Besides, the last full origin of superman on film was the first flick anyway, which was almost 35 years ago. 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.
|
|
Rank: Metahuman
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 176
Points: 529
Location: On East 12th Street
|
It looks sick! I cant wait.
Jesus is the Son of God! THE DARK KNIGHT LIVES!As soon as I get my gun, Ima point it out the window toward the setting sun.
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Approver, CCL Feature Crew, CR-Guidelines, Member, Super Seller
Shop at My Store
Joined: 4/19/2007
Posts: 11,541
Points: 1,994,527
Location: PA
|
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.
"Words have meaning." - my wife
|
|
Rank: Metahuman
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 176
Points: 529
Location: On East 12th Street
|
SwiftMann wrote: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. Agreed. Origins have been told enough.
Jesus is the Son of God!THE DARK KNIGHT LIVES!As soon as I get my gun, Ima point it out the window toward the setting sun.
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Forum Admin, Guru, Media Host, Member, Moderator
Joined: 6/17/2007
Posts: 18,972
Points: 56,691
Location: DrFate's Sanctuary
|
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.
Hey, true believers! Join your fellow comic book and sci-fi lovers on my NERD NATION Facebook page! Join us today and get your nerd on! Nerd Nation
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Beta, Guru, Member, Moderator, Movies Host, Subscriber, TV Host
Joined: 1/5/2007
Posts: 12,733
Points: 60,932
Location: Redding, CA
|
Mindfreak wrote:SwiftMann wrote: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. Agreed. Origins have been told enough. If it's done well, then I more than welcome an origin story. Superman's origin story is an iconic story, and it has merited a few retellings in comics that were more than worthy (John Byrne's Man of Steel immeadiatly comes to mind....hmmm, you think that's the story of this movie since that's the title?). If it's the same old rehash, then yeah, let's move past it.
Make sure that you read and understand the forum rules here
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller
Shop at My Store
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,655
Points: 32,765
Location: Vancouver, Washington
|
BurningDoom wrote:Mindfreak wrote:SwiftMann wrote: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. Agreed. Origins have been told enough. If it's done well, then I more than welcome an origin story. Superman's origin story is an iconic story, and it has merited a few retellings in comics that were more than worthy (John Byrne's Man of Steel immeadiatly comes to mind....hmmm, you think that's the story of this movie since that's the title?). If it's the same old rehash, then yeah, let's move past it. 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.
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Subscriber
Joined: 5/12/2007
Posts: 3,779
Points: 46,921
Location: Peg City
|
|
|
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator
Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,348
Points: 4,819
|
Thundercron wrote:BurningDoom wrote:Mindfreak wrote:SwiftMann wrote: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. Agreed. Origins have been told enough. If it's done well, then I more than welcome an origin story. Superman's origin story is an iconic story, and it has merited a few retellings in comics that were more than worthy (John Byrne's Man of Steel immeadiatly comes to mind....hmmm, you think that's the story of this movie since that's the title?). If it's the same old rehash, then yeah, let's move past it. 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)
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller
Shop at My Store
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,655
Points: 32,765
Location: Vancouver, Washington
|
comicuniversity wrote:Thundercron wrote:BurningDoom wrote:Mindfreak wrote:SwiftMann wrote: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. Agreed. Origins have been told enough. If it's done well, then I more than welcome an origin story. Superman's origin story is an iconic story, and it has merited a few retellings in comics that were more than worthy (John Byrne's Man of Steel immeadiatly comes to mind....hmmm, you think that's the story of this movie since that's the title?). If it's the same old rehash, then yeah, let's move past it. 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) You're completely right. However, today's movie studios expect all these super hero flicks to be runaway box office smashes, in the vein of Nolan's Batman or the Avengers. I know, I know--their expectations are too high. So even though the films you mentioned were profitable, they just weren't profitable enough to be deemed a success in their eyes. That's why a follow up to Superman Returns didn't happen (we're getting a reboot), and a Green Lantern sequel is on hold.
|
|
Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Approver, CCL Feature Crew, CR-Guidelines, Member, Super Seller
Shop at My Store
Joined: 4/19/2007
Posts: 11,541
Points: 1,994,527
Location: PA
|
comicuniversity wrote: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
"Words have meaning." - my wife
|
|
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator
Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,348
Points: 4,819
|
point taken Thundercron. They certainly were dissapointments. I would just say they were still commercial successes, just to a lesser degree than projected.
I am just reacting to the "revisionist" history that often follows comic movies. Often, when a comic movie comes out, most people on these sites are largely positive. Even the negative commentary is usually somewhat tepid. But, after a few years, people "change" their opinions and engage in complete negative hyperbole.
Superman Returns was NOT, at the time of its' release, widely considered "a steaming pile", but now, that's almost all you hear about it.
|
|
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator
Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,348
Points: 4,819
|
SwiftMann wrote:comicuniversity wrote: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 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.
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller
Shop at My Store
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,655
Points: 32,765
Location: Vancouver, Washington
|
comicuniversity wrote:point taken Thundercron. They certainly were dissapointments. I would just say they were still commercial successes, just to a lesser degree than projected.
I am just reacting to the "revisionist" history that often follows comic movies. Often, when a comic movie comes out, most people on these sites are largely positive. Even the negative commentary is usually somewhat tepid. But, after a few years, people "change" their opinions and engage in complete negative hyperbole.
Superman Returns was NOT, at the time of its' release, widely considered "a steaming pile", but now, that's almost all you hear about it. TOTALLY with you on this!! People like to act like Superman Returns is the Superman franchise's Batman and Robin--which isn't warranted. Was it as good as Superman I and II? No. Was it light years better than Superman III and IV? OF COURSE!! People seem to forget altogether about those later installments.
|
|
Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller
Shop at My Store
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,655
Points: 32,765
Location: Vancouver, Washington
|
comicuniversity wrote:SwiftMann wrote:comicuniversity wrote: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 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).
|
|
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator
Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,348
Points: 4,819
|
Thundercron wrote:comicuniversity wrote:point taken Thundercron. They certainly were dissapointments. I would just say they were still commercial successes, just to a lesser degree than projected.
I am just reacting to the "revisionist" history that often follows comic movies. Often, when a comic movie comes out, most people on these sites are largely positive. Even the negative commentary is usually somewhat tepid. But, after a few years, people "change" their opinions and engage in complete negative hyperbole.
Superman Returns was NOT, at the time of its' release, widely considered "a steaming pile", but now, that's almost all you hear about it. TOTALLY with you on this!! People like to act like Superman Returns is the Superman franchise's Batman and Robin--which isn't warranted. Was it as good as Superman I and II? No. Was it light years better than Superman III and IV? OF COURSE!! People seem to forget altogether about those later installments. Yes. Well said. I, personally, liked Superman Returns. It had it's flaws, for sure. And it wasn't a "great" movie. But, the scene where he rescues the space shuttle plane thing. The scenes with Lois. Him and Martha. His feat at the end. Flying through Metropolis dealing with the devastation. The world's reaction to his dissapearance and return. The flip side. Kevin Spacey's Lex was underwhelming. His "plan" was laughably stupid. The end was entirely too predictable. The special effects were also a mixed bag. His heat vision, for one, was poorly done. I realize I am now way off track and just rambling about my like of a movie. I am eagerly awaiting "Man of Steel" the same way i eagerly await all comic movies. The talent associated with this one is such that I believe it has a better chance than most movies to be good.
|
|
|
Guest |
| Forum Jump
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|
Main Forum RSS : 
This page was generated in 0.529 seconds.
|