Man of Steel (2013)

[Steven Burton]

Well looks like the director of Batman has focused on a new hero in the DC universe.
It looks very promising just with the two trailers.

[Cam Pence]

Zack Snyder(300, Watchmen) is doing the new Superman. Not Christopher Nolan

[Steven Burton]

Zack Snyder(300, Watchmen) is doing the new Superman. Not Christopher Nolan

They are both involved.

[Cam Pence]

They are both involved.

Sorry thought you meant director

[Nate Pruitt]

I would be thrilled to see Nolan direct this as I trust him more than Snyder, who seems to get caught up in mindless sensationalism in place of great storytelling at times. However, it does have some promise. I'm a little confused about how Superman jives with Deadliest Catch. I guess they just couldn't figure out how to make it work with Mythbusters.

[Cam Pence]

I would be thrilled to see Nolan direct this as I trust him more than Snyder, who seems to get caught up in mindless sensationalism in place of great storytelling at times. However, it does have some promise. I'm a little confused about how Superman jives with Deadliest Catch. I guess they just couldn't figure out how to make it work with Mythbusters.

Eh....have you seen Watchmen? He did as amazing a job of telling the story cinematically as the book did.

[Ryan Scott]

So Superman spent time on a crab boat before becoming Mayor of the Daily Planet?

[Nate Pruitt]

Eh....have you seen Watchmen? He did as amazing a job of telling the story cinematically as the book did.

Actually, Watchmen was one of the instances where I felt Snyder made some interesting choices to create more grotesque scenes than the book conveyed (as though it wasn't graphic enough) because he panders to some mindless sensationalism. Those choices did, in fact, undermine some of the things that made the characters work as well as they did in the book. There were a couple similar choices with 300. Considering Alan Moore and Frank Miller create some of the most explicit graphic novels out I find it odd that Snyder would be drawn into trying to one-up them in the graphic violence rather than just doing his best to tell the story at least at the level that they did. I'm glad that he didn't direct Sin City- that one was done about perfectly in congruence with the book and building upon it in the ways that you can with film.

Do you think Robert Rodriguez would be interested in doing a major superhero movie? I'd probably watch that. (Something a step beyond Spy Kids- maybe a good version of Daredevil or perhaps, even better, a less awkward version of Spawn?)

[Cam Pence]

Actually, Watchmen was one of the instances where I felt Snyder made some interesting choices to create more grotesque scenes than the book conveyed (as though it wasn't graphic enough) because he panders to some mindless sensationalism. Those choices did, in fact, undermine some of the things that made the characters work as well as they did in the book. There were a couple similar choices with 300. Considering Alan Moore and Frank Miller create some of the most explicit graphic novels out I find it odd that Snyder would be drawn into trying to one-up them in the graphic violence rather than just doing his best to tell the story at least at the level that they did. I'm glad that he didn't direct Sin City- that one was done about perfectly in congruence with the book and building upon it in the ways that you can with film.

Do you think Robert Rodriguez would be interested in doing a major superhero movie? I'd probably watch that. (Something a step beyond Spy Kids- maybe a good version of Daredevil or perhaps, even better, a less awkward version of Spawn?)

Fun fact...back in 99, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith were set to do a Superman movie but the project was scrapped. As for Watchmen, the book was insanely violent. If anything, I felt like the movie was so graphic simply because it was trying to keep up with the book. In fact many scenes were scripted to look shot for shot using the book panels as scene boards.

[Nate Pruitt]

Fun fact...back in 99, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith were set to do a Superman movie but the project was scrapped. As for Watchmen, the book was insanely violent. If anything, I felt like the movie was so graphic simply because it was trying to keep up with the book. In fact many scenes were scripted to look shot for shot using the book panels as scene boards.

That actually sounds really promising. I wonder why it was scrapped. Probably would have had a good mix of humor and action.

There is a particular scene with Rorshach where the way Snyder went about it in the film, compared to the book, made him much more monstrous than Moore conveys him to be. I'd rather not explain the scene here, but you may recall. Snyder's version was distinctly more graphic and cruel. I'm not entirely sure why he felt like going that way- it felt inauthentic to the story, more like they needed another "money shot" full of exaggerated violence that worked against how Rorshach actually handled the situation. Choices like that are critical when conveying how, and why, a character is so tortured. There are a few other ones that struck me at the time, but this was years ago that I watched the movie and the book was read before then.

Essentially my concern stems from these sorts of choices. Snyder seems to lack a bit of the necessary compass that a director should have in expressing the behaviors of characters. Superman has a certain nobility of character, even though he struggles mightily with many dilemmas his code of conduct is often what carries him through. This is not dissimilar to Batman. Nolan seemed to really grasp the conflict while allowing the character to maintain his, well, character. I have my doubts about Snyder doing the same. I hope I'm wrong, but too often in these instances I'm not.

[Cam Pence]

That actually sounds really promising. I wonder why it was scrapped. Probably would have had a good mix of humor and action.

There is a particular scene with Rorshach where the way Snyder went about it in the film, compared to the book, made him much more monstrous than Moore conveys him to be. I'd rather not explain the scene here, but you may recall. Snyder's version was distinctly more graphic and cruel. I'm not entirely sure why he felt like going that way- it felt inauthentic to the story, more like they needed another "money shot" full of exaggerated violence that worked against how Rorshach actually handled the situation. Choices like that are critical when conveying how, and why, a character is so tortured. There are a few other ones that struck me at the time, but this was years ago that I watched the movie and the book was read before then.

Essentially my concern stems from these sorts of choices. Snyder seems to lack a bit of the necessary compass that a director should have in expressing the behaviors of characters. Superman has a certain nobility of character, even though he struggles mightily with many dilemmas his code of conduct is often what carries him through. This is not dissimilar to Batman. Nolan seemed to really grasp the conflict while allowing the character to maintain his, well, character. I have my doubts about Snyder doing the same. I hope I'm wrong, but too often in these instances I'm not.

So you probably wouldn't be excited if Snyder did Frank Millers Batman then

[Cam Pence]

That actually sounds really promising. I wonder why it was scrapped. Probably would have had a good mix of humor and action.

There is a particular scene with Rorshach where the way Snyder went about it in the film, compared to the book, made him much more monstrous than Moore conveys him to be. I'd rather not explain the scene here, but you may recall. Snyder's version was distinctly more graphic and cruel. I'm not entirely sure why he felt like going that way- it felt inauthentic to the story, more like they needed another "money shot" full of exaggerated violence that worked against how Rorshach actually handled the situation. Choices like that are critical when conveying how, and why, a character is so tortured. There are a few other ones that struck me at the time, but this was years ago that I watched the movie and the book was read before then.

Essentially my concern stems from these sorts of choices. Snyder seems to lack a bit of the necessary compass that a director should have in expressing the behaviors of characters. Superman has a certain nobility of character, even though he struggles mightily with many dilemmas his code of conduct is often what carries him through. This is not dissimilar to Batman. Nolan seemed to really grasp the conflict while allowing the character to maintain his, well, character. I have my doubts about Snyder doing the same. I hope I'm wrong, but too often in these instances I'm not.

One more thought on Watchmen (and more specifically Rorscach). He is arguably the most brutal of the bunch (with exception of maybe The Comedian). The clincher with him is that despite this, he arguably has the most conviction and the straightest moral compass of the lot which admittedly is not a conclusion reached based on him being a beacon of morality himself, but on his refusal to fall into completely apathy like some and heartless insanity like the rest. The only way this dichotomy seemed to work in the book is the same way I believe it worked in the movie: brutal cruelty. To dumb that down in any way seems as if it would have compromised his character where being a little more brutal only enhanced it, IMHO.

[Steven Burton]

Actually, Watchmen was one of the instances where I felt Snyder made some interesting choices to create more grotesque scenes than the book conveyed (as though it wasn't graphic enough) because he panders to some mindless sensationalism. Those choices did, in fact, undermine some of the things that made the characters work as well as they did in the book. There were a couple similar choices with 300. Considering Alan Moore and Frank Miller create some of the most explicit graphic novels out I find it odd that Snyder would be drawn into trying to one-up them in the graphic violence rather than just doing his best to tell the story at least at the level that they did. I'm glad that he didn't direct Sin City- that one was done about perfectly in congruence with the book and building upon it in the ways that you can with film.

Do you think Robert Rodriguez would be interested in doing a major superhero movie? I'd probably watch that. (Something a step beyond Spy Kids- maybe a good version of Daredevil or perhaps, even better, a less awkward version of Spawn?)

They are planning on rebooting Daredevil so that Sony can keep the rights. As well as the Fantastic Four.

[Lucas Finch]

They are planning on rebooting Daredevil so that Sony can keep the rights. As well as the Fantastic Four.

I wish they wouldn't so that Disney / Marvel Studios can regain control and work the characters into the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

[Steven Burton]

I wish they wouldn't so that Disney / Marvel Studios can regain control and work the characters into the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I agree although Marvel is moving their comics to match their movies now. They have a plan to consolidate all the universes into one which follow along the lines of that is established in the movies.

[Steve Malcolm]

From the trailers I have seen I am really looking forward to this. I really hope they don't play up the Superman=Jesus stuff like they did in the most recent version. Making that connection so explicit makes the less obvious parallels feel gross. For example, in this movie we have scenes of Superman being marched around in chains by soldiers and submitting to being questioned. That is cool, but can we avoid falling toward Earth looking like he's been crucified please?

[Steven Burton]

From the trailers I have seen I am really looking forward to this. I really hope they don't play up the Superman=Jesus stuff like they did in the most recent version. Making that connection so explicit makes the less obvious parallels feel gross. For example, in this movie we have scenes of Superman being marched around in chains by soldiers and submitting to being questioned. That is cool, but can we avoid falling toward Earth looking like he's been crucified please?

LOL, actually my favorite part of Superman is the Christic symbolism that they use.It is pretty obvious in the comics as well. If anything I figured you would be upset with Marlon Brando's speak in Christopher Reeves Superman I.

[Steve Malcolm]

LOL, actually my favorite part of Superman is the Christic symbolism that they use.It is pretty obvious in the comics as well. If anything I figured you would be upset with Marlon Brando's speak in Christopher Reeves Superman I.

I think the Moses/Samson symbolism is more evident, especially bearing in mind that the creators were Jewish. That said, I don't mind Christological parallels, I just would like them to be a bit more subtle.

[Steven Burton]

I think the Moses/Samson symbolism is more evident, especially bearing in mind that the creators were Jewish. That said, I don't mind Christological parallels, I just would like them to be a bit more subtle.

Yes, but originally he was also evil and not good. Just like the original Batman was a detective more than crime fighter and used a gun, instead of martial arts and throwing stars.

You should read "The Gospel According the Greatest Superhero" it is by far very subtle.

[Steve Malcolm]

Yes, the first Siegel and Shuster character named "Superman" was a villain (I think the first two were), but the third was the red underwear sporting, super strong defender of abused women and scourge of slum lords. Actually, I want to see that movie...

[Steven Burton]

Yes, the first Siegel and Shuster character named "Superman" was a villain (I think the first two were), but the third was the red underwear sporting, super strong defender of abused women and scourge of slum lords. Actually, I want to see that movie...

Oh I know they got a bad response to him as a villain. I actually probably would not even follow superman if he did not have christic overtones. Because he would just be another superhero.