Man of Steel Trailer #2
Plenty of new trailers for the big 2013 blockbusters are hitting the web this week, including this brand new full-length trailer for Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel. Much like the first teaser trailer we saw back in July, it focuses on creating a mood and a mythic feel rather than overwhelming us with action. We do, however, get an impressive sequence showing Henry Cavill hurtling towards the sky and our first glimpse of Michael Shannon as Zod, Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Overall, it still feels like a big tease, but I think they’re playing the marketing for this one just right. Man of Steel hits theatres on June 14th; watch the new trailer after the jump and see what you think.
Comments (31)
Looks good. What does the kid say is too big in the beginning? I played it a couple of times and I couldn’t make it out. Thanks for posting Sean.
Posted by Xidor on December 11th, 2012I think he says “The world is too big.” So far so good. I’m cautiously excited for this.
Posted by Steve on December 11th, 2012Looks. F-ing. Awesome.
Posted by DARKSIDER on December 11th, 2012Looks fine, but the score in the first half of the trailer is just bad… Since Gladiator i cant stand that kind of sentimental score!
Posted by FoxMulder on December 11th, 2012Looks great, but there’s just not enough fishing.
Posted by Jr on December 11th, 2012As mentioned earlier, Snyder is a bad director (when the best thing you have made is Watchmen/300, it tells you how “good” of a director you are), but he has always made good trailers for his films (which is no wonder, considering that he is — and even calls himself that — a ‘visual director’). This one is no different.
With Nolan and his brothers involvement, however, this film could Snyder’s best project so far. But considering his record of bad films, that doesn’t really say much.
Posted by La Menthe on December 11th, 2012Damm! I Zack is back!
Posted by MadMax on December 11th, 2012@La Menthe
Snyder is a bad director? In what sense? Granted he’s no Spielberg or Nolan or Scorsese, but he’s far from bad. 300 and Watchmen I thought were very good with a big fail in SuckerPunch which I really hated but…to call him a bad director is a little harsh at least IMO.
His visuals and sense of production design are pretty spectacular and his narrative ability while over the top is still pretty good.
Compared to JJ A, Snyder is a genuis…IMO of course. Snyder I feel has vision while JJ pretends too.
Posted by 1138sw on December 11th, 2012At least it’s gonna look amazing.
#6 How is Snyder a bad director? Obviously it’s subjective and you’re welcome to your opinion but at least in my opinion, he’s only made one movie that’s actually bad and that’s Sucker Punch. Which I didn’t hate.. 300 and Watchmen are awesome, Dawn of the Dead is good and that Owl movie isn’t so bad.
Man of Steel looks really cool so far.
Posted by patrik on December 11th, 2012I would say that Legend of the Guardians is the best thing I’ve seen by him. I’m lukewarm on everything else he’s done.
Posted by Steve on December 11th, 2012300 is a ton of fun and I thought Watchmen was pretty good too. Dawn of the Dead is my favorite of his, though. I thought it was an awesome horror movie – one of the few remakes with a different approach that actually works.
Haven’t seen the Owl thing and the few bits I saw of Sucker Punch was pretty awful.
Posted by Kasper on December 11th, 2012This should be the biggest movie of the year, but I also thought that about Superman Returns and that sucked.
Posted by Xidor on December 11th, 2012Shannon is going to be an epic Zod.
Posted by rjdelight on December 11th, 2012Nice. Hope Doomsday and The Cyborg Superman make cameos!
Scott
Posted by scott on December 11th, 2012http://www.ReconditePictures.com
This really looks good, the casting is amazing, especially Michael Shannon. Definitely going to make Superman Returns look like a made for TV flick.
Posted by Mike H on December 11th, 2012Let’s hope it lives up to the hype. One little thing, Amy Adams/Michael Shannon are in far to many films lately, they need to take a break, even thou I think they are both very good at what they do.
Posted by ProfessionalCynic on December 12th, 2012Every lens flare is a needle goin’ straight into my brain. I’m sure this’ll be better than the RoSM, I hope Snyder makes Supes relevant.
Posted by Lucas3D on December 12th, 2012I’m just gonna repeat what I’ve said earlier:
Snyder is nothing more than a visual director (he even calls himself that), and not a very good one either. Dawn of the Dead was bad (those of you who disagree remember too bad). Watchmen was only watchable (with the exception of the stories of Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach, both of which were taken right out of the book, the film was pretty boring and mediocre) because of the comic-book masterpiece that Moore and Gibbons wrote and illustrated — Snyder only had to transform it to moving pictures. The owl film was acceptable because of its visual grandeur, something which will fade out very quickly. Sucker Punch was nothing more than a big CGI-pile of shit.
And we all liked 300 because it was nothing more than a visual action-fest; it had in reality no elements of what would make a good film, or would represent good direction. It didn’t have good acting, good direction or good writing. Everything just happened to come together and work, the same way a crappy Van Damme B-film like Bloodsport “works” (just because it’s entertaining, it doesn’t make the film good — let alone the director good).
Let’s then go to the writer of the film. It turns out that it is none other than the legendary “filmshitter” David S. Goyer. This man had a large chunk of the responsibility for the bad lines in TDKR, TDK and to a large extent BB. He also wrote the screenplay for The Unborn, the Blade films and Ghost Rider. All, as I’m sure you can remember, “masterpieces” of their time.
Both of these guys have had enough projects for us to decide their talent. Although not alike (Goyer is much worse, and probably the worst high-profile writer in Hollywood), one thing is certain: neither of them are good.
And before you go on commenting how good the film looks in the trailer, remember what I mentioned earlier; all of Snyder’s trailers have been good. Do you remember how good the Watchmen and 300 trailers were? Snyder is an imagery-entertainer; he is good at creating short visual moments — something which is essential in film trailers.
All reasonable logic says this is gonna be average or not good. Snyder himself has made no film that can really be called good, and Goyer is, to put it frankly, complete shit. So, guys, please be honest with yourselves: this film is not gonna be good.
Posted by La Menthe on December 12th, 2012Someone above compared J.J Abrams to Snyder, and actually called the latter a superior director (or, in his own words, “compared to JJ A, Snyder is a genuis”). I find this statement preposterous. I have in no way admiration for J.J Abrams, or Hollywood-directors like him in general, but there is no doubt that he is a much, much more talented director than Snyder. Star Trek alone outclasses all of Snyder’s films combined.
Whereas Snyder’s talent relies exclusively on his ability to create short, visual moments, that belong more in TV-commercials than in film (leaving the rest of the film stupid, and pretty badly directed), Abrams can actually carry out all the elements of entertainment, in visuals, acting, writing and so on, adequately. He can make a fun film, without it feeling dense, cheap and stale. He can also create ambiguity and tension, without the film trying to act too clever.
When you look at a film like 300 and Watchmen, both flagship films of Snyder, the only memorable things you can remember is the visuals (which, in my opinion, was annoying in many parts, and impressive only because they imitated the original content perfectly). Everything else is pretty bad or mediocre.
When you look at a film like Star Trek, you remember the thrill and the ride, like any other good adventure-film, that it takes you along with. Just like a typical action-adventure that clicks, it is in no way smart, and has no elements of a “magnum opus”; it’s the way he delivers the conventional elements of entertainment that makes him succeed to engage the audience perfectly.
Posted by La Menthe on December 12th, 2012@La Menthe
Posted by Jack on December 12th, 2012We didn’t all like 300. Some of us thought it was one of the worst to come out in 2007.
By “We all” I was referring to the general majority. I didn’t like it any more than you did.
Posted by La Menthe on December 12th, 2012@ La Menthe
“Abrams can actually carry out all the elements of entertainment, in visuals, acting, writing and so on, adequately. He can make a fun film, without it feeling dense, cheap and stale. He can also create ambiguity and tension, without the film trying to act too clever.”
Remember what you are stating is not fact just opinion…as I have stated in my post.
Where you find excellence in his visuals, production design and acting I find hackdom…of course all my IMO.
When you looks at a film like Star Trek you see a thrill ride like many others have as well. When I saw Star Trek I saw hackdom at it’s highest potential…a director who really has no understanding of film making 101 or any visual sense for that matter. Hack writing, hack directing and just a hack overall…and I went into that movie hoping to be blown away…also I’ve really tried going back to that movie several times over trying to improve my opinion only to see it get worse.
The way he delivers his elements just spells Hackdom…IMO of course.
Reinvention is what JJ does…he’s nothing new, just a rehash of what has come before and he’s not even good at that. Snyder at least visually is bold and daring…again all at least IMO.
One thing that annoys me about JJ…when you establish narrative rules of law those laws must be applied throughout the movie…you set the rules now follow them…JJ has a tendency to be all over the place setting up scenes with no consistency whatsoever. He sets rules yet he doesn’t follow them…it bothers the heck out me…again that’s just me. Narrative rules are really basic fundamental film making 101 and JJ takes way to many liberties…
Posted by 1138sw on December 12th, 2012Would you stop with this IMO crap? The sentences are being written under your name. That alone makes me understand that it is YOUR OPINION. Just like what I write is MY OPINION.
And your comment makes no sense. You are not giving me no information by writing “hack” all the time.
And no, I don’t find any “excellence” in any of Abrams’ work.
Posted by La Menthe on December 12th, 2012@La Menthe
On one hand you say that what you’re writing is just your opinion but then you use words like “reasonable logic” and mention something about being “honest with ourselves” as if having high hopes for this made people unreasonable and delusional. It’s OK to have a strong opinion about something, but you seem to cross over to the “I’m right and you’re wrong” territory.
Not to mention that proclaiming anything as anything before it even comes out is just plain silly.
Posted by cap on December 12th, 2012@La Menthe
I use “IMO” to keep my post honest for readers who may interpret my opinions as facts and see them as opinions and judgements. That happens alot on boards of all types and causes rather heated debates.
I consider IMO a courtesy while I see that you don’t…my apologies.
Just some advice for future reference…if you assume all people think posts are just all opinions I would refrain from using “All reasonable logic”, “So, guys, please be honest with yourselves”, “I find this statement preposterous”, “but there is no doubt”…because statements such as those leads one to think otherwise.
Posted by 1138sw on December 13th, 2012@La Menthe
I have always considered myself a film critic. I am a lover of film as well, but my god do you take it to an extreme level of annoying. Have you ever tried to just enjoy a movie? You should try it sometime. Zack Snyder is not the best director around. True. Is he the worst? Hell no. Have faith, considering that Christopher Nolan’s name is attached to this work. Under that guidance, I am sure that even the worst of the worst in the art of directing could put out a half decent flick. I really hope this movie comes out and it blows everyones expectations away so you and others can come back to this post and see how ignorant you sound, with a sprinkle of annoying as hell. Relax. Grab a bag of popcorn and watch a movie. Enjoy it.
Posted by James on December 13th, 2012@La Menthe
Zack Snyder to you, sounds like Uwe Boll, to me. The only difference is, I stopped watching Uwe Boll’s films a loooong time ago. Because….well…..they were really bad (as you said Zack’s movies are), they were not “entertaining”, and most importantly, they were a waist of my time.
But Zack Snyders films don’t seem to be wasting any of yours, cause you obviously seem to watch EVERY one of them, including his cartoon Owl movie (which I never saw). Usually when someone hates a movie directors work, after there first couple of films, they tend to stop watching them altogether, and find something else to complain about. Why haven’t you?
You seem more like you can’t get enough of him, just as much as you seem to want him to fail. Like a pre school boy calling a girl names, because deep down, he really likes her)
Snyder’s not a bad director…..he’s just a bad director… to you.
*even though you still watch his movies* lol
I’ve actually enjoyed every movie I’ve seen him do (all except the Owl flick, cause I just wasn’t interested).
Any time I find that he’s got a film coming out, I get just as excited about it as much as I would for a Taratino, a Rodriguez, or Cameron film…. all for different reasons. In my opinion, they’re all great artist in there own way.
TARANTINO: for his dialog, choices in music, and paying homage to old exploitation films
RODRIGUEZ: for his over the top campy grittiness and homage to grindhouse films
CAMERON: for his creative original special effects
SNYDER: for his grittiness, creative camera visuals and choices of music
Also…. movies that are entertaining, are usually always good movies, in my book. There’s no such thing as a perfect film, but being entertained by a film is not a waist of your time… it’s a good thing, and the number 1 sign audiences look for in a movie, they pay to see.
You saying, that peoples statement are preposterous, because the like one artist more than another, is “preposterous” in itself. Everyone has there own opinion (movies, music, religion, politics, etc.)
Posted by Derek McFarland on December 13th, 2012I actually would have to agree (with that someone)…
I enjoy Snyder’s films more than JJ’s, as well….but that me…..and obviously others as well.
If your opinion is that Snyder is a bad director, then you should quit watching his films, or quit acting like they’re a waist of your time. Because if they truly were, then you wouldn’t have even bothered writing on this post…..If this was an Uwe Boll trailer, posted; I would have scrolled right past it….without any thought of talking shit or hating on people that are excited to see the trailer.
Because it would be a waist of my time.
@cap
Your mixing my opinion from two different discussion; one about Snyder’s talent, and the other about who is a better director between Snyder and J.J. Abrams. In the first discussion, I was being much firmer by pointing out “what was right and wrong”, as you mentioned, by for example telling people to be honest with themselves. But these comments (“All reasonable logic says this is going to be average or not good”), are ultimately based on my opinion of neither Snyder nor Goyer being good film artists. If you actually find Snyder to be a good director, with a record of good films behind him, and/or Goyer of possessing the same competence, than my comment naturally doesn’t include you.
@james
If you actually do consider yourself a film critic, then you should have no issue understanding why I have my preservations when it comes to some filmmakers and films. Your argument (“just enjoy the film”) is in reality an “escape argument”, because you can’t accept that I have distaste of a film that you like. I have had people earlier in my life using exactly the same argument against me about Bay-films like Pearl Harbor, Transformer, and other crap films and director.
I have seen too many Hollywood flicks to be as easy on them as you are. The mentioned films are in no way unique, and they don’t differ from the traditional historical narratives we have been used the last 100 years. Mainstream films are a single gray mass full of identical films, only with different titles.
But even within the realm of Hollywood-films, how are you going to decide what’s better between a film like Inception and 300? In my case, there is a clear difference in quality between both of these films. Both are made purely for entertainment, but one possesses definitely far more quality than the other. That’s why I would rate the former 3-4/10 and the latter 6-7/10. In the same way, I can see a difference of quality between Inception (6-7/10) and Inglourious Basterds (8/10).
And did you ever think that what you call enjoyment and entertainment, what I would call stimulation, doesn’t exist whenever I see a film by someone like Snyder? That pretentious, plain, unimaginative and empty scenes of colorful visuals actually feels repetitive, and doesn’t entertain me as much as for example the gravity scene in Inception? I wouldn’t rate Inception (although I don’t consider even that film to be all that good) better, if I hadn’t found enjoyment in it. The comments of it having more quality than something like 300, are just my way of trying to explain why I enjoyed one film, and not another.
This is one of the great problems with mainstream films. They are all full of scenes that go completely past me – because I have seen them a thousand times before, and because they are pretty hollow. There is 10 times more adrenalin running through me in the barn scene in Inglourious Basterds, than it is in all the action scenes in Avatar, because Tarantino manages to engage me in suspense with real film techniques — not phony, talentless explosions and whatnot. And his films are in no way complex or “smart”; he actually uses pretty simple and traditional film techniques. The same goes for someone like Hitchcock (who, incidentally, is heavily inspiring Tarantino in his dialogues and in the suspense); I can’t think of any modern film that has engaged and entertained me as heavily as Rear Windows.
Another critical way I see a film is whether the film actually gives me something or not. It doesn’t happen often that I give a film of pure entertainment pretty high ratings (Tarantino is probably the best example of this exception). Having delved more into intellectually lately, I simply demand more of a film than just entertainment. Take for example Béla Tarr. He uses the medium of film to portray how he sees the world around him. The viewers can therefore get a new image of how the world works. Movies by Ingmar Bergman, however, gives people an experience of the senses, where you start thinking of things that you wouldn’t normally think of. This can apply to their inner self, the unity they live in, the religion they believe in or existential questions. I, unfortunately, can not place most of the mainstream films in any of these categories. Or, to make a more fair comparison, a film like Fight Club, that actually presents social critical question along with its entertaining story, than, say, any of the modern Nolan films (It of course doesn’t stand up to Nolan’s only true art-film, and undoubtedly is best work, Memento).
Film is art. Art should tell something. Art doesn’t absolutely need to be entertaining. If Edvard Munch (a famous 19th-20ty century Norwegian painter) had painted images to entertain his audience, he would have painted flowers, trees and green meadows. But since he wished to express his inner feelings (which mostly consisted of anxiety, paranoia and depression), he painted dark pictures of horror, fear, and other mean shit. In the beginning, no one liked Munch because he was too depressing and controversial. A debate went around his work, where people believed that art should not take up such topics and instead satisfy the audience. Today, over 100 years later, it is sad to see that the same old attitudes still exist.
But that is a completely different topic (the topic of whether the entertainment that Hollywood gives us is enough or not). As I mentioned above, I don’t consider Snyder to be a good director even within the group of Hollywood-directors, and I hope I have given a clear enough explanation of why I don’t find any interest in his films.
@ Derek
There is no point discussing with you, as you are clearly more interested in attacking me as a person, and presenting silly arguments (like the absurd question of why I would watch his films, if i didn’t like them).
Posted by La Menthe on December 13th, 2012@La Menthe
lol….Holy shit….you’re still hear? I’m beginning to think you really do like Snyder’s films.
I’m sorry, if I hurt your feelings there, earlier…But I figure if I was truly attacking you (the way you were attacking Zack, as a visual artist) I would have said something like, (“Reasonable logic” says that you’re an annoying hater of a director who’s movies you still go to watch, but could never direct better than)……
But I didn’t say that, now did I. However… keep in mind… when you tend to talk mad shit about someone, who’s work, others might admire; there’s a good chance that getting attacked by those others, is a given…..it’s just “reasonable logic”….ya know?…..and B.T.W…. all these people that your replying to, with your anal retentive writing skills, isn’t making you seem any less annoying… it’s just proving their assumptions to be more right than before.
…And me asking why you still waist your time watching Snyders movies, when you clearly hate his work, isn’t absurd, in the slightest…..it’s a legit question, that I’m beginning to think you have the answer to, but are too full of yourself to admit.
On the real though….. I was more interested in knowing why you’re still coming back to watch his films , you hate so much. Maybe the arguments I’m presenting are in fact silly….but not as silly as you, still coming back to these comments, still trying to convince these excited spectators that this movie will most likely not be good.
P.S. I agree with you though……There is no point in discussing with me. So thanks for not.
Posted by Derek McFarland on December 14th, 2012I actually anticipated that you would admit your missteps, but it turns at that you are actually so unaware of them that you take your bizarre arguments and personal attacks against me seriously. I made it clear to you that I didn’t want to bother arguing with someone who was more interested in ad hominem discussion, rather than actually discussing the topic itself. That’s why I decided to answer the two other guys and not you. But since your own imprudence doesn’t allow you acknowledge this in your own post, I’ll guess I’ll make an effort to help you be aware of it.
>>” I’m sorry, if I hurt your feelings there, earlier…But I figure if I was truly attacking you (the way you were attacking Zack, as a visual artist) I would have said something like, (“Reasonable logic” says that you’re an annoying hater of a director who’s movies you still go to watch, but could never direct better than)……
But I didn’t say that, now did I. However… keep in mind… when you tend to talk mad shit about someone, who’s work, others might admire; there’s a good chance that getting attacked by those others, is a given…..it’s just “reasonable logic”….ya know”<>’ with your anal retentive writing skills, isn’t making you seem any less annoying… it’s just proving their assumptions to be more right than before.”
If you are referring to my writing (or the grammar) as bad, then it is because I live in Norway. If you are referring to my serious writing, however, then I see nothing wrong with it. Would you rather want me to use words like “shit”, “fuck” and “hack” to describe why I didn’t find enjoyment in Snyder’s films, or that I — as I did — tried to give a coherent explanation of why his films were bad?
>>”…And me asking why you still waist your time watching Snyders movies, when you clearly hate his work, isn’t absurd, in the slightest…..it’s a legit question, that I’m beginning to think you have the answer to, but are too full of yourself to admit.”<<
Did you ever bother to think that I can't dislike a film until I have watched it, and that seeing as Snyder makes big blockbusters, that I have friends that wants to watch those films with me? I haven't raved about watching any of the Harry Potter films either, or any of Michael Bay's film. But I have still watched all of them.
And the fact that I have watched all of his film is irrelevant to the point of whether I like the film or not. I clearly stated I didn't like his film. Furthermore, being that I'm a more-than-regular film viewer, it's nothing more than common sense that I have seen a large number of the most popular films to come out. Furthermore, how would I allow myself to criticize Snyder as heavily as I did, if I hadn't gone through most of his, if not entire, filmography (which in this case is in no way large)?
If you had spent more time on actually reading my post as a proper adult, like the rest of those who answered me managed to do (to a degree), instead of jumping into defense-modus as soon as I said some bad words about an admired director of yours (which, mind you, I did rationally), you wouldn't have had to force me to give you these answer. Because they are pretty self-evident when you think about it. Furthermore, your, question, as part of an attack on me, shouldn't even have been requested, as it is completely unrelated to the case: the subject of whether Snyder is a good director or not.
And am I demanding too much if I ask you to take part in a mature conversation?
Posted by La Menthe on December 14th, 2012La Menthe and Derek McFarland I’m confused. Are you excited about Man of Steel. I am.
Posted by Xidor on December 14th, 2012Leave a Reply