I wasn't a big fan of Snyder directing, but early word (from long-running rumors from inside the studio and from some recent international screenings) is that Man of Steel is very, very good.
[Reply]

And then there were 9:


[Reply]

Yea, I'm not the biggest Snyder fan, but he's an interesting visual stylist.

I liked his Living dead remake, 300 and parts of Watchmen. I thought his owl movie and Sucker Punch were horrible.

Who know...maybe working with Nolan was the right recipe?
[Reply]

The one thing the 8000 trailers reveal is that they really look to have gotten Superman right onscreen. The way he flies, the way he fights. That's something I don't think any of the previous movies ever did.

And I guess having so many trailers, and all of them being good so far, shows that there's a lot of good material to choose from. We've seen a lot more than 2.5 minutes of cool stuff, so I'm not too worried at this point about walking out of the theater thinking "well shit, all the good stuff was in the trailers".

And as much as they've given away, I get the sense that they really haven't given much away. At least nothing that wasn't already long-established Superman canon.
[Reply]

Well limited by technology in the 80's and early 90's you couldn't really get Superman right. Superman Returns had the chance but didn't really get much right outside of Routh looked like Reeves did which was nice. I agree that this is using the full use of special effects to create as realistic a Superman that you can. I, for one, made this movie the ONE movie I wanted to see this holiday season, and I can't wait.
[Reply]

I can't wait to see this...hoping for a fresh rating from RT in the 80+ percentile range
[Reply]

I bet GoChiefs will say this movie sucks too, he hasn't given a green light on any summer movie that came out yet this year. What a cynic.
[Reply]

My wife thinks any superman movie that doesn't have Christopher Reeve sucks.

I proceeded to ask her about III and IV. She said "well, minus those two of course." :-)

Of course, that wasn't Reeve's fault. heh
[Reply]

The older I get, the worse those christopher reeve movies seem.
[Reply]

Nah, 1 and 2 are still goo flicks. 3 is bad, and 4 is terrble.
[Reply]

The only Reeve movie I could stomach was the original and even then, it's hard to watch. Ned Beatty and Gene Hackman were too "campy" and comedic.

I'm sorry but Margot Kidder was just downright ugly. There was nothing attractive about that woman. Not her body, face, voice, hair - nothing.

For me, Superman II through IV are completely unwatchable. And Superman Returns is just as bad (albeit for different reasons).

Hopefully, Man of Steel finally gets it right.
[Reply]

1 and 2 are campy as shit. They're just painful to watch. Different time.
[Reply]

I'll agree to disagree. They were more than 30 years ago. I don't watch movies from that era expecting what I see today. I watch them on their own merit, and while campy, the soundtracks are amazing and the stories and performances are solid.

As you mention, it was a different era, and that's OK. I still enjoy Forbidden Planet and The Day the Earth Stood Still, even though science fiction has probably changed more than any other genre since then.
[Reply]

I love the soundtracks. I just can't watch the movies without groaning. It's like trying to watch 60's era batman episodes after watching TDK. Albeit not quite that bad. And as I said, I do acknowledge that they were from a different time, but doesn't make them any more watchable. For me.

As far as science fiction goes, other movies from that era have held up much better. Star Wars and Alien bookend it (one from '77, the other '79). Close Encounters was also '77. All highly watchable, even today. As far as the others you mention, both were 20-30 years older than Superman. And both are classics that I'll watch whenever they're on. Certain movies transcend era. I don't think Superman is one of them.
[Reply]

Don't forget Blade Runner...
[Reply]