Trailer Superman Full Trailer

[jian]

I wish I lived in your world.



Wait, so you do understand it. You were just pretending not to… for a bit or something?

But let’s keep the current real world politics out of it, please. A comment about the vacuous polarity of social media doesn’t have to immediately turn into an in-depth discussion about Ukraine and Gaza and promptly get the thread closed. We all know the rules here.

No, my point was that stopping a war is not “a simple act of goodness”, it’s a lot more complicated than that, both internally and externally.

Your statement that “50% of the public reaction to even simple acts of goodness would be utterly hostile” seemed excessively cynical, hence my reply.

(Are you OK, by the way? I don’t know you at all, but I just wanted to check.)

I think that if Clark were to appear and get cats out of trees or stop a tsunami from devastating LA, the majority of the public response would be positive. Of course, I’m sure someone would snark on social media about how saving cats seemed like a waste of his time, but that doesn’t count for much.

But stopping wars is much more complicated than that, and Clark ought to know that as an adult and as a journalist. So I hope that situation is more nuanced in the film that how it’s presented in the trailer. I’d be quite surprised if it isn’t.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But stopping wars is much more complicated than that, and Clark ought to know that as an adult and as a journalist.

You'd think he would have watched Superman IV, if nothing else.

 

[Morrus]

I think that if Clark were to appear and get cats out of trees or stop a tsunami from devastating LA, the majority of the public response would be positive. Of course, I’m sure someone would snark on social media about how saving cats seemed like a waste of his time, but that doesn’t count for much.

I don't think that's true. I think he'd be attacked constantly for the choices he made. He did X and not Y? He saved A and not B? A large part of my job is in social media marketing and the primary lesson drilled into you is this: do not, under any circumstances, hint at having any kind of opinion about anything. Let alone taking direct action in the actual world!

Nah, he'd be crucified by the media. Look at how the tabloids treat people just trying to live their lives. I mean, just look at our teeny tiny inconsequential TTRPG industry and check out the YouTube videos and the dominance of rage-bait there. And then multiply that by the most powerful, famous being on the planet, in a way we can't really comprehend, who is capable of shaping the world. Everything he does--or doesn't do--would be the subject of a million bot-driven social media campaigns, tabloid articles, agenda-driven political groups across the world, rage-bait videos, and... shudder... Twitter.

Just 'being a journalist' isn't training enough to handle that. Journalism school doesn't include 'being Superman' in its curriculum. And being the most powerful, most famous being on the planet (but not allowed to talk back) isn't a goldfish bowl we can even imagine. Not one I'd like to experience, at any rate!

Anyway, my point being, showing a little emotion in private in front of his girlfriend because he is being criticised for saving lives is perfectly reasonable. And 'he's a journalist, he should not feel anything' is not only unrealistic, it's also not very interesting, from a narrative POV. I'm sure he's super-stoic in public, as those people throw things at his head because he had the audacity to try to save some lives, but in private, with his girlfriend, he can't show a little frustration? Nah, not buying it. I'm much more interested in seeing that human side when the Superman mask is off.

 

[jian]

I don't think that's true. I think he'd be attacked constantly for the choices he made. He did X and not Y? He saved A and not B? A large part of my job is in social media marketing and the primary lesson drilled into you is this: do not, under any circumstances, hint at having any kind of opinion about anything. Let alone taking direct action in the actual world!

Nah, he'd be crucified by the media. Look at how the tabloids treat people just trying to live their lives. I mean, just look at our teeny tiny inconsequential TTRPG industry and check out the YouTube videos and the dominance of rage-bait there. And then multiply that by the most powerful, famous being on the planet, in a way we can't really comprehend, who is capable of shaping the world. Everything he does--or doesn't do--would be the subject of a million bot-driven social media campaigns, tabloid articles, agenda-driven political groups across the world, rage-bait videos, and... shudder... Twitter.

Just 'being a journalist' isn't training enough to handle that. Journalism school doesn't include 'being Superman' in its curriculum. And being the most powerful, most famous being on the planet (but not allowed to talk back) isn't a goldfish bowl we can even imagine. Not one I'd like to experience, at any rate!

Anyway, my point being, showing a little emotion in private in front of his girlfriend because he is being criticised for saving lives is perfectly reasonable. And 'he's a journalist, he should not feel anything' is not only unrealistic, it's also not very interesting, from a narrative POV. I'm sure he's super-stoic in public, as those people throw things at his head because he had the audacity to try to save some lives, but in private, with his girlfriend, he can't show a little frustration? Nah, not buying it. I'm much more interested in seeing that human side when the Superman mask is off.

Fair enough, but honestly, social media isn’t the whole of public opinion or a public response to an action, and it would be a mistake to think so. It’s arguably the worst and most intense element of those things, and not at all representative of people or their opinions.

What we’re seeing (as presented by the trailer - who knows what the film is about) isn’t Clark being unhappy about some nasty X comments, it’s apparently his anger about an angry crowd throwing stones at him, and probably a negative press response, because he stopped a war. He should have known that would cause trouble. Of course he did it anyway - who’s Superman if he doesn’t save lives? - but it would be naive to think there wouldn’t be blowback.

The emotional response isn’t the problem - the immaturity of the response in what seems to be a practice media interview is, because Clark should know better. Lois is of course pushing it because she’s a great reporter and she absolutely knows what should come up in an interview, but honestly none of this should be a surprise, as written.

 

[Morrus]

Fair enough, but honestly, social media isn’t the whole of public opinion or a public response to an action, and it would be a mistake to think so. It’s arguably the worst and most intense element of those things, and not at all representative of people or their opinions.

Sure, but a few thousand people yelling at you is intense. Hell, a dozen people yelling at you is intense!

What we’re seeing (as presented by the trailer - who knows what the film is about) isn’t Clark being unhappy about some nasty X comments, it’s apparently his anger about an angry crowd throwing stones at him, and probably a negative press response, because he stopped a war.

She said lots of blowback, he said not much, she said lots. Nobody said it was just one gathering throwing a stone and a negative press response. I imagine it was--like anything in this world--an international mass onslaught of bots, agitators, tabloids, partisans... and, of course, the media powers of Lex Luthor.

I mean, I don't want to invoke real world politics, but the most powerful, most influential man in the world said a country started the war that invaded them, and a large portion of the world got on board with that. That's just how the world works in this age of social media and misinformation. And an actual Superman would be bigger news than anything we can possible imagine--imagine if someone that unilaterally powerful actually existed in this world. Every action and every inaction would be politicised in their own way by a thousand agencies or corporations across the world.

He should have known that would cause trouble. Of course he did it anyway - who’s Superman if he doesn’t save lives? - but it would be naive to think there wouldn’t be blowback.

Maybe he is a little naive still in this story? Dunno! Becoming famous breaks a lot of people.

The emotional response isn’t the problem - the immaturity of the response in what seems to be a practice media interview is, because Clark should know better. Lois is of course pushing it because she’s a great reporter and she absolutely knows what should come up in an interview, but honestly none of this should be a surprise, as written.

He's talking to his girlfriend. In private. Note that when a crowd throws a stone at his head, he's stoic as hell. If Clark isn't allowed to open up to his girlfriend in private, who is he? Is he not even allowed that one thing? To show a little frustration, at home, in private, with his partner?

The whole point of Superman is that he's brought up human. He's superpowered, but he's not robotic. In fact, he's generally portrayed as more human than most of us!

I like a story which shows a 3D person, not a perfect robot. everybody complains Superman is boring because he's perfect. I love that we see his humanity.

 

[damiller]

I saw the trailer.

I love it. just everything.

Its like they took the Kevin Mcguire run on JLA Internation and turned it into a movie.

I can not wait.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Fair enough, but honestly, social media isn’t the whole of public opinion or a public response to an action, and it would be a mistake to think so. It’s arguably the worst and most intense element of those things, and not at all representative of people or their opinions.

What we’re seeing (as presented by the trailer - who knows what the film is about) isn’t Clark being unhappy about some nasty X comments, it’s apparently his anger about an angry crowd throwing stones at him, and probably a negative press response, because he stopped a war. He should have known that would cause trouble. Of course he did it anyway - who’s Superman if he doesn’t save lives? - but it would be naive to think there wouldn’t be blowback.

The emotional response isn’t the problem - the immaturity of the response in what seems to be a practice media interview is, because Clark should know better. Lois is of course pushing it because she’s a great reporter and she absolutely knows what should come up in an interview, but honestly none of this should be a surprise, as written.

It's a trailer. We don't see the context, what part of the movie it's in, the justifications for the questions or the response. I think it's pretty early to do a full character analysis without actually knowing what happens in the movie.

 

[jian]

He's talking to his girlfriend. In private. Note that when a crowd throws a stone at his head, he's stoic as hell. If Clark isn't allowed to open up to his girlfriend in private, who is he? Is he not even allowed that one thing? To show a little frustration, at home, in private, with his partner?

The whole point of Superman is that he's brought up human. He's superpowered, but he's not robotic. In fact, he's generally portrayed as more human than most of us!

I like a story which shows a 3D person, not a perfect robot.

He’s not just talking to his girlfriend in private. It looks like a practice interview, which is pretty sensible, especially with her. And yes, if you’re going to vent your feelings before a real interview, it’s a good setting to do it. I don’t fault Clark for having the feelings, but it’s an odd thing to show in the trailer, because it makes him seem less wise and mature than he probably should be.

Portrayals of Superman are quite difficult in media, because what’s his internal world like, really? This is someone who has all the power and responsibility in the world, and yet somehow has to be everyone’s friend and everyone’s saviour. He has to restrain and control himself to an impossible degree - to actively make an effort to not break or hurt everything and everyone he touches - and yet seem open, kind, genuine, and friendly. He has to keep going, listening for every scream of terror and every rumble of the earth, saving lives and putting out fires at Mach 40 every moment he can bear it. He can never rest, never be selfish, never use his unlimited power to make himself famous or rich or feared. It’s impossible, unimaginable, and inhuman.

Given all that, it’s quite tempting to never portray his internal world at all, which is basically what the Reeve films mostly do. But one conclusion from the above is that if Superman is unfailingly benevolent, he must also have impossible levels of willpower. Social media and public approval are actually the least of his problems - he’s not a celebrity who relies on public engagement and media contracts to survive or do his job. He doesn’t have to read a word of X if he doesn’t want to. Nothing can stop him from saving people except himself (and kryptonite). He doesn’t do it for the love or worship: he’s not a god. He does it because it’s the right thing to do, and he’ll do it in secret if he has to. Caring about what other people think is a weakness writers give him because that’s what they would do in his place, but I don’t think it can ever be a fatal vulnerability or a core conflict.

 

[Morrus]

I don’t fault Clark for having the feelings, but it’s an odd thing to show in the trailer, because it makes him seem less wise and mature than he probably should be.

See, that's what I like about it.

Given all that, it’s quite tempting to never portray his internal world at all, which is basically what the Reeve films mostly do.

Exactly. But we've seen that version. I'm excited to see this one.

But one conclusion from the above is that if Superman is unfailingly benevolent, he must also have impossible levels of willpower. Social media and public approval are actually the least of his problems - he’s not a celebrity who relies on public engagement and media contracts to survive or do his job.

The word "must" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Who says he must? As far as I can tell... you?

He doesn’t have to read a word of X if he doesn’t want to. Nothing can stop him from saving people except himself (and kryptonite). He doesn’t do it for the love or worship: he’s not a god. He does it because it’s the right thing to do, and he’ll do it in secret if he has to.

I'm sure every erstwhile politician has those same thoughts... until they've been in the job for 7 seconds.

Caring about what other people think is a weakness writers give him

You don't want Superman to care what other people think? Caring what other people think is a weakness?

I think not caring what other people think has a medical name--sociopathy. My Superman isn't a sociopath.

 

[Stalker0]

deleted