Trailer Superman Full Trailer

[Reynard]

• Superman’s whole angry/upset take on being interviewed and being unpopular. Maybe you’ve been in a Fortress of Solitude for a decade, Clark, but not everyone in the world is going to react well to a guy stopping a war single-handed. Even if you flew straight into Ukraine and stopped a major Russian advance without hurting anyone, some people are going to be upset and scared. Don’t read the comments. I hope this isn’t too representative of Clark in the film.

Yeah, I’m kind of hoping that scene plays out differently in the movie as part of an extended discussion because that struck me as weird. Clark is a reporter as well - he’s not (or shouldn’t be) unaware of the fallout of his actions or the nature of the questions, and his defense seemed kinda childish?

Even reporters can allow their personal bias to block how others see the world. Especially if their world views are diametrically opposed and the reporter is personally involved. The scene will be saved, for me, if Lois manages to make him see that.

It is also possible that Lois is pushing him on purpose to help him understand something that he can't see because he is too invested and too close to. That is one of the many things that a spouse/partner is good for. They often know you better than you do, and most depiction of Lois have her being the one who really grounds Superman and lets him see himself.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Even reporters can allow their personal bias to block how others see the world. Especially if their world views are diametrically opposed and the reporter is personally involved. The scene will be saved, for me, if Lois manages to make him see that.

Yeah, I think this is just part of a longer conversation in this movie, especially given that the Authority are apparently aligned with the US government. I suspect where everyone ends up at the end of the movie is not where they are during this interview.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I’m kind of hoping that scene plays out differently in the movie as part of an extended discussion because that struck me as weird. Clark is a reporter as well - he’s not (or shouldn’t be) unaware of the fallout of his actions or the nature of the questions, and his defense seemed kinda childish?

Says a man who has never been brigaded. No amount of education or knowledge prepares you for the horror of that. And for him it would be on a scale that we can’t even imagine. Superman is physically super; he’s not emotionally super.

 

[TiQuinn]

Says a man who has never been brigaded.

Getting a little personal there, Russ?

 

[TiQuinn]

It is also possible that Lois is pushing him on purpose to help him understand something that he can't see because he is too invested and too close to. That is one of the many things that a spouse/partner is good for. They often know you better than you do, and most depiction of Lois have her being the one who really grounds Superman and lets him see himself.

Yeah, what occurs in the actual movie could be totally different from what comes across in the trailer.

 

[Piperken]

...and his defense seemed kinda childish?

In that scene, this response felt human. Not, it. (Which at least from this trailer, is the point)

I like the "S," it feels new? But its outline really hearkens to very early Superman "S" for me.

 

[Morrus]

Getting a little personal there, Russ?

Not really. I don’t know enough about you to be personal. More an observation that his reaction seems pretty mild given what I (and many others; I won’t speak for you) know about how the modern world works. If the movie were being realistic, I imagine that 50% of the public reaction to even simple acts of goodness would be utterly hostile. He’d be a saint to half the world and the devil to the other half, and none of that would really have anything to do with him. Superman (socially, not physically) couldn’t exist in our world. He’d be demonised.

 

[Ryujin]

Says a man who has never been brigaded. No amount of education or knowledge prepares you for the horror of that. And for him it would be on a scale that we can’t even imagine. Superman is physically super; he’s not emotionally super.

Quite. In the comics they sell his vulnerabilities as being Kryptonite and magic, but his biggest weakness is his steadfast morality. Anything that attacks that might well break him.

 

[jian]

Not really. I don’t know enough about you to be personal. More an observation that his reaction seems pretty mild given what I (and many others; I won’t speak for you) know about how the modern world works. If the movie were being realistic, I imagine that 50% of the public reaction to even simple acts of goodness would be utterly hostile. He’d be a saint to half the world and the devil to the other half, and none of that would really have anything to do with him. Superman (socially, not physically) couldn’t exist in our world. He’d be demonised.

I think that’s a little cynical. I’d say that if someone (especially a famous someone) does an impressively and undeniably positive thing in our world, the response is generally positive. On social media, it can be more mixed, but even their critics find it hard to criticise them for that specific thing, so they usually just ignore it or jeer at their “virtue signalling” or whatever.

The problem with stopping wars or similar is that, despite the maths on the ground (people killed by bombs today = 50 fewer than if Superman hadn’t turned up) such actions are rarely undeniably or purely positive. If Clark stops a Russian advance in Ukraine, well, that’s great for Ukraine and most surrounding countries and he’d be hailed as a hero by many people in Europe and elsewhere, but some - such as many Russians and those who fear that Clark is a particularly American power - will express disapproval and fear.

If Clark stops an Israeli attack on a hospital in Gaza or an Indian attack on a village in Kashmir, that gets even worse. Freeing prisoners from an Uyghur internment camp in Xinjiang? Freeing US prisoners from El Salvador? Kryptonite bullet time.

 

[Ryujin]

I think that’s a little cynical. I’d say that if someone (especially a famous someone) does an impressively and undeniably positive thing in our world, the response is generally positive. On social media, it can be more mixed, but even their critics find it hard to criticise them for that specific thing, so they usually just ignore it or jeer at their “virtue signalling” or whatever.

The problem with stopping wars or similar is that, despite the maths on the ground (people killed by bombs today = 50 fewer than if Superman hadn’t turned up) such actions are rarely undeniably or purely positive. If Clark stops a Russian advance in Ukraine, well, that’s great for Ukraine and most surrounding countries and he’d be hailed as a hero by many people in Europe and elsewhere, but some - such as many Russians and those who fear that Clark is a particularly American power - will express disapproval and fear.

If Clark stops an Israeli attack on a hospital in Gaza or an Indian attack on a village in Kashmir, that gets even worse. Freeing prisoners from an Uyghur internment camp in Xinjiang? Freeing US prisoners from El Salvador? Kryptonite bullet time.

The percentage breakdown of 50/50 is likely a long way off, however, there's another principle at work. If you do something right then you might have one person in a hundred praise you. Make a mistake, even just a perceived one, and maybe half the people will comment. It's why legitimately good people should never read the comments section on news sites or Youtube.