I don't know, they decided to go with an older and experienced Batman. One of the themes could have been about experience vs. raw power.
Regardless, I'm not digging the current choice from what I have seen.
Cranston would be a great casting choice for Lex, but only if they wanted to do something like Lex Luthor Man of Steel. That's a role he'd be phenomenal for IMO. I honestly think they'd just be wasting Cranston with what they look to be doing here.
Ma Kent is right in my eyes. I would want my son to do whatever he wants, not what other people want him to do.
I agree with that to a certain extent, like if my son wants to go out and pursue a career he thinks will make a happy, then that's great. However, if all he wants is to cause trouble and make a name for himself in a negative way, then that's a whole other thing all together.
Loved it. Bruce running into the debris, the anger in his face when he holds the little girl and the stare of at the end gave me goosebumps.
Ma Kent is right in my eyes. I would want my son to do whatever he wants, not what other people want him to do.
Edit: Also a dead Robin!!! It better be Jason.
No Tim Drake 
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The quote isn't from the Earth One comic. It's my (somewhat more blunt) take on what Martha is saying, which I think is totally morally repugnant. The underlying message - be who you want, not who other people want - doesn't work the same way when you're got an outright god. Let me try explaining it this way. Here's the issue, as the trailer potrays it:
Clark: People are mean to me in the media, just because I let a lot of innocent people die when aliens came to kill me. Now that I've started saving innocent people, everyone are treatment me like I'm different just because I have godlike powers and can save millions from floods and other natural disasters.
There's just no comparison to anything we - as in actual IRL humans - experience that's anything like what Clark's experiencing. Talking about what he "owes" people is silly. It's about what he can do. And the advice to just let a whole bunch of innocent people die becuase he doesn't like the media attentio and how people treat him is, in my view, totally crazy town.
Martha can't make Clark save innocent people from dying, but his issues aren't anything like, say, a 15 year old struggling with peer pressure or a math genius wanting to pursue a career as an electrician instead.
I still struggle with this as neither Martha or Clark said anything even close to that in the trailer.
So I reposit my question. What Martha is essentially telling Clark, her son, is that he is a not a god despite his powers, that while people can worship him or idolize him, he should makes his own choices as his own person. This is a mother telling her son to find his own way instead of being what the world expects him to be, because he owes nothing to that world? Again, how is this morally repugnant, to directly quote you? Especially since Snyder's focus on the story has been the man is Superman instead of the Super in Superman. Who is this person behind those powers. And as far as I can understand your point, it is that there shouldn't be a man there, just someone blindly and robotically just helping people because they should have no choice on the matter.
And by the way, the trailer keeps showing Clark saving people, so I continue to be baffled by the argument of morally reprehensible parenting.
I agree with that to a certain extent, like if my son wants to go out and pursue a career he thinks will make a happy, then that's great. However, if all he wants is to cause trouble and make a name for himself in a negative way, then that's a whole other thing all together.
Yeah, but Clark is not doing that. From what I get from the context of the scene based on the rest of the trailer, this is Martha responding to Clark trying to save everyone while struggling with the world reacting to him in an almost religious manner.
While people point out Space-Jesus approach, I feel they are missing a central point. This is a godlike person on the planet, yet at the same time someone who is extremely human and struggling with that responsibility.
I don't know, they decided to go with an older and experienced Batman. One of the themes could have been about experience vs. raw power.
Regardless, I'm not digging the current choice from what I have seen.
Yeah, but as you said they are already doing that with the older Batman, so Lex should represent something else in the movie.
Guest_Puddi III_*
I still struggle with this as neither Martha or Clark said anything even close to that in the trailer.
So I reposit my question. What Martha is essentially telling Clark, her son, is that he is a not a god despite his powers, that while people can worship him or idolize him, he should makes his own choices as his own person. This is a mother telling her son to find his own way instead of being what the world expects him to be, because he owes nothing to that world? Again, how is this morally repugnant, to directly quote you? Especially since Snyder's focus on the story has been the man is Superman instead of the Super in Superman. Who is this person behind those powers. And as far as I can understand your point, it is that there shouldn't be a man there, just someone blindly and robotically just helping people because they should have no choice on the matter.
And by the way, the trailer keeps showing Clark saving people, so I continue to be baffled by the argument of morally reprehensible parenting.
My point is this: Clark has the power to save people, and when he doesn't use it, people who could otherwise have been saved - and who are innocent- are going to die. Whether he wants to become a symbol for a particular group, embrace how they treat him or not - that's all well and good from the POV of autonomy. But that's really a separate question from whether he should be flying around the world and saving people from dying. Except that if he does fly around and save people from dying, he's going to become all of the things he might not want to be - a symbol to people, worshiped as a god, etc.
His choices are basically to retreat from the world - which means letting a lot of innocent people die - or do his best to save those lives, which means that everything that he might want to avoid gets heaped on him. The point that Martha's making is missing the whole point. The world wants a lot of things from Clark, and one of them is that he goes to save a bunch of innocent people. Once he does that, then a lot of other things get heaped on him too. Blame, fault, deification... it's tough for what is essentially a regular human (mentally speaking) that just happens to have incredible powers. That's a cool take on Superman, but the dialogue doesn't do it justice.
Let me try to put it this way: one thing a lot of people will want is for Superman to save them (or others). And once Clark does that, he's embracing the role some (many?) want for him. The only way for him not to embrace that role is to let a lot of innocent people die.
Martha is telling him - among other things - he doesn't have to be anyone's savior. And that's just morally repugnant. Sure, no one can make him do it, but it doesn't change the fact he's letting a whole bunch of innocent people die if he doesn't do it.
That's a difficult burden Clark has to carry. But refusing it isn't like me not wanting to be the doctor everyone thinks I should become.
Batman confirmed to Batman the Batman in the next Batman
My point is this: Clark has the power to save people, and when he doesn't use it, people who could otherwise have been saved - and who are innocent- are going to die. Whether he wants to become a symbol for a particular group, embrace how they treat him or not - that's all well and good from the POV of autonomy. But that's really a separate question from whether he should be flying around the world and saving people from dying. Except that if he does fly around and save people from dying, he's going to become all of the things he might not want to be - a symbol to people, worshiped as a god, etc.
His choices are basically to retreat from the world - which means letting a lot of innocent people die - or do his best to save those lives, which means that everything that he might want to avoid gets heaped on him. The point that Martha's making is missing the whole point. The world wants a lot of things from Clark, and one of them is that he goes to save a bunch of innocent people. Once he does that, then a lot of other things get heaped on him too. Blame, fault, deification... it's tough for what is essentially a regular human (mentally speaking) that just happens to have incredible powers. That's a cool take on Superman, but the dialogue doesn't do it justice.
Let me try to put it this way: one thing a lot of people will want is for Superman to save them (or others). And once Clark does that, he's embracing the role some (many?) want for him. The only way for him not to embrace that role is to let a lot of innocent people die.
Martha is telling him - among other things - he doesn't have to be anyone's savior. And that's just morally repugnant. Sure, no one can make him do it, but it doesn't change the fact he's letting a whole bunch of innocent people die if he doesn't do it.
That's a difficult burden Clark has to carry. But refusing it isn't like me not wanting to be the doctor everyone thinks I should become.
No, it isn't morally repugnant and the scenario you are painting is exactly the same as saying someone's parents are morally horrible for not forcing their smart child to be a doctor. Besides, following your logic, the comic book version of Martha and Jonathan were as horrible for encouraging their son to have a life and a career outside of being Superman, as while he is writing that expose someone he probably could have saved drowned somewhere. Or how dare he have romantic life, is him finding companionship really that important when he could be helping with that traffic accident.
Once you make the position that the fact Clark has those abilities is to save everyone he can, you basically state that he should not do anything else else he is acting morally wrong. What Martha is saying that Clark, the man, should not allow the world to tell him who he should be, but that he should find his own path. That is literally what is said in that scene. Besides, it is odd that we are arguing a scene to this depth considering we have no idea what is context for it in the actual movie as I've seen arguments this scene probably takes place before the senate hearing scene in the trailer.
No, it isn't morally repugnant and the scenario you are painting is exactly the same as saying someone's parents are morally horrible for not forcing their smart child to be a doctor. Besides, following your logic, the comic book version of Martha and Jonathan were as horrible for encouraging their son to have a life and a career outside of being Superman, as while he is writing that expose someone he probably could have saved drowned somewhere. Or how dare he have romantic life, is him finding companionship really that important when he could be helping with that traffic accident.
Once you make the position that the fact Clark has those abilities is to save everyone he can, you basically state that he should not do anything else else he is acting morally wrong. What Martha is saying that Clark, the man, should not allow the world to tell him who he should be, but that he should find his own path. That is literally what is said in that scene. Besides, it is odd that we are arguing a scene to this depth considering we have no idea what is context for it in the actual movie as I've seen arguments this scene probably takes place before the senate hearing scene in the trailer.
Clark is straight up letting people die who he can save, and that's a breach of a moral duty, That's akin to a doctor refusing to perform life-saving surgery because the Wire is on TV. But this is different, because Clark isn't just starting at someone while drowing when he had a chance to save them. There's also the scale Clark is allowing people to die. Let's say I could be the best cardio surgeon in the world. How many more lives does that save, relative to whatever person's spot I'm taking? Hundreds, let's say, over a decade? Clark lets hundreds of people die a day in natural disasters.
There's no equivalence here besides a false one.
There's a difference between making a very complicated causal argument - "You have the ability to save people if you become a doctor, a decade from now, relative to who would be the second best doctor in the world if you were in the profession" - making a more immediate argument - "You are the best doctor in the world right now, but you won't perform surgery on this person even though it is within your means because [reasons] - and making the immediate argument on a scale corresponding to what Clark Kent as Superman can do - "You can save hundreds of people a day in accidents, natural disasters, etc., but won't do it because you don't want people in the media to be mean to you."
There's the obvious argument that Clark would just outright go insane (cf. the take on this in Irredeemable) if all he did was save people 24/7, but that's totally different from Clark just not doing it because people are mean to him.
I think it's morally wrong for people not to save innocents when it's 100% within their means and it will cost them almost nothing to do it. I think it's morally repugnant when people refuse to save thousands of innocents when it's 100% within their means and it will cost them nothing to do it. And Clark's absolutely in this boat, both because he can save these people, it will cost him nothing if he does save it, and the counter-argument he's offering is that he doesn't want to do it because people are being mean to him in the news or, alternatively, becuase he's uncomfortable being placed on a pedestal as a demi-god for saving them.
Unless the context of that scene is "Everyone is asking you to become the absolute dictator of the world and impose a military police state", it's hard to find a justification for the conversation even seriously taking place.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Is it too late to recast Eisenberg?
His performance is as bad as that skinned ferret on his head.
Well, aren't you sorta doing the same thing by yakking on this forum instead of saving someone?Clark is straight up letting people die who he can save, and that's a breach of a moral duty,
...
Guest_Puddi III_*
Unexpected runtime errorDo we know the expected runtime?
Well, aren't you sorta doing the same thing by yakking on this forum instead of saving someone?
Well, aren't you sorta doing the same thing by yakking on this forum instead of saving someone?
You caught me. Instead of using my alien superhuman powers to save thousands from an ongoing flood, I'm reading the internet. I've been shamed into going back to my superhero past.
Clark is straight up letting people die who he can save, and that's a breach of a moral duty, That's akin to a doctor refusing to perform life-saving surgery because the Wire is on TV. But this is different, because Clark isn't just starting at someone while drowing when he had a chance to save them. There's also the scale Clark is allowing people to die. Let's say I could be the best cardio surgeon in the world. How many more lives does that save, relative to whatever person's spot I'm taking? Hundreds, let's say, over a decade? Clark lets hundreds of people die a day in natural disasters.
There's no equivalence here besides a false one.
There's a difference between making a very complicated causal argument - "You have the ability to save people if you become a doctor, a decade from now, relative to who would be the second best doctor in the world if you were in the profession" - making a more immediate argument - "You are the best doctor in the world right now, but you won't perform surgery on this person even though it is within your means because [reasons] - and making the immediate argument on a scale corresponding to what Clark Kent as Superman can do - "You can save hundreds of people a day in accidents, natural disasters, etc., but won't do it because you don't want people in the media to be mean to you."
There's the obvious argument that Clark would just outright go insane (cf. the take on this in Irredeemable) if all he did was save people 24/7, but that's totally different from Clark just not doing it because people are mean to him.
I think it's morally wrong for people not to save innocents when it's 100% within their means and it will cost them almost nothing to do it. I think it's morally repugnant when people refuse to save thousands of innocents when it's 100% within their means and it will cost them nothing to do it. And Clark's absolutely in this boat, both because he can save these people, it will cost him nothing if he does save it, and the counter-argument he's offering is that he doesn't want to do it because people are being mean to him in the news or, alternatively, becuase he's uncomfortable being placed on a pedestal as a demi-god for saving them.
Unless the context of that scene is "Everyone is asking you to become the absolute dictator of the world and impose a military police state", it's hard to find a justification for the conversation even seriously taking place.
Where exactly in this trailer did you see Clark letting people die he could have saved. Was it the selfish moment he spent with his mother? When he went in front of the senate? The numerous of him saving people where he could have actually been saving more people?
As for the rest of your argument, as far I understand, and I am honestly not trying to hyperbolic here as this is seriously how I am understanding your argument, is that if Clark at any point is doing something else than saving lives or giving himself rest time in order to go and save lives, he is morally reprehensible. And if his parents, who love him as their child, wish for him to stand for his own principles instead of being what the world wants him to be, they are morally reprehensible. Clark essentially owes the world every moment of his life he can spare to lives because he does instead of him wanting to go out and save lives. Actually, even that wanting part seems morally reprehensible, since that actually an individual choice from him to go and save lives as it leaves with him with even a hypothetical choice of him not doing so.
And again, you do realize that by the exact logic you are using here, the comic book version of Jonathan and Martha are just as huge moral monsters as they also want/wanted the best for their child instead viewing him as a god whose only purpose should be to fly around the world saving lives. Because as said, that career and love life are taking time from important life saving maybe too much to be simple sanity checks. Since apparently Martha treating Clark as a damn person with emotions and fears, and as her child, is morally repugnant.
Guest_Puddi III_*
bathroom selfies?No one on this forum is immune to physical damage, can fly and is faster than a speeding bullet. It's a cost-benefit ratio.
I could go out for twenty minutes and accomplish zero good, despite how hard I tried. Superman could go out for twenty minutes and accomplish World Peace, without even trying hard. With great power comes great...
Is it too late to recast Eisenberg?
His performance is as bad as that skinned ferret on his head.
"The red caps are coming" 
My take is: it's directed by Zack Snyder, a sequel to MoS, a horrible, horrible movie.
What is wrong with Man of Steel?. I tought it was pretty great, granted i am not much of a Superman fan, so maybe it fits me better.
"The red caps are coming"
Quality dialogue.
After watching the trailer again, two things I needed to point out:
- The scene composition where Bruce runs towards the collapsing building is just beautiful and seems to be a really great scene in the movie.
- The end where Superman rips off the roof of the Batmobile and Batman just stands up slowly to be face-to-face with him is just perfect.
After watching the trailer again, two things I needed to point out:
- The scene composition where Bruce runs towards the collapsing building is just beautiful and seems to be a really great scene in the movie.
- The end where Superman rips off the roof of the Batmobile and Batman just stands up slowly to be face-to-face with him is just perfect.
Retour en haut