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.
Yeah he's standing up and he's like - The question is. WIll you or not kill me ?
Wow, just when I though moral absolutists were a dying breed.
It's also interesting how many people want caretakers.
Superman's powers are useless - they make humans lazy and craven, not unlike the lazy, craven people reaching up to him in the trailer.
This notion that if a super-powered being exists - it MUST perform according to X morality - is specious. It creates that same delusion of the "Evil Deity" because it doesn't spoon feed humanity 24/7 and "bad things happen."
Things I like:
Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne - him looking and sounding just like Ben Affleck was one of my biggest fears about this casting choice, and going by this trailer it's not going to be the problem it could have been. Still not sold completely on him, but I'm more optimistic now.
Bruce Wayne running towards the destruction in Metropolis - that was just a good looking scene. Not sure if I like it as much when we get the full context of the event, but we'll see.
Jeremy Irons as Alfred - this has always been, like, the one casting choice I was okay with from the start. After this trailer it looks like he's also one of the few people who actually has the right idea about what's going on.
Things I'm neutral about:
Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman - well, she's in the trailer for a couple of seconds and has no lines. I've yet to see why she got the role, but this at least didn't give me a reason to despair. No judgement until we've actually seen her in action. That's acting action, you know, not action action (although that would be nice as well).
Lex Zuckerberg - I'm somewhat convinced he'll do a pretty good job as this incarnation of Lex, it's probably just not an incarnation of Lex I want to see. That's actually kind of the common theme for this whole movie.
Things look cool! - if there was one thing I was never really worried about it was the visuals of the movie. Snyder makes things look good, that's like the one thing you can be sure of when he directs. Interesting is if the visuals fit the project and exactly what is depicted in an inevitably spectular way.
Things I don't like:
Superman's hair - sorry, had to get this one out of the way. I might seem extremely nitpicky with this, but damn, it looks really bad. Snyder already hurt my appreciation for Matthew Goode's Adrian Veidt with a stupid hair style. Just... don't **** with their hair, man!
The general direction of the movie - so that's the big one. I can imagine they'll succeed at making the movie great for what it is, it's just that what it is probably isn't something I'll enjoy very much. From the focus on the whole 'versus' scenario to the predominant tone this just doesn't look like what I'd wish for in the first meeting of two of my favourite heroes. At all.
Not completely related, but same audience for the most part. Here is the leaked Suicide Squad trailer: http://kotaku.com/ja...trai-1717282959
To be honest, I actually like the Suicide Squad trailer more then BvS. I hope they release the HD version of it soon.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Superman's powers are useless - they make humans lazy and craven, not unlike the lazy, craven people reaching up to him in the trailer.
This is why I've liked some depictions of Lex. He's still a bastard too, but he makes some good points about the "alien" demigod being detrimental to society with all of this interference.
Not completely related, but same audience for the most part. Here is the leaked Suicide Squad trailer: http://kotaku.com/ja...trai-1717282959
Wow, for someone that actually didn't think much of that movie to begin with, that looked pretty damn good!
Well, this trailer tells us a lot more even though we could've guessed most of it anyway. Superman goes to court and Bruce Wayne retakes the mantle of Batman to hold Supes accountable for his actions. Placing him in Metropolis during the events of MoS is a nice touch. I wasn't convinced on the flashback scene of Bruce's parents' death though, I liked Batman Begins' scene better. Truth be told, it feels out of place and is ultimately unnecessary; we're all familiar with the event that defined Bruce's later Batman persona, there's no need to keep showing it. What little I saw of Wonder Woman was promising (she's still a bit skinny). It'll be interesting to see what her stance will be in the movie. After all, her abilities are on par with Superman's what would make her a formidable ally should she side with Batman. Personally, I'm hoping she's there to knock some sense into our male heroes.
What else? I'm not quite sold on Eisenberg's Luthor yet. I'm hoping to see something closer to Rosenbaum's interpretation of Luthor in Smallville. Still, this was only a three-minute trailer so Eisenberg's got a whole movie to build his character.
Oh, yeah, and did I mention Wonder Woman? 
PS: Ma Kent's advice left me cold. 
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.
I honestly do not understand what's leading you to keep making this false equivalence. I'm not trying to be insulting - I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong I'm failing to communicate my position. Let me try it this way, more abstractly.
I think people do have an affirmative moral duty to help people. I think, in particular, people have a moral duty to help those who are within their power to help when there isn't a (real and substantial) cost to them. In practice, there are problems with applying this (e.g. saving someone who's drowning isn't all that simple just because you can swim; there is training for this for a reason). There's also a real remoteness issue: if someone is suffocating behind a locked door, my opening the door is totally different from my investing 15 years to become a neurosurgeon to save lives. There is also a scale issue: allowing a greater number of innocent people to be hurt through inaction is worse.
Moving on from these more general principles, the issue with the Superman portrayal is this: we see that Clark can - and does - effortlessly save people. If he doesn't save people in situations where we see him saving them, then he's effectively choosing to allow them to die. Now, as I said: there are excellent reasons for Clark not to dedicate his entire existence to constantly saving people, not the least of which is that he'll almost certainly go stark raving mad, and that he needs things like sleep and food to function. Beyond that, he actually needs to know people are in danger - he's not omniponent. He can't save someone from a fatal mugging in China if he doesn't know it's happening.
But the scene - as its constructed in the trailer - seems to suggest this: some people are really mean to Clark: they're holding him responsible for what Zod did to Metropolis (and the Earth more generally). Some people are treating him as if he were a good: that makes him obviously uncomfortable. But he's not going to avoid this situation unless he completely retreats from public life. Which means not saving innocent people when it's within his power - i.e., when he knows that those innocent people are in danger.
His mother says to him that he doesn't "owe" people anything, and he can do whatever. But that's awful.
The comics are different for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that most parts of the world have their own superheroes out there saving lives, so Clark doesn't have a monopoly on superhuman feats. But beyond that, there's handwaving as to how much heroism Clark can - and is being asked - to perform. Still, the typical Kent portrayal is that they encourage him - they hope - that he will do everything he can to be a hero/symbol, etc. to people. Basically, think of what Jor-El in MOS wanted for Clark, and that's actually how the Kents are typically characterized. I only brought them up for the sake of an analogy.
The summary of it is this:
1. Clark has the power to save thousands of lives. His choices are to either save them or not save them.
2. Clark won't always know that thousands of lives are in danger.
3. Clark can't save everyone, and even if he could, there are substantial arguments against him actually acting as if he were god (e.g. stopping all crime forever).
4. Clark will be blamed in the media, and will be worshiped, so long as he is active in the world. If he's active and doesn't save lives, they'll call him a heartless monster. If he's active and does save lives, they'll worship him as a god. He can't control this attitude.
5. Clark can control what he does: whether he saves people or not. Talking about what he "owes" people, well... that's a bit like a surgeon refusing to performing life-saving surgery because she doesn't "owe" anyone anything. That's true. That's an attitude that's obviously in breach of a moral obligation.
When Martha says "Do whatever you want Clark," she's essentially saying that he doesn't have to feel the weight of everyone's lives. But that's repugnant. He does have to feel the weight of those lives, because he can save them. Maybe he doesn't want to deal with it. That's his deal. But it's not a defensible attitude from any POV either than one that privileges total selfishness. Because when we account for Clark's godlike powers, his refusing to save thousands a day - and thus openin himself to people being mean (why aren't you saving more!) or worshiping him (you're a god!) is akin to someone refusing to open a locked door behind which thousands are suffocating to death.
Wow, just when I though moral absolutists were a dying breed.
It's also interesting how many people want caretakers.
Superman's powers are useless - they make humans lazy and craven, not unlike the lazy, craven people reaching up to him in the trailer.
This notion that if a super-powered being exists - it MUST perform according to X morality - is specious. It creates that same delusion of the "Evil Deity" because it doesn't spoon feed humanity 24/7 and "bad things happen."
Watching people die because you don't want to save them is absolutely horrible. If you think people drowning in floods makes humanity better... well, I can't even begin to understand the logic that gets you there. Let's try it this way: do you think modern medicine makes humans "lazy and craven", because we're not all dying of untreated bacterial infections out of ignorance? We're all throwing ourselves at the mercy of doctors - we don't get medicine, unless we're trained.
People have moral obligations. People breach their moral obligations all the time. This isn't an "absolutist" position, anymore than saying that people have legal obligations not to carelessly risk others well-being is absolutist.
And the jerkass god argument works differently: because jerkass god has to create a world where there's suffering first. Even if you could come up with some argument suffering is a virtue - which is stupid, but let's pretend it's not - jerkass god is on the hook for creating a world that has it in the first place.
"The red caps are coming"
*capes not caps.
And he was being sarcastic and it was a reference to "The red coats are coming". As in the aliens and freaks are invading, so I actually like that quote.
*capes*
And he was being sarcastic and it was a play on "The read coats are coming". As in the aliens and freaks are invading, so I actually like that quote.
It just sounds so bad coming from Jesse
*capes not caps.
And he was being sarcastic and it was a reference to "The red coats are coming". As in the aliens and freaks are invading, so I actually like that quote.
I think they're borrowing from Injustice: Gods Among Us, with basically there being a fascist group of shock troops wearing the Superman shield. My guess is that this is all part of Lex's plot to discret Supes, and there'll be people calling for Superman to become some kind of fascist dictator.
It just sounds so bad coming from Jesse
True, he's voice could use more work. Sometime he sounds alright, sometime he goes too hammy in the trailer.
I think they're borrowing from Injustice: Gods Among Us, with basically there being a fascist group of shock troops wearing the Superman shield. My guess is that this is all part of Lex's plot to discret Supes, and there'll be people calling for Superman to become some kind of fascist dictator.
Agreed. Could also be like TDKR with the whole "Sons of Batman" thing going but with Superman instead of Batman.
Agreed. Could also be like TDKR with the whole "Sons of Batman" thing going but with Superman instead of Batman.
I was really caught up in the aesthetic choice but you're right. It makes sense for them to roll up that plotline into Supes. They may very well end up swapping their roles in the TDKR style storyline, since the trailer suggests Supes is the one on the outs with the state and Batman is a bit more of a representative of authority-ish.
Superman looks great. Batman looks like a robot.. Wonder Woman looks like....well....if she eat peas she will look like an abacus. #poorcasting.
To be honest, I actually like the Suicide Squad trailer more then BvS. I hope they release the HD version of it soon.
THIS looks cool.
(minus Jai Courtnay)
Not completely related, but same audience for the most part. Here is the leaked Suicide Squad trailer: http://kotaku.com/ja...trai-1717282959
Sold on Joker.
He's got the full on crazy eyes.
I'll just post the Suicide Squad trailer here since its related
I'll just post the Suicide Squad trailer here since its related
They better release a better version soon.
They better release a better version soon.
I think they will, it has been up on the internet for a while without having been taken down.
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.
Then they kiss.
Im more interested in wonderwoman. Whats her angle in this whole thing?
Got to admit WW is the one i'm more interested in this too. if this works out she will be the 1st dc female hero to potentualy pull off a decent solo flick.
Retour en haut
