Man I love a SteelBook.

>>39214
>What would be the point

The really fucking cool geo-political sci-fy thriller they very clearly wanted to make.

Man of Steel is a dramatization of The Republic. Young Clark Kent reads The Republic while being bullied by kids from school. The bullies grab Clark from his seat, shove him towards a fence, and taunt him. Clark shows restraint, he doesn't respond to his tormentors, and they back away. The Republic is displayed prominently on the screen during this conflict. By flashing the book so clearly, the filmmakers accomplish two goals. First, it helps answer a nagging question about the origin of Superman's morals; he learned them. The Republic is certainly a book that a smart kid looking for moral guidance would seek out. Second, it acts as a key that uncovers philosophical depth in "just another blockbuster."

Krypton is a corrupted version of the Ideal City. The Rulers have lost sight of the Good (they lack Moderation and destroy the planet by over-using the core), and the Guardians (Zod) are rebelling against the Rulers. The planet blows up not as a tragic accident, but because Krypton's society lacks the virtues that Plato describes.

>>39220


Now, The Republic isn't just a piece of political writing. The Ideal City is a metaphor for the human soul. Man of Steel works the same way, as Jor-El imprints the Codex into his son. The Codex is Krypton, and Krypton is the Ideal City. Superman has the Ideal City inside himself; he is a perfectly just being. Plato writes that the City is a "city of the mind," an ideal to strive for. Superman is described the same way, as an ideal to strive for. A person who has internalized the lessons of The Republic, who can see the Good perfectly, would look a lot like Superman.

The drama of Man of Steel revolves around Superman choosing between Krypton and Earth. And even though every cell in his body is of Krypton, he chooses Earth, rejecting the literal expression of the City in favor of imperfect Earth.

But why does Superman choose Earth?

>>39221
Plato wrote about education, especially the education of potential Philosopher Kings. In order to be a good ruler, you had to go through certain trials, and pass them. Superman went through many trials, and he resolved them by sticking to ideals and virtues that he trusted. He will risk being exposed to save a bus full of kids, but not to save his father. Seems like strange logic, but Jonathan Kent made the choice to sacrifice himself, and Superman honored that choice. He goes through growing pains, but generally shows incredible self-restraint. Superman is the embodiment of the Ideal City on many levels. He is Wise, and that means discerning the Good.

So on the one hand, you have half of The Republic: The person who has a soul in the image of the City. Superman.

On the other hand is the political philosophy of The Republic, the literal city. Krypton, in this case.

In Man of Steel, those two halves are pitted against one another, Superman against Krypton, ethical philosophy against political philosophy, soul against city.

>>39222
Krypton, as discussed before, is corrupt. Superman gives the remnants of Krypton a chance. He walks up to the ship and takes a leap of faith that Zod will keep his word, because he's idealistic and has a strong view of the Good. And because he's wise and discerning, he takes a safety net along (the key). But Zod acts on bad faith, and Superman destroys them.

He destroys them mostly because he sees the corruption. Krypton had bad policies and bad leaders, and Zod overreacted to create more bad policies and bad leaders. Earth may not be a utopia, but to Superman it appeared better than the sick society he sees in Krypton.

On a subtextual level, Man of Steel is a rebuke to the people who take Plato literally as political philosophy, but an endorsement of his ethics. Man of Steel hopes to inspire us not to change our societies, but to change our souls.

>>39223
>>39222
>>39221
>>39220
This is a lovely thought and everything, but it doesn't resolve the inherent issues that were brought about by Zack Snyder's lack of ability to tell a story. For example, the idea that Superman was sticking to his ideals by rescuing those kids but not by rescuing his father doesn't really work when the "ideals" that were being fed to him were inconsistent and poorly communicated--Pa Kent wanted him to let those kids die, and the only reason he let Pa Kent die was because Pa Kent was insistent on it. Despite the fact that he could've saved him without revealing himself as Superman PRETTY EASILY. The only way that scene makes sense is if Jonathan Kent wanted to die.

So the way to make that scene functional would not be to bring up comparisons to Plato's Republic, but to advance the theory that the Kents were in bad straights financially and look for evidence that he had taken out an insurance policy on himself that paid double for Acts of God.

http://screenrant.com/batman-vs-superman-movie-robin-drones-kingdom-come/

welp I hope stuff like this is fake. Movie seems to be a hobbling mess of rumor that I hope are all herrings.

>>39229

>Movie seems to be a hobbling mess

Does that surprise you? WB is trying to do a Justice League film as a response to The Avengers/the MCU, not as an honest-to-God attempt to create an actual film-based universe.

>>39230
And if they had actually just laid a path then they would have had it all set. Instead it looks like it will be a wrecked shambles.

Argo writer rewriting Superman vs. Batman script, because Goyer is too busy writing every other comic movie/show for WB.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/batman-superman-chris-terrio-write-666735

Affleck's involvement is already proving to be a positive for the film.

>>39407
I hope Affleck asks Snyder to ghost-direct the more character oriented scenes.

>>39408
WHY!?!?

>>39409
I think they meant to reverse that.

>>39409
Because Affleck is actually decent at directing, unlike Snyder ?

>>39411
I think you got it backwards then chum, read what you said again.

>>39412
Affleck is the actor, Snyder is the director. Affleck should direct some scenes because he has better skills at that. For that, he should take the initiative and ask Snyder.

That's what I mean to say.

>>39413
And I am behind you 100000000 %

still concerns of this being hijacked into a Batman film. But if we get some footage of Clark and Lois at the game and then Bats glowering at them from the VIP box then I'll keep hope alive. Double if also a chilly Wondy is in attendance grumbling about the cold and the lack of combat in this arena.

http://www.cinematallica.com/exclusive-is-ben-affleck-threatening-to-quit-batman-vs-superman/

>Let’s get one thing clear before we dive in: Ben Affleck has not dropped out of Batman vs. Superman as of this writing. But the situation is taking a turn that suggests Affleck might not be moving into the batcave anytime soon.

Quite a strong rumor, it seems.

>>39638
Hrmm... so the rumor is that he is threatening to quit because the script basically sucks ass. Yikes, if true.

Burned the cartoon to the ground while attempt a ham handed game of catch up with Marvel. I don't see things going well for DC. Maybe Warner Bros will sell it to Disney after the meltdown.

I think enough time has passed now, can you remember a SINGLE song off of this that was even in the FUCKING BALLPARK of the John Williams Superman theme?

Superman Theme

Cuz all I remember is the most generic, forgettable HOLLYWOOD BIG MOVIE music.

>>39661
Nope nada, you cannot make a Superman movie and be running away from Superman at the same time. And B vs S looks like its going in the same direction.

>>39639
Well. I'm glad he finally took a stand on this sort of thing too bad bad Gigli was still made though.

>>39638
And likely shit, like all the other rumors surrounding the movie.

>>39661
I actually like the MoS theme. Especially the way it builds up from its subtle score to uplifting roar. I actually think it does a great job at capturing a "greater than" experience associated with Superman. I'll go as far to say MoS isn't worthy of the theme.

Man Of Steel Main Theme || Fro…

Why was a glass seal not cool enough? Why did they feel the need to fucking make space dildos which were perhaps the lamest thing ever made?

>>39687
Why so H. R. Giger, everything.

> MARK SUCKERBERG IS LEX LUTHOR

Really WB? Really?

>>39702
saw it coming really in their mad dash to run away from Superman while still making a movie that has to have him in it. Why not have the new "kings of industry" that can terrorize Superman by turning the social media against him. The Climatic Scene where all of Metropolis "likes" Superman's online video plea, blech.

My opinion is pretty much this.

Also, Cavil and Eisenber are the same age. There's a lot to play with in their appearance being so different.

>Lex Luthor, after all, is a smart, diabolical, ice-cold, inhuman, troubled, brilliant, conniving, hateful, maladjusted megalomaniac.

>I in no way intend to suggest that Mark Zuckerberg in real life is a smart, diabolical, ice-cold, inhuman, troubled, brilliant, conniving, hateful, maladjusted megalomaniac. But the fictional one Aaron Sorkin wrote for The Social Network? Yes, he was all those things. And Eisenberg killed in that part. The invented movie version of Zuckerberg, in many ways, was Lex Luthor. He was the triumphant schemer, the frustratingly one-step-ahead guy who nobody loves but everybody fears. That doesn't mean that that's exactly what they're going for, but it certainly means there's no way to rule out Eisenberg being a great, Sorkin's-Zuckerberg-y Luthor.

. . .

>Maybe they'll shave Eisenberg's head. Maybe they won't. But Luthor isn't about the baldness; he's about the attitude and the ominous power. Gene Hackman played him kind of whimsically funny, but whether you like the Zack Snyder way of looking at Superman or not, we're already well down the path to a much grimmer view of Luthor. It was never going to be a jokester; that wouldn't fit with the tone of the movie. This is not Donner's Superman, or Lois, or Luthor. (It would probably be worse if they tried to make it into that.)

>If the grimness isn't your thing, it isn't your thing, but that has nothing to do with what Eisenberg is capable of. Because I think there's a pretty good argument that if Lex Luthor existed today, he'd be running a tech company.

>Well — scheming, glowering, plotting, suffering, seething, and running a tech company.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2014/01/31/269505081/yes-jesse-eisenberg-should-absolutely-play-lex-luthor

Superman vs Google, nope.

>>39706
Any particular reason you have a problem with that? It seems to make perfect sense within the context of a Lex Luthor like villain--Superman cannot be challenged on a physical front, but someone who operates in a different sphere--mental, technological, information-based--can easily be Superman's equal or better. This is the entire concept behind Lex Luthor. Superman has to show his moral superiority over these villains.

But a villain who challenges Superman by having access to essentially unlimited information (i.e. Superman vs. Google) seems like it would, if anything, present MORE of a threat than a simple super scientist, as well as being more believable.

>>39707

I like the idea of young man Luthor since they are contemporaries of each other, wonder if he'll be someone Clark knew but then left behind after the tornado when he went soul searching.

I just think such a character driven arc won't fit well within what they want with Batman and everything else loaded in. The growing conerns of Lex and what Lexcorp is up to is really something that should start in one movie and finish in another, maybe it will.

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor will be fine. He is entirely capable of playing "Smart" and "Spiteful" and those are the fundamental core of Lex as a character. And they could probably actually write in Lex's first origin into the movie, and have Superman inadvertently destroy his hair/greatest work, because Man of Steel Superman is totally that careless.

Jeremy Irons as Alfred is WAY the hell more miscast in my eyes. Jeremy Irons like, exudes sexual menace, and I don't think he's really capable of pulling off the subdued butlery-ness of Alfred. Alfred should be a pretty standard seeming butler even though he is a former spy.

SO IT'S NOT BRIAN CRANSTON?! Oh THANK GOD.

>>39711
But he would be so perfect! I mean, he's BALD.

>>39713
Obviously, which is why I don't want him wasted on this garbage.

Also, he's not bald, as you can see in Godzilla, he just has a great shaved head.

>>39713
>>39714
That reminds me. It was annoying seeing everyone on /co/ post bald actors when Eisenberg was announced as Lex. Basing it more on looks than performance.

Same goes for everyone that thought Cranston was going to be Lex, even though he has denied it repeatedly in the past.

>>39716
I think it should be someone that while not super muscular does have a bit of physical clout.

>>39717
One of the reasons I think it should span two movies first containing the build of Lex's obsessiveness over "The Alien" which turns into dislike and hate as it progresses into the next film. Which leads to the question, can Eisenberg bulk up. Not stupid huge but someone that appears to be at human "peak" condition.

It's a FAAAAKE. But yeah, Eisenberg'd look alright as Lex.

You know, I have the feeling that Luthor won't be bald in the movie until the very end of it, probably as consequence of Superman's actions to stop his scheme.

>>39722
think maybe they could go hardcore and have him be scalped. Like a still untempered Diana gets to him and just goes to town a bit before Supes can intervene and calm her down.

> first movie has the villain's neck snapped
> second movie has the villan getting scalped

I fear what the third movie would get us!

>>39725
Hey, if it keeps moving up, maybe the third one will get the villain's hair trimmed a bit and that's all.

>>39727
>gets a hangnail

Darksied invades earth.

Man of Steel from a Baby's Perspective