And so the anti-Superman clowns come out from under there rocks

[Mat001]

My allegiance is to Superman as aligned to the core principles sat down by Siegel and Shuster. The current version, for example, is very much aligned to what they established so I enjoy it. As long as I can see a natural development from what they created, I'm good with it. Changes that are completely the opposite of their version, like some of what Byrne did, I take issue with.

The core fundamentals are still there. The only changes in this film is that there is more breathing room, to explore ideas such as Jonathan's fears for his son and the end result of those fears. Take note in the early issues of Action from the Golden Age, not all the police are for Superman. Same with the current run by Morrision, who even went one step further by tricking the government with the deformed calf. You even support Bruce Kent's imagined idea of what the rest of the conversation is from the trailer. That's the point in the end. You jump to conclusions for the wrong reasons and get upset at what is in the trailer, based on your own ill conceived notions of what is right and wrong.

And what's more, when you say that are the opposite of Siegel, you tend to forget that not all of Superman that you love is Siegel's. Things were changed based on what later writers, all later writers, added. And not just that, but it extends into other areas. The Donner and Lester films did not betray the foundations of Superman, no more than Byrne's run did.

[Sonofspam]

Does anyone think this might use some elements of the Superman Earth One graphic novel? seems from the trailer he is not gonna go straight to the Daily Planet and might spend some time trying to find himself.

[Mat001]

Does anyone think this might use some elements of the Superman Earth One graphic novel? seems from the trailer he is not gonna go straight to the Daily Planet and might spend some time trying to find himself.

That dates back to "Man Of Steel".

[Kurosawa]

The core fundamentals are still there. The only changes in this film is that there is more breathing room, to explore ideas such as Jonathan's fears for his son and the end result of those fears. Take note in the early issues of Action from the Golden Age, not all the police are for Superman. Same with the current run by Morrision, who even went one step further by tricking the government with the deformed calf. You even support Bruce Kent's imagined idea of what the rest of the conversation is from the trailer. That's the point in the end. You jump to conclusions for the wrong reasons and get upset at what is in the trailer, based on your own ill conceived notions of what is right and wrong.

And what's more, when you say that are the opposite of Siegel, you tend to forget that not all of Superman that you love is Siegel's. Things were changed based on what later writers, all later writers, added. And not just that, but it extends into other areas. The Donner and Lester films did not betray the foundations of Superman, no more than Byrne's run did.

Merry Christmas, Mat. We don't agree on much but at least we both like the same superhero.

[P_Stephens38]

I think it's pretty obvious that I am questioning the idea that Jonathan Kent would even consider the idea of Clark allowing people to die. There are other things about this movie I question as well, and there ARE things that I like. And if I like the movie overall, or if that scene is massively out of context (but how could it be?), then unlike most people online or anywhere, I will admit I was wrong.

I will admit that I am not reading ahead to the last page at the moment, so I don't know if anyone else is going to bring this up, but seeing your posts in this thread really inspired me to respond. You keep going back to this scene with Pa Kent and calling it a horrible scene that takes away everything that makes Jonathan Kent the character he always has been in the comics. Now, if in the completed movie, in the correct context, if Jonathan says exactly that "maybe" line in the way you are speculating, then yes, you have every right to be disgusted by this new characterization. But, as many have so far stated, this scene is very likely out of context. You do realize that trailers are cut together for the pure basis of eliciting excitement from the potential audience (which, good or bad, this line has done), but they also are cut together sometimes with scenes in different parts of the film. I don't feel like scouring youtube for examples, but I have seen trailers before that has two characters in a conversation, but when you see the actual movie, character 'A's dialogue is from the beginning of the film while character 'B's lines are from later in the movie. The people who cut together those types of trailers (sometimes the director, most times I think it's the studio) found two lines from from two different parts of the movie that, when mixed together, make a "scene" that they hope excites potential audiences. Remember, in the MOS trailer, the "Maybe" line is the one line from that possible scene that is delivered in voiceover.

Like so many have said, unless you have a time machine and have seen the completed film already, remember that this is just a trailer and that that single utterance of the word "maybe" may not have the connotation you are getting angry about, as that line more than likely has a much different context than you think. And yes, I will eat my words if the completed movie proves me wrong!

[P_Stephens38]

And Kurosawa, don't take my last line to be as insulting as I think it may come across as now that I've posted it and read it over. The time machine comment was meant all in good fun.

[Kurosawa]

No, I understand and I have recanted my initial reaction as being too knee-jerk. After how upset I got over the USO scene in Captain America that I ended up loving I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. You really never know until you see the whole movie how it will hit you.