Talk:Man of Steel (film)

Which incarnation of the story will this movie follow?

Do we know yet if this movie will be Silver-, Golden-, Modern-age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouse914 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Development section confusing?

Anyone else find the Development section a bit confusing? Not the writers fault, the Development of the film and all its ideas and changes was convoluted. I'm just wondering if a different approach to the format of the section and describing it would help make a better wiki page? 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Red underwear

Can someone pls add that this film will feature Superman sans his RED UNDERWEAR? There are various sources to that. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not provide any reliable sources discussing the significance of him not having his red SHORTS (they aren't underwear). Should you do so, we can certainly add it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What about these? [1] and [2] look very reliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't really say why they didn't include them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, just include that Man of Steel will be the first film to showcase Superman without the red "trunks", using the sources I mentioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We can probably do that once we get more information on the production, particularly costume design. Right now, it's just trivia to state such-and-such is the first. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just trivia at the moment. Unless you could find enough information about the change in costume, their motivations and reasons etc etc to warrant a section...? On a personal note...I want to see the briefs! They were a part of my childhood putting my briefs on the outside of my trousers and running round pretending I was superman! MisterShiney ✉ 16:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Finally found a source which describes more the costume, and why the red trunks were omitted. Use this [3] ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He's not really clear why they didn't put the shorts on him. He just says he looked at it and everyone said "no". Then he goes in circles about modernization of the suit and how this suit is tied closely to the original. I don't think he has a real reason for why he doesn't have the shorts, as what's on that page seems a littl convoluted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

American-British

The movie's main producers are both British, and it's written by a British person. It should be American-British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The product is owned and produced by an American company (Warner Bros.), so that makes it American.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes i know, hence wahy i didn't say it's a British, or British-American movie, but calling a movie strictly "American" means it's entirely American, when this movie is not. It's only fair to call it American-British. The producers are British, the writers and one of the production companies as well (Syncopy films). This makes it an American-British movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not how we determine ownership. The movie, the characters, the rights are owned by an American company. Who is hired to make the actual film does not dictate the origin of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So let's say a movie is entirely made by French, written, produced, screenplay, editing, production company etc, but it's distributed by an American company. That means that movie would be an American movie? That's not how it works. That would make Harry Potter movies American for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say distribution, I said owned. Anyone can distribute a film, it's about who owns it. Harry Potter would be an example of a joined ownership, because Warner Bros owns the film rights, but a British company owns the stories and the characters. It's about ownership. Also, please respect WP:BOLD. You made an edit that was disputed, please do not re-add it while there is an on-going discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if it's about who owns it, then that is partly Christopher Nolan, because he wrote it. And you're wrong anyway. That's not how it works. Look at any movie you want, "The girl with the dragon tattoo" for example, it's a Swedish-American-British-German movie, because there are more factors involved in making a movie other than the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nolan doesn't own the script, because he didn't write anything. Goyer wrote it and he sold it to Warner Bros, which makes it their property. As for TGwtDT, it's American/Swedish because MGM owns the film rights and Norstedts Förlag owns the source material. There is no German/British in there. I'm sorry, but you're the one that is mistaken. You need to stop thinking that just because there is a British cast, or a British director that it somehow means the film is British. It doesn't. They are hired help, nothing more. They don't own anything on the film. A company (or companies) own it, and that is how it is decided.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nolan didn't write anything? Look again on the main page. He wrote the story. And you can see even here on Wikipedia at the "The girl with the dragon tattoo" page that at country of origin there is, US, Sweden, UK and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) You are contradicting yourself, you say the owner is the company who is sold to, and also the writer, and then you say Nolan who wrote it isn't the owner because he sold it to Warner Bros. In general, whatever company the movie is sold to, that company isn't the creator of the movie, that's stupid to say that Warner Bros made this or another movie. Inform yourself, it's not just about owners, it's about the people who actually created the movie.

First off, I never said the writer was the owner. You said that Nolan was the owner because he wrote Man of Steel. I said, he did NOT write Man of Steel, David Goyer wrote it. That said, Goyer sold his script to Warner Bros., so they own that regardless. I didn't contradict myself, I merely asserted how your identifying a script writer as "owner" does not compute, because they don't own their scripts. Warner Bros. did "make" the movie, because it is their money, plus the fact that they OWN the rights to the film. If Nolan owned anything then that means he could make a film if he wanted to with the same characters...he cannot. Warner Bros. owns Batman and Superman (and all DC Comics characters for that matter). They own the characters, the settings, the film rights, ...everything. That means that the country of origin for a Batman or Superman film (or for an Aquaman film if that's the case) will always be the United States. It doesn't matter if if the director they hire is British, German, or Dutch. Otherwise, you're arguing that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban should really be an American-British-Mexican film, because Alfonso Cuaron is Mexican and he directed the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine, whatever i don't care. But FYI that's just not how it works. The writer of a movie is the actual person to CREATE the movie, weather he sold it's rights to a production company is irrelevant, the movie's CREATOR is still the person who wrote it. If Bob Kane or Bill Finger were French for example, than the Batman movies would be partly French. It's not just about owners. The company buys a product that was already made by someone. Anyway doesn't matter, if you look on IMDB where many people get their info from, 99% of the movies are American. Inception is American, Harry Potter DH part 2 is American-British. Typical American propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "creation" with "ownership". The field of "country of origin" is not based on who wrote the film or directed it (and BTW, the director would have as much say as a writer...and I see that you didn't comment on Alfonso Cuaron). Neither is the owner of the property in question, creative hands aside. We're identifying the "owner", not someone who "created" anything. As for IMDb, it's an unreliable website, so I could care less what it says.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well sorry, but i think you're wrong , the country of origin section is exactly that, the origin where he movie was made, created, because you can entirely make a movie in one country and a company like WB who is the distributor can be from a totaly different country. Which one of those 2 is the "origin"? Anyway, believe what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)

This thread is full of fail and shows a rather fundamental lack of understanding on the OP's part. Instead of blindly bulling forward with your own (misguided) opinions, at least try to understand and listen to the person who's attempting to explain to you. Anyways regardless if you understand or not, as Bignole mentioned, it is original research unless you have reliable sources backing up your assertions. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. Do you have a reliable source actually calling it a "British-American" film? BTW, please read the definition of a "distributor" and a "producer", because who distributes the film has nothing to do with who owns the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Who composed which part of Trailer No3?

So the question pertains to "Official Trailer 3" at YouTube. -Mardus (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Connections with 'Dark Knight' trilogy

'Man of Steel' is the first Superman film not to include 'Superman' in the title, just as 'The Dark Knight' was the equivalent for Batman. Furthermore, the film's producer, writer and composer worked on both. Is this connection notable? Could it be worked into the article? (Zedell (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

I don't see how without any direct commentary or reliable sources mentioning it...-- MisterShiney ✉ 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with and unsure how to locate Wiki policy on this, but does it have to when the facts are self-evident? Might it be said, very roughly, "As with Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', the film uses an alternate name for its superhero as the main title."? (Zedell (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

No, because you're applying the significance to the fact. That makes it original research. If no one knew about Nolan's Batman trilogy, or at least who he was and his level of involvement in the films then it would be insignificant to them. If it's insignificant then the question becomes, "why do we mention it?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is evident, then maybe it does not need to be stated so overtly. :) I've searched for interviews that talk about this film's title in comparison with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises but did not find anything. Maybe it is not much of a highlight for the media anymore; The Dark Knight was significant as a trailblazing title, but now it's become the norm. If we still want to look, maybe we could figure out what month this title was officially announced, and we can narrow Google search results to that month and year? EDIT: Looks like the title was announced in April 2011, but searching Google search results for that date range does not show any significant headlines. This makes the comparison, but it seems to be an outlier. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Erik. I've just been trying to perform the same research with much less success. That said, I suppose you're right in that it wouldn't be enough. No-one else appears to have made the connection, which is odd to me as it seems like an obvious one. Ah well. (Zedell (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

The reboot not includes Lex Luthor

Lex Luthor is not present in the movie Man of Steel (2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.64.150.137 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Batman and Spiderman, Superman too needs to try fighting various villains instead of being fixed to Luthor like in the previous films. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)