The Daily Planet Vol. 2: Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨TAG SPOILERS🚨)

[Superark]

A sign of how classy Corenswet is, an interviewer tried to get a nasty soundbite out of him and asked if his Superman would have saved Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Instead of playing her game, he turned it around and said he'd like to think that his Superman would have saved his character from the movie Twisters. Well done! I hate that the interviewer tried to create drama.

 

[Nemeres]

At this point I understand folks complaining of this seeming "goofy". Because it is, Superman's mythical lair in the Arctic being messed up by a caped dog is a goofy concept that would fit in a Disney cartoon. Yet for my money, I don't mind it, and dig it completely. The absurdity of it doesn't eclipse the sweetness factor of Superman having something vulnerable to care about and look after, and the fun of dealing with the reversal of someone else's superpowers being an annoying inconvenience. It's just an extension of the already over-the-top-ness of the Superman world as it is. Like the talking portraits in Harry Potter, talking trees in LOTR, a Muppet training Luke. Goofy, yes. Does it clash, not necessarily.

Even the dog being the reason Superman barges into Lex's office I find... works. The movie's dog being put in peril might be an easy trick, but the audience will care. It'll make them root for the hero and despise the villain. More than if the reason was some random MacGuffin.

 

[emielaen]

It could also fit in a Superman comic lol none of these clips have made me think "that isn't Superman".

 

[Link]

At this point I understand folks complaining of this seeming "goofy". Because it is, Superman's mythical lair in the Arctic being messed up by a caped dog is a goofy concept that would fit in a Disney cartoon. Yet for my money, I don't mind it, and dig it completely. The absurdity of it doesn't eclipse the sweetness factor of Superman having something vulnerable to care about and look after, and the fun of dealing with the reversal of someone else's superpowers being an annoying inconvenience. It's just an extension of the already over-the-top-ness of the Superman world as it is. Like the talking portraits in Harry Potter, talking trees in LOTR, a Muppet training Luke. Goofy, yes. Does it clash, not necessarily.

Even the dog being the reason Superman barges into Lex's office I find... works. The movie's dog being put in peril might be an easy trick, but the audience will care. It'll make them root for the hero and despise the villain. More than if the reason was some random MacGuffin.

What I really like about all of this is that it feels earnest. I've always been a Batman guy, but I like Superman best when he's portrayed with sweet earnestness. I genuinely want to see how this Superman will get along with Batman, and that's why a World's Finest movie is still going to feel refreshing in a world post-BvS. Cavill was just as mopey and menacing as Affleck was.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

A sign of how classy Corenswet is, an interviewer tried to get a nasty soundbite out of him and asked if his Superman would have saved Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Instead of playing her game, he turned it around and said he'd like to think that his Superman would have saved his character from the movie Twisters. Well done! I hate that the interviewer tried to create drama.

It was a reasonably innocuous question on her part. But of course she's being harassed about it on Twitter now. People really need to touch some grass.

 

[Superark]

À

It was a reasonably innocuous question on her part. But of course she's being harassed about it on Twitter now. People really need to touch some grass.

It was a click baiting question, regardless of how she tried to frame it with the "Twisters Knowledge." There's a reason Corenswet sidestepped it.

She shouldn't be harassed over it, but it was a dumb question. Hopefully she learned a lesson.

 

[flickchick85]

Seeing the full context I don’t get the impression she had any malicious/baiting intent with that question at all, but was just clumsily trying to tie Superman to David’s Twisters role. Sucks that it’s invited a wave of harassment from that hellsite. There’s no excuse for that behavior.

 

[Tra-El]

A sign of how classy Corenswet is, an interviewer tried to get a nasty soundbite out of him and asked if his Superman would have saved Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Instead of playing her game, he turned it around and said he'd like to think that his Superman would have saved his character from the movie Twisters. Well done! I hate that the interviewer tried to create drama.

More than classy response from David. A super response like a true veteran and pro. Nobody can stop the nasty social media wars. Hopefully this teaches the interviewer a lesson, some research, and information how to conduct interviews properly and not put the cast in a weird situation.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

My immediate instinct is to say that clip looks and feels like an expensive Purina commercial but Alan Tudyk’s robot is already my favourite character so it balances out.

 

[Tra-El]

That's what happens when the filmmakers finally get the character right, and show general audiences how insanely cool and modern the character is!

I honestly think Gunn's Superman may be the most unique CBM on the horizon. It has this giddy feel to it that you don't really see too often nowadays. You can tell a ton of heart was put into this and a desire to have a clear cut vision from the mind of a creative writer. It's all there. Hoping it all comes together in the final product as we all wish.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

À


It was a click baiting question, regardless of how she tried to frame it with the "Twisters Knowledge." There's a reason Corenswet sidestepped it.

She shouldn't be harassed over it, but it was a dumb question. Hopefully she learned a lesson.

I get why the question is being perceived as problematic, but as her intentions were clearly not malicious, there's no reason to harangue her about it. That's all I'm saying. "Don't sweat the small stuff."

 

[Tra-El]

I get why the question is being perceived as problematic, but as her intentions were clearly not malicious, there's no reason to harangue her about it. That's all I'm saying. "Don't sweat the small stuff."

The more we understand that the Internet is a place where people will rip each other apart and argue over a picture of a stick, the more we can enjoy the bubble without the rascals coming in to ruin joy.

 

[Superark]

I get why the question is being perceived as problematic, but as her intentions were clearly not malicious, there's no reason to harangue her about it. That's all I'm saying. "Don't sweat the small stuff."

She definitely doesn't deserve any harassment. It's not that serious. That said, I think it deserves to be called out and recognized as a dumb question.

I know nothing about this person. She strikes me as young and probably not a seasoned interviewer. Hopefully going forward she'll know questions like these, innocent or not, are best not to ask.

Again, I think Corenswet handled it like a true pro. Had he played along with that question, he no doubt would have riled up an already loud and obnoxious fanbase.

 

[flickchick85]

She definitely doesn't deserve any harassment. It's not that serious. That said, I think it deserves to be called out and recognized as a dumb question.

I know nothing about this person. She strikes me as young and probably not a seasoned interviewer. Hopefully going forward she'll know questions like these, innocent or not, are best not to ask.

Again, I think Corenswet handled it like a true pro. Had he played along with that question, he no doubt would have riled up an already loud and obnoxious fanbase.

Let’s be clear: the harassment is a far more serious issue than the stupid question.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The irony is that the Snyder Chuds are ultimately hurting the legacy of Man Of Steel by harassing a reporter who asks the current Superman actor a question about it.

People talking about those movies and asking questions about them are what keep them relevant. You know the great way to make them irrelevant? Create such a toxic environment where no one even wants to talk about them publicly, which means they get forgotten faster.

So those people are idiots who don't help their own cause to begin with.

 

[Superark]

Let’s be clear: the harassment is a far more serious issue than the stupid question.

The harassment is ridiculous. I don't understand anyone who would want to spend their time doing so.

 

[WatchProtect]

I’m honestly not knowledgeable on the subject but do the interviewers even choose which questions to ask? I’m sure I’ve heard a couple “They wanted me to ask this” in the past.

Either way David answered it the only way he really could and I don’t think it’s that serious at all. It’d be like If someone asked Tom Holland “Do you think you could have saved Gwen Stacy?” I think it’s just a funny little variation of the “Who would win in a fight?” Question, it’s just banter

 

[Fincher]

It’d be like If someone asked Tom Holland “Do you think you could have saved Gwen Stacy?”

How dare you, sir.

 

[Superark]

On a more positive note, a few interesting tidbits came out of the interviews shown today.

- The name Luthorcorp was a taken from Smallville
- Gunn seemed to suggest that Superman uses hypno glasses to keep from being recognized as Superman.
- Jennifer Holland has an uncredited role as a voice of one of the Superman Robots.

 

[GreenKToo]

I love this Fortress, and I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.
I'll bet real money he has a trophy room in it.
I think we'll see lots of goodies in it that we'll recognize.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

On a more positive note, a few interesting tidbits came out of the interviews shown today.

- The name Luthorcorp was a taken from Smallville
- Gunn seemed to suggest that Superman uses hypno glasses to keep from being recognized as Superman.
- Jennifer Holland has an uncredited role as a voice of one of the Superman Robots.

Yeah, Gunn seems to have appropriated parts of Superman #330's reasoning for the disguise. As the story goes, Clark's glasses were constructed from broken shards of the Kryptonian ship that brought him to Earth. For some reason (science!), they enhance his natural super-hypnotism ability, which causes people to see him a bit differently.

I don't know why Gunn insists on calling it canon, though. The story actually takes place on Earth-Thirty-Two, which is described as a "reconciliation attempt, primarily used to explain inconsistencies and non-canon events of Earth-One." I guess he just assumes that anything that ever happened in the comics is canon.

For the movie, I'd wager that the hypnotic effect in question is solely attributable to the glasses, rather than one of Superman's various powers, but we'll see.

 

[GreenKToo]

Yeah, Gunn seems to have appropriated parts of Superman #330's reasoning for the disguise. As the story goes, Clark's glasses were constructed from broken shards of the Kryptonian ship that brought him to Earth. For some reason (science!), they enhance his natural super-hypnotism ability, which causes people to see him a bit differently.

I don't know why Gunn insists on calling it canon, though. The story actually takes place on Earth-Thirty-Two, which is described as a "reconciliation attempt, primarily used to explain inconsistencies and non-canon events of Earth-One." I guess he just assumes that anything that ever happened in the comics is canon.

For the movie, I'd wager that the hypnotic effect in question is solely attributable to the glasses, rather than one of Superman's various powers, but we'll see.

I remember that. He used regular glasses at first, but his X ray vision kept melting the lenses.
He remembered his ship and got some glass shards from it to make stronger lenses.
I was very young when I read it, so I may be off some on the details.

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[Black Narcissus]

Saw a clip of a random cat taking a poop on the Superman red carpet. Lawd. Bad omen.

 

[Val_Zod]

At this point I understand folks complaining of this seeming "goofy". Because it is, Superman's mythical lair in the Arctic being messed up by a caped dog is a goofy concept that would fit in a Disney cartoon. Yet for my money, I don't mind it, and dig it completely. The absurdity of it doesn't eclipse the sweetness factor of Superman having something vulnerable to care about and look after, and the fun of dealing with the reversal of someone else's superpowers being an annoying inconvenience. It's just an extension of the already over-the-top-ness of the Superman world as it is. Like the talking portraits in Harry Potter, talking trees in LOTR, a Muppet training Luke. Goofy, yes. Does it clash, not necessarily.

It goes along with how Grant Morrison described the character.

"For me, Superman has the same problems we do, but on a Paul Bunyan scale. If Superman walks the dog, he walks it around the asteroid belt because it can fly in space. When Superman’s relatives visit, they come from the 31st century and bring some hellish monster conqueror from the future. But it’s still a story about your relatives visiting."

Krypto wrecking up Superman's super secret lair is essentially your pet making a mess out of your room, something a lot of pet owners can relate to.