Watch: Superman Arrives in 'Man of Steel' Teaser Trailers

Henry Cavill in Man of Steel
Henry Cavill in Man of Steel
Photo: Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. has premiered two teaser trailers for their upcoming Superman movie, Man of Steel, both of which are playing in front of The Dark Knight Rises this weekend.

Man of Steel features Henry Cavill ("The Tudors") in the title role under the direction of Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) and with Christopher Nolan shepherding the project. The film features Superman as he squares off against two other surviving Kryptonians, the villainous General Zod (Michael Shannon) and Faora (Antje Traue), Zod's evil partner.

Amy Adams stars as Daily Planet journalist Lois Lane, and Laurence Fishburne as her editor-in-chief, Perry White. Starring as Clark Kent's adoptive parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent, are Diane Lane and Kevin Costner. Also from Superman's native Krypton are Lara Lor-Van, Superman's mother, played by Ayelet Zurer, and Superman's father, Jor-El, portrayed by Russell Crowe. Rounding out the cast are Harry Lennix as U.S. military man General Swanwick, as well as Christopher Meloni as Colonel Hardy.

Check out the two teaser trailers directly below and leave your thoughts in the comments. The film hits theaters on June 14, 2013.

[via Apple and MSN]

  • Winchester

    I actually liked the teaser I have to say. Not what I expected and didn't reveal much but I liked it.

  • Driver

    This is a really good teaser. Doesnt look like your averege Zack Snyder film at all. Its looking good so far.

    • Arturo

      Read my mind

  • Antonio A

    I think it looks great, very different from other movies in the genre. That said, it's only a teaser, maybe Snyder's signature techniques and visual style will appear later. I'm particularly interested in seen Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe in this, they are always brilliant.

  • kyle coley

    I'm in love with these trailers brad. i can't wait.

  • Dave

    Fantastic teasers! The Pa Kent one was shown in front of my IMAX TDKR showing last night and got a good reception. The Comic Con footage/trailer was even better though.

  • Daniel Wimberly

    I agree with Driver. This looks nothing like a typical Zack Snyder film which I am actually glad for. It seems that he's experimenting with different visual techniques which Chris Nolan probably had a part in. I hate the Superman comics, but I am actually excited about this film. Also, the trailer music is from "The Fellowship of the Ring" after Gandalf falls and the Fellowship escapes Moria. Did anyone else notice that or am I just a LOTR geek? haha

    • JM

      Maybe I'm a LOTR geek, or maybe I just love film music, but I noticed that, too, with the very first chord of music, even before the voice came in. I dunno if I was pleased--I get a bit territorial with film scores sometimes. :)

    • Owen

      I noticed it too. I've listened to those scores quite a few times, haha.

  • Lenano

    Is there really a point in releasing two teasers with identical footage, just with different narration? They're pretty good teasers, I enjoyed them, but I'm just saying...

    • caleb

      yeah i agree, at least have different footage on both to keep audiences wanting to watch both trailers in the movie lol

    • Cory

      I think the different narration is kind of like a token to the fans. Your general general audience won't care which trailer they see. However, speaking as a Superman fan, I was ecstatic hearing the different narrations, each one coming from one of Clark's two father figures.

      I'm sold. And while there are a lot of the Lord of the Rings die hards complaining about the music, I thought it was what really drove the trailer home (and I'm a LotR die hard).

  • Troy

    Gotta admit, Russell Crowe's trailer gave me chills.

  • Lukas Mix

    Looks like Snyder is channeling Terrence Malick a bit here. I hope he's not just trying to copy him.
    Having said that, I really liek the teaser(s).

    • AS

      Whoa, pump the breaks on that.

      • Lukas Mix


        • AS

          I don't know that I'd go so far as to say he's "channeling" Malick. I don't think our boy Zach Snyder has the attention span to sit through a Malick film.

          • Lukas Mix

            Well, I haven't seen the film so I cannot say what it will look and feel like.I just commented on the trailer and will reserve judgement till the blue cheese hits the screens.

    • Nolan South

      I wouldn't enjoy a Superman film directed by Malick. It just wouldn't be fun. Hopefully Zack remembers that this type of movie should be enjoyable.

    • Travis

      That does actually seem to be a common thought. I saw bits of Tree of Life's trailer in there. However, I only call it Terrence Malick's Superman as a joke

    • Arturo

      I did see the Malick resemblance as well and a LOTR music as well but don't mind the similarities

  • AS

    Will audiences EVER tire of watching the same damn thing again and again and again and again? Guess it's just me....

    • Christopher Robin Meade

      Ah but my dear friend money is the way of the world and besides not everything needs to be groundbreaking!

  • Scott

    Well, it ain't much to go on, but this new one already looks MILES better than Singer's corny borefest.

  • AJ

    It's very reminiscent of a Levi's Jeans campaign from a few years ago:

    Clothesline, dog, hard-working men, kid playing at being a hero, similar cinematography, music, inspiring voice over...

  • PinstripedJon

    Am I the only one tried of the superhero genre craze?! Can it just go away already?!

    • jbob

      Cant you just not watch the films? That too hard?

      • Arturo

        True there is a lot of comic book films but nobody is being forced to watch.

    • AS

      I'm with you man, when will it end?

      • MKing

        Why dont people stop making si fi films or action movies. You can't say stop making a certain type of genre. Comic book films have been around since the 60's, maybe earlier. It's just the fact that they have been making a lot lately because of technology. Then again said by aturo and jbob, you don't have to watch them anyways.

        • AS

          Because these repetitive super hero movies are the only kinds of movies studios will finance. Studios aren't going to take the risk on an unknown quantity anymore. Their idea is "we need to spend more to make more." If people would stop going to see this crap, we just MIGHT get some quality films made. We have now reached the point where even Steven Soderbergh can't get his films financed. THAT's why these "films" should stop being made. 90% of them suck and they're ruining the industry.

          • jbob

            I'm sure the reason Soderbergh can't get his films financed is simply because audiences don't watch his films. Coen Brothers or Tarantino don't have much trouble getting their films financed. Studios aren't going to fund "quality films", whatever that means, if people don't watch them.

            And studios have never taken risks. There's always been a certain genre that got more funding than others, like science fiction or action films.

    • Colin

      I been sayin that shit for years. And everyone calls me biased.

      • Christopher Robin Meade

        And i'm tired of people complaining about superhero movies so it all evens out you know what i mean?

    • Winchester

      By my count there have been three superhero films released in 2012.

      Three. That's all.

      There are currently four planned for next year and the year after (to 2014). That they tend to be very expensive tentpoles is inherent to them nowadays that's true but some of them are no better or worse than non-superhero films. And they appear popular. That dreaded word.

      There are literally dozens of (expensive and moderate to low budget) non-superhero studio films released every year so films a small amount of perspective might help.

      • Winchester

        Slight correction - it depends if you want to count 'Chronicle' and 'Ghost Rider 2' but they were low budget anyway. And everyone has forgotten about them. The point is............superhero films are still a small proportion of the number of films released in a whole year.

        • MKing

          So you're saying Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man, The Avengers, X-men, X2, X-Men: First Class, and even say...Chronicle are crappy films. They all are in the 80's range or higher on rt and have a 60 score or higher on metacritic. You can have your opinion but just know you're in the minority and all those films I mentioned are definitely not crap. And the studios do take risks. Inception, Avatar, Titanic, District 9, Ted, Star Trek, Rise of the Planet of the Apes are all risky films but they all turned out to be good and bank at the box-office. Most importantly though, they do all not have the same plot because Iron is definitely nothing like The Dark Knight Rises. 90 percent of them do not suck. 35% would be a better number.

          • MKing

            this was directed towards AS not winchester

          • AS

            "definitely not crap" - Um, isn't that subjective? I didn't know those were facts. And if I were you, I wouldn't use RT to back up your argument. Cause god knows, it doesn't take a genius to shoot holes through that website... But if you're asking MY opinion? I would say that if you compare the films you listed to other, non-superhero films, they fall below average (I have not seen The Avengers, X-Men or X2 so I'm not commenting on those films). Oh, and the only reason Warner Brothers financed Inception was to ensure that Nolan would return for TDKR, trust me, they didn't make it because they thought it was good. Even if Inception was a loss, they knew it would be worth it in the long run.

    • James

      Yeah, and while we're at it, can't we just stop with those tired gangster movies? And jeez, who isn't bored of "family dramas" stiff! Don't even get me started on those one-plot-fits-all romantic comedies.

      See where this goes? Having multiple genres continue to exist only helps film as a whole.

      And "the only types of movies studios will finance"? Whether "blockbuster" (John Carter, Battleship, The Hunger Games, Skyfall, Inception, The Fast and the Furious, just about every animated film out there) or "Oscar-bait" (The Help, The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, Django Unchained, The Great Gatsby) that statement is simply, patently false.

      And please, point to a time when studios were just chomping at the bit to "take a chance on an unknown quantity" any more than now? Take 1975...the first year of the modern "blockbuster", with Jaws. Out of the top ten highest-grossing films that year, you know how many were original ideas? Two. Out of the five best picture nominees at the Oscars, how many were original? One.

      Meanwhile, in 2008 (the last year with 5 Best Picture nominees), 3 out of the top 10 and 1 out of the 5 Best Picture noms were original.

      Or look back at 1939, the famed year of Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. 3/10 in both cases (so 1.5/5 for Best Picture) We're basically in the same place we've always been.

      Soderbergh seemed to have no problem financing Contagion. That issue has gotten no better or worse either. And if you bothered to pay any attention to superhero films in the last five years, you'd have noticed that they've been getting better. Sandwiched in between The Dark Knight and Rises have been Kick-Ass, Thor, X-Men: First Class, Captain America: The First Avenger, Chronicle, The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider-Man, which have all been very well reviewed and commercially successful. There are bad, repetitive films in every genre, even art-house ones. Doesn't mean we need to wipe the slate clean.

      • AS

        "you'd have noticed that they've been getting better." Again, that's subjective so I don't know what I'm supposed to say to that...

        "Soderbergh seemed to have no problem financing Contagion." Oh, I didn't realize you had intimate knowledge of the production and business deals surrounding Contagion, excuse me.

        I am not a professional filmmaker and I have never tried to get a film financed so I have formed the understanding that it is more difficult now to get an original, non-franchise, non-superhero movie made than it ever has been, based on listening to interviews with established directors like Steven Soderbergh and John Hillcoat. But you clearly know better.

        "There are bad, repetitive films in every genre, even art-house ones." Yep, but I'm talking about ratios. And since that's subjective, there's not much of a conversation to be had here.

        "Meanwhile, in 2008 (the last year with 5 Best Picture nominees), 3 out of the top 10 and 1 out of the 5 Best Picture noms were original." Um, whose talking about the Oscars? You're talking about a list that includes 10-5 movies. That's not exactly reflective of the industry's yearly output.

        • MKing

          You are the one who called the superhero genre crap in the first place. I was simply saying it wasn't because of the majority of the world liking it.
          And about Soderbergh, Magic Mike was made for 7 million and has made 101 million, so no argument there that he is financing his films because that has major profit written all over it. Maybe Soderbergh should make films that appeal to a bigger demographic because that seemed to work.
          As much as there might be holes in rt, it is quite challenging to score in the 80's or higher. And you can't pick apart metacritic. That's as fair as it gets.
          Warner Brothers financed Inception because Christopher Nolan made a film that was critically acclaimed and made 1 BILLION DOLLARS at the box-office, not so they could insure he would come back for TDKR. And though you may think Inception was a bad film, most everybody else seems to think otherwise.

          • AS

            Steven Soderbergh and Channing Tatum came up with the money themselves. Initially, no studio was involved in the production. So that example just supports my argument. "Maybe Soderbergh should make films that appeal to a bigger demographic" - Well, yeah. If you dumb your films down enough anyone will watch them.

            RT and Metacritic are quite deceiving because if a film were to score 95%, it wouldn't mean the film was great. It would would mean that the majority of critics thought that it was at least DECENT. In other words, a 3/5 would be considered fresh. But a 95% implies greatness.

            I suppose you and I will agree to disagree about WB intentions with regards to Inception.

            Oh, and not only did I think Inception was a great film, it was my favorite film of 2010.

  • Gastón

    It reminded me a lot to the Batman Begins teaser. Both of them had the logo showing up at the end. And it does has that Nolan vibe to it. Looks pretty good, even though we haven't seen much.

  • Seiko

    I am certainly interested in this film. I hope people won't complain about the CGI this time given it looks just like Returns, but in regards to the rest I hope for a good portrayal, a way better Lois Lane (the last one was terrible), and obviously more villians than just an evil man. I would like to see Bizzaro in the very near future, in Man of Steel 2.

  • Arturo

    Loved the teasers. I wasn't really looking forward to Man of Steel, as I'm not a superman fan, but I loved the beauty of the teaser. Thought I would be watching an overdone mindless action teaser, but instead showed potential for a good piece of art so far.

  • Arturo

    I thought it was pretty nice how Jor-El’s phrase “But in time, they will join you in the sun,” was said as the butterfly was in the sunlight. Pretty cool considering the effects of the sun in butterflies and superman.

  • Styles

    I thought either of the trailers was excellent and has me intrigued to see what Nolan & co. come up with. Though Snyder's films' always turn out outstanding trailers and sometimes less than stellar movies. The first 300 trailer was one of the better trailers ever made imo, the Watchmen trailer with The Smashing Pumpkins playing & the Suckerpunch trailer with Lords of Acid were both amazing, the films though....

    • Lukas Mix

      I absolutely agree.
      Snyder cut some of the best trailers in the business. With the exception of "Dawn of the Dead", they all utterly disappointed.

      • Christopher Robin Meade

        well i actually liked Watchmen just my opinion though

  • JayRam

    Is it possible that Zack Snyder has matured as a filmmaker? I was not expecting that. I took interest in the film after having watched those teasers.

    • Arturo

      Same here, even though I did think Watchmen was alright, guy does need maturation. I have always thought he had potential, maybe he finally has found those elements that make him good.

  • Connor

    This looks tight. Anything with Christopher Nolan's name in the credits is good.

    • Arturo


  • JohnDoe

    I'm confused by this.

    Why is Clark Kent on a Deadliest Catch crabber boat? Did I miss this in the comics? Why does it look more like a Terrence Malick/Chris Nolan hybrid film rather than a Snyder movie? And why is there Lord of the Rings music playing over it? That's just distracting.

  • Buster Bluth

    i like it too. although when the teaser for pearl harbour came out (which this immediately reminded me of more than a malick film), i thought it looked promising as well....

  • Rob

    My first and lasting impressions of the teaser are two: Is Superman going the route of Batman and becoming a dark anti-hero hero because Christopher Nolan seems to hate them both; and two, why the spot-on copying of one of the LOTR themes in the preview? You'd think by listening you were getting a Hobbit preview. Howard Shore must be really upset with Hans Zimmer.