Click bait headline, totally misleading. Shame on the "writer" and Screenrant for going above and beyond the forced content model to dish out this rehashed material and frame it as "news".

I get you don't care that you're not actual journalists, but have ye no dignity at all?

The only thing I don't (yet) 'get' is the costume switch. Maybe it gets explained narratively within the movie?

Other than that mildly jarring issue, I'll wait to see the actual product before whining that only Henry Cavill can ever be Superman, or that James Gunn is "ruining" everything. Snyder's era was good, but it did end, as all things do.

Would the children rather have no Superman movies at all? How about a compromise? You all don't watch anymore. If there are more of "you", they simply won't make anymore. Problem solved.

It's only a clip. Pretty good chance by the end of the movie, some of that is cleaned up (within the movie). It actually makes sense somebody would question it. This also happened in various forms of the various animated series. Marvel did this in their properties too.

It was unrealistic that somebody would have that kind of power, virtually unchecked, and nobody would worry, be anxious...just be...happy?

'We', the audience, knows he is a 'good guy'. The world he inhabits does not know that for certain. He is far too powerful for nobody to even ask the questions. I totally understand him getting defensive...he stopped a war, darn it! He is a god amongst humans. Humans...especially Americans, believe god anointed 'us' as some chosen country. All the power is supposed to be concentrated with us and our hand-picked allies. Not some rogue, random guy flying(!) in a blue pajama outfit, who does not seem stoppable. From the human standpoint, who is he to decide 'who is the bad guy'? Are bullies still 'bullies' if they are on your side?

Ultimately, he will save us all from the bad guy(s). Just not before, it seems, some nice folks have some questions they need answering.

First...I think you are reading too much into the 'uniform' thing. The 'weight of the fabric'? I'm sure they didn't use wool for a modern day costume. For a lot of reasons. Is it a bit stylized? Sure. Does it resemble a uniform? In what way? What uniform has ever looked like that, besides another superhero costume?

Moving on...I'm not so sure about your claim of "...even more old wood frame houses that have been generational homes of old families that have been on that land for 150+ years." There are a lot of mobile homes in America, particularly across the Midwest regions. (Why so many towns are devastated by tornadoes...oversized sheds up on blocks...I wonder how that will do in high winds?) As for those farmhouses...most farms have dozens to hundreds of acres, and only one or two (if related living) actual farmhouses. Also, a lot of those have been replaced by those double wides you mentioned because they were a century old and falling down. So probably not as many as you think. (Take a drive from one side of the Midwest to the other on I-80, stop off in some smaller towns, you will realize this is true. Entire towns of mobile homes, save a village hall/police station, gas station/mechanic, maybe the grocery store, if there is one in town. Also, as more and more farms are bought out by the ConAgras of the world, they are just knocking those homes down too.

Lastly...no way of telling from just this clip if they are 'poor white trash'. That is an interesting assumption on your part...that living in a trailer home instantly makes that true. That just being 'rural' equals being stupid or making trash decisions. Obviously it can be true, but the swapping of the housing being your tipping point? They weren't 'trash' when they lived on a farm, they were magically smarter and better humans, but once the trailer rolled of that flatbed, they lost IQ points are equivalent humanity...?

Superman has long been one of my least favorite superheroes...

His set-up as a nigh-on invincible entity was always boring. Like an invulnerabilty cheat code, he is fun when you're young(/immature), but once you're older, you want more depth. The gimmick to nerf him (kryponite) is/was always laughably obvious, even when I was first reading way back in the 1970s. It was clunky plot-armor decades before we would call it that. Always conveniently available on story demand by the one person a non-idiot would make sure never had any.

I doubt Gunn is making him "weak" as is being so noisily whined about. A bunch of "alpha" wannabes, feeling bizarrely "threatened" in their most adolescent snivelling ways possible. They are already angry they can't 'cheat code' their way through life, now they are upset their cheat code superhero isn't as overpowered as they wish they were.

My biggest personal gripe about nearly all of modern television is the brevity of the 'seasons'.

8-12 episode runs are rarely enough to really establish most characters, let alone complicated, deeper story arcs.

This is not a criticism of just Daredevil, but why it matters to this story, to this post, is that as I was watching it with my older son, I realized (and he agreed) that if the season were longer, episode five probably would not stand out so much. It would be a more typical 'goon of the week' type story, which are sort of 'filler' for a longer season with the more old school '22-26' episode run.

In the real world, it meant a few characters might get a week off, or a chance to explore a side character's background more, explain the history of the premise...something. All it has done for some of us, though, is give me time to drift off to something else and maybe not become as 'entrenched' as a viewer.

Certainly, one example I can give is the original 'Suits'. Loved the show the first few seasons (five?), but eventually, USA split the 'season' into like...ten episodes? Then didn't bring it back for months. Effectively making it the sort of forerunner for these type of shows that pretend they will be of higher quality, but really...not really.

Give me 20+ episodes and a filler like 'five' isn't a problem. It wasn't, to be clear, a very well-written episode. Me and the kid paused it plenty of times to point out silliness or logical errors. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great at all, and it didn't fit with much of the rest of the show, except maybe as a transition of Murdoch into rebecoming Daredevil....maybe...a little.

*Airstream is a pronoun.

Now...Affleck was very good in the first one. It was a more thoughtful (if such a movie can be called that at all) version of the typical way these movies play out. It wasn't just a 'shoot em up'.

I'm not a huge Bernthal fan...not a 'hater', just not a huge fan...but he was good in the first and looked good in the clips out so far for this.

As the father of a child 'on the spectrum', I like how the approached the character.

I'll definitely watch this if/when it comes to Hulu or Prime. Maybe even go to the theater!

I loved the show when it first came on. Muniz was perfect as the 'put upon' son, with expectations nobody could ever live up to. Dewey was great as another possible version of 'too smart for his own good' at times. Never really liked most of the other characters. Reese was too stupid to have lived to adulthood, so what his story is now will be interesting-to-see-if-it's-believable type of way. Francis...even from the beginning, it was like the writers had one too many kids to write about, and never knew what to do with him.

How much the writers made the show about the parents turned me off, ultimately. The roles were well-enough acted, obviously, but storylines revolving around them were...eh...

It should have been a forerunner to a show like "Everybody Hates Chris", others involved, but still mostly about the title character. Instead it evolved into an ensemble that by the end almost felt like it was about the parents (who really weren't very nice or smart or good parents at all).

I wish Muniz well, I liked his other (albeit limited) work. I will probably check this out, but if it isn't mostly about his character, I doubt I'll stick around.

The writer erroneously contends that Monk had to have Sharona (and her frequent abuse) to essentially "prepare" him for Natalie.

Natalie was eminently more patient, kind and understanding. Nobody needs preparation for that.

I have fallen off/away from the series more and more.

Season two definitely was a low point for me.

Three was better, but the need to always have him magically find a random hot chick who only wants casual sex is a narrative stretch I can live without.

As for Roscoe...the series can continue as it has, but when it is wrapping up switch it up from the books and have Reacher finally decide to settle down and have him wander back. Keep the stories accurate to the books, then give the characters a happy ending.

World doesn't have to end for anybody that way.

"...the reveal marking the first movie in the franchise not to have a number in its title."

I do not recall the first movie being titled "Now You See Me 1".

So, really, out of the three movies, it would be more accurate to say "The sequel now currently stands as the only film in the franchise to have a number in the title."

Unless it wasn't...except that it was/is.

If we don't want fake intelligence to take over these types of jobs, the writing needs to be better. If this is written by AI, shame on Screen Rant for doing so. Please let me know so I can unsubscribe.

I guess it is a testament to the acting abilities of Gandolfini that his character is the most annoying character on the show.

He also has a bit of plot armor on him, so he is obviously destined for bigger things on the show.

I hope it is not being the son of Fisk. Very predictable, as if it were written by Sony, not Marvel.

So the...not Mary Jane Watson...understood.

It is fine she is 'MJ'...it is an alternate world, after all.

Let's see how it all looks after 'Secret Wars'.

You must have hated Elvis, I'm guessing. Or Cher, or Madonna, or...

I actually agree that her casting seemed...off, but it isn't like she is ugly or can't act.

They were already fighting two other legacy series, and I think they felt they had to change up the basic model.

Diehards (like myself, maybe you) will always hate not-quite-canon stuff (I hate Miles Morales, and he is canon, but not the original), but more casual fans do not want to see the same exact origin story every...single...time. Uncle Ben being dead to start the Holland movies was a bummer to me too. They didn't make billions by only making these movies for us, though...

In no way was Marvel (or even Sony) going to make a 'go-go dancer looking gal' in modern times. We (clearly) are old and these movies and stories are not going to include some of the stuff Marvel was drawing back in the 70s when we first read them. Not when trying to sell it as family entertainment and rating it PG-PG13.

If you need to throw up from Zendaya, maybe take a nap or something, settle yourself down. Far worse things in the world right now than a good looking woman being sort-of 'miscast' according to some old guys on the interwebs.

New Daredevil has been pretty good, but the legal stuff (which I'm looking forward to, oddly enough) has been on the poor side.

Basic legal gaffes, weak questions, poor strategy.

I would write that part better, just from watching "Law & Order" for thirty five years.

Also, the writer (if it's a human) undermined their own point of Tiger's mask being off during this event versus Spidermans, because Spidey always wants to be anonymous. Ayala doing his hero thing without the amulet shows he is brave without help. How would that translate as a "defense" for Spiderman?

Read your own article.

Golly I hope you're mistaken...

I have never been a fan of the Morales (or really most other) incarnation(s) of Spiderman.

Some version of a Spider-girl might work, depending how they set it up. (Which, actually, this writer does a good job of laying out a potential path with reasoning for it.)

It doesn't feel like they are going to "move on" from the Zendaya-version of "MJ" (though I would be fine with it), so it would be clunky for Sink to inhabit that role "from an alternate universe".

Too young to be Gwen Stacy from Maguire's world, too alive to be from Garfield's.

Too slight to be Black Cat.

If not a love interest, apprentice makes the most sense. Either she gets trapped on accident, or Maguire drops her off somehow to keep her safe while he deals with problems back on his world. (Bonus if they also bring back Kirsten Dunst and she has to stay behind too, especially with Aunt May being gone.)

The Venom tease probably is a dead end now. Even if not, they could use Spider-girl or(and) maybe Daredevil to help. Heck, reunite the Defenders, who cares?

Okay, that clip made me less wanting to go see the movie. I do not have the attention span of a gnat, and it reveals nothing at all about what the movie is actually about. I worry for the world that this sort of thing is what makes people 'dig' something more.

Also...I have very little interest in most of the characters...the Russian guy will at least be funny. I do not care about the replacement-level Black Widow, and 'US Agent' actively annoys me on multiple levels. We already know one of them dies (and most of us know which one), so it will be hard to get invested in that character at all.

Also-also, really getting tired of the 'anti-hero' schtick. Wolverine and probably Deadpool are really all we need. The world needs actual heroes. If we cannot have them in real life (dog knows we need them badly), at least give us some in art.

Bucky is why most of us are watching this, let's face it. Every clip, though, seems to cast him as a 'just another member' of this misbegotten team. If they do not feature him heavily, if he isn't the 'leader' coming out of this, it is definitely a failure by Marvel and the writer/director team. Nobody in the fandom cares about any of the other characters combined compared to Bucky.