The Story.

[Clarkman]

I'm still puzzled as to how Nolan and Goyer had approached making this story. From everything that we've seen thus far, all indications seem to be pointing that this is in fact a ORIGIN story for Superman; where they're supposedly approaching this origin story in the same elaborate manner that they did with Batman.

My question is, how the heck are they going to condense showing:

1. Krypton's Backstory

2. Clark's early years in Smallville

3. Clark's wandering days around the globe

4. The Arrival of Superman in Metropolis

5. Superman defeating Zod and gaining the trust of Earth's people as their hero


...within the timespan of a two hour movie?

I mean, is it possible that they'll actually focus more on Clark the man and have Superman saved for like the entire second act of the film?

Idk; I'm just confused right now as to how they plan on executing so many elaborate things for this story.

Just a thought: is it possible that they're filming Man Of Steel and its sequel (or at least part of it) concurrently?

 

[souperman]

I hope so. I for one don't want to wait 5 years for a sequel.

It would be hard for Cavill to maintain that level of fitness for 5 or 10 years as well if the do a third installment.

I hear Snyder is working on a sequal to 300 after MOS.

I think it's called : 299, 298, 256, 105, 88, 37, 42, 3,2, RUN AWAY!

 

[souperman]

Run Leonidas, RUN !

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That seems to only happen in this instance. I mean no one ever mentions the writers when it comes to pretty much the only thing people can objectively bash about bay movies, Spielberg's "stories" over the years have been trasures and of course no one mentions the scripting when it comes to the "poor" stories of snyders past. I just find in this instance people are doing a great job of separating the writing from direction. And I seriously doubt they would had nolan not been involved in "polishing" goyers script (yet again)

I suppose it depends on how involved the director has been in the story development.

Some writers are hired to pen a story that the director has the idea for.

It's different here because the director was found to deliver the story that was already written.

But it is a highly under rated proffesion, I agree.

 

[Herolee10]

I guess a good way of keeping the villains story relevant throughout the film would be to have Zod and Faora arrive on earth long before they 'out' themselves, and learn about our world.

And you tie Lois in with Clark's wandering stage by having her chasing the story of a man saving people and then dissapearing.

It is a lot to cram into the film... Esepcially since we know there are a lot of army attack scenes as well.

I'd say his younger years in Smallville is going to be minimal, but with the look of Jor-el's costume, we are definitely going to be seeing at least one full scene on Krypton.

As for how they are going to fit in the 'every day heroism'... I have no idea!

It's bloody exciting though

That’s the thing isn’t it? How do they keep a villain like Zod relevant in the story when by traditional standards, he’s normally locked up in the PZ until Clark has finally become Superman?

If you have him and Faora especially, arrive on earth for a long while before Clark becomes Superman, how do you justify them not terrorizing it right away with their powers? Heck if possible, I would prefer if they build up to Superman and Zod’s first encounter in the same way that X:FC did with Charles and Erik.

Also, it could be a tricky thing going back and forth from Clark’s past and present to the final days of Krypton for its flashbacks.

I do like the idea of Lois being introduced earlier than normal means, where she’s investigating Clark’s heroic acts pre-superman costume.

Just a thought: is it possible that they're filming Man Of Steel and its sequel (or at least part of it) concurrently?

I doubt it since GL further proved that it’s never a guaranteed that a film will be successful enough to warrant a sequel and it’s really a big gamble for any studio.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That’s the thing isn’t it? How do they keep a villain like Zod relevant in the story when by traditional standards, he’s normally locked up in the PZ until Clark has finally become Superman?

If you have him and Faora especially, arrive on earth for a long while before Clark becomes Superman, how do you justify them not terrorizing it right away with their powers? Heck if possible, I would prefer if they build up to Superman and Zod’s first encounter in the same way that X:FC did with Charles and Erik.

Also, it could be a tricky thing going back and forth from Clark’s past and present to the final days of Krypton for its flashbacks.

I do like the idea of Lois being introduced earlier than normal means, where she’s investigating Clark’s heroic acts pre-superman costume.

I don't see how they would realistically do that.

General Zod is a smart man, a military man. He'd come up with a plan. Neither him, nor Faora, are stupid enough to just go 'Ha look, we have powers. Let's smash things up and demand things without even knowing what weapons can hurt us and what risks this planet poses us.'

IMO, they would logically wait until they knew they were at no disadvantage.

I'm not saying they should show up at the same time as baby Kal-el in the spaceship. But they can certainly arrive on earth before Clark starts soul searching.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I have the impression that it will be Zod and Faora's blight on Metropolis that eventually brings Clark Kent to embrace his heroic side.

There's a sense of "the greatest superhero in the world" in all the interviews that have been done with Snyder. If that's the theme, we can begins speculating from there.

Having Lois tracing down an unnamed superhero would be a great idea.

 

[Herolee10]

I don't see how they would realistically do that.

General Zod is a smart man, a military man. He'd come up with a plan. Neither him, nor Faora, are stupid enough to just go 'Ha look, we have powers. Let's smash things up and demand things without even knowing what weapons can hurt us and what risks this planet poses us.'

IMO, they would logically wait until they knew they were at no disadvantage.

I'm not saying they should show up at the same time as baby Kal-el in the spaceship. But they can certainly arrive on earth before Clark starts soul searching.

True; though I can’t imagine his surveillance of Earth’s weaponry and technology taking a huge amount of time.

But nevertheless, what’s interesting though is that from everything that I’ve read from Michael’s interviews thus far, it doesn’t sound like that zod is introduced as a villain at first in the way that the old films did.

If anything, I’m willing to bet that it’s a slight possibility that Zod didn’t leave Krypton as a villain or traitor and that his path towards villainy will almost be similar like Magneto’s where it builds out of frustration, rage, and belief that due to his superiority on Earth, that he should be in charge, etc.

I have the impression that it will be Zod and Faora's blight on Metropolis that eventually brings Clark Kent to embrace his heroic side.

There's a sense of "the greatest superhero in the world" in all the interviews that have been done with Snyder. If that's the theme, we can begins speculating from there.

Having Lois tracing down an unnamed superhero would be a great idea.

Yeah, I’m hoping that they capitalize on the fact that Superman is known by many to be the “greatest superhero in the world”. I want to see the character tackle a lot of issues and rescues in the film

And yeah, it would be cool to see the film building up to the introduction of the official superman persona by having Clark starting out by saving people across the world secretly and his acts becoming a phenomenon to the point where people are dying to find out as to who this mysterious hero is.

 

[kalelkilla]

Just watch Batman Begins again...then change the characters...should give you a good idea of what the story is going to be...same structure...different themes...

 

[Herolee10]

Just watch Batman Begins again...then change the characters...should give you a good idea of what the story is going to be...same structure...different themes...

Perhaps, but unlike Batman, Superman doesn’t have the luxury of having his film’s main villain start off in the beginning of the film as his mentor.lol

And then there’s the whole Krypton backstory to include alongside his childhood and youth.

 

[kalelkilla]

It's not like they are going to show every little detail of the back story or his youth, they are just going to show you the important parts that made him into...Superman...ala Batman Begins...

 

[hopefuldreamer]

True; though I can’t imagine his surveillance of Earth’s weaponry and technology taking a huge amount of time.

But nevertheless, what’s interesting though is that from everything that I’ve read from Michael’s interviews thus far, it doesn’t sound like that zod is introduced as a villain at first in the way that the old films did.

If anything, I’m willing to bet that it’s a slight possibility that Zod didn’t leave Krypton as a villain or traitor and that his path towards villainy will almost be similar like Magneto’s where it builds out of frustration, rage, and belief that due to his superiority on Earth, that he should be in charge, etc.
.

I'd prefer that actually. Having him be a Kryptonian villain is so predictable.

Having him be a Kryptonian General, who was always hard and ruthless and brillaint but never stepped into villainy... until his entire planet was destroyed and he got tired of doing things by the book, especially on a planet where no one can give him orders - now that sounds like fun

I don't really wanna see him as Clarks friend or mentor in any way first tho like Xavier/Magneto... it'd just feel really samey. There should be a level of empathy between them, but not any kind of relationship.

 

[Herolee10]

I'd prefer that actually. Having him be a Kryptonian villain is so predictable.

Having him be a Kryptonian General, who was always hard and ruthless and brillaint but never stepped into villainy... until his entire planet was destroyed and he got tired of doing things by the book, especially on a planet where no one can give him orders - now that sounds like fun

I don't really wanna see him as Clarks friend or mentor in any way first tho like Xavier/Magneto... it'd just feel really samey. There should be a level of empathy between them, but not any kind of relationship.

Well assuming that they take Smallville’s approach and have Jor el and Zod portrayed as Friends before the final days of Krypton, then there’s bound to be some sort of connection between Zod and Superman.

 

[kalelkilla]

Michael Shannon said in an interview that when he went out to lunch with Russel Crowe, "it was strange, because one man (Jor-El) is trying to save the world, the other is trying to destroy it (Zod."

I don't think they will be frenemies.

Superman will try to befriend Zod, so he doesn't feel so alone on Earth, when he finds out he's a maniac and wants to destroy the only world he knows, and more importantly the people he loves, Superman decides he has to take him down.

 

[manofsteel4life]

Michael Shannon said in an interview that when he went out to lunch with Russel Crowe, "it was strange, because one man (Jor-El) is trying to save the world, the other is trying to destroy it (Zod."

I don't think they will be frenemies.

Superman will try to befriend Zod, so he doesn't feel so alone on Earth, when he finds out he's a maniac and wants to destroy the only world he knows, and more importantly the people he loves, Superman decides he has to take him down.

That's what I'm kinda hoping as well. Kinda like war of the supermen, when superman was part of Zods army

 

[Nave 'Torment']

True; though I can’t imagine his surveillance of Earth’s weaponry and technology taking a huge amount of time.

But nevertheless, what’s interesting though is that from everything that I’ve read from Michael’s interviews thus far, it doesn’t sound like that zod is introduced as a villain at first in the way that the old films did.

If anything, I’m willing to bet that it’s a slight possibility that Zod didn’t leave Krypton as a villain or traitor and that his path towards villainy will almost be similar like Magneto’s where it builds out of frustration, rage, and belief that due to his superiority on Earth, that he should be in charge, etc.

That would actually be a much better charactersiation - here we have a man whose entire world was destroyed, he comes to Earth and he sees its inhabitants so ignorant of the fact that the world is so precious, maybe he feels they don't deserve it. Nevertheless the sheer fact that Krypton was destroyed is surely to mess his head up in ways we can only imagine. Coupled with his responsibilities as a general, and you have a strong parallel to Superman. If Zod was Krypton's war-hero, and he's failed it, it brings a completely different kind of dynamic with our boy from Kansas; a different kind of dynamic than, say, Xavier/Magneto or Ra's/Bruce.

I have no clue if the Kryptonian Superiority/Fascist take on Zod is wanted in this day and age (even if he is that tyrannical, I'd like to see what made him that way). Zod in the old movies was, pretty much, a one-dimensional character. They managed to really work that one-dimension in Smallville because he was portrayed as this mythical figure from the past throughout (even the trite young-Zod was simply an off-shoot of that). But Smallville was working closely with the established stories, this has the potential, and courage, to do something different.

Yeah, I’m hoping that they capitalize on the fact that Superman is known by many to be the “greatest superhero in the world”. I want to see the character tackle a lot of issues and rescues in the film. And yeah, it would be cool to see the film building up to the introduction of the official superman persona by having Clark starting out by saving people across the world secretly and his acts becoming a phenomenon to the point where people are dying to find out as to who this mysterious hero is.

I'd love to see that. The only risk in it is that... well... again, Smallville. That show pretty much tackled this exact theme. Of course seeing it used wouldn't be bad, it is a logical progression, but one has to ask what new thing does it bring to the character? But when we see him as the 'greatest superhero of the world' (something that SV simply hinted on, and the past films merely took for granted), then we have immediately a character arc.

I wonder how that can be pulled off?

Just watch Batman Begins again...then change the characters...should give you a good idea of what the story is going to be...same structure...different themes...

Even if that were true (and I'm willing to bet it ain't), it'll still be a different movie altogether.

I'd prefer that actually. Having him be a Kryptonian villain is so predictable.

Having him be a Kryptonian General, who was always hard and ruthless and brillaint but never stepped into villainy... until his entire planet was destroyed and he got tired of doing things by the book, especially on a planet where no one can give him orders - now that sounds like fun

I don't really wanna see him as Clarks friend or mentor in any way first tho like Xavier/Magneto... it'd just feel really samey. There should be a level of empathy between them, but not any kind of relationship.

I think we're going down the same road here. It's really a better way to handle Zod's personality.

About Clark and Zod, well, a psuedo-mentor figure wouldn't be all that bad. Unlike Ra's, Zod is a native of Krypton so there's this immediate bond that should exist between the two. If Clark finds out that there are indeed more Kryptonians out there, he would be looking for them. He would want the last survivors of his own race have some sense of identity. Zod on the other hand, might carry with him the zeal that the younger Kryptonian eventually rebels against. This back-history between the two would add a great deal to both instead of just having Zod and Faora invading Metropolis, and Superman responding to it.

I'll say it; the decision to use Zod as the primary antagonist seems more and more clear.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

About Clark and Zod, well, a psuedo-mentor figure wouldn't be all that bad. Unlike Ra's, Zod is a native of Krypton so there's this immediate bond that should exist between the two. If Clark finds out that there are indeed more Kryptonians out there, he would be looking for them. He would want the last survivors of his own race have some sense of identity. Zod on the other hand, might carry with him the zeal that the younger Kryptonian eventually rebels against. This back-history between the two would add a great deal to both instead of just having Zod and Faora invading Metropolis, and Superman responding to it.

I'll say it; the decision to use Zod as the primary antagonist seems more and more clear.

There is just something about the idea of Clark being 'mentored' by Zod before he becomes Superman or even in the early stages of being Superman, that just really doesn't sit right for me.

I think it would be better to see Clark and Zod maybe attempting to 'reason' with each other and trying to connect, but ultimately realising pretty quickly they never can.

Zod wants to find a brother in Clark, another Kryptonian... but what he finds is someone who disagrees with him on every level and barely even resembles a kryptonian (by his standard).

Clark wants to find a connection to his past, and a person who can understand a side of him that no one else can... but what he finds is the worst sides of his heritage all personified by Zod and Faora.

I think it would make Zod angrier (why would his fellow Kryptonian choose humans over him?) and Clark more conflicted and frustrated by the fact he has to fight someone who, if circumstances had been different, could have been the connection he was looking for. It's almost a sacrifice Clark is making... he is giving up the chance to learn about his world to protect ours.

Actually their dynamic kind of reminds me of the end of season 4 of Angel, where an ancient being has 'saved' mankind from itself by getting rid of free will.

She said: 'And how many will die because of you? I could've stopped it. All of it. War, disease, poverty. How many precious, beautiful lives would've been saved in a handful of years? Yes, I murdered thousands to save billions. This world is doomed to drown in its own blood now.

That's the kind of thinking I see Zod having.

 

[DKDetective]

My fear is that it's going to feel like batman begins, briskly moving through all these situations and scenarios to the point where some people(such as myself) don't feel any impact from the movie outside of a superficial one. For instance, there have been movies about people that take their battered lives to a monastery and come out better men, there are also movies about people that lose out on closure to the corrupt justice system and so on. Begins runs though these things and it falls softly(imo especially bat's training). Man of Steel might do this.

Moreover, if this was a nolan/goyer movie it would be a fine question, but at what point did we stop including Snyder in the discussion? I assume he will return(with a vengeance) if it fails.

Sounds like you want something not possible from a film adaptation. We have on-going comics, graphic novels, and television series for the sort of depth you are talking about. I loved Begins. I probably prefer it over The Dark Knight. It did the best job possible of delving into Bruce's character and story in a single film. The emotion and depth was in the dialogue and the performances. We are talking about characters with 70 years of history and development. I don't think Begins falls flat at all.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

There is just something about the idea of Clark being 'mentored' by Zod before he becomes Superman or even in the early stages of being Superman, that just really doesn't sit right for me.

I think it would be better to see Clark and Zod maybe attempting to 'reason' with each other and trying to connect, but ultimately realising pretty quickly they never can.

Zod wants to find a brother in Clark, another Kryptonian... but what he finds is someone who disagrees with him on every level and barely even resembles a kryptonian (by his standard).

Clark wants to find a connection to his past, and a person who can understand a side of him that no one else can... but what he finds is the worst sides of his heritage all personified by Zod and Faora.

I think it would make Zod angrier (why would his fellow Kryptonian choose humans over him?) and Clark more conflicted and frustrated by the fact he has to fight someone who, if circumstances had been different, could have been the connection he was looking for. It's almost a sacrifice Clark is making... he is giving up the chance to learn about his world to protect ours.

Actually their dynamic kind of reminds me of the end of season 4 of Angel, where an ancient being has 'saved' mankind from itself by getting rid of free will.

She said: 'And how many will die because of you? I could've stopped it. All of it. War, disease, poverty. How many precious, beautiful lives would've been saved in a handful of years? Yes, I murdered thousands to save billions. This world is doomed to drown in its own blood now.

That's the kind of thinking I see Zod having.

Good post there! I'm not familiar with the Angel reference but I see where you're getting at.

 

[Marvin]

Sounds like you want something not possible from a film adaptation. We have on-going comics, graphic novels, and television series for the sort of depth you are talking about. I loved Begins. I probably prefer it over The Dark Knight. It did the best job possible of delving into Bruce's character and story in a single film. The emotion and depth was in the dialogue and the performances. We are talking about characters with 70 years of history and development. I don't think Begins falls flat at all.

I feel each portion could have been done better and with more commitment....the way dark knight moved towards.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Batman Begins just doesn't work. Nolan tried to bring his disjointed narrative sensibilities to a mostly linear film. Dark Knight was a far better attempt at that.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Good post there! I'm not familiar with the Angel reference but I see where you're getting at.

It's a suppose it's akin to how Lex is sometimes characterised - they think they are saving the world even though their deeds are questionable.

Though personally I much prefer it when Lex is portrayed as a completely self serving, power hungry man with no empathy, remorse or mercy.

I'm a little tired of all the best heroes being shown as grey areas instead of just nasty sob's. Why can't our bad guys be BAD!

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Batman Begins just doesn't work. Nolan tried to bring his disjointed narrative sensibilities to a mostly linear film. Dark Knight was a far better attempt at that.

Actually I never minded the non-linear elements of BB. It worked remarkably well as the first-act; you get a sense of 'looking back at the way things were' and flash forward to what Bruce was doing at the time. Format wise it was brilliant: both introducing the character in medias res, and then going for a backstory. What it says about Bruce is how those fleeting bits of memory still stays with him. And since it's all packed into the period before he returns to Gotham City, it works wonders.

A completely linear tale about the destruction of Krypton, life on SV, and then as Superman in Metropolis worked out well too, but for this one I would want to see something different. One of the things that Smallville got right in the first few seasons was how Clark's Kryptonian origins become apparent to both him and the general audience through Clark's own discovery of it. That's still a workable format right there.

Snyder and Goyer has to wonder if they are willing to format their story story for the sake of originality, or for the sake of the story itself.

It's a suppose it's akin to how Lex is sometimes characterised - they think they are saving the world even though their deeds are questionable.

Though personally I much prefer it when Lex is portrayed as a completely self serving, power hungry man with no empathy, remorse or mercy.

I'm a little tired of all the best heroes being shown as grey areas instead of just nasty sob's. Why can't our bad guys be BAD!

I guess that's true. But I'm afraid I'm on the other boat here; Lex is best when he's so far down his twisted sense of morality that he believes his own messiah-hood. My favourite Lex is still the Capitalist-Pig version of him, and as most greedy men would tell you - they aren't doing anything wrong.

But I completely understand what you mean about our heroes though. The grey area works for Batman because that's who he is, but with Superman you are asking for that leap of faith, you want that solid definition of what is right, you want to stand firm and confront the bad guy. I think that's one of the reasons why Captain America worked so well this summer.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'd say Lex doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, because he just thinks what he does is good business. I'd also say he thinks of himself as a hard working man, who deserves all the money and power he has because he worked hard for it.

I just don't want his crusade against Superman to be the 'I have to protect the world from this alien' thing, because I just think that's much less fun, and makes him a lot less of a 'villain'

I love the Lex whose jealous and resentful of this guy who challenges his powerhold over Metropolis, especially since to him, his status hasn't been earned... he's got these powers, so he has an advantage Lex never had.

Agreed about Captain America though. First superhero movie in a while where you actually got a HERO turned SUPERHERO, instead of a jack*** who happens to get powers and then miraculously learns a life lesson and becomes a SUPERHERO.

 

[DKDetective]

Batman Begins just doesn't work. Nolan tried to bring his disjointed narrative sensibilities to a mostly linear film. Dark Knight was a far better attempt at that.

Marvin, your criticism makes sense. if you think each section could be done with more commitment that is understandable, but saying that The Dark Knight does that better boggles my mind. I find the opposite and the majority of criticism on these boards and professional reviews I've read seem to agree with me. It is The Dark Knight that moves too fast and people have difficulty forming an emotional connection as a result. There are plenty of emotional scenes that could have been fleshed out more.

Nuffsaid, if you think Batman Begins doesn't work, quite frankly, I think you're insane! Outside of hardcore fans and the comic book world, Batman was dead after Batman & Robin. It was Begins that brought him back and how did it do it? By giving a serious examination of the character's origins, motivations, and personality. Most reviews cite acts 1 and 2 (the things you say don't work) as the film's greatest strengths. If anything, it is the linear third act that is considered weak. I think if professional film critics praise the film's handling of Bruce's backstory and the majority opinion is that that is the film's greatest strength, it can hardly be said that the film doesn't work. I'm not saying that the film is perfect. It is flawed of course and it's fine to criticize it, but your statement is hyperbole of the highest order.