The Story.

[Krumm]

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.

Agreed. I actually found the movie to be a bit slow on the front end so I'm surprised to hear people say that it was rushed. I thought they did a fine job of exploring who Bruce Wayne is -- far more than any other Batman film. Let's remember that Begins was Batman's first true origin film (unless I'm missing some old serial or something).

 

[Nave 'Torment']

One of the things that Batman Begins evokes (and was grossly missed by the more 'professional' film critics) was it's archetypal nature. The thing about climbing that mountain to attain enlightenment is a classic literary symbol for man's struggle to find truth; the blue poppies is in itself a symbol for inspiration and the metaphysical striving of the infinite . The entire shot of a young Bruce Wayne, pre-adolescent, falling into the mouth of a 'cave' and then facing his future totem were central initiation rites dating back to the Paleolithic period (and hell, becomes archetypal in art and myth). When Bruce returned to the cave he had to crawl through and then attains true being (becoming the bat) by overcoming his old fears. Again, the whole set piece is archetypal in this sense. But the most impressive one in Begins (and it remains a theme throughout the series) is the one around the Dying God/Fisher King . The archetype (which almost all hero myths adhere to, whether consciously or not) was about the old king becoming too impotent to care for the Earth, and that his impotence turned it into a waste-land. In Begins this sentiment is echoed through Ra's Al Ghul and Batman, and their 'throne' being that of 'justice'. Ra's is from an older, more visceral school of justice, opting for vengeance and destruction, but the 'super-hero', the 'Batman' proposes a new mode of justice where extremities are reached, but morality is never removed. So when Ra's "dies", he has come full-circle, he the fisher king who has to die out and let the new king, Batman, take his place as provider of justice. In The Dark Knight Bruce faces his equal, but opposite in the Joker; he faces the chaos of the cave and is, to some extent, becoming futile on his own until he decides to sacrifice himself to save Gotham City. The sacrifice throws him into the next level of being, and thus the chaos is averted, again, like the tale of the Fisher-King. So when I'm hearing about The Dark Knight RISES (note how 'rising' was a part of that cave-metaphor, the initated kid had to 'rise' from the depths of the cave in order to be the hero) I can't help but imagine TDK being that cave and TDKR being the next step in Batman's story. The comparison is even more interesting when you consider the choice of villian: Bane, a guy who (like Lex) has that self-serving messiah-complex (okay maybe not all of Lex). Bane could be coming to Gotham posing as the next 'hero' after Batman, and the Dark Knight has to go ahead and face his own futility as a provider of justice in the world. So it all works out well in Nolan's world.

So what does this have to do with Man of Steel? Well, for one thing, that archetype of the hero/dying god was already covered in Superman, Superman II and Superman Returns, only less carefully handled (the Jesus aspect was overtly done). It worked for Batman because he comes from earth and has that sense of mythical past, but can the same be done for Superman? Moreover, by now there should be a different way of telling the story anyway. He's Kryptonian, and there are other hero-archetypes that can be used (if they must). To an extent Captain America was so close to its comic-book source that the very concept of the superhero is in itself seen as an archetype. And if we agree on that, then we should also agree that Superman is, foremost, the archetype of the superhero. These are important things that David Goyer and Snyder should keep in mind before telling the ultimate tale of the "greatest superhero of the world".

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I really enjoyed reading that post, you obviously know a lot about archetypes (though personally i'm not a fan of them... they seem as redundant as a tarot reading in that there are possible ways of fitting a character into several archetypes, so it's all about interpretation).

The best thing I can take from what you said, is that as much as it seems on the face of it that Batman Begins format is being used for MOS, it's obviously not. Because we won't have the same archetypes in play.

Clark's journey to becoming Superman, and the relationship between himself and the villains (Zod and Faora) are VERY different.

The only similarity we've seen is that both he and Bruce spent some time looking dishevelled away from home. And we don't even know why he's there, what will happen there, or even what point in the story it is.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

A fantastic post NT.

Here's my 2 cents worth of thinking.

I think that with Bruce Wayne, he is driven by guilt to avenge the murder of his parents and a need to ensure that nobody else suffers the way he was made to suffer at the hands of criminals.
Where Kal-El is concerned, he sees a world where there is much suffering and cruelty and comes to a realisation that with his natural abilities he can use them to make a difference and help many people. At least I hope that is how it is done. Kal-El should decide himself to serve as a protector of Humanity and not because his Father thinks it is a good idea.

Anyway, you end up with two heroes who essentially do the same kind of thing. Helping others. But the reasons why they do it could not be more divergent.

 

[Dr.]

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.

I don't follow. TDK was far more linear than BB (or, possibly, any other Nolan film). How could it be a "better attempt" at a "disjointed narrative sensibility"?

By the way, “disjointed narrative” - though technically accurate - has pejorative connotations. “Nonlinear narrative” is more neutral. Within cinema, it includes such classics as Citizen Kane, Rashomon and several others of note.

 

[Krumm]

Spoiler

One of the things that Batman Begins evokes (and was grossly missed by the more 'professional' film critics) was it's archetypal nature. The thing about climbing that mountain to attain enlightenment is a classic literary symbol for man's struggle to find truth; the blue poppies is in itself a symbol for inspiration and the metaphysical striving of the infinite . The entire shot of a young Bruce Wayne, pre-adolescent, falling into the mouth of a 'cave' and then facing his future totem were central initiation rites dating back to the Paleolithic period (and hell, becomes archetypal in art and myth). When Bruce returned to the cave he had to crawl through and then attains true being (becoming the bat) by overcoming his old fears. Again, the whole set piece is archetypal in this sense. But the most impressive one in Begins (and it remains a theme throughout the series) is the one around the Dying God/Fisher King . The archetype (which almost all hero myths adhere to, whether consciously or not) was about the old king becoming too impotent to care for the Earth, and that his impotence turned it into a waste-land. In Begins this sentiment is echoed through Ra's Al Ghul and Batman, and their 'throne' being that of 'justice'. Ra's is from an older, more visceral school of justice, opting for vengeance and destruction, but the 'super-hero', the 'Batman' proposes a new mode of justice where extremities are reached, but morality is never removed. So when Ra's "dies", he has come full-circle, he the fisher king who has to die out and let the new king, Batman, take his place as provider of justice. In The Dark Knight Bruce faces his equal, but opposite in the Joker; he faces the chaos of the cave and is, to some extent, becoming futile on his own until he decides to sacrifice himself to save Gotham City. The sacrifice throws him into the next level of being, and thus the chaos is averted, again, like the tale of the Fisher-King. So when I'm hearing about The Dark Knight RISES (note how 'rising' was a part of that cave-metaphor, the initated kid had to 'rise' from the depths of the cave in order to be the hero) I can't help but imagine TDK being that cave and TDKR being the next step in Batman's story. The comparison is even more interesting when you consider the choice of villian: Bane, a guy who (like Lex) has that self-serving messiah-complex (okay maybe not all of Lex). Bane could be coming to Gotham posing as the next 'hero' after Batman, and the Dark Knight has to go ahead and face his own futility as a provider of justice in the world. So it all works out well in Nolan's world.

So what does this have to do with Man of Steel? Well, for one thing, that archetype of the hero/dying god was already covered in Superman, Superman II and Superman Returns, only less carefully handled (the Jesus aspect was overtly done). It worked for Batman because he comes from earth and has that sense of mythical past, but can the same be done for Superman? Moreover, by now there should be a different way of telling the story anyway. He's Kryptonian, and there are other hero-archetypes that can be used (if they must). To an extent Captain America was so close to its comic-book source that the very concept of the superhero is in itself seen as an archetype. And if we agree on that, then we should also agree that Superman is, foremost, the archetype of the superhero. These are important things that David Goyer and Snyder should keep in mind before telling the ultimate tale of the "greatest superhero of the world".

Excellent post

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Thanks for the kudos guys

I really enjoyed reading that post, you obviously know a lot about archetypes (though personally i'm not a fan of them... they seem as redundant as a tarot reading in that there are possible ways of fitting a character into several archetypes, so it's all about interpretation).

Well I'm actually looking into more and more archetypal sources these days. It seems even the finest works of literature and myth were highly dependent on these. Hell, whenever we retell the lives of historical figures we, to some extent, tell them with these archetypes in mind. So, while I won't say they're redundant, they are certainly capable of fitting any number of characters. One certainly doesn't need them to tell, or even be effected by, a good story. The reason I'm mentioning it here, of course, is because we're talking superhero plot!

The best thing I can take from what you said, is that as much as it seems on the face of it that Batman Begins format is being used for MOS, it's obviously not. Because we won't have the same archetypes in play.

Clark's journey to becoming Superman, and the relationship between himself and the villains (Zod and Faora) are VERY different.

The only similarity we've seen is that both he and Bruce spent some time looking dishevelled away from home. And we don't even know why he's there, what will happen there, or even what point in the story it is.

Yeah, just my point. We can't rely on the same archetypes once again. Some symbolic reference here, and others there, but not fully. I think the reason Nolan is helmed as one of the finest directors of our time is because he actually goes to really, really complex areas even before the movie starts. Begins was, ostensibly, an origin-story and a reboot, you'd think it's just another run-of-the-mill show but it wasn't. TDK was a nose-dive into the 'grim and gritty realism' that's plaguing Hollywood, but at the same time both those films added so much depth to these ideas that they became popularised, hell, even to the point of inspiring more knock-offs. Who knows what'll happen with the next one. But with MoS we have Snyder, who is perhaps a more suitable director for a movie like this because of his visual sensibilities. He isn't about as making things more complex as he is about making them more coherent and presentable.

The scenes of Cavill, beard-on, and on a soul-search doesn't necessarily have to be a period of time where he's training with Zod or anyone. For all we know, he could be on a superheroic, self-imposed exile.

I think that with Bruce Wayne, he is driven by guilt to avenge the murder of his parents and a need to ensure that nobody else suffers the way he was made to suffer at the hands of criminals.
Where Kal-El is concerned, he sees a world where there is much suffering and cruelty and comes to a realisation that with his natural abilities he can use them to make a difference and help many people. At least I hope that is how it is done. Kal-El should decide himself to serve as a protector of Humanity and not because his Father thinks it is a good idea.

Anyway, you end up with two heroes who essentially do the same kind of thing. Helping others. But the reasons why they do it could not be more divergent.

Yeah and I think that in the end is a very important distinction. The reasons. And I agree, he should decide for himself that he's going to protect humanity, and not for his powers, his Kryptonian heritage, or of some crazy messiah-complex either. It should be because it's the most logical thing to do at this point. Martha and Jonathan die here don't they?

Excellent post

Again, thanks

 

[DKDetective]

I agree that the archetypes evoked and themes present in Man of Steel will be different from those in Begins and, for that reason, I'm fine with a similar narrative structure being used in Man of Steel because it's the best way to give us to give us a good cohesive Superman story in the present while delving into his past and giving us an origin story. Furthermore, I prefer a non-linear story because Marvel has done linear Superhero origins to death.

Please do not reference Iron or Captain America as being non-linear because, in essence, they are not.

The fact that Iron Man begins with Tony's capture simply works a nice hook, it does not change the overall structure of the film. After those first couple of minutes, it is completely linear. Captain America is much the same. It is a linear story in the past framed by a few minutes of story telling in the present at the beginning and end.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Well I wouldn't go for non-linear just because Marvel's done linear stories - that would be reactionary. I think in the end it all boils down to what the story is. Does it really need the fancy structuring? Will making it non-linear actually make it better / more coherent?

Maybe it could just be a Kal-El story - beginning with Clark figuring out his past and going from there.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

Maybe it could just be a Kal-El story - beginning with Clark figuring out his past and going from there.

Or, in other words, a complete boot from the movies in the late 70s and 80s. Really, how many reboots can we (specifically, I) take? It's like they always seem to double up on themselves. Better CGI better camera angles, 'better' story? Why does it always have to be darker and moodier?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Well I wouldn't go for non-linear just because Marvel's done linear stories - that would be reactionary. I think in the end it all boils down to what the story is. Does it really need the fancy structuring? Will making it non-linear actually make it better / more coherent?

Maybe it could just be a Kal-El story - beginning with Clark figuring out his past and going from there.

Personally I think Superman's origin needs a non linear structure, because otherwise we are away from our main actor for too long.

If you start on Krypton with the events going on with Jor-el and Zod and Faora, then Krypton's destruction, then baby Kal-el being found by the Kents, then Clark as a teen, then Clark discovering himself... Well we wouldn't even see Cavill for half the film...

And that kind of structuring just doesn't work anymore.

Thor, Iron Man, Green Lantern, Spiderman etc... their linear origin stories work because their origins consist of events that happened in the present. There isn't an abundance of stuff that happened in the past that needs to be delved into.

With Superman especially, and Batman, we have heroes whose PAST very much needs to be explored in order to understand their decision to become a hero.

But in order for the audience to connect to the character, and in order for the film to engage us with enough action, those scenes need to be broken up and spread throughout the film in a non linear narrative.

 

[Herolee10]

This should be interesting to see; since if our theories are true, we may most likely see Clark during the stage where he was traveling around the globe in search of his so called "purpose" in life, and truth be told, I think that's always been a "stage" in his life that audiences have never really been given the opportunity to see in live action format.

Past medias would either show Clark just right after he finished his travels or would just go about the Donner method of saying that he learned in all in his FOS.

By allowing Clark to travel the world, we'll get to see Clark see first hand on how many realistic issues plague the planet and such, which could motivate his resolve to do something about it and make a positive difference with what he could have once seen as his cursed abilities.

Though, I do think that we'll get brief flashbacks of his childhood in SV like we did with Bruce and his time before his travels around the globe.


BUT; as I've said many times before, I really want to see them efficiently show ON SCREEN as to WHY Superman is considered by many to be THE GREATEST SUPERHERO of all time; what gives his character that right to claim the title from the perspective of the GA? If the film is able to get people to see that and care about Superman's character, then we're in for something precious.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

^ agree fully herolee. I think the idea of seeing Superman trying to find his place in the 'world', searching for himself, and all the while stopping disasters around the globe makes for a very strong character-story. Like an odyssey of sorts. Many of our heroes have always been away in foreign lands, participating in grand adventures, and then returning to their 'home' fully developed to save the day (bear with me on these...)

And yes, like you said, that's been an aspect of the character we haven't seen much at all. There were some pretty evocative stories in the comics surrounding this too, so it makes sense for the character to an extent. The most obvious example would be the way Birthright started. I liked it a lot because it not only focused on Superman, but on Clark Kent the journalist as well. Things like that would be welcome, at least from me.

The only bit I am a little uncomfortable with is how closely this resembles Batman Begins. I know that shouldn't be a problem, but still, a part of me wishes that there could be an even better alternative. It's like the marvel comics example - we're a bit tired of the linear stories so non-linear is welcome, but on the other hand we've seen Batman already doing this, so something new is also welcome. Even though, at the end of the day, it really shouldn't matter. :S

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Or, in other words, a complete boot from the movies in the late 70s and 80s. Really, how many reboots can we (specifically, I) take? It's like they always seem to double up on themselves. Better CGI better camera angles, 'better' story? Why does it always have to be darker and moodier?

True. But hey, I don't really want another Donner-verse film. There can always be a different interpretation, I'd like to see that. Reboots are overrated, true, but remakes are worse.

Personally I think Superman's origin needs a non linear structure, because otherwise we are away from our main actor for too long. [...] And that kind of structuring just doesn't work anymore.

Thor, Iron Man, Green Lantern, Spiderman etc... their linear origin stories work because their origins consist of events that happened in the present. There isn't an abundance of stuff that happened in the past that needs to be delved into.

With Superman especially, and Batman, we have heroes whose PAST very much needs to be explored in order to understand their decision to become a hero.

But in order for the audience to connect to the character, and in order for the film to engage us with enough action, those scenes need to be broken up and spread throughout the film in a non linear narrative.

Those are some excellent points. The non-linear format works when you want to explore the entirety of their past while at the same time retain a connection with the present day hero. That's why Begins was so perfect.

On the other hand, they could learn a thing or two from the Tim Burton movies. In Batman the movie all but avoided a thorough look into Bruce's past; instead, we see Vicky unveiling (no pun intended) his origin, and the mystery of Batman slowly unfolding before us. With someone like Lois Lane, that wouldn't be an altogether bad format either. Just an old suggestion.

I think it's also true about what you've said - with Superman, Batman and etc. having their past being so much important to them. I think, to an extent, this is true of Wonder Woman as well (or Themyscira) where we had to know more about the Amazons themselves before realizing their champion. With Kal-El it's his role as the Last Son of Krypton. The idea of the infant child as the last survivor is important for the audience to latch on to, but then we have his entire life before he becomes the man he does.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't follow. TDK was far more linear than BB (or, possibly, any other Nolan film). How could it be a "better attempt" at a "disjointed narrative sensibility"?

I should've explained myself better. I was typing from my phone you see.

I meant the way he paces his films. The rhythm of Batman Begins is the same as his non-linear films. Each scene breathlessly cuts into another robbing it of the proper dramatic punch. A film like Batman Begins should've been more ponderous and allowed to breath. The Dark Knight is cut in the same fashion, moving briskly from scene to scene, yet the chaotic nature of the story took advantage of that pace and it worked.

I personally hoped Begins was paced more like Insomnia. And it was, the first 45 minutes, my favorite part. After that Nolan didn't quite get the movie back to that level for me. He had trouble pacing the action filled later half. Understandable, as it was his first action film and he isn't a natural action director.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Wonderful points nuff.

And it's true, Begins was the more ponderous in terms of story-content. At the same time though, there were plenty of shots that were allowed to have their moments, such as Alfred and young Bruce after the funeral. It really is the second and third half which felt rushed (in terms of scene-to-scene transition). The most being Gordon. Gary Oldman was being pushed in every single time he appeared on-screen.

In TDK, that curse fell on Aaron Eckhart. I still laugh when Rachel says "You can't make you're own luck" and then we see Harvey, he barely utters "I'm not" when the door slams into his face. Yes, we can say it adds depth to the way everything was rushed - their exchange cut short - but somehow I don't think that was intended in the script.

 

[Marvin]

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.

I spoke to someone the other day about batman villains and how outside of the joker, they don't really bring as much to the table as the do in other media. Ra's has been amazing in comics for example. Scarecrow in the new game. Two Face..etc.

Nolan, especially in begins is just too subdued for his own good. That being said when applied to the 1st(and others) act of begins this subdued direction just makes the film fall flat to me. Like I said earlier Ironman's first act succeeds(and perhaps saves the franchise) because it commits and really goes for it. When I watch bruce strolling though jail but not quite I ask myself how much more impact could this film have had. His training is more of the same and the he "single handedly takes out the monastery of skilled ninjas" in what should have set in stone what he was bringing to the table as crime fighter...I see more of the same mis-direction on Nolans part. The murdering of the Wayne family, I told myself this can't be the gritty revisionist interpretation I going to hear championed for years to come. TDK at least committed to it's drama and I think the audience reacted to it. Joker really brought it, cops really were corrupt, people died...a step in the right direction.

I honestly can't stand the direction of the jail opening in Begins, it's just ill conceived.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I think you are alone in that. The way Begins told (or retold) Bruce Wayne's origin into becoming Batman is by far the best way that story has been told. In all media.

Nolan has done something unique with his films - Batman Begins was, in conventional Hollywood-speak, the reboot/origin story. There just aren't any more as passionately made as this one. The Dark Knight was your revisionist, deconstructed, "gritty" "neo" noir film. The Dark Knight Rises will be something else. The point is, each film changed the genre forever, not because they're told in a new way, but because of how passionately the films had been made. Nolan is one of the best directors of his time. Make no mistake about that.

Back to Man of Steel though.

 

[Marvin]

I think you are alone in that. The way Begins told (or retold) Bruce Wayne's origin into becoming Batman is by far the best way that story has been told. In all media.

To say it's the best take on his origins in all media is entirely subjective and subjectively wrong.

Nolan has done something unique with his films - Batman Begins was, in conventional Hollywood-speak, the reboot/origin story. There just aren't any more as passionately made as this one. The Dark Knight was your revisionist, deconstructed, "gritty" "neo" noir film. The Dark Knight Rises will be something else. The point is, each film changed the genre forever, not because they're told in a new way, but because of how passionately the films had been made. Nolan is one of the best directors of his time. Make no mistake about that.

I never said anything about (david goyer's) story, I said the direction is what failed the film for me. A direction that many seem agree found a stride in the follow up. The story elements for the most part worked fine. Examples of poor direction in relation to the source material glare out when one looks at the duality of the bruce wayne character. Something far better and more and handled with more tact in say the Year One story and now film.

Back to Man of Steel though.

If Nolan,Goyer and Snyder's work and credentials can't be discussed here that would be a shame.

Like I've always said, I'd rather hope Snyder makes a good superman film as opposed to a good film. Why cast Cavill and have him portray a subdued version of the character(a la begins). Given Snyders filmography I have high hopes he brings more of his wonderful characterization work and cinematic sensibilities.

 

[DKDetective]

So based on the new shirtless photos of Cavill, it looks like, during his bearded phase in Alaska, Clark saves a bunch of workers on an off-shore oil rig. The pictures show him in tattered clothes ushering the workers onto a helipad where they proceed to flag down a rescue helicopter.

This possibly lends some credence to earlier rumors about Zod and his Kryptonian companions being upset with how humans treat their planet. I mean a major rescue on an oil rig is probably related to some disaster with major environmental fallout.

 

[shamon]

I really enjoyed reading that post, you obviously know a lot about archetypes (though personally i'm not a fan of them... they seem as redundant as a tarot reading in that there are possible ways of fitting a character into several archetypes, so it's all about interpretation).

The best thing I can take from what you said, is that as much as it seems on the face of it that Batman Begins format is being used for MOS, it's obviously not. Because we won't have the same archetypes in play.

Clark's journey to becoming Superman, and the relationship between himself and the villains (Zod and Faora) are VERY different.

The only similarity we've seen is that both he and Bruce spent some time looking dishevelled away from home. And we don't even know why he's there, what will happen there, or even what point in the story it is.

Same here his post made sense and made me give the movie another look .

 

[elgaz]

So based on the new shirtless photos of Cavill, it looks like, during his bearded phase in Alaska, Clark saves a bunch of workers on an off-shore oil rig. The pictures show him in tattered clothes ushering the workers onto a helipad where they proceed to flag down a rescue helicopter.

This possibly lends some credence to earlier rumors about Zod and his Kryptonian companions being upset with how humans treat their planet. I mean a major rescue on an oil rig is probably related to some disaster with major environmental fallout.

I was also thinking, given that the shows a few weeks ago seem to show Clark in some kind of Alaskan fishing village, how does he end up on an oil rig?

I wonder if he's actually out at sea - with the fishing crew, on a boat - when there's some disaster of some kind on a nearby rig. Perhaps an explosion or something. And he's forced to spring into action to save the workers on the oil rig. He's look pretty wet, dirty and tattered, so he may have actually walked through an explosion or been very close to it.

With the beard and his rough clothes, I imagine this stage of the film takes place while Clark is travelling .......... personally I don't think Zod will be introduced until later when Clark is in Metropolis.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Is it possible that the crew of the oil rig stop off at an Alaskan fishing village to stretch their legs?

 

[Nave 'Torment']

So based on the new shirtless photos of Cavill, it looks like, during his bearded phase in Alaska, Clark saves a bunch of workers on an off-shore oil rig. The pictures show him in tattered clothes ushering the workers onto a helipad where they proceed to flag down a rescue helicopter.

This possibly lends some credence to earlier rumors about Zod and his Kryptonian companions being upset with how humans treat their planet. I mean a major rescue on an oil rig is probably related to some disaster with major environmental fallout.

I think those photos does allow us to go SOMEWHERE with our speculations. There seems to be a story that's visibly there, waiting to be interpreted. But was there any indication of an oil-rig? I thought they were prisoners or something. But yeah, oil-rig workers make more sense. And I agree, it could indicate wonderfully how Kryptonians and Humans treated their own. Planet or otherwise. The pics actually got me interested in this again!

Same here his post made sense and made me give the movie another look .

Hey, thanks!

 

[Nave 'Torment']

To say it's the best take on his origins in all media is entirely subjective and subjectively wrong.

I don't believe any work of art can be interpreted objectively, that is, completely removed from one's own understanding.

Batman Begins is the best retelling of Batman's origin story, in all media, because... well, there aren't any that has explored the character's origin in such detail. Begins was an amalgamation of more than one comic-book, or hell, even one era. The source materials by themselves only gave us one glimpse of that era, but Begins managed to bring all of them together AND deliver a coherent tale too.

I never said anything about (david goyer's) story, I said the direction is what failed the film for me. A direction that many seem agree found a stride in the follow up. The story elements for the most part worked fine. Examples of poor direction in relation to the source material glare out when one looks at the duality of the bruce wayne character. Something far better and more and handled with more tact in say the Year One story and now film.

Could you explain more about that duality? Because it seems to me that not only did in Begins we get a better characterisation of Bruce, but one that was very, very close to the one we've seen in Miller's Year One.

I'm a huge fan of Year One, one of the things that I love so much about it is the world FM created. It was immediately so close to the detective / noir world that gave birth to Batman in the 40s, as well as a very real and explored look at that world in the contemporary world. But one thing was always true in it - despite the character arc and everything else, it was not a Batman origin story, and I don't think it was meant to be either. It was a chronicle of Batman's first year in Gotham, and Gordon does get more time in it. I really wish DC Animation continue to tell stories that are set in that world, I know they won't, but one can hope. There is was a sense of maturity in it that wasn't present in any other Batman animation. But that's another point for another time.

You really derided the film there though, saying how it failed. How did the direction fail the story?

If Nolan,Goyer and Snyder's work and credentials can't be discussed here that would be a shame.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to dismiss it. I'm not. I'm just saying that we keep things relevant to MoS. Even when we're talking about Snyder, Nolan and Goyer.

Like I've always said, I'd rather hope Snyder makes a good superman film as opposed to a good film. Why cast Cavill and have him portray a subdued version of the character(a la begins). Given Snyders filmography I have high hopes he brings more of his wonderful characterization work and cinematic sensibilities.

I have high hopes for Snyder too. But I think he should opt for both a good movie as well as a good superman movie. It is possible (ala Nolan's Batman films). Here you're talking about how the character was subdued in Begins, and I have to ask, what makes you think that? The writing or the direction? Because Batman comes into the movie, full-mask, half-way later? That only made his emergence all the more appealing. I for one hope that Cavill's Superman gets a good characterisation, not simply good screen-time with the suit.