Early MAN OF STEEL Script Treatment Is Significantly Different from Finished Film [UPDATED]

by     Posted 1 year, 87 days ago

man-of-steel-slice

Though Warner Bros. Superman reboot Man of Steel most definitely opened bit at the box office, the pic proved to be one of the more divisive releases of the year.  Reactions were all over the map, and you’re just as likely to find someone that was down on director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer’s iteration of the character as you are someone that adored the new approach.  Love it or hate it, though, you can’t deny that the film took some big risks with its departures from comic book lore, and now an early treatment of the script credited to Snyder, Goyer, and producer Christopher Nolan reveals that Man of Steel could have ended up being very, very different than the film that we saw in theaters.

Hit the jump for a rundown of how this early treatment differs from the final film. [UPDATE: Hitfix has updated their story to report that the treatment is fan-fiction.  "I bought it because I wanted to buy it," reporter Drew McWeeny said in his honest explanation of why they ran the story.  It happens to the best of us, and McWeeny is one of the most trusted names in the film reporting business.  If you still want to read some fairly convincing fan-fic (especially when compared to the finished film), you can read a summation after the jump].

Man-of-Steel-zack-snyder-Christopher-Nolan-imageProbably the biggest surprise in this early treatment—titled “Treatment 4.5B” and written by Goyer, Snyder, and Nolan—is just how different it is from the film that made it to the screen.  Since Snyder is credited on the treatment, one presumes that this is more similar to the initial take that Goyer and Nolan pitched to Warner Bros., and is likely more in keeping with the story that Snyder initially signed on to direct.  That being said, the completed Man of Steel represents months of development work and input from all three that resulted in a finished product that they all felt happy about.

Goyer has previously said that his initial “new take” on Superman that got Nolan so enthused was approaching the film as a first contact story, confronting head on the fact that if Kal-El revealed himself to the world as an alien, it would be the biggest event in human history.  That is indeed still here, as are the principal characters of Jor-El, Zod, and Faora, but they all interact in pretty different ways, with Zod not fully coming into play until much later in the film.

The aforementioned treatment comes courtesy of HitFix’s Drew McWeeny, who has written a pretty extensive summary of how the story progresses.  We’ve rounded up some of the key differences from that treatment to Man of Steel below:

  • RUSSELL CROWE as Jor-El in MAN OF STEELThe treatment still opens on Krypton, but under very different circumstances. Zod’s army is seen on a battlefield trying to break defensive lines held by Jor-El.  Zod is trying to destroy Krypton because he believes his people would be better served terraforming a new planet that has been discovered (Earth) and moving all Kryptonians there.
  • Zod and Jor-El have a fight sequence at the power plant (where Zod is trying to enact his plan), and while Zod wins the battle, he is quickly arrested and sent to the Phantom Zone.
  • Faora is now Zod’s wife, and while she is indeed punished, she is not sent to the Phantom Zone.
  • Jor-El goes back to try and reverse Zod’s actions, but the planet is already doomed and he ends up being targeted by the Kryptonian government as a suspected loyal to Zod.
  • Seeing that he cannot convince the Kryptonians otherwise, Jor-El sends his son to Earth.
  • Faora ends up stealing a spaceship to escape Krypton’s destruction.
  • After Krypton explodes and we see baby Kal-El heading to Earth, the film cuts to the adult Clark Kent working on the oil rig seen in the film.  He saves people from disaster, just as in Man of Steel, but this time as an employee of the rig.
  • Man-of-Steel-Henry-Cavill-imageKent is working as a freelance journalist in the treatment, and goes home to see his parents, who are both alive at this point.
  • While going through mail at his parents’ home, Clark receives a job offer for the Daily Planet.
  • The treatment actually shows Kent shaving using his heat vision bounced off a mirror.
  • There’s a tornado sequence in Smallville in which Clark flies around and saves everyone, using his superbreath to blow the tornado out.  Jonathan Kent does not die here, and is instead proud of his son’s heroic display.
  • Jonathan Kent tells adult Clark about the ship in the barn, which Clark has known about for a long time but has thus far been too scared to confront.
  • The ship in the barn becomes the “Fortress of Solitude,” as it opens upon Clark approaching it to reveal Jor-El’s lab—though only Clark can see it.  He is presented with a message from both of his parents and also sees the final moments of Krypton play out.  At the end of the presentation, Clark is given the suit, at which point he has an emotional breakdown.
  • Clark’s “turning on” of the ship again sends out a distress beacon, which was outfitted by Jor-El to be a beacon for any surviving Kryptonians to come and find Clark.  Hearing this, Faora wakes from her hypersleep and sets out for Earth.
  • Man-of-Steel-Amy-Adams-imageThe film’s Lois Lane is annoyed by the freelancer Clark Kent, because he scoops her on a big story.  She is assigned to cover the grand opening of the Metropolis/Gotham rail link (Batman reference!), which leads to a major action sequence in which Clark and Lois are both on the train (branded with a LEXCORP logo) when it suddenly goes out of control.  Clark rips his clothes off to reveal the Superman suit and proceeds to save everyone from the train before seeking out the people who sabotaged it in the first place.
  • People take photos and video of Clark saving everyone on the train, which is how the alien storyline comes into play.  Lois’ father, military official General Sam Lane, is instantly worried about this “super-powered threat.”
  • Lois coins the term “Superman” in the Daily Planet when writing about the train crash.
  • Faora crash-lands in Smallville and, after healing from the sun, rampages through the town until she finds Kal-El’s ship and activates the Phantom Zone generator that brings Zod to Earth via portal.  He is badly wounded from the Phantom Zone, but the Earth’s sun heals him.
  • Faora and Zod use the ship’s computer to download a full understanding of English.
  • Jonathan Kent encourages Clark to go after the Kryptonians and save Earth.  No apprehensiveness about his son’s abilities here.
  • The fight on the Smallville street remains intact, but it’s different in that Faora recognizes Superman’s need to save random citizens from distress so she keeps distracting him by attacking bystanders.  Superman is then seen going off to rescue strangers before continuing his fight with Faora.
  • man-of-steel-michael-shannonDuring the Smallville fight, Superman almost defeats a very weakened Zod, but has to leave in order to save the town from a giant fire Faora has created.
  • Jonathan dies from the collateral damage that Faora has done in Smallville.
  • While recuperating, Zod becomes furious that Faora is more powerful than him, and after blaming her for him being sent to the Phantom Zone, proceeds to kill her.
  • Lois’ father General Lane continues to believe that Superman is a threat and thinks he is part of the invasion force.  He’s essentially a more fully-formed version of Christopher Meloni’s character.
  • While working on a story about the Smallville attack, Lois stays at the Kent’s farm and consoles Clark following his father’s death.  She is never suspicious that he might be Superman.
  • General Lane sets up a command post in Metropolis in the hopes of attracting Zod and Superman. Zod appears in the city ready to fight, and after a military attack Superman shows up to battle Zod.  No World Engine mumbo jumbo.
  • Zod and Superman proceed to fight, but when Zod starts attacking citizens, Superman takes off away from the city in order to minimize collateral damage (Interesting…).
  • During the fight, Lois Lane recruits a young boy named Jimmy Olsen to snap pictures.
  • Zod eventually brings the fight back to Smallville, where Superman opens a portal using his old ship in order to send Zod back to the Phantom Zone.  Zod is not killed.  Though Clark decides to destroy the ship, Martha convinces him it’s his last link to his people so he moves it to the Arctic.
  • After the battle, General Lane picks up “alien metals and small shards of green rock” from the wreckage (Kryptonite).  He is then seen talking on the phone to a visible Lex Luthor, who asks Lane to send the materials to his office for analysis.
  • At the end of the film, Superman writes an open letter to Earth telling them the truth about himself and his home planet, and Clark returns to the Daily Planet.  Lois does not find out that Clark is Superman.

Man-of-Steel-Henry-Cavill-imagePretty different, huh?  It’s especially interesting that this early treatment addresses some of the concerns that people had over the final film.  Why Goyer, Snyder, and Nolan couldn’t have at least tried to acknowledge the collateral damage issue in Man of Steel is beyond me.  Personally, though, I much prefer the finished film to this early treatment.  Lois Lane is such a well-rounded and smart character in Man of Steel, but in this treatment she just feels like second-fiddle, and I miss the young Clark stuff.  The Zod/Faora relationship is also strange in the treatment, with Faora actually feeling kind of like the primary villain instead of Zod.  It’s also interesting to see that early plans had Lex Luthor actually showing up in this first film, so I’d be shocked if he didn’t appear in the sequel.

You can head over to HitFix to read Drew’s extensive rundown of the entire treatment, which is basically a scene-by-scene breakdown of that entire script and is well worth your time.  But I’m curious to know what you think, dear reader.  Were there aspects of this treatment that you wish had made it to the finished film?  Which version of the story do you prefer?  Sound off in the comments below.

Click here to catch up on all of our previous Man of Steel coverage, or peruse the recent links below:

man-of-steel-poster




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • scottish_punk

    I’d take the completed movie any day over this.

    • Alan Burnett

      You sound intelligent in retrospect, don’t you?

      • scottish_punk

        You have no idea.

  • sean kay

    the only thing I wanted more clark/journalist blog writer story, like in birthright. just more of that. makes me wonder how snyder’s cut on dvd will be

  • Smash-It Sid

    God forbid Superman should actually be Superman and try and save people

    • Norman Emmerit

      I concur. I think this movie demonstrated the supreme arrogance of Nolan and Co. I mean, Nolan’s Batman movies had no overall theme and exposed the fact that he never had a clear idea of why he wanted to make Batman “grounded” and “realistic” in the first place and Man of Steel is more of the same. I mean what’s the point of a “realistic” Superman? The only benefit I can discern is tha t it gives faux-tough comic book nerds an excuse to say “See, my Man of Steel is f-cking hard core, like me brah. My f-cking Man of Steel f-cking levels Metropolis he’s so f-cking hardcore. He f-cking snaps Zod neck and he’s cut as sh-t brah, just like I would be if I didn’t sit in my moms basement eating cheetos all day.” I guess it comes down to a lack of life experience that makes them equate nihilism with serious art because they haven’t experienced a wide enough array of profound art, which can run the gamut from lightly farcical to deeply melancholic .

      • Norman Emmerit

        You know, when i’m not busy going through a thesaurus, trying to make myself sound smarter than i really am by using words i don’t quite understand, i like to sit back and relax with a nice tall glass of piss. Speaking of which, does anybody here know of a Chris Nolan impersonator that i can hire to come to my house, gather my family in the living room, drop his pants and start pissing in my open mouth while yelling “ACTION”? I’d really like that, in fact, i’m pretty sure that it’ll be the best birthday ever! I’m willing to pay $300 cash. $350 if he can make it taste like asparagus.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        So a word over two syllables and all of a sudden I’m trying to sound smarter than I am? And, please, correct my usage. What words did I not fully understand? Elaborate….
        Just because I chose not to express myself using a grade school vocabulary doesn’t mean you should feel intimidated by my intellect. You can always counter argue by making an obscene joke about golden showers again. Or, if you are my intellectual superior, which is what your prior statement insinuates, than enlighten me with a cogent, contrasting arguement.

      • Kevin Pallotti

        Thank you!!! Just thank you.

      • Kevin Pallotti

        Thank you!!! Just thank you.

      • Mackenzie Fraser

        The Batman movies did have an overall theme – several in fact i.e. the nobility of heroic self-sacrifice, the ascendency and necessity of symbols and many more eventhough TDKR kind of contradicts itself in regards to these ideas. The last two also had pretty interesting political allegories going on. The allegory was muddled in TDKR but it was there. As for the ‘grounded approach,’ Batman naturally fits it as he is a vigilante with no superpowers dependant on training and tech to succeed.

        That being said, I think that Synder, Goyer and Nolan totally missed the boat on Man of Steel. It sounds like they started in a good spot and worked their way out of it. It was an incredibly disappointing film for me. It felt like they really didn’t get the core characteristics of Kal-El.

        One quick last thing, I think it is unfair to say that Nolan equates nihilism with true art. The other two, I’m less inclined to defend, but Nolan has done some pretty great work. He is clearly interested in the gray areas of morality and, more specifically, the lies that we tell ourselves as people to survive but I wouldn’t call him nihilistic. His POV isn’t perhaps the most upbeat ever, but it’s often has a happy/triumphant conclusion.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        Well said Mckenzie, however, my overall point is that the “realistic” approach ultimately never tied into the thematic concerns of any of the batman films. I’ll give you the necessity of symbols, a theme tackled in Begins and Knight and then subsumed in the overall shoddiness of Rises, but how does Nolan’s “grounded” approach service this theme? The interplay between the grounded aesthetic and the theme of the necessity of symbols worked best in The Dark Knight but Rises should have brought these concerns to a head an made an ultimate statement. But what was the ultimate statement of the trilogy? The mission statement had always been this will be a “realistic” Batman and a credo like that should have been employed because there was an ultimate purpose to it. That’s why audiences were forgiving of many of the pedestrian ways Nolan depicted the hallmarks of the Batman mythology because there was a sense he was buiding toward something. The fact that Rises ultimately eschewed the “realistic” aesthetic in favour of ludicrous supervillain stereotypes was extremely deletorious to the trilogy as a the good work in the previous two installments. The only message Rises seemed to give was that in the real world being a super hero would be tough so you’d most likely retire eventually, which is hardly mind blowing. If you can enlighten me that’d be excellent. And thanks for giving a reasoned reply.

      • Mackenzie Fraser

        First off, I agree that Rises was terrible. There are so many things that are wrong with it that I wrote a 5,000 word blog post about it. It reeks of contractual obligation and is just terrible (although I’d still watch it over Man of Steel any day).

        As for the necessity of the realism, I think it was the entire point of the first one – not that it had any thematic purpose, I think it was just Nolan’s way of trying to engage modern audiences (an admittedly condescending notion which is indicitive of Nolan’s feelings towards the superhero genre in general). In the second one, it worked wonderfully as the film was supposed to be an allegorical representation of America and therefore the “realism” (and that word should be put in quotation marks) caused us to think about it’s correlation to the real world – it didn’t feel like a escapist fantasy but a topical crime film.

        All of that said though, I don’t think you can look at the Batman films as a trilogy as Goyer and Nolan have both said multiple times that it was made film by film with no overarching ideas in place. Nolan’s mantra was “don’t save it for the sequel.” Of course, it still would have been nice if TDKR didn’t completely crap on everything that came before it.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        I agree completely. I think one of the reasons I disliked Rises so much was because I was waiting for the “a huh!” moment where it all three films come together. Allegedly, they had the final scene in mind the whole time but I guess they hadn’t worked out how to get there. Taken as separate instalments, or as Begins and Knight as a two parter, Nolan’s interpretation is very successful. My outrage at Nolan comes from how much Rises contradicts and disrespects its predecessors.

      • Alan Burnett

        “My outrage at Nolan comes from how much Rises contradicts and disrespects its predecessors.” How does it contradict the predessesor? Your argument is essentially … ‘there is no theme, oh wait, there is one, but it contradicts it, I don’t know how, ummm I don’t like TDKR’. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean there is no theme. Sheesh …

        “I guess it comes down to a lack of life experience that makes them equate nihilism with serious art”. This is the most arrogant and obnoxious criticism I have read in a long, LONG time. I doubt you actually understand what ‘nihilism’ is: how is TDKR nihilistic? I feel a little embarrassed for you, to be honest, especially in your suggestion that a just because you don’t like something, that invalidates it as “serious art”. What is “serious art”, mannnnnnnnnnnnn? I mean, how many Renoir films have you seen? How many Visconti films? Or Buñuel films? I bet “fuck all” is the answer, but I am glad to hear such an entitled attitude about art on a fanboy site by another fanboy. Next I am going to ask my three year old nephew what he considers ‘true art’ to be, because I imagine I am going to get an equally riveting answer.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        I’ve seen quite a bit actually. I purposefully go back through cinematic history and educate myself on film so I have an informed opinion. How much Bergman have you seen? Tarkovsky? Tati? Godard? Trauffaut? Lang? Antonioni?Look , bitch ass, we can drop names all day but what’s the point? You sound quite mad, holmes. But, riddle me this, do you genuinely believe a film as poorly constructed as The Dark Knight Rises deserves to be mentioned in the same breadth as any of the above mentioned masters’ masterpieces? Is this a stance you are willing to take and defend? I’ll defer to a man more qualified to speak on cinema than any one here, David Cronenberg, And I quote:

        “A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids,” Cronenberg asserted. “It’s adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, Dark Knight Rises is supreme cinema art, I don’t think they know what the f— they’re talking about.”

        There is no theme in the Dark Knight Rises ass hat. I admitted there’s one in Dark Knight but, FYI, they’re two different films. Also, Webster’s defines nihilism as : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.

        Batman’s one credo, as established by the previous two instalments of the very franchise we are debating, is that he doesn’t kill. In Rises he kills Talia and her henchman without so much as a mention of this contradiction. Therefore, Rises is a nihilistic film. Before, Batman believes life was worth saving, and killing was taking the easy way out. One of the central conflicts in Knight is Joker forces batman to make a choice between who lives and who dies, which shakes his faith in humanity only to have it ultimately validated in the ferry sequence. In Rises Batman kills without qualm. The ultimate message, going by the arch of the franchise, is Batman learns that it is all right to kill when he deems fit. Therefore, Rises is nihilistic. In begins and Knight, the preservation of human life is his ultimate value; in Rises, he plainly doesn’t give a fuck. The floors open to you Einstein.

        [drops mike and walks off stage]

      • Alan Burnett

        Drop the mike, GENIUS, but here is another Cronenberg quote from the same interview: “What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he’s shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That’s really tricky and difficult to do. I read about it in ‘American Cinematography Magazine,’ and technically, that’s all very interesting.”

        Here’s the thing: HE NEVER SAW the film. Actually his response to the film was hilarious: he implied he saw the film by whining about TDKR. In a later interview, he was called out on it, and he went into ULTRA-DEFENSIVE MODE: he blamed the pesky “journalist woman” for not quoting “themselves or the question that provoked the response” (she did wrote an article as a Q and A, so yeah she did), and then snarkily suggested that the questioner asked ‘By the way, superhero comic book movies have shown to rise to the highest level of cinematic art – would you be interested in doing one?’ Yeah, she didn’t do that either: she just said that some “fairly formidable directors” had made superhero films … which is true and asked whether he would be interested. Then, he unleashed a rant (and it is a rant) about a film HE HADN’T SEEN. So BRILLIANT CHOICE to pick a subject who HADN’T SEEN THE FILM IN QUESTION. Hey, I have an idea for a new movie review show: let’s have people so “qualified” to talk about cinema THAT THEY DON’T WATCH THE FILMS IN QUESTION.

        I actually do think there are themes in TDKR, but – boy – it would be a waste of time and energy to try and educate someone like you: “TDKR is terrible and awful and here’s some evidence: SOMEONE WHO HASN’T SEEN THE FILM”. In fact, the film that he actually hated was a film you actually liked TDK (” I had seen the one before this ['The Dark Knight'], not the new one”), so CONGRATULATIONS ON DISPROVING YOUR OWN POINT (that TDKR disgraces the franchise) …

      • Norman Emmeritt

        haha. You’re soooo mad bro. Hey, I got a little sprung now knowing how mad I got you. Pus, bonus right here, you created a straw man talking about Cronenberg and STILL you don’t defend mount an actual defense for Rises. “I could explain the themes to you but…i’m not going to.” LOL. That was your best?

      • Alan Burnett

        How does “TDKR didn’t completely crap on everything that came before it”? You not liking it isn’t an answer.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        Are you for real? honest? Are you for real? Listen, people have critiqued Rises ad nauseam for a year. There’s many plot holes, inconsistencies and poor decisions at the basic story level. These faults and the logic behind these finding these faults have been explicated many times over. It’s Rises defenders who are being obtuse. They put the onus on the critics. How about this: you know what the criticisms are, how about you negate them? Disprove them, please. The onus is on you. The burden of proof lies with those who contend its great cinema. The critics of Rises have made their case. Make yours please. And ‘I liked it’ isn’t a response.

      • Alan Burnett

        “People” like David Cronenberg? Well, if “people” like that (you know, making broad statements about films he doesn’t watch) have a problem with it, then I’m perfectly satisfied with my own take on the film. Again the nephew comparison holds: I really, really don’t care about people like that, and you. And no: the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with a person making an argument. You can’t just make an argument and then say, “I don’t need proof, you need to prove me wrong”. That’s about as stupid as quoting Cronenberg above on TDKR: i.e. embarrassingly so. You are so arrogant that you are willing to quote someone WHO HASN’T SEEN THE FUCKING FILM to prove your point. If you used the same critical thinking skills to read the Cronenberg article as you did to watch the film, then I really, really don’t care what about your perspective.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        You mad bro? Lulz ;). Why are you so angry? It’s only a children’s comic strip.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        so you have no logical defence of the stance you’ve taken? your desperate attempt to latch onto the quote I used in a feeble attempt to distract from my legitimate arguments is the weakest form of intellectual chicanery imaginable. Why not attack my use of nihilism? You harped on it until I provided my reasoning. Then you ONLY addressed the quote. Besides, Crononberg’s statement doesn’t contradict mine, which is that I like Dark Knight but at no point did I call it great. However, you believe Rises to be and at no point did you defend this stance. SIgh…

      • Alan Burnett

        *sighs* … here’s the thing: I actually don’t care what you think. The more you write, the less interesting you become. You wrote that a filmmaker who hadn’t seen the film didn’t like it, therefore it’s bad. You chose to “defer” (your word) to Cronenberg. Do you know what that means? You entrusted your opinion to his, and his opinion is based on SHIT. Therefore, your opinion is misinformed and worthless. If you wanted to talk EXCLUSIVELY about the film, then you shouldn’t have quoted someone who HADN’T SEEN THE FILM, I guess. Frankly, I don’t care about someone who can’t think critically for themselves and chooses to “defer” to people who hadn’t seen the film in question. I care as much about your opinion as I do William Shakespeare’s perspective on Global Warming or an ant’s take on ‘Zero Dark Thirty’. Unless you’ve got a time-machine that can travel to yesterday when I might have given a shit about what you have to say, then I. DON’T. CARE. WHAT. YOU. ‘THINK’. Sheesh …

      • Norman Emmeritt

        Alan, you still can’t argue in favour of the film? Harp on the quote more, which I used to bolster my point that these films (comic book) aren’t “serious art” and it holds as Cronenberg was talking specifically about the Nolan batman films, which is what we are debating. It’s plain that you are dodging and ducking because you have no other recourse and have been soundly beaten. You’ve turned this into a debate about the quote while desperately avoiding defending the merits of the film in question. Sigh. I win again. Next challenger please.

      • Alan Burnett

        I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. Taking on some of your *cough* logic would be like writing back to that “Nolan Sucks Lol” troll: it would be a waste of both of our time. In fact, that guy seems to have more varied and interesting opinions than you: THAT’S HOW MUCH I RESPECT YOU. Either get a time machine to go back to a time in which I might have respected you or LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. I would have gladly debated you, but you proved that you are unworthy of respect or debate: I cannot debate someone that I don’t respect: that’s a quirk of mine, but I just cannot be bothered deal with someone like you. You’ve done nothing to show me that I should respect: in fact, quite the opposite. Leave me alone now.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        If you’re scared, just admit it. You took an easy out by latching onto a quote and obstinately refusing to engage in a debate. You’re essentially pulling the internet equivalent of hiding behind your mother’s skirt because you’re too afraid to engage as you have realized you have lost and have no logical defence. I’m essentially kicking you while your down at this point but you’re acting like the Black Knight from Holy Grail: soundly beaten yet still posturing. And if you didn’t care you wouldn’t respond. Wow! Nobody can really be this immature and stupid? Do you think you’ve fooled anyone with your ‘he quoted Cronenberg so I’m completely out of this conversation’. You’re in grade ten? Nine? Sigh. Can someone with integrity and a brain please take up the Nolan defence? This guy is clearly way, way out of his depth.

      • Alan Burnett

        Whaaaaaa. WHAAAAAAA!!! Mommy these bad mens is bullying me. WHAAAAA!!!! They have different opinions than I do and they supported their opinions with logic. NOW they want me to WHAAAAAA!! Agaa boo ba. I shouldn’t have to defend my viewpoint with logic. WHAAAAA!!!!!!!

      • Alan Burnett

        The “Whaaaaaa” Alan isn’t me but he’s the kind of response you deserve. Not scared, just do not respect you. I honestly cannot fathom how someone can try to engage another person who DOESN’T RESPECT THEM. I don’t respect you, I don’t respect someone who can quote a whole passage without critically analyzing the interview in question, I just don’t care about anything you have to say. The “whaaaaaa” guy is more interesting and shows better analytical skills than you do.

      • Norman Emmeritt

        It’s been the same guy the whole time. Fuck you’re a retard. A full on retard. If I had your respect I’d shoot myself in the fucking head. You have no critical faculties whatsoever and you tried to troll but instead were trolled yourself. You’re a failure as a person and a cinephile. I bet your ma and your girlfriend get fucked by random hobos while you watch and cry salty tears.

        P.S. the waa guy, Nolan troll and Emmeritt has been one person the whole time, me, and if you can’t see that than you’re just an idiot. Fuck me, I’ve seen many a message board in my time, came across some pig-fuck ignorant sacks of horse-shit and none have come even close to being quite as bone stupid, cousin-fucking retarded as your dumb country-fried faux intellectual ass. I award you know points and may god have mercy on your soul.

        FUCK are you ever fucking stupid. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. ;) Even fucking Griz’s piss joke is more insightful than your ignorant stupid ass.

        Has anyone ever exposed themselves as more of an idiot in the history of the net? I think not.

      • Alan Burnett

        You have multiple personalities ON THE ONE SITE and you reply TO YOURSELF? Jesus, I can’t even think of someone who could even think like that because that sounds pretty fucking insane to me. I guess wanting someone to urinate in your mouth wasn’t a joke, huh? Get some help.

      • Lulz I.B. Haven

        What you and the piss joke guy don’t seem to get is this is all a joke to me. What keeps me going is getting a reaction from you sorry twats. My ego-integrity is fully maintained throughout because I have a life outside the internet. You take this all very seriously, and you care, in the EXTREME, as evidenced by your response whereas I don’t give a fuck. Because I use a different name when I post you think I have multiple personalities? I’m able to change usernames simply to piss you off, and it’s working I might add, with the ultimate goal being entertaining myself. You see I can post under different usernames and still know who I am fully because it’s not like it’s requiring me to change my social security number or legal name every time. It’s a joke guy. It’s the internet. Nothing’s accountable. What I’m doing is fully getting to you, easily I might add, and the end result for me is many laughs. I love to get nerds stewing and steaming over trivial shit that is inconsequential because you’re nerds and your life revolves around the intellectual validation of others. Disagree? Look at this thread. You’re positively incensed, livid and angry over nothing. People didn’t like your batman movie? Boo fucking hoo my man. I’ve got you pissed off and that’s all I need to get me a chuckle over how stupid you are. I’m doing this shit for laughs. You’re a goldmine because I’ve trolled many a stupid idiot in my day but never have I come across someone quite as ignorant and dim as you. It’s really quite remarkable.

      • Alan Burnett

        Yeah, you’ve got a life, which is WHY YOU HAVE SEVERAL NAMES YOU TRY TO MAINTAIN. If you had a life, you wouldn’t spend all this time trying to respond to me. But, sure, the guy who has written more posts than ANYONE ELSE on this article has a “life”. If you weren’t a “nerd”, you wouldn’t spend half the time you do on this nerd site. The fact that you think you’re better than ANYONE ELSE is what’s funny (and the fact that – when you quoted someone FOR REAL and sincerely – you quoted someone who didn’t even see the film, and now you’re just devoling into post-modern bullshit persona to overcompensate for your lack of critical thinking). Yeah, you’re ABOVE everything. I am not angry, I just kinda feel sorry that one of the few times you tried to sincerely post an opinion you fell on your ass *sighs in embarrassment for you* …

      • LULZ I. B. HAVEN

        Sigh. The quote from Cronenberg was intended to piss you off dipshit. Look at how angry you got. Sigh. You started screaming in all caps, lividly, insanely angry. It produced the precise effect I wanted it to. I knew it to be a contentious quote he later refuted, as I have access to the internet. Now, how stupid do you feel? Knowing I played you like a fiddle. I can push your buttons. I own you. Lulz ;) None of my above posts were sincere. HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAHHAHAAHA. You’ve been thoroughly and utterly owned. The additional benefit of my chosen quote, one that I couldn’t foresee, is that you cannot logically defend The Dark Knight Rises and had to resort to a strawman. That was just a the delicious cherry ontop.

      • Alan Burnett

        You have owned me. And the worse part is you will continue to own me everytime I post. I’m lashing out
        because my father molested me as a child and I have yet to come to terms
        with it. Also, my mother is a nickel prostitute who gives gummers to
        hobos. I have to deal with that too.

      • Alan Burnett

        “The quote from Cronenberg was intended to piss you off dipshit.” Now THAT is funny. It’s easy to resort to the ironic hipster douchebag position when you can’t even write an example that is seriously flawed. I guess every-time you fail at constructing an argument you resort to another persona. I don’t care what you think because you failed to gather another person’s respect on the basis of your argument and the fact that you so desperately make me want to feel something makes me feel sorry for you, especially considering you seem to find child molestation a source of humor. I’m just bored and a little creeped out.

      • Lulz at Alan Burnett

        Hahaha. Will you ever stop responding? I’ve literally trolled dozens of boards and I’ve never seen this level of idiocy before, even in Youtube comments. Fuck me, you’re a wealth of hilarity. When I googled the Cronenberg quote, the first search results (google this yourself if you think I’m lying) was him saying “I didn’t see Rises” (not that it would matter because it’s objectively substancially worse than Knight) but I thought to myself “Well, this quote pisses off comicbook nerds so I’m going to say ‘I’ll defer to Cronenberg’, which will rile him up something bad’ and Lo, did it ever fucking work. What I couldn’t foresee is that I schooled you so badly that’d you take it as an out to create a strawman so you’d, at ANY cost, never have to logically defend Rises. All you did, through all of your prevarication and dodging, was prove Rises is far worse than it’s staunchest critics contend. You may now try to justify an indefensible position but know you’re just making me lulz. You should be a teaparty representative you’re so good a ducking the real issue. You are by far the easiest person to troll on the internet. You are that stupid. Please respond. The comedy doesnt stop with you. And by admitting my molestation joke got to you, you’re admitting your father touched you inappropriately, which makes him as much of a piece of shite as you.

      • Lulz @ Alan Burnett

        P.S. and Now that i know your real name Alan Burnett, I’m going to get ya. I’ve found you on face book. Where you live. Who you are. Wake up with night terrors and know it’s me you’re afraid of. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

      • Lulz @ Alan Burnett

        P. P. S “You can’t even write an example that is seriously flawed”. I know I can’t because my shit is airtight. LOL. Fuck you’re the dumbest piece of shit on the internet. If you understood English you’d know that sentence means that I’m incapable of writing an example that is seriously flawed. Fuck, you’re easy to school. Learn the language dipshit. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH. You piece of shite.

      • Alan Burnett

        Now you are telling me the origin story of your moronic Cronenberg quotation? Maybe you should worry about being discerning in the future about what you quote and stop worrying about someone who doesn’t respect you.

      • Alan Burnett is Dead meats

        God, you’ve been played so well. Fuck me. What.A.FUCKING. LOSER. Go back to grammer school Mr. Alan Burnett. LEARN ENGLISH.

      • Alan Burnett

        “What.A.FUCKING. LOSER. Go back to grammer school”

        Sure, OTHER PEOPLE need to go back to “grammer school”, which is why you can’t even spell grammar school properly. You can’t even troll properly.

      • Mackenzie Fraser

        There are a bunch of things that bother me about TDKR, but I’ll try and stick to just the things that contradict or undo what has come before.

        1. Where it begins – At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman has taken the blame for Harvey Dent. It is at least implied that part of the reason he takes this on is because the bad guys aren’t afraid of him anymore so it is becoming harder to get his Batman-ing done. By appearing to have killed, he once again gains his power and his scariness in the eyes of criminals.

        The idea of a continued career is also set up in his exchange with the Joker in which the Joker talks about an endless cycle with Batman not killing him due to a moral code and the Joker just finding him too fascinating.

        Of course, in TDKR both of these are ignored and it’s revealed that Batman retired the night of Dent’s death. This contradicts both of these previously established ideas and reeks of Nolan making sure that there is no way that WB can ask him to come back and make more Batman films that covered time in between the last two movies as he clearly no longer has any interest in the series; it feels like a move to serve Nolan and not the character.

        2 – Anyone can be Batman – Batman says this many times in The Dark Knight Rises yet in The Dark Knight, people other than Bruce trying to be Batman was one of the reasons that Batman took the blame for Dent’s murder was so that people would STOP copying him. Maybe he should have said – anyone can be Batman as long as they have millions of dollars in equipment, training and my blessing.

        3 – Batman as a symbol – At the end of the TDKR Batman is seen as a positive symbol that people can aspire to. In TDK it was established that Gotham needs a hero who works within the system to idolize as Batman wasn’t actually what people should want to be. You could argue that the system had totally broken down, so there was no longer a system to work within and therefore Batman was needed, but it is still a much less interesting idea.

        4 – The Gray Zone – The TDK ended with the interesting and topical idea that sometimes the immoral act (lying, etc.) is actually the right choice for the greater good. TDKR undoes this and basically says “Nope! Should of told the truth!” A much less interesting idea once again.

        5. The nobility of self sacrifice – Again, this idea is set up in the first two films. In Batman Begins, Bruce pretends to be a drunken jerk as Wayne and delays happiness with Rachel so that Batman can do what is necessary and in The Dark Knight, after losing Rachel, he gives up the chance of ever even being view as a hero and decides to appear to be a criminal and to be pursued even though he’s done nothing wrong (all of this on top of, of course, risking his life time and again). The Dark Knight Rises sets up this idea with this exchange between Catwoman and Batman:

        CATWOMAN

        You’ve given them everything.

        BATMAN

        Not yet.

        But it doesn’t follow through on the idea, or at least does so in a muddled way. If Batman had died, then this theme would have been fulfilled. The idea would have been taken to its logical conclusion. However, with Batman surviving the filmmakers seem to be saying “give all you can for a while and then go bone Anne Hathaway in Europe.” This is not to say that Batman had to die, but the way he survived seems off. If he had lived and then was directly involved in the training of Blake as the next Batman like in The Dark Knight Returns (which is clearly a huge influence on Nolan’s third film) or Batman Beyond, then this would have at least made more sense thematically – Batman gives all he can physically, but still continues the fight.

        6. Fear – In Batman Begins, Bruce must overcome his fears in order to achieve his goals (an idea beaten into the audience’s head over and over again through clunky on-the-nose expositional dialogue). In The Dark Knight Rises, he must embrace fear in order to live again. It’s not a bad idea, but the way it plays out kind of destroys everything I talked about in point 5 and it just shows how hard the movie is working to undo everything that the previous films have set up. It’s the inclusion of this theme that basically makes it feel as if Nolan and company are purposely giving a “screw you” to anyone who liked ANY of the ideas or themes set up in the previous films.

        Well, I could say more, but I’ve already gone on too long. I hope that makes clear what I was trying to say.

      • Alan Burnett

        Oh for the love of God … so fucking what? Things change, ideas DEVELOP; it isn’t a betrayal to suggest that deception is WRONG; in fact in most stories, deception is revealed.

        1. No, it’s there to give THE SACRIFICE SOME WEIGHT. You are SIMPLY TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS when you are giving people motives when you have NO IDEA. It’s to give the character’s sacrifice some weight: if the character was just fighting during that time, the sacrifice wouldn’t mean a heck of a lot, would it?

        3. ” In TDK it was established that Gotham needs a hero who works within the system to idolize as Batman wasn’t actually what people should want to be.” Like Harvey Dent, who became a killer? Like Gordon, who was rendered impotent towards the end? Which hero are you referring to? This is what Bruce says EARLY ON, but everything in his life contradicts this.

        4. EVERY SINGLE FILM IN THE FRANCHISE HAS SET UP THE IDEA THAT A QUICK FIX ISN’T THE ANSWER. Seriously, both the earlier ones are structured to give us that answer: in BB, Bruce believes that fear and aggression by itself can work to undo the damage done by the criminals, which works with Falcone. However, he gets his ASS HANDED TO HIM by Scarecrow trying to pull off the same trick and he can only defeat Ra’s by trying something different and fighting IN THE LIGHT. In TDK, Bruce arrogantly assumes he can control Gotham, which is violently undone by the crimes of The Joker. Over and over again, we are told that Bruce is arrogant and suffers from hubris and it is only through his change that he develops into a better person. Change and growth aren’t BETRAYAL.

        5. Batman gave everything; Bruce didn’t. Bruce isn’t necessarily Batman, you may disagree with that interpretation, but that is what the film was about.

        6. Again, there is NOTHING WRONG with suggesting that a previous idea is naïve. It’s isn’t a BETRAYAL. In TDK, Bruce repeats his former mentor’s comment “criminals aren’t complicated”, an argument which is proved to be FUCKING WRONG in the case of The Joker. Was that a BETRAYAL of BB? No, it was a case of a character growing and developing. And let’s not forget that these thoughts were actually taught BY RA’S HIMSELF. He wanted mercenaries who could kill without question, not better, more morally intelligent people. It makes sense that he would build them for a purpose to fight and kill. So it’s not a BETRAYAL to suggest that maybe that is inadequate.
        Please don’t reply back to me. *sighs* I don’t actually care what you think anymore and it seems as if trying to educate you was a waste of my time.

      • Mackenzie Fraser

        Open dialogue and an exchange of ideas is a better way to “educate” than swearing and shutting people down. You’re a troll and I will be glad to never speak to you again. I regret trying to be civil with you.

      • Alan Burnett

        I regret trying to engage someone that simply didn’t want to learn. We all make mistakes.

      • Alan Burnett

        WHAAAAA!!!! WHAAAA!!!!! I’m taking my ball and going home. WHAAAAA!!!! They tried to make me defend my positions. They should take what I say as Gospel and just bow to me. WHAAAA!!!!!! (Shits pants)

      • Alan Burnett

        “They tried to make me defend my positions.” Err, it was the opposite around: I asked them to defend THEIR POSITIONS, but, you know, GREAT READING SKILLS!

      • Norman Emmeritt

        So angry! Lulz. Just lulz.

      • Alan Burnett

        I apologize if I’ve offended anyone on these boards. I’m lashing out because my father molested me as a child and I have yet to come to terms with it. Also, my mother is a nickel prostitute who gives gummers to hobos. I have to deal with that too.

      • GrimReaper07

        Nolan is a fantastic director. That said, Man of Steel is one of the most disappointing movies I’ve ever seen in the cinema. Zack Snyder doing a poor imitation of Nolan and turning into Michael Bay for the final hour and a half.

        Everything about this movie was a mess. It’s not the actors’ fault (except maybe Cavill, who was just plain dull), but the script is so terrible and the character’s so underwritten that it’s embarrassing. There’s also about 30 min too many of overdone action in the movie.

      • Mackenzie Fraser

        The script was terrible. It got the Superman mythos correct, but failed to actually capture the characters or really develop them at all. The script has a bad habit of throwing characters into big action scenes before we even really know who they are. Jor-El is flying on space dragons and stealing magic space skulls before we really know who he is and Kal-El is saving people from an exploding oil rig before we know anything about him. The basis of all drama is empathy. If we don’t understand who the character is as a person, where they are coming from and what their motives are, we just don’t give a shit.

        Take a look at Star Wars (a film that no one would accuse of having deep characterization or being anything other than blockbuster style cinema). We get the scene of Luke sitting at the dinner table talking to his Aunt and Uncle about wanting to leave and we get Han Solo’s confrontation with Greedo. Neither of these scenes add to the plot, but instead allow us to get to know the characters that we are going to spend the next two hours with. Man of Steel never does this or it does it once we are in an action scene and we should already be caring. The audience needs to see Jor-El, Zod and the council debating the possible fates of Krypton BEFORE they are engaged in a battle about it. We need to see Clark’s lessons from his father BEFORE we see him wandering around conflicted and saving people on the sly.

        This doesn’t even touch on the minor characters such as Perry White that we are basically supposed to care about simply because we know them from previous iterations of the series (a strange choice for a film that is supposedly telling the story like it’s never been done before).

      • Joe

        Ordinarily I’d agree with your analysis but now having seen it for the second time I’d take the opposite stance. To incorporate most of your viewpoints would mean an overblown running time and less dedication to big action pieces. While I’m wary of this – see any Michael Bay flick – the action in MoS was very well done.

        Could they have done more for characterization? Yes. Could they have built more empathy for characters so that we ‘care’ for them? Yes.

        However Snyder did well with the key priorities of the film – a revised Krypton backstory, power matched super villains (I empathized with Zod), stunning visuals, scale of destruction befitting a Superman smackdown. All other elements were expedient to these priorities within the runtime.

        Also not forgetting that Snyder had the Routh/Singer Superman as an albatross which had its own major shortcomings. Hence all things considered, he did a good job.

    • nom79

      I’m not sure what’s the sarcasm for. If you were introduced to these new god-like powers and you had people in danger in all angles you can imagine while there are 3 powerful beings from your planet after you and attacking the planet you’ve lived on since you were a baby, wouldn’t you feel a little overwhelmed therefore not knowing exactly what to do? I mean he’s fast but not that fast to be able to fight and save people which he did in a few scenes if you did see the same movie I saw. People are criticizing how he wasn’t the boy scout here we all know from ages back, but what they showed this time around was a mature but yet confused person trying to figure out who he is while taking on all these challenges and obstacles altogether.

      If you have Supermans powers and a criminal throws someone off a rooftop while having another person at gunpoint with the trigger pressed mid-way, who are you going to save? Yea overwhelming right? And that’s just 2 people I’m using as an example. So shet the eff up and stop analyzing this fucking movie so much!

      • Smash-It Sid

        You’re right. That would be a tough decision. But I certainly wouldn’t punch the bad guy through half a dozen residential buildings where people might still be. So shet the eff up and stop analyzing this fucking movie so much!

      • Spider Jerusalem

        Just thought I’d point this out…

        You’re telling others to stop analyzing the movie after making comments like this, “But I certainly wouldn’t punch the bad guy through half a dozen residential buildings where people might still be.”

        Hilarious. “Don’t analyze the movie! OMG SUPERMAN WOULDN’T THROW SOMEONE THROUGH A BUILDING EVEN THOUGH HE’S DONE THAT IN EVERY FUCKING BRUCE TIMM CARTOON, OR SUPES COMIC BOOK, but FUCK I need something to bitch about!”

        All of these people bitching about how Superman doesn’t kill, when he has killed who knows how many people in the comics. All of these people bitching about the property damage, when he does even more damage in the Timm cartoons and the comic series. Hilarious.

      • Smash-It Sid

        You’re referring to the last line of my comment, right? Read the last line of the comment it was in response to :)

      • Smash-It Sid

        (Personally I love back and forth analysis of the movie)

      • Strong Enough

        stop actin like a bitch

      • Smash-It Sid

        Word homie uhn uhn

      • Strong Enough

        you people from the ghetto are all the same. homie? what a joke

      • Smash-It Sid

        sup

      • Strong Enough

        just your english language

      • Smash-It Sid

        wurd

      • Smash-It Sid

        wurd

      • Strong Enough

        hey education system has failed you!

      • Smash-It Sid

        aww shitt son

      • Strong Enough

        raise teh roof!

      • Smash-It Sid

        roll up anotha

      • Strong Enough

        just your english language

      • Smash-It Sid

        sup

      • Lulz I. B. Haven

        Strong Enough has exposed himself as a racist bitch. You and Paula Deen have weekend lunchs together? Shows the typical mentality/intelligence level of Nolanite.

      • Lulz I. B. Haven

        Also, Strong Enough: Do either you or Paula Deen know if there is a Chris Nolan impersonator that i can hire to come to my house, gather my family in the living room, drop his pants and start pissing in my open mouth while yelling “ACTION”? I’d really like that, in fact, i’m pretty sure that it’ll be the best birthday ever! I’m willing to pay $300 cash. $350 if he can make it taste like asparagus.

      • Lulz 2 B. Had

        Griz, this is the second time you’ve chose to use your piss joke in defence of racists. Can your parents even look at you with out vomiting in disgust? I doubt it.

      • Strong Enough

        you still mad Man of steel is gettin a sequel? HA! fuck off Nolan troll! we know its you!

      • Strong Enough

        you people from the ghetto are all the same. homie? what a joke

      • Smash-It Sid

        Word homie uhn uhn

      • Strong Enough

        stop actin like a bitch

  • nom79

    Faora dying in this treatment? I’m not with that lol. j/k

    Very sad to see after reading those bullet points that they had the ability to produce a perfect movie mixing in parts of they kept and what they didn’t. Not sure why they felt the need to have Superman fighting tentacles when they didn’t even establish the World Engine to begin with. A few more Easter eggs and even brief cameo appearances would’ve made this movie much more that the final product. They have to learn from their mistakes and made an excellent Man of Steel 2 film.

    • MIXTER

      But you may have missed the point of the World Engine, It sets up the next films, it created what will be known as Kryptonite!!! By terraforming Earth to become Krypton, the radiation from it hurt Superman (so many people appear to have missed this point) Personally i think thats a genius move by Goyer etc.., rather than Luthor finding meteorites.

      Not only that, but the mess that worls engine made is huge, and will have implications on Earth from collateral damage/maybe Lex pays the bill, whilst discovering the kryptonite?
      Also, the world engine was sent back to the Phantom zone, which could end up freeing other Kryptonian villains for sequels, ie doomsday/brainiac or Darkseid, take your pick. But that “World engine mumbo jumbo” that Adam Chitwood called it, is the most important thing that appeared in MOS.

      • 1micmcna1

        Not really. The movie science behind that was shady at best. It wasn’t creating Kryptonite at all. It was simply making the planet denser. If it were creating Kryptonite it would have to fundamentally change the make-up of the elements within the planet, something which they never specifically mention. But by making the core denser they were making the atmospheric pressure similar to that of Krypton. Sorry, but that theory doesn’t hold up. As for the Luthor thing, yeah they probably will do that, but I think they should save him for the Justice League and have the Legion of Doom come into play. A more suitable sotry would be Luthor finding remnants of one of the ships they had that was able to replicate the atmosphere, which then becomes the krypton you are talking about. As for the phantom zone thing. Darkseid or Doomsday should be saved for JL but I don’t really know the theory you’re talking about when you say to bring them out of the phantom zone?

      • Spider Jerusalem

        Actually, it was making Kryptonite. That’s what the shock waves bouncing between Zods ship and the World Engine were doing. That’s what the particulates were that were being shot into the atmosphere. In fact, that’s the entire point of the machine. It turns other planets into Krypton. And what is Kryptonite? It’s pieces of Krypton that make Superman sick because he’s acclimated to Earth’s environment rather than Kryptons. Not only is this plot point obvious, not only was it discussed several times by characters in the film who might as well have prefaced their comments with, “HINT HINT THIS IS HOW KRYPTONITE GETS INTO THE SERIES!” but Goyer even talked about this in an interview over at AICN.

      • MIXTER

        Spoken like a true poet! Completely correct!

      • nom79

        I have no quarrels with the World Engine. That was awesome and designed well. My point was the additional scene where Kal-El flies to destroy the World Engine and gets blocked off and distracted by the tentacles that came out. There was too much action going on already to include that. It became overwhelming at that point. Aside from that, it was a great idea!

      • MIXTER

        Ah I will have to see it again as i don’t remember that bit, i just remember him trying to destroy it but he got ill from its kryptonite radiation.

  • Oz

    Legitimate criticism exists about MOS. Incorporating small moments of Superman saving people would, I think, help formalize a MOS that everyone would approve of. Bringing Lex in the end would be odd. Don’t show his face, just refer to him. Like they did in Batman Begins for the Joker.

    Would have loved to see Zod more fleshed out. I like the origin story as is. Jor-El is a scientist, not a military man.

    Faora should not be a primary villian, but I wish her relationship and her evilness, was more fleshed out between Zod.

    I didn’t like how most of Zod’s army died in the Phantom. Superman could have fought them.

    4/5 movie still. Could of been a lot worse.

    • Spider Jerusalem

      I’m going to bet they had Superman rescuing people and most likely cut those sequences due to time. I’d be interested to see Snyder’s director cut. He always cuts out a lot of good shit to save time for people whose butts get numb when they’re challenged by entertainment that doesn’t involve explosions and violence.

      • MIXTER

        Again, spot on! I’m hoping to see a few more shots of crowds around the world looking in awe at Supermans first appearance to the world. I was hoping for more emotional impact there on his first appearance. Like in Independance day when the spaceships first appear, it shoulda been a spill your milk moment. Hope theres a big extended cut, like Watchmen.

      • MIXTER

        Again, spot on! I’m hoping to see a few more shots of crowds around the world looking in awe at Supermans first appearance to the world. I was hoping for more emotional impact there on his first appearance. Like in Independance day when the spaceships first appear, it shoulda been a spill your milk moment. Hope theres a big extended cut, like Watchmen.

    • Jamie Wall

      In the Smallville fight he does help people and tell them to get inside and stuff. There wasn’t much ‘saving’ he could do other than that chopper pilot. When fighting Zod they were going to fast for him to stop and catch people falling from windows unless they happened to be close to him. The best method of saving people would be to stop Zod/Faora, which he does. He tackles Faora twice seconds away from a murder. ‘For every human you save, we will kill a million more’.

  • axalon

    Very interesting. I feel like there are a couple nice things in this that could have been used in the final movie.

  • MCP

    Meh, I’m happy with the final product. Pretty sure there was a very similar story line in a Smallville episode.

    • Murdoch

      The whole thing screamed smallville for me, to be honest. VERY happy they didn’t give us “Smallville: the movie” after 10 seasons of utter disappointment.

    • Murdoch

      The whole thing screamed smallville for me, to be honest. VERY happy they didn’t give us “Smallville: the movie” after 10 seasons of utter disappointment.

      • MCP

        Yea true on the Smallville movie aspect, though I did enjoy a season or 2 of Smallville, mostly the last couple of seasons…

    • MIXTER

      I also like the final version best, seemed more creative. The script above seems a bit TOO familiar, like we seen it all before. Kinda a Superman by the numbers. It does have a few great moments I’d have kept though.

      • MCP

        Ya right, him shaving with a mirror would of been great. Plus, Faora dieing by Zod’s hands would of sucked. She’s damn hot in this movie!!

      • MCP

        Ya right, him shaving with a mirror would of been great. Plus, Faora dieing by Zod’s hands would of sucked. She’s damn hot in this movie!!

  • Howie

    The treatment doesn’t gives the answers that the film zack snyder provides. Why does superman save people? Why does superman never kill anybody? The movie provides the answers to those questions. Because superman didn’t save his father is why he cares to save humans. Because the only one superman’s ever killed eradicated his whole race, which is why he never kills anyone. Side note: Zod killed supeman’s father this justifies Zod’s demise.
    Lois finding out Clark’s identity makes her what she is a smart investigative reporter. But, Amy Adams is a miscast, delivery of exposition’s horrible and she can’t even relay, “tinkle.” Lois not interacting with superman or the government should’ve been kept from the treatment, only because in the sequel what will stop the government from being the first to surveill her and see clark right there working at her place of work.
    The movie’s brilliant zack did a great job, especially with all the easter eggs, brainiac’s symbol flash, hence the tentacles, a connection to brainiac. Not having the lame gotham rail was a good move. Instead hinting at aquaman(whales, “trident”), cyborg(kansas football), Lobo, captain Ferris, wonder woman(clark’s reading plato), booster gold(blaze comics), and ofcourse all the Lexcorp & wayne enterprises. And don’t forget the prequel comic, Kara’s ship, and the Thanagars are alluded.
    The only way I could see them explain the collateral damage away is if in the sequel the fatalities miraculously are low and the reason being other supers where their saving lives while the destruction was happening. Which makes the movie even greater than the treatment because it opens those avenues for other heroes to be introduced.

    • 1micmcna1

      I disagree. The reason behind superman never killing is weak and frankly so is the why he rescues humans. I mean, legitmately the reason why he rescues humans (both in the comics and in the film/tv adaptations) is because he is one of us. Sure, he is an alien. But he is an alien raised by middletown americans in the heartland. Most of them believe in being good to others and treat each other with respect and don’t hurt someone for no reason. The way they had him in the film felt like he didn’t spend his entire thirty-three years on earth learning from his parents how to be a good person or that being a good and intelligent person wasn’t encoded in his DNA (even though he was naturally born but to pretty good parents). The reasons you give here are kinda flimsy in that it assumes that he would or wouldn’t do these things based off of something other than being raised well and just being a normal person. Hell, if you ask most people they would say that they would try to help someone in a crisis if they felt there was something they could do AND that they don’t just kill to be killing. In fact there are plenty who would never kill and are avidly against the death penalty, war, etc, simply because it’s wrong and they were raised to believe that. So it’s not a stretch for the audience to have those same thoughts about someone raised by us, looking like us and even having a similar emotional matrix like us.

      • Howie

        You’re compounding the motivation even more. I never said his upbringing wasn’t also the reason for his actions, and the scene with the priest supports that supposition. It’s just that those “flimsy” reasons help the global audience, who have no idea of middle america, to better understand superman’s character, and how it came to be the way we’ve all becomed acustomed to knowing it to be.

      • Howie

        You’re compounding the motivation even more. I never said his upbringing wasn’t also the reason for his actions, and the scene with the priest supports that supposition. It’s just that those “flimsy” reasons help the global audience, who have no idea of middle america, to better understand superman’s character, and how it came to be the way we’ve all becomed acustomed to knowing it to be.

  • mike_thoms

    There’s some good stuff in this treatment…the shaving I like, Clark as a freelancer I like, I wish General Lane would have been included as well as the Gotham reference. Jonathan’s death is also done a little better in the treatment. I feel like introducing those elements into the would have been interesting, but I still love the movie as it is. I’m curious why they took out the part about Superman trying to move the battle away from the city. Personally I’ve had enough of people whining about that aspect, because in Avengers there was MASSIVE DESTRUCTION with tons of people around. Most of the real horrible damage was done by Zod’s machine before Superman arrived.

  • Liderc

    Definitely some interesting stuff here, but I think you end up with the movie you end up with. Once you’ve been looking at footage for months, you try to put together the story that you want to tell and I’ll trust that they put together the best they could. It definitely wasn’t perfect, but I enjoyed myself, which isn’t something I can say for Iron Man 3.

  • 1micmcna1

    I may be in the minority here but I prefer the treatment far better than the actual film. The few things I would have changed about the treatment:

    still have Krypton play out the way it did with the exception of Faora escaping.

    still have Olson be a woman and not a man.

    don’t show luthor in the film.

    And still add the world engine.

    Everything else I would have kept. It plays well into the lure of Superman and doesn’t make it feel so Batman Begins-ish. And I would definitely have Lois Lane be who she was in the treatment and not the movie. I just hate how every hero (started by Spider-man) no longer has a secret identity. The whole thing with that was that you are supposed to do good regardless of whether you are going to get the credit for it or not. And the freelance writing thing is great in that treatment because in the movie the daily planet felt completely forced and out of place to me especially with the glasses because it’s like, Perry and Lois definitely know who you are, so what is the point in the glasses? And also, since it didn’t make it on screen, we don’t know how Lois would have come across to us so I don’t worry about that too much because we don’t know the dialogue and such. She could have come off just as tough or smart in this iteration. Really wish they would have gone with this one.

  • junierizzle

    Much, much better than the actual film. Keep it simple stupid. Still not liking so much time on Krypton. It’s time wasted only to establish Zod not really about Krypton or Supes origin in completed film as well.

    Say what you want about Superman Returns but they got one thing right. No origin, just start the movie. We all know who Superman is and where he comes from.

    • nom79

      how many times has it been said that Superman Returns is a somewhat sequel to the older version. It follows right after Superman II. No reason to have an origin in it. What was sooooo good about Superman Returns that makes Man of Steel bad in comparison? If you enjoy love stories, go watch The Notebook or Titanic and go cry tears. I’m all for what Man of Steel ended up being.

      • junierizzle

        I know that and that’s my point. They chose to do a quasi sequel instead of an origin story. And the scene where the bullet bounces of Superman’ s eye is more memorable than anything in Man of Steel for one.

      • Murdoch

        Well, then you must’ve felt pretty stupid about paying to see the movie, since they showed that bullet to the eye scene every 5min as part of tv ads.

      • junierizzle

        Nope. I rather enjoyed Superman Returns. It went for the vibe that was in the original movies which I love.

      • Joseph M

        One thing Returns captured was the magic of seeing him fly. MOS flying scenes were often (and obviously) CGI figures, and were always so rapidly cut you never got a chance to absorb it. And while Returns definitely plays more like a drama, it did at least rely on story rather than pandering to the ‘lotsa fights and carnage’ ADD generation.
        Going back to the Donner version (SPOILER in case you still haven’t saw it), a major flaw in MOS was his father’s death. Donner’s had a simple, but poignant scene where the dad drops from a heart attack. The lesson was to show Clark that powerful as he is, he can’t resurrect the dead. MOS – again for the crowd previously mentioned – has a big CGI hurricane and carnage scene to send pa Kent off. Completely missed the point of his death.
        And yes, MOS Kent should have taken the fight away from Metropolis (as seen in Superman 2). Still, good chance to have about 3 hours of buildings falling down/blowing-up.
        This sounds like i hated the film – I didn’t – but it definitely had many flaws, which some are completely ignoring. I don’t see it being better or worse than Sup1/2/Returns, I just see it as a new addition to an existing franchise. Keeping in mind, it’s not original – Donner was the guy that made the first serious attempt to film the story. His was the blueprint which others work from and variate.

      • junierizzle

        Well said.

      • junierizzle

        Well said.

      • Joseph M

        One thing Returns captured was the magic of seeing him fly. MOS flying scenes were often (and obviously) CGI figures, and were always so rapidly cut you never got a chance to absorb it. And while Returns definitely plays more like a drama, it did at least rely on story rather than pandering to the ‘lotsa fights and carnage’ ADD generation.
        Going back to the Donner version (SPOILER in case you still haven’t saw it), a major flaw in MOS was his father’s death. Donner’s had a simple, but poignant scene where the dad drops from a heart attack. The lesson was to show Clark that powerful as he is, he can’t resurrect the dead. MOS – again for the crowd previously mentioned – has a big CGI hurricane and carnage scene to send pa Kent off. Completely missed the point of his death.
        And yes, MOS Kent should have taken the fight away from Metropolis (as seen in Superman 2). Still, good chance to have about 3 hours of buildings falling down/blowing-up.
        This sounds like i hated the film – I didn’t – but it definitely had many flaws, which some are completely ignoring. I don’t see it being better or worse than Sup1/2/Returns, I just see it as a new addition to an existing franchise. Keeping in mind, it’s not original – Donner was the guy that made the first serious attempt to film the story. His was the blueprint which others work from and variate.

      • junierizzle

        Nope. I rather enjoyed Superman Returns. It went for the vibe that was in the original movies which I love.

    • Spider Jerusalem

      Speak for yourself. Who is this Superman of which you speak? And why did he return?

    • MIXTER

      I liked the color pallet and the music better in Superman Returns and a bit more emotional feel good at its core, and subtle humour, but thats where it ends! MOS made up for those absent elements with a better story, better FX and better ideas/costumes/vision and brains and action. And a sequel, i’m sure may inject those missing elemts back in, so MOS-2 could still be even better. I hope to see more krypton background too as that world was great.

      • junierizzle

        I agree with the action part. MOS has a better villain that Superman can actually fight. In Bryan Singer’s defense he said his sequel was going to be heavy on action.

      • Pk

        Totally agree with you about superman returns. Absolutely loved that movie. I liked the fact that singer decided to give it a serious art house feel to it. Also John ottomans beautifully touching score complimented the film as well as Kevin spaces portrayal of lex Luthor. He’s the best onscreen Luthor. Period.

      • junierizzle

        I agree with the action part. MOS has a better villain that Superman can actually fight. In Bryan Singer’s defense he said his sequel was going to be heavy on action.

    • MIXTER

      I liked the color pallet and the music better in Superman Returns and a bit more emotional feel good at its core, and subtle humour, but thats where it ends! MOS made up for those absent elements with a better story, better FX and better ideas/costumes/vision and brains and action. And a sequel, i’m sure may inject those missing elemts back in, so MOS-2 could still be even better. I hope to see more krypton background too as that world was great.

  • NotReal

    Fortunately or unfortunately, this treatment is actually fan fiction from over a year ago.

    Everything in the article was written on December 2011 at Comicbookmovie.com by a poster named Vadakin: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MadOtakuFanThing/news/?a=50585

    This is further confirmed by the poster in the comment section at Comicbookmovie.com’s reposting: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=82056

    “This is fake. I know because I wrote it as a fake treatment over a year ago.”

  • Nathaniel Haywood

    If this is real and not a fake (like some are claiming) then it is WAY stronger than the final product. People who are slamming this treatment have to realize that this article is just highlighting the DIFFERENCES, not giving every single plot point there is. If these differences had been in the final product, I think it would’ve been a much stronger film and more true to Superman. The only parts I would get rid of would be the heat vision shaving (unnecessary) and the Faora wife element (Zod killing Faora out of jealousy is a little odd). But all the other differences basically sum up all the things that were wrong/missing from the actual film. Should’ve stuck to your guns, Goyer/Snyder.

  • RiddleThemThis

    I thought Superman used Gillette to shave?

  • Strong Enough

    people keep saying that zod and sups destroyed the city when the whole fuckin city was gone before they fought because of the world engine! don’t you remember that gravity blast that leveled the whole fuckin city? Nolan and Goyer made it so the city was destroyed and deserted BEFORE superman and zod can go at it!

    • Norman Emmeritt

      Face it your God, Chris Nolan, is a slap dash story teller who has never been concerned with making sure that his story structure is sound. He cares about intellectual posturing in Comic book movies to make them portentous because he knows nerds crave that validation and will pay money to have it. He’s a hack, a fraud, a liar and a scumbag. The sooner you come to terms with this the better your life will be.

      • Strong Enough

        like i give a shit about your opinion! ha! see you in the theaters for Interstellar! lmao!

    • Norman Emmeritt

      Face it your God, Chris Nolan, is a slap dash story teller who has never been concerned with making sure that his story structure is sound. He cares about intellectual posturing in Comic book movies to make them portentous because he knows nerds crave that validation and will pay money to have it. He’s a hack, a fraud, a liar and a scumbag. The sooner you come to terms with this the better your life will be.

    • Joseph M

      So why were there so many buildings still standing during the fight? And don’t forget Snyder, him being the director and all.

      • Strong Enough

        If you saw a huge ass alien machine leveling your city wouldn’t you high tail it the fuck outta there? any building still standing were deserted a LONG time ago. don’t you remember all those people running in the streets??

      • Joseph M

        Keeping in mind Nolan’s love of realism in superhero films, I doubt 5 million people managed to get out of a city under attack in under an hour.

      • Lex Walker

        It’s true, the system America built for just such an instance was our highway system. Have you seen how backed up traffic is when people are just trying to get to and home from work? Now imagine EVERYONE in the city trying to get out at once. Not happening. Realism is a double-edged sword.

      • Strong Enough

        Nolan isn’t directing the movie bitch! its Zack! can’t suspend your disbelief for a fuckin movie? i feel sorry for you!

      • Joseph M

        Keeping in mind Nolan’s love of realism in superhero films, I doubt 5 million people managed to get out of a city under attack in under an hour.

      • RiddleThemThis

        I don’t know how deserted those buildings really were, there seemed to be a family in the building where Zod and Superman had their final bout.

      • Strong Enough

        like i said. not all but some. but who gives a shit? this is nitpicking at its finest.

      • Strong Enough

        If you saw a huge ass alien machine leveling your city wouldn’t you high tail it the fuck outta there? any building still standing were deserted a LONG time ago. don’t you remember all those people running in the streets??

    • Joseph M

      So why were there so many buildings still standing during the fight? And don’t forget Snyder, him being the director and all.

  • Strong Enough

    people keep saying that zod and sups destroyed the city when the whole fuckin city was gone before they fought because of the world engine! don’t you remember that gravity blast that leveled the whole fuckin city? Nolan and Goyer made it so the city was destroyed and deserted BEFORE superman and zod can go at it!

  • Ricky Bobby

    Man of Steel was a crap movie but give us a Faora centric movie. She was the best part of the movie. Krypton looked very nice as well. All the alien part (Zod excluded) were really nicely done and design. The Earth stuff was embarrassingly bad with characters saying stupid stuff and acting completely out of what was happening around them.

    The loud music was just to cover the nothingness that was Man of Steel. Always annoying the living hell out of me when nothing exciting happening on screen. Without it though the movie would have been even harder to endure since the action was boring and done with little imagination.

    Kal-El’s and Lois Lane’s scenes were sometime cringe-worthy. Very very bad script, bad vision but very well done alien design for the kryptonians, especially the costumes and the masks. Wasted potential is the name of the movie. The sequel will be crap if they don’t escape the “Goyer trap”. They need to give the job to someone who has a brain or an understanding of the character and how human communicate with each other.

    I don’t dislike Zack Snyder, I liked 300, Watchmen and Guardians of Ga’Hoole but he isn’t on top of things and shouldn’t have the chance to crap over a Superman movie ever again. Shaky cam when people stay in chairs ? Really ? There are better directors out there that can do things more interesting and less stupid.

  • Ricky Bobby

    Man of Steel was a crap movie but give us a Faora centric movie. She was the best part of the movie. Krypton looked very nice as well. All the alien part (Zod excluded) were really nicely done and design. The Earth stuff was embarrassingly bad with characters saying stupid stuff and acting completely out of what was happening around them.

    The loud music was just to cover the nothingness that was Man of Steel. Always annoying the living hell out of me when nothing exciting happening on screen. Without it though the movie would have been even harder to endure since the action was boring and done with little imagination.

    Kal-El’s and Lois Lane’s scenes were sometime cringe-worthy. Very very bad script, bad vision but very well done alien design for the kryptonians, especially the costumes and the masks. Wasted potential is the name of the movie. The sequel will be crap if they don’t escape the “Goyer trap”. They need to give the job to someone who has a brain or an understanding of the character and how human communicate with each other.

    I don’t dislike Zack Snyder, I liked 300, Watchmen and Guardians of Ga’Hoole but he isn’t on top of things and shouldn’t have the chance to crap over a Superman movie ever again. Shaky cam when people stay in chairs ? Really ? There are better directors out there that can do things more interesting and less stupid.

  • Jared Baxter
    • Ozweego

      Fail Collider, Epic Fail!

      Thanks for the link Jared

    • Ozweego

      Fail Collider, Epic Fail!

      Thanks for the link Jared

    • Vadakin

      Man, you’re no fun. :P

  • Jared Baxter
  • KryptonianKnight

    The movie that came out is much better then this scrap. The only thing I liked better about the treatment was that Clark was a freelance reporter which makes for an easy transition.

    I don’t recall people popping blood vessels about collateral damage in The Avengers which was far worse then MOS. There is a lot of hypocrisy about this subject, sorry but Superman can’t save everybody and I don’t remember seeing innocent bi-standards being killed left and right in the final showdown either. Watch the movie again and you will see by the time Zod and Superman are going at it you see Lois, Perry and the two reporters with about a dozen people at the end when Zod is killed. This subject is getting way overblown! Clowns need to chillax!

    • Joseph M

      Avengers, as it was a film about superheroes, didn’t take itself quite as seriously as MOS. That alone improves its stature. And the Avengers had to stay in the city as it was the focus of the attack. Zod wanted Superman, he could have been drawn away somewhre les populated (Superman 2). Filmmakers who produce serious films about adult issues must giggle at the pretension Nolan places on his comic book reboots. There’s always been big money in angst-ridden teenagers.

      • KryptonianKnight

        Now why would I want to see Zod and Superman duke it out on the moon or the desert away from everybody? Where is the attraction there? Why would that be cool to watch. You see when I watch a comic book movie I know it’s fiction. I know it’s special effects and cities and people aren’t being destroyed so I don’t take it seriously at all. I watch it for the spectacle. I already know who Superman is and what he represents. What I find funny is how pretentious opinions of Nolan are from people who don’t have an ounce of the accomplishments or success he has contributed to film industry. Most filmmakers can only dream of the power, success and talent Nolan has produced and created. There has always been big money for filmmakers that motivate people to care about their vision.

      • Joseph M

        Absolutely. As long as we’re clear that the story didn’t stick with the character’s long established traits, and that Nolan’s realism bullshit went right out the window. As for the passive aggressive attack on people (me) with opinions – well if my money’s contributing to his next villa, I get the right of opinion. That’s generally the way it works – we pay to see the film, we then get to talk about it, good or bad. Final point is that yes, many filmmakers would like Nolan’s clout and bank balance, but – thank Jeebus – not all want to make films about comic book heroes, regardless of the guaranteed box office. That would get kinda boring, wouldn’t it? Unless your interest in film resides purely in escapist superheroes, of course.

      • Kryptonian Knight

        “Filmmakers who produce serious films about adult issues must giggle at the pretension Nolan places on his comic book reboots” By definition is passive aggressive pal and pretentious on your part. I like the irony that you like to give it but not take it but then again the moment someone spews out “Nolan’s realism bullshit” Everybody can recognize the lack of objectivity your opinion holds and the Nolan hate factor that is prevalent because of his success critically and financially. If you don’t like Nolan then just say it and keep it pithy instead of trying to sound sophisticated when you don’t. And your obnoxious comment about “Serious films about adult issues” is laughable for two reasons. First it’s called showbiz for a reason. It’s a business and if you haven’t figured it out yet, business is about money, especially in Hollywood. Take a look at the top 25 money making movies of all time and see how many of them were about entertainment Vs. Adult issues by “SERIOUS FILMMAKERS”. You make a living to make money and so do they and the reason some are more successful then most is because they know how to do both like Nolan does. Movies such as Insomnia, Memento, Inception and The Dark Knight Trilogy show that he is not a one trick pony or one dimensional filmmaker, like say Woody Allen (Who is a fine filmmaker IMO). Nolan has received critical acclaim in dramas, Science fiction and thrillers alike. Second There are more flops and movies gone bad in the comic book realm then most mediums (I.E Fantastic Four or the Schumachers Batman abominations to name a few). To assert that just because a movie and characters are based off a comic is easy to film or that they will provide “Guaranteed box office” as you so foolishly stated above, is ignorance of the highest order. There have been plenty of comic movie failures but thanks to The Dark Knight that has changed the genre dramatically. If you want to succeed in this genre of film now you have to be just as talented or more so, then dramas, comedies, documentaries etc.. BTW I’m never bored by great film making regardless of genre. I’m more interested in the quality of the final product within the films context since that’s what I am paying for. So keep talking since that is you right but accept the consequences of your opinion especially when it is so uninformed, inaccurate and bias.

    • Joseph M

      Avengers, as it was a film about superheroes, didn’t take itself quite as seriously as MOS. That alone improves its stature. And the Avengers had to stay in the city as it was the focus of the attack. Zod wanted Superman, he could have been drawn away somewhre les populated (Superman 2). Filmmakers who produce serious films about adult issues must giggle at the pretension Nolan places on his comic book reboots. There’s always been big money in angst-ridden teenagers.

    • blackbear

      I’m not in this DC/MARVEL war shit, but in the avengers, you actually see them pretend to at least give a shit about civilians by giving orders to policemen to protect them, and at the end, you see people commemorate the victims, in MOS there is not even something as simple as that.

      • KryptonianKnight

        There wasn’t any policemen around for Superman to give orders to.
        almost everybody had already been evacuated by the time Superman and Zod went at it. Watch it again and you will see that.

  • KryptonianKnight

    The movie that came out is much better then this scrap. The only thing I liked better about the treatment was that Clark was a freelance reporter which makes for an easy transition.

    I don’t recall people popping blood vessels about collateral damage in The Avengers which was far worse then MOS. There is a lot of hypocrisy about this subject, sorry but Superman can’t save everybody and I don’t remember seeing innocent bi-standards being killed left and right in the final showdown either. Watch the movie again and you will see by the time Zod and Superman are going at it you see Lois, Perry and the two reporters with about a dozen people at the end when Zod is killed. This subject is getting way overblown! Clowns need to chillax!

  • LT

    There’s a surprising amount of people defending the film. I thought it was a complete disappointment…but I also loved Superman Returns which everyone seemed to hate, so to each their own I guess.

    • RiddleThemThis

      It really is just a matter of opinion on things like this. Batman Returns is still my favorite Batman movie but most people I talk to seem to dislike it.

    • RiddleThemThis

      It really is just a matter of opinion on things like this. Batman Returns is still my favorite Batman movie but most people I talk to seem to dislike it.

  • LT

    There’s a surprising amount of people defending the film. I thought it was a complete disappointment…but I also loved Superman Returns which everyone seemed to hate, so to each their own I guess.

  • Mackenzie Fraser

    This treatment seems to show more understanding of the Superman character. The small touches of the villains using bystanders to distract Supes and him trying to take the fight away from populated areas would have gone a long way. Even if they had kept the whole killing of Zod (which I hate) it at least would have had more weight as we would have seen that Superman values life and that the idea of killing is horrible to him. I like the film’s Lois Lane better, but otherwise, I think I actually prefer the early treatment.

    • Vadakin

      Thanks. I was working based on Man Of Steel set pics and speculation, which is why it’s a bit disjointed.

  • Mackenzie Fraser

    This treatment seems to show more understanding of the Superman character. The small touches of the villains using bystanders to distract Supes and him trying to take the fight away from populated areas would have gone a long way. Even if they had kept the whole killing of Zod (which I hate) it at least would have had more weight as we would have seen that Superman values life and that the idea of killing is horrible to him. I like the film’s Lois Lane better, but otherwise, I think I actually prefer the early treatment.

  • pinkincide

    Zod targeting earth for destruction from the beginning would’ve made a HUGE difference. Superman would’ve been saving the world from an outside threat he himself didn’t bring. As the movie stands, he’s just a guy who triggered a mini apocalypse.

    • nom79

      He (Kal-El/Superman) isn’t to blame for any of this. His father decided on launching him to Earth so he can be his own man (or alien….whatever!) instead of being trapped in the controlled system that Krypton was currently under.

      You’re telling me that Zod randomly deciding on attacking Earth is a better setup than him finding out that Kal-El is living on it possibly holding the key to their civilization therefore giving him reason to come to Earth and cause havoc?

      …..weird.

      • goop

        nom79, I think you should reread your post. The second paragraph sounds crazy. Oh, and you very strategically did your best to twist pinkincide’s words to suit your own argument. No one ever said that Zod’s targeting of Earth should be “random”, you added that little caveat all on your own.

        Sorry for the response at all, but after reading the “…..weird” at the end of a post that made so little sense itself I figured I should at least let you know how rude and crazy you sound.

      • nom79

        @goop and pink: The point I was trying to make was that in this final product, Zod had a reason to come to Earth. Kal-El holding the Kodex gave Zod more of a motivation to come to Earth and do whatever it took to get it back or in this case, extract it. I know now that this treatment is a fake so my argument or anyone else’s has no value. It just seemed like a cheap plot to just have Zod come to Earth to destroy it.

  • Alan Burnett

    This is what people get for trusting McWeeny. He’s a non-talent with ZERO CREDIBILITY.

  • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

    Seriously…how was anyone not skeptical this was a fake after reading the plot summary? The non-obvious changes are filled with plot holes, and the rest is so plainly predictable we’re in insulting our own intelligence to think Nolan and Goyer wrote it.

    • Zenexo

      the script we actually got in the film was an insult to intelligence.

  • Pingback: It's a bird... It's a plane... It's the MAN OF STEEL - Page 29 - www.hardwarezone.com.sg

  • http://villings.tumblr.com/ [A]

    oh fan fic.. sure got me

  • Vadakin

    Yeah, so I wrote this. No idea how it ended up in Drew’s hands 18 months after I first put it online but there you go, welcome to the internet.

    All I’ll say is that I wrote the treatment based on speculation, set pics etc. So it’s based on what I knew or thought I knew about Man Of Steel at the time, with a few of my own ideas thrown in. If anyone has any questions about why I did certain things with the treatment, feel free to reply to this and ask. I’ll try to address a few things straight off the bat.

    Krypton – The only reason Jor-El is kind of a soldier in this treatment is because of set pics of Crowe in armour and an interview he did saying that his character had a fight with Zod. So based on that, I developed the geothermal power plant idea and the notion of Zod wanting to destroy Krypton and with it, the weak and corrupt, with Zod and his followers going to Earth to start again. Had I been writing a Superman movie from scratch, I’d have opened the film with Jor-El and Lara saying goodbye to their son as Krypton falls apart all around them and gone straight to the destruction and escape. No politics, no backstory. Krypton would remain a mystery until later in the film.

    The Tornado – I knew there was a tornado in the film and thought it was a good opportunity to have Clark use his powers to save people. I admit, the whole “blowing out the tornado” bit was a little bit silver age but for me the appeal of Superman isn’t his powers, it’s how he chooses to use them. I also wanted to provide a moment where Jonathan gave his seal of approval to Clark about what he was going to do with his life as a superhero.

    The Daily Planet – It made sense to me that Clark would already be a journalist. In this day and age, with the internet and 24 hour news, Clark doesn’t need to be a reporter to get breaking news stories, so he’s a journalist in my version simply because he wants to be. That’s the career he’s chosen. The way I look at it is that as Superman he can help people but as Clark Kent he can help change the world.

    Lois Lane – a bone of contention. Ok, here’s the thing. I’m a fan of the traditional dynamic between Lois, Clark and Superman. Arguments have been made for years that the glasses are stupid and Lois should be able to see through them. Well of course she should. But so should everybody else. In my opinion, if you’re going to go with the glasses, you have to go the whole way. You can’t make exceptions. I made a point in the treatment to say that Clark has always worn glasses. Nobody has ever seen him without glasses. In the tornado sequence, he doesn’t take off the glasses, a gust of wind blows them off his face as a kind of symbolic gesture that this is effectively the birth of Superman. Lois not seeing through the disguise doesn’t make her an idiot. It’s just that in this reality, the glasses work. The audience has gone with it for 75 years.

    Also, when it comes to the dynamic, my view is that for any kind of relationship to happen, Lois has to ultimately fall for Clark, not Superman. She has to be able to fall for the “man” and not the “super” because Superman has to belong to the world. But Clark can belong to her. Also, for Clark, he needs Lois to fall for the man wearing the glasses because if she’s in love with Superman he’ll always wonder if she really love him or the icon. But if she can reject the god (after a lengthy infatuation) and choose the mortal, then Clark will know that it’s real. But I imagine their relationship developing over multiple films. The way I have it in my head is that they start out as rivals who become friends who become more. For that to work, you need the disguise.

    Faora – So Faora is only in the treatment because she’s in the movie. She’s Zod’s wife because that’s who she is in at least some iterations of the comics. The reason Zod kills her is simply because I didn’t have a role for her after freeing Zod so I needed to get rid of her somehow. Admittedly this is an aspect I could have done more work on. I had a different way to release Zod from the Phantom Zone but the inclusion of Faora in Man Of Steel meant I needed to use her. The bullet points in the article don’t make it clear how she gets to Earth. Essentially, when she escapes Krypton, her ship is fired upon and damaged. The navigation system gets all screwed up and she doesn’t have a direct route to Earth through the Phantom Zone (which is a kind of sub/pocket dimension that will house prisoners but is also a shortcut through space). So she sets her ship on a sublight course and puts herself into stasis. When Clark activates his ship, it sends out a beacon. This beacon reaches Faora’s ship, she comes out of stasis and she sees the message – the S symbol, which of course means “Hope.” Now that she has Phantom Zone coordinates, she immediately sets off for Earth.

    SUPERMAN – As this story broke over the past day or two, I’ve seen various comments around the internet about how this treatment was more traditional, and ultimately predictable. So I suppose I should talk about my approach to Superman. To me, Superman is a human being but not just any human being. Thanks to the Kents he’s been given all of our best qualities but none of our worst. He wants to help people simply because it’s the right thing to do. He isn’t filled with angst, he isn’t lost in a strange world. This is his world. His home. We are his people. The person known as Kal-El died on Krypton. There is only Clark.

    In my treatment, there is what I think is a beautiful scene where Clark gets a message from Jor-El and Lara. In the message, they tell him about where he comes from. In fact, here’s the actual bit from the treatment:

    “Martha and Jonathan look on as Clark reaches out to touch the ship. His touch seems to activate something and the ship comes to life. The barn then transforms into Jor-El’s lab though only Clark sees it that way. Martha and Jonathan just see a barn. We are treated to a heartbreaking moment where we see Jor-El and Lara deliver their final message to their son. Clark sees his infant self in Lara’s arms. They are speaking in Kryptonese but the ship translates the language into English for Clark to hear. When the message is over, Clark is left in tears. He tells Martha and Jonathan of Lara’s final words, his purpose for being on Earth – to live and live well.”

    The idea was that Jor-El wouldn’t give Clark some grand speech about saving the world. He wouldn’t presume to tell Clark what to do with his life. His only wish and hope for Kal-El was that he live and live well. Clark has no destiny, no purpose other than what he chooses for himself. And he chooses to become Superman.

    One idea I had centred around the name. I have Lois give him the name but Clark wouldn’t initially respond well to it. The idea was that Clark would feel that a name like “Superman” put him above the world and turn him into a symbol. But Clark didn’t want to be a symbol he just wanted to help people. Throughout the course of the movie, Clark would come to understand that being a symbol of hope didn’t put him above humanity, it simply gave humanity something to aspire to. He essentially earns the name Superman and at the end of the film, he embraces the name and the responsibility that goes with it. He can’t change the world, but maybe his example can inspire the world to change itself.

    And that to me is the essence of Superman. If someone like him, with as much power as he has, can choose to use that power for good and not be corrupted by it, then maybe the rest of us can aspire to better ourselves. So when it came to the fight with Zod, I never even considered killing him. Superman doesn’t kill. And it’s not because of some antiquated moral code but because Superman represents an ideal of hope. Hope that we can find another way, a better way. If Superman can’t find another way, what hope is there for the rest of us?

    The real world isn’t like that of course but that’s why Superman is a fantasy. Superman gets to be naive and to represent an impossible dream. Through that character’s will to succeed without sacrificing his ideals, we can imagine a world where there isn’t just one choice, a world where we can aspire to find another way.

    And yes, that’s kind of hokey and in this cynical world of ours, it’s out of touch with reality, but that’s the beauty of Superman. It’s in a cynical world that we need that symbol of hope. It’s in a cynical world that we need characters who can defy reality and live by noble ideals. Those ideals may and should be challenged, but never broken.

    I had Superman protect civilians and move the fighting away from Metropolis because that’s what Superman would do. He’d care more about saving lives than punching Zod and even while punching Zod, Superman would be trying to reason with him. Again, naive but that’s Superman. It doesn’t mean you can’t have conflict or tough choices and you can push Superman to the edge, but he should never fall off. The second he does, he stops being Superman.

    Superman isn’t a reflection of us as we are, he’s a reflection of us as we should be. He thinks, acts and feels human and he makes mistakes but ultimately, Superman is a representation of everything we like to think we are and can be as human beings.

    OK, rant over. If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to respond.

  • Jhan

    I don’t understand how the headline to the post doesn’t change except for an “Update” note. Shenanigans, I say.

  • Captain Unknown

    I think that it’s better than he killed Zod. It will give him a problem to deal with when he goes up against Luthor in the sequel. If he can kill a superhuman being that easily, how easily can he kill a normal human being. He’ll hold back and Luthor should exploit that.

  • thecomicfan
    • Vadakin

      Are you stalking me…? :P

Click Here