So, some new tidbits for Man of Steel, curteousy of latino review (who seems to be very on the ball about this stuff):
Latino Review on Man of Steel
I read the article via AICN, and the part that got to me was Merrick's comment on the thing:
I do wholly understand the knee-jerk compulsion to reintroduce the mythos all over again, and "re-start" SUPERMAN in an effort to distance this new picture from what has come before. This said, I stand firm by my assessment that an overwhelming majority of folks who would see a new SUPERMAN movie would already be aware enough of...or tuned-in enough to...the origin and mythos driving the concept and feel the world is more than ready for a SUPERMAN film that...just starts. With its characters in place, with the only new introductions being whatever roles are new and specific to that film. And build from there. 'Twould save so much time and distraction.
I know that this is how the majority of posters on this site seem to feel about the issue. I, frankly, do not feel this way. I would not re-tell the origin to "distance myself from what has come before", if it were me, I'd re-tell the origin for a very different reason. I do agree that re-telling a story just to differentiate yourself from something isn't a very good reason to re-tell the story.
Part of the problem with comments like these is that it implies that the well has run dry. We know Superman's origin, there's no reason to tell it again, or that stuff is just boring. I think that's a faulty assumption. Also, implied in that assumption is the idea that you can't have a good Superman origin story, and have a good action movie (its in there). An assumption that I don't buy. Good origin story and good action movie aren't mutually exclusive.
I actually think the reverse is true: I think you can have an even bigger action movie by going back to the origin, because you have more room to play with. Told right, it can also be an even better film than just an action movie, because you have real dramatic tension caused by a solid story. Ask yourself this: what was the best part of Batman Begins? For me, it was the first half, where he was becoming Batman. The actual final action scene, the train chase to stop Ra's from vaporizing the city's water supply, seemed anti-climatic, because you knew how it was going to end. Nolan was smart in elaborating on the origin, because that was where his story had wiggle room. The ending? Batman has to punch the bad guy in the face. One of the reasons why I love the Dark Knight so much is that its a superhero movie where the hero doesn't punch the bad guy in the face at the end.
Like I've said many times on this site, if it were up to me, I'd just go back to Krypton and do the whole first movie about that planets last days, and re-tell that story with some really cool action scenes that spring to mind easily (General Zod and his troops paratrooping down to the planet to stop Brainiac from destroying Kandor, in his spaceship, complete with a hundred Brainiac drones. Cool) However, its not up to me, and while I, and all the hardcore Superman fanboys would dig that movie, it might not be everyone's cup of tea. Structurally, the problem is that you know how that story ends: the planet blows up, Kandor gets shrunk down, and the rocketship flies off into space. However, that story, told right, would be amazing to watch. For me, it would be interesting to see how we got to that conclusion.
Anyhoo, one last thing. I don't have a lot of faith in Zack Synder as a filmmaker. 300 was the best film he's made that I've seen, and I don't think he's the right creative mind for this film. I like that Nolan is producing, but I don't know how extensive his involvement is. They've gotten a lot of the casting right, but I still remain skeptical. I just can't get over the fact that WB is making this to keep the rights. It tells me they don't have an idea they like, but rather, that they're making this just to beat a deadline.