Why are so many people deadset against showing the origin?

[Timstuff]

I could understand why there'd be so much ill-feelings towards the idea of showing Superman's origins again if his origin story sucked, but as any Superman fan knows that's not the case. So why is it that so many people want to see a "reboot" of the franchise where we don't even see where the main character came from? Would you rather they had to explain Superman's origins by giving 15 minutes out of a 2 hour movie to show his ship crashing, being found by the kents, and him showing a Superman costume sketch to Martha Kent, or for it all to be explained in a boring expositional conversation with no visuals? If this is going to be Superman's "re-introduction" to a new generation, doesn't it make sense to start at the beginning, instead of jumping into the middle and expecting everyone in the audience to already be well studied on Superman lore (which is exactly what Superman Returns did to mediocre effect)?

[luca_frontino]

Origins have been done to death (especially Superman's). Give it a rest.
All this origin fever brought the most outrageous blasphemy in all comics history: Wolverine's origin.
There is absolutely no proof that origins cause attachment of the audience to the character.

[GreenKToo]

It wouldn't bother me either way, origin or no origin.

[ChickenScratch]

Why can't there just be a Superman story and get on with it? It doesn't all have to be retold. Let's just have the basic elements of Superman without all the continuity. Like a Fleischer cartoon, there's no need to question it, they just get on with it.

[DavidTyler]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

I could understand why there'd be so much ill-feelings towards the idea of showing Superman's origins again if his origin story sucked, but as any Superman fan knows that's not the case. So why is it that so many people want to see a "reboot" of the franchise where we don't even see where the main character came from? Would you rather they had to explain Superman's origins by giving 15 minutes out of a 2 hour movie to show his ship crashing, being found by the kents, and him showing a Superman costume sketch to Martha Kent, or for it all to be explained in a boring expositional conversation with no visuals? If this is going to be Superman's "re-introduction" to a new generation, doesn't it make sense to start at the beginning, instead of jumping into the middle and expecting everyone in the audience to already be well studied on Superman lore (which is exactly what Superman Returns did to mediocre effect)?

I sincerely believe that making Superman relevant to a modern audience screams for it to have a new origin....

The Krypton scenes should feel like a great ... GREAT science fiction movie with exciting visuals. It should be a great mini epic featuring the young rebel Jor-El and how he bucked the council to try to save at least his son from the dying world.

Smallville should have a couple of scenes showing the revelation of his powers and how the childhood experiences there (good and bad) shaped him.

I want to see just a bit of his world travels before he donned the costume


And then I want to see his first encounters with Lois and Lex.

[Superfreak]

it's a waste of time. That's why. We're all waiting for a real Superman movie. The origin movie, by the basic concept, wastes atleast 1/2 of a 2 hour movie, on defining Krypton, then Smallville and growing up. That only leaves 1 hour for the Superman (ie. the central plot of the movie, the mystery, and the actual supermanage).




So IMO, if they had to do a reboot with an origin, I would go the route of Kal'el not knowing his true origin. The movie would begin with the crash in Kansas, eliminating Krypton from the opening of the 1/2 of the film. The narrative of the movie would follow Clark growing up and wondering who and what he is. As he moves to metropolis (within 15 minutes of the beginning of the film) he would slowly peice together his origin, with the movie ending with him entering the FOS for the first time as a cliffhanger(without meeting Jor'el or anybody from his past, that would be saved for the sequel).

simply put, the mystery of the movie would be 'who/what is superman?'

[Showtime]

I've been saying it for a long time and I think it holds even more weight now because of the lawsuit situation, but they need to go the Batman Begins route. I am not against full origin, and can see why we would need a new one, problem is at this point they can't do it unless they pay. WB is a huge studio, but they have put so much money into Superman Returns in the past, it doesn't make sense to pay even more out.

I think if they do a Superman Year One type story, Superman Starts if you will, it is the way to go. They can still flash back to Smallville but they don't touch upon Krypton and other related material. The formula worked for Begins, and it can work for Superman. So it would still be an origin story, but the origin of Superman rather than Kal-El, for lack of a better explanation.

I'm interested in how the people that are for an origin and for McTeigue feel about his comments. He pointed to the fact that they don't need an origin and he would reboot Superman without one. Similar to Batman 89 or Blade. To me it says that he was involved in discussions with WB at some point, most likely isn't at this point because he is talking about what he would do, and the direction they want or have to go in is a reboot without an origin.

[DavidTyler]

Let me put it this way.....

Would you NOT see a Superman film just because the first 30 minutes were an origin?

And those scenes would not be all in one place.... We'd have a couple of minutes of Krypton, a couple of minutes of Smallville, a few minutes of world travels, a few minutes of Clark back in the states just prior to the costume.

And that much would make you NOT want to see the film?

[Showtime]

Are you addressing me or just anybody in general...

[Wally West]

Originally Posted by luca_frontino

Origins have been done to death (especially Superman's). Give it a rest.
All this origin fever brought the most outrageous blasphemy in all comics history: Wolverine's origin.
There is absolutely no proof that origins cause attachment of the audience to the character.

There are tons of films dealing with a character at a specific point in time that are able to convey the character's motivations, and intentions, while allowing the audience to form a connection, without showing what led up to that particular time in the character's life.

A comicbook film is different than a normal film though. The origin is not necessary for attachment; it is so frequent in the genre because the film has to seem less ridiculous to the average viewer who doesn't know how or why a man is hunting down criminals in bat costume, climbing walls and spinning webs, or flying around lifting massive objects. You can't just say to the audience "here's a guy in a costume, who can do all kinds of cool things, you should know how and why already, so here come the aliens and supervillians". The average viewer who doesn't read comicbooks or think about comicbook characters on a daily basis needs more than that.

It doesn't matter how many times it's been done. You have to look at a reboot as a new franchise that deserves a complete story just like any other. Relying on the audiences' memories or awareness of past projects didn't work in SR. Superman needs to be firmly re-established for 21st century film audiences. It's a mistake IMO to ignore important aspects of the story in order to appease a portion of the crowd who is impatient and just wants to jump into the story in the middle, without an explanation of how he got to that point.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by GreenKToo

It wouldn't bother me either way, origin or no origin.

Same here.

[Franklin Richards]

I just want to see him fight. That's all.



Is that too much to ask?

[KalMart]

I'm not dead set against showing it....I just don't think they need to start with it.

[Sub-Zero]

i'd like it in there. i hate the fact that since the 78 movie everyone has thought that the crystals and hoth-krypton were there since the creation of superman.

[GreenKToo]

Well, like Showy said, the lawsuit may prevent the full blown origin like some are wanting. That is, unless WB is willing to pay more bucks on superman yet again.

EDIT: and oh, you need a ''it doesn't matter option'' in your poll.

[Octoberist]

I think as fans, I can see why some what to move and why some what to do a fresh start ala origins.

Because we love the mythos so much, we don't mind so much as long as it captures Superman and his mythos with integrity. If they do an origins tale, and I'll say it again, you have to remember to make the villain(s) threatening; no con man Lex but tycoon Lex. Or, if possible, bring in a villain like Parasite or Metello, and then work your way up to Brainaic in the sequel. Wasn't that one of the complaints of Superman Returns? Then you have to avoids some of its pitfalls.

But you have to remember, it's also important what the non-fans say because they will be the ones will determine the success of the film, obviously. You need to make this movie...THE MAIN EVENT. You can't let Superman down by having an okay movie with good results. You want a fantastic movie that makes great results. So you have to proove that Superman is not 'boring' or 'lame'; you have to prove to the public WHY he is the king of the superheroes.

[sdc10]

I think its kind of old having to devout half of the movie to the characters origin especially when it is like Supermans and everyone already knows what it is? How many different interpretations of an alien crash landing and being raised on earth can you get? If they are gonna do the origin do it like TIH did it, and sum it up during the opening credits.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I've been saying it for a long time and I think it holds even more weight now because of the lawsuit situation, but they need to go the Batman Begins route. I am not against full origin, and can see why we would need a new one, problem is at this point they can't do it unless they pay. WB is a huge studio, but they have put so much money into Superman Returns in the past, it doesn't make sense to pay even more out.

I think if they do a Superman Year One type story, Superman Starts if you will, it is the way to go. They can still flash back to Smallville but they don't touch upon Krypton and other related material. The formula worked for Begins, and it can work for Superman. So it would still be an origin story, but the origin of Superman rather than Kal-El, for lack of a better explanation.

I'm interested in how the people that are for an origin and for McTeigue feel about his comments. He pointed to the fact that they don't need an origin and he would reboot Superman without one. Similar to Batman 89 or Blade. To me it says that he was involved in discussions with WB at some point, most likely isn't at this point because he is talking about what he would do, and the direction they want or have to go in is a reboot without an origin.

Boom!


There were go.

Kick it off in Metropolis, Superman: Year One. Or even when Clark is travelling the world as a journalist and deciding he needs to step up and be Superman.


Going back to Krypton isn't necessary if the lawsuit issues come into play.



It's not a full-on origins, more like Superman begins.

[Octoberist]

However, I do have to say that Superman as a series is lacking progression, and is kinda stuck at this weird creative plateau; that's why people might be against an origins story.

[VenomsMom]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

If they do an origins tale, and I'll say it again, you have to remember to make the villain(s) threatening; no con man Lex but tycoon Lex. Or, if possible, bring in a villain like Parasite or Metello, and then work your way up to Brainaic in the sequel.

Give this man a cigar. This statement sums things up in a nutshell. They should.....IMHO......do an origin for Supes. You all havent seen one on the big screen since 78. And they really should go that route to begin a new francise if we are starting from scratch. Set a solid foundation for Superman and his possible sequels. Get a plan in place for moving forward. It seems at this point there are some legal issues to resolve but like I always say if you are to do it again just do it right. Establish the formidable Lex and bring in a Metallo or Parasite type villain that can pos a physical challenge and cause chaos in Metropolis. Meanwhile start to slowly hint at the existence of Brainiac for a sequel.

We dont need Brainiac Mongol Darkseid or any of these colossal cosmic alien threats in the first movie.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by sdc10

I think its kind of old having to devout half of the movie to the characters origin especially when it is like Supermans and everyone already knows what it is? How many different interpretations of an alien crash landing and being raised on earth can you get? If they are gonna do the origin do it like TIH did it, and sum it up during the opening credits.

TIH was a disappointment at the boxoffice and wasn't loved by the critics or the audience. So I don't understand why people keep bringing it up like it was successful? I mean it might have been a successful movie to you but you can't argue against what I just wrote because I'm using facts.

Nobody should copy anything from that movie because most have forgotten that movie already.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Man of Tomorrow

Boom!


There were go.

Kick it off in Metropolis, Superman: Year One. Or even when Clark is travelling the world as a journalist and deciding he needs to step up and be Superman.


Going back to Krypton isn't necessary if the lawsuit issues come into play.



It's not a full-on origins, more like Superman begins.

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=781
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...postcount=1781
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...r#post17351311

[UnionJack]

If they do an origin ... which I hope they don't I hope it doesn't last long, not the entire film or even half of the film.

For me I'd rather have a film about Supes fighting someone, saving the earth.

No Lex or bloody love story to ruin it or weigh it down.

[Octoberist]

well, if you do an origin, you need to have Lex and a love story with Lois, UnionJack.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

TIH was a disappointment at the boxoffice and wasn't loved by the critics or the audience. So I don't understand why people keep bringing it up like it was successful? I mean it might have been a successful movie to you but you can't argue against what I just wrote because I'm using facts.

Nobody should copy anything from that movie because most have forgotten that movie already.

Yeah. I don't think it's the fact that the movie was a reboot, but I just thought The Incredible Hulk was incredible okay..just okay. The CGI was actually worse this time around, but the designs were better, so I guess that made up for it.

But yeah, The Incredible Hulk is like Hellboy 2; overlooked by the masses.