Why are so many people deadset against showing the origin?

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

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.

A big fight...no matter how big it is...is still just a fight. If it's actually for something important...then the bigger the better.

[UnionJack]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

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

I was speaking more if they do a film without an origin.

I know if they do the origin we need them 2 in it again, which is getting really dull now.

[Octoberist]

after 5 minutes, the fight looked like a video game.

[UnionJack]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

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.

What you saying the last Hulk looked WORSE than Ang Lee's Hulk?!
You seen it in blu-ray its spectacular!

[NotFadeAway]

I've said it before, an new origin movie NEEDS to happen in the wake of Superman Returns. It's just that some folks can't let go of there precious little Donner movie.

[Kal-El Fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

The first Fleischer cartoon, (simply titled "Superman") did tell the origin, so I'm not sure that example helps your argument.

-----

Why does everyone assume that the origin is going to take 20-30 minutes? STM spent a lot of time on the pre-Superman stuff because the movie was written as a 3 act play and was 2.5 hours long! They had the time to tell it. Also, STM was just the first half of the Superman/Superman II "Mega Movie."

I say we need the origin, because that film WILL be someone's first exposure to Superman, just as STM was mine. Not everyone who sees these films is a comic fan. We also need to show that this is a separate story from what has come before. (Some people will always be confused ala Begins and TIH, but we need to try.)

That having been said, I don't think we need a linear origin, nor do I think everything needs to be laid out. We don't need a ton of background on Krypton, we don't need to spend a great deal of time in Smallville. We need only the information that tells the viewer who this person is, and why he does what he does. Tell the story ala Begins in flashbacks, etc.
We can start with the ship crashing, we can show some scenes in Smallville and we can show his travels throughout the world and how his experiences in these places helped him decide to become Superman, and we can do all of this without revealing that he is from Krypton. He doesn't even need to know for sure if he's an alien. Look at the Smallville pilot and look at MOS. In Smallville they were pretty sure he was an alien, but they didn't know where he was from, and in MOS, they weren't even sure he was an alien. I agree that revealing the Krypton stuff in the second film, especially if it ties into a villain like Brainiac (the Kryptonian version or the Coluan, "thief of Kandor" version, either would work).

I would start with Krypton exploding and the ship flying through space and then dissolving from the ship to the bullet that shoots Clark's friend in Africa, just like in Birthright. As I've said many times, that section is about the only useful part of that story, and I think it suits a film very well.

[KalMart]

How about if you make it more than 20-30 minutes, but use it later in the overall story and expand on it? Why not use it as more than just an 'origin'? You don;t need to be a comic fan to know that Superman comes from a different planet. And if for some reason you don't know, Supes' will mention it in his first interview in the film....and then you'll know.

[Kal-El Fan]

All films have an origin of some kind. When I say we need an origin, I simply mean that we need to establish the characterization of Superman and his world. "Origin" does not necessarily mean all the details of Krypton, etc. Batman 89 had an origin, without telling "Batman's Origin." When Wolverine debuted in the comics, he had an origin, long before his "Origins" were told.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Kal-El Fan

All films have an origin of some kind. When I say we need an origin, I simply mean that we need to establish the characterization of Superman and his world. "Origin" does not necessarily mean all the details of Krypton, etc. Batman 89 had an origin, without telling "Batman's Origin." When Wolverine debuted in the comics, he had an origin, long before his "Origins" were told.

And in B89, we got only a glimpse of what made him become Batman...and not until around halfway through...and no one was worse for wear compared to seeing him grow up, etc. It can work....and in this case...it can work particularly well if they utilize it differently than traditoinally expected.

[Kal-El Fan]

Originally Posted by KalMart

And in B89, we got only a glimpse of what made him become Batman...and not until around halfway through...and no one was worse for wear compared to seeing him grow up, etc. It can work....and in this case...it can work particularly well if they utilize it differently than traditoinally expected.

Exactly. I think that many people who are dead set against the origin, are just against it being told again in the same old way.

[Johnny Drama]

Showing Supermans origin is beating a dead horse. Everyone knows how he came to be, it's been explained in nearly every movie and tv show to date.

1989's Batman didn't go too in depth into the origin because we know how he came to be. That movie just got right into the action with Batman.

Bringing Superman back to his beginings would be a mistake, it would feel too much like the first Superman movie and wouldn't help progress whatever story they would work out.

Bottom line, by now Supermans origin doesn't need to be present because 99.9% of the world already knows it. It would be a waste of 30-45 minutes that can be better used to, oh I don't know, SHOWCASE SOMETHING WE HAVENT SEEN YET.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Kal-El Fan

Exactly. I think that many people who are dead set against the origin, are just against it being told again in the same old way.

I'd still use it in a second film instead of the first, though...if we ever got to a second film. Hence, as much as I'd ideally like the origin to be utilized somewhere along the way, and in depth....I don't think it's particularly imperative as part of the first film.

[Kal-El Fan]

Johnny, I have to respectfully disagree with this viewpoint. It's basic storytelling that you CANNOT assume that your audience has any prior knowledge of the story that you are telling. As I said earlier, I personally learned Superman's origin first through STM and then through the comics. You could argue that STM didn't need an origin because it had been told numerous times in the comics, in the serials, the George Reeve's TV show, etc and everyone knew it. That was obviously not the case, as I didn't prior to seeing STM. Granted, I was like 3 when I first saw it, but the fact remains that that film was at least one person's first experience with that character and his world, so it was important to tell the origins.
The same holds true in all media, even comics. The adage in the comic world is "every comic is someone's first," and most writers will make a point of subtly bringing the readers up to speed with everything that has come before, at least in that story arc.

[DavidTyler]

Originally Posted by Showtime

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

I was addressing the general, the captain, the mess hall cook, the private, the seargent, and anyone who feels like answering.....

[DavidTyler]

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.

Because there is more than that to the story. You can do a lot more with Krypton than was done previously. You can do a lot more with his youth than was done previously.


And you can make it all as great a part of the film as Bruce Wayne's evolution in Begins.

I love, as do most of the non-comix reading people I associate with, the early stuff in BB. It really makes you connect with who Bruce is. Doing the origin would allow you to connect with who Clark is.

In fact, I insist that it's necessary.

Otherwise, as another great poster here said, the GP will just look at the guy in the suit as a goofy escapist entertaiment. Do we not want the GP to connect with Superman as a person as well as be entertained by the action and excitement?

[UnionJack]

Originally Posted by DavidTyler

I love, as do most of the non-comix reading people I associate with, the early stuff in BB. It really makes you connect with who Bruce is. Doing the origin would allow you to connect with who Clark is.

IF they get it right and get a good writer in then that would be great.

I've seen all the Superman films and pretty much most of Smallville, I did drop off for a season or 2.

But I've never really connected with Clark or Superman, he seems far too well 2D and emotionless at times.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by DavidTyler

Because there is more than that to the story. You can do a lot more with Krypton than was done previously. You can do a lot more with his youth than was done previously.


And you can make it all as great a part of the film as Bruce Wayne's evolution in Begins.

I love, as do most of the non-comix reading people I associate with, the early stuff in BB. It really makes you connect with who Bruce is. Doing the origin would allow you to connect with who Clark is.

In fact, I insist that it's necessary.

Otherwise, as another great poster here said, the GP will just look at the guy in the suit as a goofy escapist entertaiment. Do we not want the GP to connect with Superman as a person as well as be entertained by the action and excitement?

Not if you make his being Superman more than just goofy escapist entertainment, which doesn't necessarily require that you include the full origin right off the bat. You could make the phenomenon of Superman being Superman more engrossing...THEN use that new interest to go deeper into his origins.

Because let's face it...people are initially attracted to Superman primarily by the image of him as Superman, then they get into the idea of him growing up on a farm, etc. Not necessarily the other way around. If you were looking to sell this new comic book character of Superman for the first time, what would you put on the cover....him in the suit flying, or him as a teenager in normal clothes staring out over a village in Africa?

[Kal-El Fan]

Originally Posted by Johnny Drama

1989's Batman didn't go too in depth into the origin because we know how he came to be.

Not true. My wife for instance, knew nothing of Batman's origin before seeing Batman '89.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, nor is this truly a response to Johnny Drama. I just present this as general evidence for the debate. You cannot assume that the general audience knows a character's back story, even those as popular as Batman. I would agree that Superman is a special case and most people over the age of 4 have at least cursory knowledge of his origin, due to Superman's continued presence in pop culture, but everyone had to learn what they know somewhere.

[Kal-El Fan]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Not if you make his being Superman more than just goofy escapist entertainment, which doesn't necessarily require that you include the full origin right off the bat. You could make the phenomenon of Superman being Superman more engrossing...THEN use that new interest to go deeper into his origins.

Because let's face it...people are initially attracted to Superman primarily by the image of him as Superman, then they get into the idea of him growing up on a farm, etc. Not necessarily the other way around. If you were looking to sell this new comic book character of Superman for the first time, what would you put on the cover....him in the suit flying, or him as a teenager in normal clothes staring out over a village in Africa?

I can agree with this to a point. However in setting up the "phenomenon of Superman" you would still be telling his origin, at least as it relates to Metropolis. You'd still be telling how he made his first appearance, how the people of Metropolis feel about him, etc. You are not telling his "Kryptonian" origins, but you are telling an origin story. Again, Wolverine had an origin decades before "Origins" came out.

I guess the point is you have to tell an origin of some kind. The question is, do you just tell the parts that are important to your story, or do you tell it all? I'm fine with telling the parts that are important to the story, and revealing the rest as time goes on. We all have to remember though, that with all film projects, a sequel is NOT a sure thing.

[Frodo]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I'd still use it in a second film instead of the first, though...if we ever got to a second film. Hence, as much as I'd ideally like the origin to be utilized somewhere along the way, and in depth....I don't think it's particularly imperative as part of the first film.

I 100% agree with you. I'd like to really jump to Clark arriving in Metropolis and Superman learning to be a hero. I really think the story should be in Metropolis and I wouldn't wanna was another hour and a half before we get there and on with the plot. The Krypton , stuff could be mentioned a bit in part one and expanded in part two but I really think the story should focus on an Adult Clark's first year as Superman and not dwell on the Smallville stuff.

[Kal-El Fan]

It sounds like most "anti-origin" people basically want to start with Superman's first appearance/early days. That's cool, and can definitely be done, just realize that it is still an origin of sorts. We can save the backstory/life history for later, but you still need to establish the character.

I'd really like to see a Begins style story. How about if we start with Krypton exploding, as I mentioned before, but this time instead of the ship dissolving to the bullet, ala Birthright, it dissolves to a bullet and then, very quickly to a barrage of machine gun rounds hitting Superman's chest, like in SR? We could cut to the action right away, and then use elements of the story to bring us back to Krypton, Smallville, Africa/world travel, etc.

[UnionJack]

Originally Posted by Kal-El Fan

Wolverine had an origin decades before "Origins" came out.

and look what happened there?!

[RachelDawes]

I'm cool with an origin, but I don't want a long, drawn-out Krypton scene. I really don't care about the internal Kryptonian politics Jor-El has to fight against, unless it somehow ties into Zod or Brainiac.

[Kal-El Fan]

Originally Posted by UnionJack

and look what happened there?!

I'm not sure I follow.

[UnionJack]

Originally Posted by Kal-El Fan

I'm not sure I follow.

Have you seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine!

Was an utter mess.

Some origins are best left for flash-backs and odd memories not a full blown child friendly fest for more £$£$£$£$£$