How will the New Film Standout?

[Daybreak_st]

It already has an advantage of standing out among the other Super-Hero / Comic Book movies; It’s Superman. But will it stand out among the Superman movies? Let’s Hope.

In my original post i kind of addressed this. I think his name recognition could help or hurt the film. The reaction i get from people is "why are they doing another one" or "we've seen it before" or "they'll never top Chris Reeve". I don't think just b/c it's Superman means a whole lot to the average movie goer. Especially after the boring SR. Standing out among the Superman movies wont' be difficult either, really you have one and two that were decent, but neither one really showcased what Superman is capable of with today's effects. Can the new guy make you believe in Superman the way Chris Reeve did? Now there is the real challenge.

Some good suggestions above.

I think cosmetically, the new film also needs to stand on it's own, with new and creative ways of showing Superman's powers on screen.

For example .....

We've all seen slow-mo effects a million times - and weekly TV shows can even do them pretty well now, never mind $200m movies. It would be nice to see something like slow motion done in such a unique and original way that it would hark back to the impact that the effects in 'The Matrix' had the first time you saw them. Bullet-time was a very new thing back then and has been imitated often since. Surely all those creative minds at effects companies can come up with something new and exciting for the big screen.

I've often wondered, how does it feel for Superman to go into superspeed mode. Does everything seem 'slow' to him in normal mode day to day? Or does he just shift it up a gear when he goes into superspeed? Seeing things from his perspective would be fantastic.

Anyone remember that film, The One? As the two characters got more powerful and faster, they fought at the end in superspeed in some industrial unit while sparks fell all around them in slow motion - it looked awesome.

I have similar feelings on seeing flight, heat vision, superhearing, superstrength and all his other powers portrayed on screen. I think the Donner use of red lasers from his eyes is horribly outdated now. SV and SR did it pretty realistically (heated air giving a ripple effect), but I'd also like to see what the effect is like when Superman ramps up the juice and his eyes glow fiery red.

Awesome ideas!!! I agree even Smallville brought some new ways to visualize x-ray vision, superhearing, and clark speed, i'd love to see what a 200-mil dollar movie can do. THat would definetly make the film stand out!

the things is....i dont think anyone can really connect to Superman, unless you are a really good, and honest person that comes from Afganistan...lol....anyway, imo i think people need to want to be superman, not connect

Exactly!

I think for me, it would help if the film isn't boring. It needs a great deal of action, or rather, adventure. SR didn't accomplish that IMO, I fall asleep/stop watching after the plane scene; I just can't make it through the film.

Aside from that, I agree that visuals will help. Some bright colors, iconic shots/references to the comics and some modernization/re-imagining to Krypton and Metropolis would do some good. This should be a film that isn't afraid to embrace more of the fantastical/alien elements for any sake of "realism".

Totally agreed, i think another boring movie will be a death sentence to the movie franchise of the character. they simply can't afford that especially with the competition ramping up over at marvel and other dc characters making a showing.

one thing that Superman can do to stand out is really embrace the Sci-fi elements of the character.

Superman is, after all, from another planet.

Green Lantern seems to be going in that direction, and it's a good fit for Superman, too.

oh........and please, no more boring real estate Lex schemes complete with bumbling henchmen!! I want Lexcorp Lex da*****!!

Agreed on both accounts!!! The scifi is one way to really bring the Awesome to the film! think of star labs, cadmus, cloning technology, brainiac, aliens, etc, the comic world of Superman is ripe with scifi ideas that could easliy be brought into the film. If they make the mistake of going too realistic or trying us Superman as a commentary on life (aka Grounded storyline) i think the movie will fail big time!

 

[FOOM]

That's an option. How will it stand out? Maybe it won't.

What I mean is Superman is one of the Big 3. (Superman, Spiderman, and Batman)

The general movie going public doesn’t need to take a comics 101 class to know who they are or their basic powers and origin. As an example, Wolverine may be a heavy hitter and house hold name to most here but, before his movie came out most of the general movie going public-(unless they happen to have seen one of the X-Men movies) were probably thinking “What’s a Wolverine”?

The Big 3 have an advantage right out of the gate.

A Superman movie will definitely have that water cooler buzz going on but, as Daybreak st pointed out, that can be good or bad. Many people may have a wait and see approach and be thinking - oh, Another Superman movie.. But, if the buzz is good, I think many people would genuinely Love to see a Good Superman movie.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I have to wonder how the new film will stand out among the mass of Superhero films gracing the big screen in the next two years. Just look at the constant comparisons between SR and BB being only 1 year apart and both sharing the goal of restarting their respective franchises.

Now we have a plethora of Superhero movies coming out in the next two years, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, Green lantern, Batman, Spiderman Reboot...and Superman.

My question is how can Superman expect to stand out in the crowd of films coming out? Do you think the filmmakers will do something special to make it stand out as different from the other films?

I'd say the two things he has that a lot of other films don't is mass recognizability. I mean everyone knows who Superman is. Now that can help or hurt. While people may see advertisements for other films and think "that looks unique or different" or "hey cool they finally gave thor or cap a movie", the reaction to Superman may be different, more like "another one? why?" "we've seen it before" "no one will ever beat Chris Reeve", I've heard all of those before when mentioning the new film to people at work. So that's one thing that may work against it.

The other thing that he has is a recognizable supporting cast, perhaps the most recognizable of any superhero. The nice thing about that is people are fans of lois lane, they may be curious about Jimmy or Perry or Ma and Pa kent. so you have inherent interest in the project. The bad thing about this is we've also seen plenty of portrayals of these characters in animation and live action so there are bound to be comparisons. Just look at the role of Lois Lane. It pretty much made Terri Hatcher a household name in the 90s and continues to influence her career. You have several great lois performances in the black and white days, now you have Erica Durrance who's doing a great job on Smallville. And who could ever forget Dana Delany's voice on the STAS! That's quite a role to live up to. Now the other supporting players may not be as vital but imagine what the new film needs to live up to and potentially surpass.

Obviously the same will happen to whoever is cast as Superman regardless of his "look". So while GL, Thor, Cap A and any of the other films don't have any direct movie to live up to the new Supes film does. Not only the comparisons to the past but with films like Thor coming out a year before (and if you've seen the trailer you know what i'm talking about) and the new supes film coming out on the tail end of all these other films, i'm just not sure how it's going to live up to expectations and comparisons.

Do you think Superman has an inherent edge b/c he's well known or will the filmmakers just have to blow away audiences to cement the Big Guy's place in cinematic history again?

I think that even if you could say that Superman was so recognizable that he has a built-in audience (which he does), the film would be better off to do its best to deliver what would make people go, "oooh. Ahhhh." I mean, they could just go, "oh hey, let's retell the origin again," or they could tell a story (whether or not it encompases the origin) that'll make audiences go, "wow, that was great."

That is, as long as they bear in mind that most haters aren't gonna be swayed by a few clumbsy gestures. But for those of us who do love the character, why? That's the question they'll have to answer for themselves.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

I think that in order to make a Superman film for this era, they must re-tell the origin story for this era. And they must do it in a fresh and exciting way that completely separates it from all previous Superman films. You can't re-start somethign without re-establishing it for a new audience. Most kids born in the late 90's haven't even seen the original Superman films... Kids in their teens here in these forums may have, but the general public teenagers are probably unfamiliar to Superman's origins other than the fact that he's from Krypton and he arrived in a space ship.

Just as Nolan re-established Batman in a new Gotham City, completely separated from the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher interpretations, despite the fact that most audience members most likely already knew about Bruce Wayne's parents being murdered. The last Batman film before Nolan's was in 1995. Batman Begins came out 10 years later, so it had to be re-established for a new audience. The same must be done for Superman... if it wants to stand out.

Ideally, I would like to see the entire film on Krypton. That would be bold and different. It wouldn't really be a Superman movie, but more about Jor-El... The movie would end with Kypton exploding and Kal-El on the Spaceship to Earth... and "To Be Continued." They should not even call it Superman... just The Last Son of Krypton.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I think that in order to make a Superman film for this era, they must re-tell the origin story for this era. And they must do it in a fresh and exciting way that completely separates it from all previous Superman films. You can't re-start somethign without re-establishing it for a new audience. Most kids born in the late 90's haven't even seen the original Superman films... Kids in their teens here in these forums may have, but the general public teenagers are probably unfamiliar to Superman's origins other than the fact that he's from Krypton and he arrived in a space ship.

See, I don't really agree. I think you can start with a well-established Superman. It depends on the story you're trying to tell. I mean, if they HAVE a "fresh and exciting way," then great, they should do it; but not just for the sake of marketing.

Just as Nolan re-established Batman in a new Gotham City, completely separated from the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher interpretations, despite the fact that most audience members most likely already knew about Bruce Wayne's parents being murdered. The last Batman film before Nolan's was in 1995. Batman Begins came out 10 years later, so it had to be re-established for a new audience. The same must be done for Superman... if it wants to stand out.

Well, the last Batman film was in 1997; but the fact is that BB didn't work just because it retold the origin, but because of HOW they retold it. And yet, I'm still not 100% convinced that a movie like The Dark Knight couldn't have worked without BB other than providing clarification that it's in a different continuity. And yet, the mere fact that the Joker's alive in it should be a tip-off in of itself.

Or not. I don't know.

Ideally, I would like to see the entire film on Krypton. That would be bold and different. It wouldn't really be a Superman movie, but more about Jor-El... The movie would end with Kypton exploding and Kal-El on the Spaceship to Earth... and "To Be Continued." They should not even call it Superman... just The Last Son of Krypton.

It would be "bold and different," but a) how is that any more commercial and b) how is that even a Superman movie? I'm sorry, but it would have to be a REALLY great film to ignore the fact that Superman's only in it as a baby.

 

[KyleDW2]

I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, and they didnt need an hour to tell you how Indiana Jones became an adventurer. Yet you can still become attached to his character. Why fans think every comic movie needs the 45 minute origin approach, i dont understand.

And I don't understand how you can bring a character back who hasn't been properly in the public spotlight for 30 years without explaining to all the people who haven't been experienced with him during all that time who this character is.

Think of it this way. Everybody knew that Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider and that Bruce Wayne watched his parents die in a filthy alley. But they still did those parts of those movies. Those scenes set up the stories and gave us insight into who these characters were. And before anyone uses the, "Oh, but Superman already had the perfect origin movie!" argument...no he didn't. And even if he did, it was almost two generations of movie goers ago.

You want to know how to differentiate Superman? You want to know how to keep repeating Singer's mistakes? You don't just assume people know and care about this character. You get them into the story of this man show them. Because in my opinion, this film could stand out just because of Superman's story alone. It could stand out because, unlike a lot of these movies, it has a heart.

 

[The Batman]

once again using indiana jones, the recent movie did just fine, and was a sequel to a franchise where the last movie came out 19 years prior. it had no origin for those who didnt know the character, and just continued on.

more and more, it looks like people just want a new origin cause they're post crisis fans and dont think donner's version was all that great. Either way, i've said all i wanted to on using an origin or not. They dont need it to to show a compelling film. They dont even need it to clearly show that its different from the previous version. They dont.

 

[KyleDW2]

once again using indiana jones, the recent movie did just fine, and was a sequel to a franchise where the last movie came out 19 years prior. it had no origin for those who didnt know the character, and just continued on.

more and more, it looks like people just want a new origin cause they're post crisis fans and dont think donner's version was all that great. Either way, i've said all i wanted to on using an origin or not. They dont need it to to show a compelling film. They dont even need it to clearly show that its different from the previous version. They dont.

You know, you're kinda right. There's really no need to talk about whether it should be an origin or not, just as much as its useless to debate whether there should be a sequel to Returns or not. From the looks of things, its gonna happen. We're getting some type of origin/early days of Superman story. So we should really focus on discussing how to best tell that type of story.

 

[Nightwing1983]

And I don't understand how you can bring a character back who hasn't been properly in the public spotlight for 30 years without explaining to all the people who haven't been experienced with him during all that time who this character is.

What character is Kyle thinking of? Because if it's Superman, he needs help. Bad! I mean, let's see, last thirty years. Um, the sequels to the films--only one of which was a flop--three live-action TV series', a number of animated incarnations, some video games and... yeah... the comics. While often, comics aren't exactly the news of the world, a) they're still something that's "in the public eye," and b) the death and return actually WERE big stories in the news.

Add to that the fact that you can let people in on his origin without retelling the origin wholly in dialogue, that most people at-least know the gist of his origin, and that Superman's "been in the public spot light" a HELL of a lot more than Indy since the late '80s, and... yeah. You could do a new story.

Think of it this way. Everybody knew that Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider and that Bruce Wayne watched his parents die in a filthy alley. But they still did those parts of those movies.
Those scenes set up the stories and gave us insight into who these characters were. And before anyone uses the, "Oh, but Superman already had the perfect origin movie!" argument...no he didn't. And even if he did, it was almost two generations of movie goers ago.

So what? X-Men didn't have an origin film proving that it's not necessary. As for Superman: the Movie, again, you're looking at it through the eyes of a geek with a grudge, Kyle. Not everyone hates it as much as you do.

You want to know how to differentiate Superman? You want to know how to keep repeating Singer's mistakes? You don't just assume people know and care about this character. You get them into the story of this man show them.

Gotcha: make him different by doing what everyone else does. Yup. You've said that a million times. And you know what the irony is? Each time you say it, you make me want to see it LESS, not more.

As for "Singer's mistakes," well, his mistake was not putting any thought into the film. The same thing could happen to an origin as well. You know it and I know it.

Because in my opinion, this film could stand out just because of Superman's story alone. It could stand out because, unlike a lot of these movies, it has a heart.

Aww...

No, but this is just more of Kyle trying to show off his writer's voice.

The truth is that there's nothing wrong with retelling the origin; but it just might be better to show a new story. A new adventure, or at-least something new to movies. Granted, that can be wrapped around an origin, just like Superman: Earth-One.

Which gets to the root of the problem. It's not that I'm anti-origin. I'm anti-Kyle. This guy acts like he's the smartest, wisest person in the history of Superman fandom. That people who don't agree that his way is the only way are just narrow-minded fuddy-duddies. And what's worse is that he stoops to the most blatant lies to discredit his opponents and paint false pictures of them.

I mean, above all, does he think he's swaying anyone with these arguments?

 

[Nightwing1983]

once again using indiana jones, the recent movie did just fine, and was a sequel to a franchise where the last movie came out 19 years prior. it had no origin for those who didnt know the character, and just continued on.

Oh, no. In Kyle's world, everyone just automatically loves Indy no matter what, and nobody likes--and barely even remembers--Superman.

more and more, it looks like people just want a new origin cause they're post crisis fans and dont think donner's version was all that great. Either way, i've said all i wanted to on using an origin or not. They dont need it to to show a compelling film. They dont even need it to clearly show that its different from the previous version. They dont.

Well, this is all-too-often the case; but as for Kyle, it runs deeper. See, he's not really much of a Superman fan. He claims to like certain stories, but ultimately, his whole "fandom" revolves around creating an image of being the "fresh" one and has been trying to paint me as so stuck in my ways that I can't accept anything that's "non-Donner" or whatever. He insists that anything that's not a formula superhero trilogy will doom the character, but if they "could just see what we see in him," then even the most dismal hater of the character will be won over.

 

[KyleDW2]

What character is Kyle thinking of? Because if it's Superman, he needs help. Bad! I mean, let's see, last thirty years. Um, the sequels to the films--only one of which was a flop--three live-action TV series', a number of animated incarnations, some video games and... yeah... the comics. While often, comics aren't exactly the news of the world, a) they're still something that's "in the public eye," and b) the death and return actually WERE big stories in the news.

We're talking about films here, not video games and comics. Believe it or not, a lot of people who are going to be in the audience of this new movie have not read the comics or watched the cartoons or played the games. This is the exact same mistake Singer made. He assumed everyone knew and loved the character exactly like he did. I'd like to see the next team handling Superman avoid that mistake.

 

[Nightwing1983]

We're talking about films here, not video games and comics. Believe it or not, a lot of people who are going to be in the audience of this new movie have not read the comics or watched the cartoons or played the games. This is the exact same mistake Singer made. He assumed everyone knew and loved the character exactly like he did. I'd like to see the next team handling Superman avoid that mistake.

And this is the mistake you always make: I never said everyone knows and loves Superman as much as me. Heck, I know that you don't and that you're just here to go, "oh, look how with-it I am, Methuselah." But I'm just saying that there's more to "the public eye" than just movies, and he's been it a whole lot more than your beloved Indy.

As for "Singer's mistake," well I know you've fallen in love with the line that his mistake was just assuming everyone loves the character as much as him, blah blah blah, lather, rinse, repeat." But that was NOT his mistake. Singer's mistake was putting absolutely no thought into the screenplay and half-@$$ing on the design. Do I expect you to agree? No. But I don't agree with you--at-least not entirely--and using Singer as a strawman in your quest to paint me as a delusional fanboy who thinks everyone loves him is NOT helping your cause, boy.

But let's pretend, for a moment, you're right. About everything. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. There's still one question you haven't answered.

Why did you decide to see Superman Returns?

And no, I'm not holding my breath. I asked you a simple question, so there's no way in Hell I'm getting a straight answer, is there?

 

[Nightwing1983]

To get us back on track, I think the best way to make it stand out is to make it topical... but in a subtle way. Superman IV was obviously the worst Superman movie, but it could've been the best if it had been finished. That's right: when you pop in that DVD, you are watching an unfinished movie.

I'm not suggesting a remake of it but I think a way to do it is to make it feel important. There are themes and subtexts in a lot of Superman stories that don't hit you over the head with, "this is right, this is wrong, vote this way, take up that cause!" but with an undercurrent. See the story entitled "Must There Be A Superman?" I forget the issue number, but it's from 1973 (note to "eww pre-Crisis crowd" it's good, I swear) and is available in most "greatest hits"-type anthologies. There's a number of things that Superman could "represent" as this figure that helps people too much to the point where he might be hurting them. Heck, the pre-press for SR seemed to hint at that direction, but you wouldn't know that from the finished film.

Something like that. Something that feels important.

That would "make people care" without having to retell the origin; but could also work within the context of one.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

You know, you're kinda right. There's really no need to talk about whether it should be an origin or not, just as much as its useless to debate whether there should be a sequel to Returns or not. From the looks of things, its gonna happen. We're getting some type of origin/early days of Superman story. So we should really focus on discussing how to best tell that type of story.

I really have no preference in regards to the origin/no-origin debate, I just want an entertaining, quality flick, but one thing I did want to point out in your post is your assumption that this will be an origin film.

Snyder has mentioned that this film will focus on Superman's early days, but guess what, Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film also focused on Batman's early days and that clearly was NOT an origin story.

It's too soon to tell what they're going to do...

When Latino Review broke the Goyer story, they reported his Superman story was not an origin film and that the film works on the assumption that the audience knows who these characters are. Not to mention certain origin elements are legally off-limits because the Siegel's control them.

A lot could change (or could have over the past year) from the time principle photography is supposed to start next summer.

It's too early to assume anything...

 

[Nightwing1983]

¡Exactamundo!

 

[KyleDW2]

I really have no preference in regards to the origin/no-origin debate, I just want an entertaining, quality flick, but one thing I did want to point out in your post is your assumption that this will be an origin film.

Snyder has mentioned that this film will focus on Superman's early days, but guess what, Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film also focused on Batman's early days and that clearly was NOT an origin story.

It's too soon to tell what they're going to do...

When Latino Review broke the Goyer story, they reported his Superman story was not an origin film and that the film works on the assumption that the audience knows who these characters are. Not to mention certain origin elements are legally off-limits because the Siegel's control them.

A lot could change (or could have over the past year) from the time principle photography is supposed to start next summer.

It's too early to assume anything...

That's why I said, "From the looks of things." As it stands it looks like an origin story. But these statements are retractable due to Hollywood fickleness. No statement made here should be held as a guarantee. Do not use statements made here as qualified legal advice. Statements will not cure any ailments.

 

[Nightwing1983]

That's why I said, "From the looks of things." As it stands it looks like an origin story. But these statements are retractable due to Hollywood fickleness. No statement made here should be held as a guarantee. Do not use statements made here as qualified legal advice. Statements will not cure any ailments.

I'm going to remember this.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Great posts all around. I'm curious to see how it all works out.

Ok...can't help myself...look at the series premiere of Lois and Clark and you'll see a very character driven show that doesn't feel the need to show krypton, smallville, and him rocketed off to begin with. They simply focus on a new starting point in his life, when he moves to metropolis.

X-men: Wolverines introduction to the X-men

Batman (1989): Batman's early days and the rise of the Joker

Each of these has a "jumping on" point. That's what allows the viewer to connect with the characters. That's all the new movie needs, a specific jumping on point so we can grasp at what point in the characters life we are entering in.

Every movie does this. Whether it's a character starting a new job, taking on a new assignment, breaking up or starting a new relationship, etc. Watch any movie and i guarantee they provide with a jumping on point. We don't need to see the characters birth, early life, etc to "get" the character.

Superman has one of the most well known origin stories of all time. I'm sure it will be addressed at some point in the new franchise but i think the point being made by some posters is that it's not essential to start this film on that note. As pretty much every movie in history and several Superhero films show, as long as the audience is given a jumping on point for the character then you can get just as attached to them.

Now personally i dont' think a long drawn out origin is going to make this movie standout, it'll make it feel...long and drawn out.

As far as the argument about how Nolan handled BB, just remember he didn't tread on old ground. He chose to tell a story that hadn't been told before, how does bruce go from a 12 yr old kid watching his parents die to Batman. Burton didn't address it in his films. In the comics you've got year one but even that only shows glimpses of his training etc. As a movie it hadn't been addressed. Hence it was a worthwhile story to tell. That's not the case with Superman.

You've got the movie, tv series, animated shows and just common knowledge. Tell it again may add some decent visuals but unless they really add something new to the mix it simply retreads old ground. That's not going to make the film stand out.

Should his back story be addressed? Sure but do it like earth one as someone said or in another way that integrates it into the story seamlessly. That way it doesn't get in the way of a new/fresh story but it will address some issues or questions about his past, simple and effective.

 

[BH/HHH]

Great posts all around. I'm curious to see how it all works out.

Ok...can't help myself...look at the series premiere of Lois and Clark and you'll see a very character driven show that doesn't feel the need to show krypton, smallville, and him rocketed off to begin with. They simply focus on a new starting point in his life, when he moves to metropolis.

X-men: Wolverines introduction to the X-men

Batman (1989): Batman's early days and the rise of the Joker

Each of these has a "jumping on" point. That's what allows the viewer to connect with the characters. That's all the new movie needs, a specific jumping on point so we can grasp at what point in the characters life we are entering in.

Every movie does this. Whether it's a character starting a new job, taking on a new assignment, breaking up or starting a new relationship, etc. Watch any movie and i guarantee they provide with a jumping on point. We don't need to see the characters birth, early life, etc to "get" the character.

Superman has one of the most well known origin stories of all time. I'm sure it will be addressed at some point in the new franchise but i think the point being made by some posters is that it's not essential to start this film on that note. As pretty much every movie in history and several Superhero films show, as long as the audience is given a jumping on point for the character then you can get just as attached to them.

Now personally i dont' think a long drawn out origin is going to make this movie standout, it'll make it feel...long and drawn out.

As far as the argument about how Nolan handled BB, just remember he didn't tread on old ground. He chose to tell a story that hadn't been told before, how does bruce go from a 12 yr old kid watching his parents die to Batman. Burton didn't address it in his films. In the comics you've got year one but even that only shows glimpses of his training etc. As a movie it hadn't been addressed. Hence it was a worthwhile story to tell. That's not the case with Superman.

You've got the movie, tv series, animated shows and just common knowledge. Tell it again may add some decent visuals but unless they really add something new to the mix it simply retreads old ground. That's not going to make the film stand out.

Should his back story be addressed? Sure but do it like earth one as someone said or in another way that integrates it into the story seamlessly. That way it doesn't get in the way of a new/fresh story but it will address some issues or questions about his past, simple and effective.

Agreed, I hated L&C but one of the things I liked was it started with his first day in Metropolis.

Like I said tackle more of the origin in a sequel with Brainiac that way you can incorporate the origin into the story.

 

[KyleDW2]

Agreed, I hated L&C but one of the things I liked was it started with his first day in Metropolis.

Like I said tackle more of the origin in a sequel with Brainiac that way you can incorporate the origin into the story.

But then again, what is the origin? Is it the death of Krypton? Is it during his years in Smallville? Is it his first day in Metropolis? All of those things could be seen as the origin of Clark Kent. But what is the origin of Superman?

I think that the word "origin" is the wrong word. I like what was said earlier. Jump on point. That is what is needed. Batman '89 was the origin of Batman, just not the origin of Bruce Wayne. It was about the first few weeks of Batman's career. X-Men, while not the origin of the mutant race, or even the X-Men themselves, was the origin of Wolverine's heroic career post-amnesia and the origin of the X-Men actively fighting the Brotherhood. So really, what we need is the point where new people can jump onto the story of Superman.

 

[Rust]

Like I said tackle more of the origin in a sequel with Brainiac that way you can incorporate the origin into the story.

It's a good idea if we'll get a sequel. I like the idea of the first one just throwing the audience into the action from the get go and then maybe start out the sequel with the origin from a kryptonian POV. But that would mean Brainiac would have to wait for his cue for the sequel and I'd like to see him in the first one.

I guess that would also make the movie stand out among the others. No real origin. But that doesn't mean they can't be inspired by Birthright to a degree. We can still see Clark becoming Supes and all that.

 

[Rust]

But then again, what is the origin? Is it the death of Krypton? Is it during his years in Smallville? Is it his first day in Metropolis? All of those things could be seen as the origin of Clark Kent. But what is the origin of Superman?

I think that the word "origin" is the wrong word. I like what was said earlier. Jump on point. That is what is needed. Batman '89 was the origin of Batman, just not the origin of Bruce Wayne. It was about the first few weeks of Batman's career. X-Men, while not the origin of the mutant race, or even the X-Men themselves, was the origin of Wolverine's heroic career post-amnesia and the origin of the X-Men actively fighting the Brotherhood. So really, what we need is the point where new people can jump onto the story of Superman.

Exactly. They could go the Batman'89 route or the Birthright route. Of course, the latter would take a bigger bite out of the story, but at least it wouldnt be a full origin.

 

[BH/HHH]

Well yeah they could even go the route Birthright went, the origin is in there but its part of the story especially the part with the fake invasion

 

[Nightwing1983]

But then again, what is the origin? Is it the death of Krypton? Is it during his years in Smallville? Is it his first day in Metropolis? All of those things could be seen as the origin of Clark Kent. But what is the origin of Superman?

Oh gee, I don't know. Maybe the part where Jor-El puts him in the rocket before Krypton blows up. Y'know, cuz that's, y'know, the part that, y'know, explains how he got his powers.

As for the disparity between "the origin of Clark Kent," well, that's ridiculous. Some dude doesn't have an "origin," other than mommy and daddy going downtown. I mean, people have turning points in their lives, sure, but the fact is that John getting his guitar is not "the origin of John," even if John meeting Paul is the origin of the Beatles.

Oh, I'm sorry, they're from the '60s, so you probably don't know who I'm talking about.

I think that the word "origin" is the wrong word. I like what was said earlier. Jump on point. That is what is needed.

Oh, absolutely. It's just that it can be accomplished a number of ways. I tried for over a year to illustrate me and, well, you know what you did.

Batman '89 was the origin of Batman, just not the origin of Bruce Wayne. It was about the first few weeks of Batman's career.

No, it wasn't "the origin of Batman." It showed "the origin of Batman," for, like, three minutes toward the end of Act-2, but the fact is, that it was not the main plot of the film like many superhero films.

X-Men, while not the origin of the mutant race, or even the X-Men themselves, was the origin of Wolverine's heroic career post-amnesia and the origin of the X-Men actively fighting the Brotherhood.

Except that they were clearly already fighting the brotherhood before that; but also, "this guy joins the team," isn't an origin. He's already had his powers for a long time, and the team's already been formed. Hence X-Men Origins: Wolverine and--if it's even in the same continuity--X-Men: First Class. You're shooting yourself in the foot with these kinds of arguments

So really, what we need is the point where new people can jump onto the story of Superman.

And it can be done any number of ways. Buuuuuut you didn't want to listen and, instead, went on a smear campaign, which eventually backfired.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Exactly. They could go the Batman'89 route or the Birthright route. Of course, the latter would take a bigger bite out of the story, but at least it wouldnt be a full origin.

Well, I know Kyle, and he's gonna pretend to respect your point-of-view for a while, then contradict whatever he says to that end, and will eventually find some way of making you look dumb or out-of-it for not agreeing with him on something.