The point is the general audience doesn't care about Superman's origin being shown again because they're not obsessive comic fans. 50-60% of the demographic (that'll be attending the debut) has never seen Kal-El's beginnings or General Zod in action. Therefore, fanboys such as yourself were NOT placed above with great importance when the executives, filmmakers and writers were deciding what was best for the franchise.
Get a grip.
I have a grip, you seem to be getting upset and unpleasant about this, I'm just expressing my opinions.
Again people already know Superman's origin from popular culture, they really don't need to focus on it.
And yet it's still Lex Luthor (who fans are sick to death of in the live-action format). No matter how you spin it, fans (such as yourself) will be crying/whining about the selection -- proclaiming the director and writers are uncreative, uninspiring and lazy for choosing to bring in Lex.
Except I'm not some straw fanboy who is sick of Lex period, you seem to be confusing me with someone else.
I personally don't want Lex to be the sole villain and I don't want him to be obsessed with real estate schemes. But having the corporate Lex play a background role while creating a more physical enemy for superman to fight is fine with me. Lex is going to show up sooner or later anyway, as long he is not the sole villain and is more like the corporate Lex, I don't have a problem with that. Its easier to write different scripts with Lex then with
You're no different than them.
No, you are just creating a straw man
Thank Shiva that WB/DCE does not think like you do.
Question: Why would the youthful non-fans pick up a 30 year film to enjoy the origin of Superman when you've got a flashy new origin on the way?
Answer: They wouldn't.
The movie likely gets shown on TV fair amount and frankly I see pop culture references to it all the time, it seems pretty well known even though it came 30 years ago. Star wars came out over 30 years ago, people know about that movie, same deal with Jaws and to a lesser extent, the Superman movie.
Again why is the origin so important that it needs to be the focus of the film. Frankly I don't see why Superman's origin be covered in 10 to 20 minutes and then moving the action to Metropolis right away. Superman's origin just is not that important and is frankly well known enough not to need a massive retelling.
And yet Snyder did not write the screen play or come up with the concept. David Goyer and The Nolans did that.
Except a director has a lot influence on a movie, not to mention the corporate suits who run WB. After screwing up Superman Returns and Green Lantern its a bit naive to assume this production will be great just because Nolan is a producer.
No, it's not. You're simply bellyaching that a new villain wasn't chosen. Once again, Chris Nolan utilized The League of Shadows and Ra's al Ghul, Sam Raimi employed The Green Goblin and Matthew Vaughn brought in Shaw and The Hellfire Club... and yet it all worked out.
That mystic cinematic storytelling angle you're desperately trying to clinch onto is baseless (bullcrap).
Yeah and all those guys used villains who were not on the Silver screen before. Look what happened when Singer used Lex as sole villain and had him obsessed with real estate again, that didn't work out well.
Maybe Zod would work out or maybe this will just feel like a rehash of the second Superman movie, we don't know for sure. But I see no reason to give WB the benefit of the doubt, after the last couple of screw ups. I would be less likely to think is will end up a rehash of Superman II if they used.
Also its not "bullcrap" as you so elegantly say it, there are some rules for effective story telling in cinema. For example, if they made a Flash movie, I wouldn't want Zoom to be the first villain, because its harder to raise the stakes in the next film. Starting out with less powerful villains like Captain Cold and a few other rogues makes more sense, because it builds up the threat later. It makes sense to start with a lesser powerful villain at first and move onto more powerful villains later.
You did not express them but you certainly implied them. You know damn well you're sincerely a fanboy not delighted with what you received.
At this endeavor, it is emphatically a strawman argument.
I implied no such thing, you are just trying to turn me into a straw fanboy because you don't want to debate a real person. Its kinda silly to accuse me of using straw man arguments, then using them yourself.
Frankly you seem like you are acting like a fanboy, having such "unwavering confidence" in this project in this project, that you throw bile at people who dare to criticize it. Seems like a fanboy to me.
Snyder Fanboy? That's a first.
I have faith in the project because Snyder is a competent director who has a great eye for action sequences/set-pieces, fight choreography and his visuals are among the best in Hollywood. It doesn't hurt that Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer were heavily involved in the script to go along with a star-studded cast either.
You could have similar arguments regarding Bryan Singer in the lead up to Superman Returns. That didn't turn out well.
It's not blind faith, but it's unwavering confidence.
I urge you to re-read my statement again. I did not allege you of criticizing Nolan's Batman franchise. I mentioned the fact that had executives listened to fans with corresponding assessments (like yours) then Batman Begins would have not seen the light of day.
Superman needs a facelift/reboot just as much as Batman required one a decade ago. It was and is essential to move away from a failed vision.
And maybe if Singer listened to the fans who didn't want a rehash of Superman I, Superman Returns would have been a better movie. That argument cuts both ways.
Then perhaps they should gone for a complete fresh start and use villains who have not appeared on the Silver Screen yet, like Nolan did.
Nolan used three iconic and prominent villains in The Joker, Two-Face and Catwoman. Are you asserting that Nolan played it safe too? Who's to say Snyder won't do the same abd pick Parasite in the sequel? Ahh right, you don't.
He also used new villains in the first movie and quick quiz how Batman villains have been adapted to the big screen compared to Superman villains? Again a large part of Batman's rogues gallery has appeared on screen, with Superman its only been two villains over the course of six movies, I don't think its unfair to suggest that they should have seen some other villains from the comics by now.
Besides why would use Parasite after Zod. Zod is a conqueror and threat to the entire planet, Parasite is just some petty thug, his ambitions are far more mundane. Using Parasite after Zod would lower the stakes. That's what happened with Star Trek Insurrection, compare the threat faced in First Contact to one faced in Insurrection and you will see why Insurrection is a let down.
No, your whimpering over Zod being the choice does make your debate less valid when the foundation is apocryphal, fallacious and nonsensical.
I don't think its very civil to use terms like whimpering in regards to someone who just trying to engage in constructive criticism. I'm pretty sure one of the forum rules in this board is to show respect to other posters. No offense, but you seem a bit too worked up about this.
! I mean, since then Superman bored us, Batman admittedly sent us rocketing to the awesome star but Green Lantern looks terrible. Compare to a string of middling to excellent Marvel films (Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, Captain America, X-Men Origins Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, Avengers) and I think DC movies need a kick up the butt, especially and Nolan's last Batman is coming up 
!
