Some insight into Goyer's script perhaps?

[KalMart]

I agree with all of this, especially the bolded parts. Personally I would prefer to avoid the kryptonian heritage part of the Superman story until the second film. Establish him as a hero first, and then upset that established order with a villain like Brainiac, who can make Clark face the truth of his origin.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I simply don't see how a film without the origin of SUPERMAN (not the farm stuff, not the krypton stuff) would even work. I really don't see how a new story can be told on the back of all the baggage that comes with it without ANYTHING that tells us this is going to be different.

The more interesting and exciting you make what's on the screen, the less what's not on the screen is missed...or even noticed.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The more interesting and exciting you make what's on the screen, the less what's not on the screen is missed...or even noticed.

Let me ask you this:

Why did the Spiderman films start with him getting his powers and not just swinging straight into the action? Why did Batman start with Begins and not TDK? Why did they show Iron Man's abduction and how he made the suit? Why did each of those directors decided that this was the best way to tell their story, instead of, as you say, just telling a compelling story without explaining the backstory?

And secondly, did doing all that in any way HINDER the movies?

The one thing I will say, is that there is no right or wrong way of doing it. Some superhero movies have origins, some do not. Some people prefer a reboot to start with an origin, some do not.

With Superman, i'm half and half. If they start the movie on the farm, with him just discovering his powers, or on krypton and Jor-el sends of the spaceship, it'll probably be something i'd fast forward through on the DVD.

But if they start the reboot off with a movie that does not take a deeper look at the man behind the superhero, why he put on the suit, and what he sacrifices to do it (as is the successful way of doing it atm), then i'll be admittedly dissapointed.

P.S as someone who is not a big fan of B89 (though I don't dislike it), i'm beginning to wonder how i'd feel about it if they'd shown some form of origin.

 

[JAK®]

Let me ask you this:

Why did the Spiderman films start with him getting his powers and not just swinging straight into the action? Why did Batman start with Begins and not TDK? Why did they show Iron Man's abduction and how he made the suit? Why did each of those directors decided that this was the best way to tell their story, instead of, as you say, just telling a compelling story without explaining the backstory?

Because, except for Batman, nobody knew the origins of those characters. Batman never had an origin movie before Begins.

 

[KalMart]

Let me ask you this:

Why did the Spiderman films start with him getting his powers and not just swinging straight into the action? Why did Batman start with Begins and not TDK? Why did they show Iron Man's abduction and how he made the suit? Why did each of those directors decided that this was the best way to tell their story, instead of, as you say, just telling a compelling story without explaining the backstory?

And secondly, did doing all that in any way HINDER the movies?

The one thing I will say, is that there is no right or wrong way of doing it. Some superhero movies have origins, some do not. Some people prefer a reboot to start with an origin, some do not.

With Superman, i'm half and half. If they start the movie on the farm, with him just discovering his powers, or on krypton and Jor-el sends of the spaceship, it'll probably be something i'd fast forward through on the DVD.

But if they start the reboot off with a movie that does not take a deeper look at the man behind the superhero, why he put on the suit, and what he sacrifices to do it (as is the successful way of doing it atm), then i'll be admittedly dissapointed.

P.S as someone who is not a big fan of B89 (though I don't dislike it), i'm beginning to wonder how i'd feel about it if they'd shown some form of origin.

Because they haven't been creative enough to do it another way, or felt the need to with their characters. Now I'd say with Superman, the need for it is even greater, since a) you want to do what you can to stand out from the pack that follows that bog-standard linearity, and b) Superman the hero has become so dull in the moviegoing public's eyes....and not so much because they don't 'get' the man behind the suit.

And like we mentioned, it would start with Superman's first introduction to Metropolis, not like he's already been there for months/years....so for all intents and purposes, it is a beginning/origin of the superhero character in his world....just not with all that growing up and coming from another planet stuff.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, Burton was the first I think in doing the already-existing straight-into-action superhero story. And it worked.

 

[KalMart]

Yeah, in Batman '89, it pretty much started with Batman already established, but still a pretty new presence. Not exactly an ideal example, but in terms of the approach it worked. Burton seemed to like villain origins, though.

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah, in Batman '89, it pretty much started with Batman already established, but still a pretty new presence. Not exactly an ideal example, but in terms of the approach it worked. Burton seemed to like villain origins, though.

Erm... so you want not only the origin skipped but like the first 5 years too at least? And on top of that no villiain origin either? And I guess no mention of how Perry White became an editor or Lois Lane became a journalist should be made since that would be too much of an origin too.

 

[JAK®]

Superman doesn't need an origin because just about everybody knows where he came from, but his villains need origins because you need to explain why there is a man who has a robotic skeleton, a bright pink man who sucks energy from people and a backwards-talking chalk white Superman clone.

 

[KalMart]

Erm... so you want not only the origin skipped but like the first 5 years too at least? And on top of that no villiain origin either? And I guess no mention of how Perry White became an editor or Lois Lane became a journalist should be made since that would be too much of an origin too.

No...as I stated, I'd like to start with Superman's first introduction to Metropolis and the world. I didn't say anything about not having a villain origin or what have you...that was in regards to B'89. Although, I don't think someone like Luthor would really need an origin, but with someone like Braniac, I think it'd be cool in a sequel to bring in Supes' origins then, and tie Braniac to Krypton as well as perhaps coming to Earth on Kal-El's ship...that way you could parallel Supes' past with the present storyline of Braniac emerging on Earth. Kinda' like what they did with Vito's history in Godfather II, but more actively intertwined.

 

[Rust]

Superman doesn't need an origin because just about everybody knows where he came from, but his villains need origins because you need to explain why there is a man who has a robotic skeleton, a bright pink man who sucks energy from people and a backwards-talking chalk white Superman clone.

More like a humanoid super-laptop with an affinity for cosmic knowledge. Dont think we'll meet any of the above guys.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Because, except for Batman, nobody knew the origins of those characters. Batman never had an origin movie before Begins.

IMO Superman has not had a 'hero origin' movie either. He's had his childhood mapped out, and then there is a big gaping hole between teenager and superhero.

Because they haven't been creative enough to do it another way, or felt the need to with their characters. Now I'd say with Superman, the need for it is even greater, since a) you want to do what you can to stand out from the pack that follows that bog-standard linearity, and b) Superman the hero has become so dull in the moviegoing public's eyes....and not so much because they don't 'get' the man behind the suit.

And like we mentioned, it would start with Superman's first introduction to Metropolis, not like he's already been there for months/years....so for all intents and purposes, it is a beginning/origin of the superhero character in his world....just not with all that growing up and coming from another planet stuff.

As i keep on repeating, so much it's making me dizzy, not ONCE have a said I want to see this, and I have said at every possible opportunity how having this part of the mythos re told would suck.

I want what you want, so I'm failing to see why we are still debating this round and round in circles. Seems to me the only difference is that i'd like some sequence within the movie that shows why he decided to become Superman.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't think the majority wants a straight-up origin story of Superman. That's a near-fact.

Now if they explore his past through flashbacks, or through creative story-telling about his heritage, than that's different.

 

[Rust]

Nah, a full Superman-origin would also take up too much time. Just show the relevant stuff and possibly something new that ties into the villain. Could be done quite pacefully and combining two parallel stories/timelines would create great dynamics. Watchmen did it great.

 

[BH/HHH]

I don't think the majority wants a straight-up origin story of Superman. That's a near-fact.

Now if they explore his past through flashbacks, or through creative story-telling about his heritage, than that's different.

That would be fantastic

 

[SuperJ]

I wouldn't mind if Superman discovered his Kryptonian heritage together along with the audience...........

I do think some kind of origin/background needs to be established..........but it doesn't have to told linearly...........

 

[KalMart]

IMO Superman has not had a 'hero origin' movie either. He's had his childhood mapped out, and then there is a big gaping hole between teenager and superhero.

Which Smallville has already spent ten years on....doesn't matter as much that it's different from the comics.

As i keep on repeating, so much it's making me dizzy, not ONCE have a said I want to see this, and I have said at every possible opportunity how having this part of the mythos re told would suck.

I want what you want, so I'm failing to see why we are still debating this round and round in circles. Seems to me the only difference is that i'd like some sequence within the movie that shows why he decided to become Superman.

I was answering your question about the other movies, and like I said, we don't need to see how he decided anything until we do actually show some of the origin....in a second film. The earliest day that will show up on screen in the first film will be the first day we see either him or Clark in Metropolis. Still want what I want?

Plus, again, it still is an origin of sorts in a lot of other ways, in that we're also being introduced to Lois, Jimmy, Perry and all.

 

[Sawyer]

I don't think the majority wants a straight-up origin story of Superman. That's a near-fact.

Now if they explore his past through flashbacks, or through creative story-telling about his heritage, than that's different.

This.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Which Smallville has already spent ten years on....doesn't matter as much that it's different from the comics.

Personally I don't consider Smallville a Superman origin story. To me, it's an AU. Yes the general public may think it's a Superman origin story, but that's even more reason to spend 10 minutes definining their own 'why he became the man of steel' stuff.

I was answering your question about the other movies, and like I said, we don't need to see how he decided anything until we do actually show some of the origin....in a second film. The earliest day that will show up on screen in the first film will be the first day we see either him or Clark in Metropolis. Still want what I want?

Plus, again, it still is an origin of sorts in a lot of other ways, in that we're also being introduced to Lois, Jimmy, Perry and all.

As I said, I want what you want, with about 10 minutes of 'the day before' added on.

BTW, would you prefer the movie to start with Superman or Clark?

 

[Nightwing1983]

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I simply don't see how a film without the origin of SUPERMAN (not the farm stuff, not the krypton stuff) would even work. I really don't see how a new story can be told on the back of all the baggage that comes with it without ANYTHING that tells us this is going to be different.

So no matter what villain he fights, and no matter what the general tone of the film is; it can't even be a halfway decent film unless it's a reboot that retells his origin? I disagree with you on that one.

IMO all of those problems (apart from the costume) stemmed from them trying to fit in with the style of the old movies.

Okay, and style and continuity are two different things. You could have a loose sequel to the first two without making it a carbon copy. I tried to tell someone this for over a year, and he went on a little smear campaign.

They wanted a storyline that connected it like a sequel... and came up with the kid.

Except that the kid had absolutely nothing to do with the earlier films. "Oh, but he slept with Lois in Superman II." Okay, then how come she either doesn't remember sleeping with him (but seems to take it in stride) or doesn't remember that he's really Clark Kent?

The spooning scene in Superman II was not a mandate for him to knock her up (after-all, its real sequels didn't exposit this) and you're just looking for excuses.

They wanted a Lex that was just like Hackmans... and thats why we got a lack of a decent opponent.

Except that even he--by the end of the film--was more menacing than in the earlier films, and furthermore, there's no flippin' reason why they couldn't have added Metallo or someone!!!

They wanted the 'love story', to copy the flying through the night scenes, the rooftop scenes etc... and so we got less action and more of a 'mood peice'.

Yeah, because you couldn't possibly have both action AND romance. Like... y'know... the Spider-Man films. Or like... y'know... Superman II.

In other words, you could have made a loose sequel to the films and had a better movie. They didn't because--despite their press--they weren't really passionate about the character and they JUST. WEREN'T. THINKING.

I'd say the only time they've ever told the origin of SUPERMAN (not the farm stuff, not the krypton stuff), as in how he decides/learns (depending on which origin you like, fortress or self discovery), is in television. Lois and Clark and Smallville. And they each told completely different stories. Because that's what's possible with the Superman mythos... there are so many different ways you can tell the story of how he becomes Superman and how people react to him, that having done it twice on television and never in the films (unless you count flying in and out of an ice castle) I really don't think it's old hat.

That's nice. But the fact remains that "the farm stuff" and "the Krypton stuff" IS "the origin of Superman." All this, "oh, here's how he decided to become Superman," is just part of that. Furthermore, you can say, "but this is the origin of SUPERMAN," all you want; it's not gonna matter to someone who isn't already invested in the character if they've already made up their mind, "oh, they're just retelling the origin."

Furthermore, look at what you said about "they're practically two different origins." That's another problem with the, "we gotta do it so everyone'll like him and you can't disagree or you're just stuck in the past," attitude your new best friend (be grateful I didn't call him something else) has. Because his motivation is so broadly defined, Birthright's African this and Superman: the Movie's hologram of Jor-El that; it makes it so that it'll never be as meaningful as those of Batman, Spider-Man, and if someone IS so enthralled by something like that; there's absolutely no guarantee that the audience won't be like, "well, this is great, but everything that came before it was cr@p," like we see with the pre-Crisis/ post-Crisis disparity.

If you really have your heart set on an origin that explores his motivation, be my guest. I'm just saying it's not the only way, and it's not infallible.

Batman Begins. Spiderman. Iron Man. Argueably the 3 most succesful Superhero movies of my time.

But wait! Are you talking about box office? What about The Dark Knight? Heck, BB did fairly average box office comparable to that of SR (budget notwithstanding). Or are you counting each series as one big film? Yeah, I don't do that, each film has to stand on its own. Or wait are you saying, "successful" as in you liked it the best? Well, that's great, but you can't expect everyone to agree with you.

And again: the origins of those characters happen to be better than Superman's origin in many peoples' opinion; and for the record, I think Spider-Man kinda botched it anyway!

All have the origin of the HERO. Not the childhood (other than flashbacks). But the origin of what led to them putting on a costume and saving the world. Because that's where the story begins.

The story begins when the writer decides it begins. There are no "rules." Heck, it'd be an interesting thing if they made a movie about a superhero (original or adapted) and just didn't reveal his origin because maybe it's not important to the overall plot.

I'm afraid I don't see how you can use those heroes as reasons to support your anti-origin opinion.

First and foremost, let me spell it out:

I AM NOT ANTI-ORIGIN!!!

The reason I get into all these arguments with Kyle about it is because, well, he's Kyle. The guy insists that the only way to do it is by retelling the origin, and frames it in the context of trying to win over everyone who doesn't like the character (not to mention the fact that when I say, "hey, they should include xyz," he makes big statements about how I "need to let the past go," which just isn't why I'm a Superman fan) and I'm basically saying, "no, you don't need to, there are other ways," and, "giving him some token motivation isn't going to win everybody over."

I don't have an objection to a movie that retells his origin, as long as it's a great movie and doesn't feel like they're just arbitrarily adding stuff and is true to the character. It's a balancing act, of course, but the best thing they can do is to go back to Superman (vol 1) #1--basically the Director's Cut of Action Comics #1 as someone pointed out--and to what Pa Kent says in that one panel about needing to hide his powers so people aren't afraid but using them to help others. That way, it can be played pretty much how you seem to want it, but it's also something that was always there.

Finally, as noted before, I don't think the problems with Superman Returns came from trying to follow the first film in terms of continuity; but if anything, not realizing what worked about them and what didn't; but even that's just a product of them simply not thinking about the script.

Even if it had been preceded by a reboot that resembles what you want to see, and even devoid of all the oblique references to the earlier films (if it really bothers you that much); it would still be an insult to the character.

Finally, as for the other three heroes you mentioned, all I'm saying is that they're all superheroes and have contributed to the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" (look it up) trope when it comes to Superman, so the mere fact that they're "reintroducing" Superman in a new continuity doesn't change the fact that he has been around since 1938 and that there are imitators (for lack of a better word) like Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man. In other words, no matter what, the reboot is not "old had proof" like you and Kyle like to imagine.

If Superman had been around for a few years now, and I lived in Metropolis and had seen him flying overhead several times a week... I don't think i'd still be staring up at the sky and pointing and clapping every time. Tourists might. Or you might if you saw him doing something particularly heroic.

Okay, and the movie has to be full of people looking up at the sky, pointing and clapping every time... why? I mean, one of the things that annoys me about Superman II (which, contrary to what Kyle wants you to believe, I don't really like as a film) is that a lot of the people in the city during the big battle at the end act like he's putting on a show for them.

I'd take a Superman that "seems more mundane" over that crap.

That said, if I were a tourist and saw a celebrity who had been famous for roughly ten years for doing unnatural yet heroic things, I'd probably be more "in awe" than if I suddenly saw some guy flying and fighting a giant robot, in which case--if I survived the heart attack--I'm sure I'd be more worried than anything else.

I would prefer to see that initial reaction. That shock, mixed with fear, and how Superman eventually wins the trust of the public to become someone they regard with awe.

That's great. You would. I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'm just saying it's not a prerequisite to me, and I really doubt that "winning over Joe Sweatsock" hinges on this.

I completely agree that audiences seem to connect more with heroes that have a tough time of it with the 'public' of their world. Spiderman is wanted by the police. Batman is wanted by the police. The X-Men are hated for being mutants.

But that's why I think it should be an important part of the story, as to why he decides to not wear a mask. It should be about HOW he avoids the stigma of being a 'vigilante' or even something more dangerous.

And it could be interesting. One thing I often point to is that Batman, Spider-Man, etc. go out and hunt down criminals, be they nameless purse-snatchers or colorfully clad archvillains; whereas while Superman does that too, he also deals with avalanches and earthquakes, which--for obvious reasons--Batman and Spider-Man don't.

For a long time, I carried the, "well, Superman is a vigilante," mindset because I felt that the comic press--if you will--just seemed to use that tag on anyone who was tougher than they should be or whatever. That said, I've changed my mind because when Superman spots a mugger, he's simply coming to the aid of another, rather than going on patrol every night. It's simply not his M.O.

You may shoot me for saying this, but IMO there are some people who will watch the movie just because it's a reboot... just to see what they've done differently.

I'm sure there are; but I think it'd be wrong for them to assume that a particularly large segment of the filmgoing audience feels that way.

 

[KyleDW2]

This.

Agreed. I can't think of many people who want a straight up Krypton to Smallville to Metropolis origin story. I want a story more like Batman Begins which, if you don't remember, started when Bruce was around 30 and had a liberal use of flashbacks. That's how I want Superman's story to start. Bruce started with a fight in the prison yard and then had all that ninja action. I'm sure we could get some action at the beginning of the new Superman movie and then explain things non-linearly like Begins did.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

So no matter what villain he fights, and no matter what the general tone of the film is; it can't even be a halfway decent film unless it's a reboot that retells his origin? I disagree with you on that one..

Well it could be half decent... but I don't think it would be effective enough in reintroducing the character to a public that IMO have a mind full of Superman jokes and sterotypes interfering in their veiwing.

Okay, and style and continuity are two different things. You could have a loose sequel to the first two without making it a carbon copy. I tried to tell someone this for over a year, and he went on a little smear campaign.
.

Yeah you could definitely have had a loose sequel that told a different story, completely agree there. They didn't though. They had a 'sequel' that was more like an Echo.

Except that the kid had absolutely nothing to do with the earlier films. "Oh, but he slept with Lois in Superman II." Okay, then how come she either doesn't remember sleeping with him (but seems to take it in stride) or doesn't remember that he's really Clark Kent?
.

So where are you suggesting the kid came from?

I have no idea how to answer those questions... those are the questions that plague every single Superman fan who watched that film... and Singer has NEVER presented a decent explanation.

The spooning scene in Superman II was not a mandate for him to knock her up (after-all, its real sequels didn't exposit this) and you're just looking for excuses.
.

It's not an excuse... (excuse for what exactly?)

They TOLD us it was set after the events of Superman 2.

Except that even he--by the end of the film--was more menacing than in the earlier films, and furthermore, there's no flippin' reason why they couldn't have added Metallo or someone!!!.

Agreed, they could have. Would have made it a lot better. Still wouldn't have been great to me because of all the rest of the problems with the film.

Yeah, because you couldn't possibly have both action AND romance. Like... y'know... the Spider-Man films. Or like... y'know... Superman II.

In other words, you could have made a loose sequel to the films and had a better movie. They didn't because--despite their press--they weren't really passionate about the character and they JUST. WEREN'T. THINKING.
.

Don't get me wrong. I WANT both action and romance. If they had no Lois and Clark story, i'd be very very upset.

My point was that they wanted to copy the EXACT romantic moments from the first movies. Just like they were trying to copy a lot of stuff. And because they couldn't seem to get their head out of that idea, they didn't introduce ANYTHING NEW at all, which meant no decent action (like, as you suggested Metallo).

That's nice. But the fact remains that "the farm stuff" and "the Krypton stuff" IS "the origin of Superman." All this, "oh, here's how he decided to become Superman," is just part of that. Furthermore, you can say, "but this is the origin of SUPERMAN," all you want; it's not gonna matter to someone who isn't already invested in the character if they've already made up their mind, "oh, they're just retelling the origin." .

They are parts of the Superman story. Parts that personally I'd be fine with them leaving out in favour of exploring a DIFFERENT part of the Superman origin story, one that hasn't been explored on screen and fits in with themes that I believe audiences might connect with better.

Furthermore, look at what you said about "they're practically two different origins." That's another problem with the, "we gotta do it so everyone'll like him and you can't disagree or you're just stuck in the past," attitude your new best friend (be grateful I didn't call him something else) has. Because his motivation is so broadly defined, Birthright's African this and Superman: the Movie's hologram of Jor-El that; it makes it so that it'll never be as meaningful as those of Batman, Spider-Man, and if someone IS so enthralled by something like that; there's absolutely no guarantee that the audience won't be like, "well, this is great, but everything that came before it was cr@p," like we see with the pre-Crisis/ post-Crisis disparity.

If you really have your heart set on an origin that explores his motivation, be my guest. I'm just saying it's not the only way, and it's not infallible.

.

I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe it is the ONLY way, nor that just because is what I want, I am right.

I can only present why I want it that way.

FYI I don't want them to have everyone saying that everything that came before was crap either. I don't want any parts of the character completely dismissed because they aren't cool enough. There are certain parts, like his kryptonian heritage, that I would prefer them to only fleetingly reference in the first movie, and explore more in a sequel once the character is established in the world of this new franchise. If they make a sequel that is.

But wait! Are you talking about box office? What about The Dark Knight? Heck, BB did fairly average box office comparable to that of SR (budget notwithstanding). Or are you counting each series as one big film? Yeah, I don't do that, each film has to stand on its own. Or wait are you saying, "successful" as in you liked it the best? Well, that's great, but you can't expect everyone to agree with you.

And again: the origins of those characters happen to be better than Superman's origin in many peoples' opinion; and for the record, I think Spider-Man kinda botched it anyway!

The story begins when the writer decides it begins. There are no "rules." Heck, it'd be an interesting thing if they made a movie about a superhero (original or adapted) and just didn't reveal his origin because maybe it's not important to the overall plot.
.

I'm really not going to argue with you about whether or not those films were successful.

First and foremost, let me spell it out:

I AM NOT ANTI-ORIGIN!!!

The reason I get into all these arguments with Kyle about it is because, well, he's Kyle. The guy insists that the only way to do it is by retelling the origin, and frames it in the context of trying to win over everyone who doesn't like the character (not to mention the fact that when I say, "hey, they should include xyz," he makes big statements about how I "need to let the past go," which just isn't why I'm a Superman fan) and I'm basically saying, "no, you don't need to, there are other ways," and, "giving him some token motivation isn't going to win everybody over.".

It's not about a token motivation. Superman has always had a motivation, in the past and in the present. I just don't think it's been particularly well shown on screen, and I really do think that they need to in order to be 'up there' with the best of the superhero movies. But that's just a matter of opinion.

I don't have an objection to a movie that retells his origin, as long as it's a great movie and doesn't feel like they're just arbitrarily adding stuff and is true to the character. It's a balancing act, of course, but the best thing they can do is to go back to Superman (vol 1) #1--basically the Director's Cut of Action Comics #1 as someone pointed out--and to what Pa Kent says in that one panel about needing to hide his powers so people aren't afraid but using them to help others. That way, it can be played pretty much how you seem to want it, but it's also something that was always there..

Sounds fine to me. I have no specific comic story in mind when I talk about showing that 'decision' and the process of becoming a hero. It doesn't have to come from one. It can be a combination of a few, it can include a brand new situation if they want to. There are core things that they should include, but to me, as long as the 'Why' isn't ignored, then they are handling Superman with the respect that an epic story like his deserves.

Finally, as noted before, I don't think the problems with Superman Returns came from trying to follow the first film in terms of continuity; but if anything, not realizing what worked about them and what didn't; but even that's just a product of them simply not thinking about the script.
.

Agreed. And there certainly are a lot of things they could take from the first films. I'm not a big fan of them, but anybody who says that they should be completely ignored is being dumb.

I mean, I don't want to watch another movie where I can go 'oh that bits like that scene in Superman The Movie' again. But general ideas and stuff.

Finally, as for the other three heroes you mentioned, all I'm saying is that they're all superheroes and have contributed to the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" (look it up) trope when it comes to Superman, so the mere fact that they're "reintroducing" Superman in a new continuity doesn't change the fact that he has been around since 1938 and that there are imitators (for lack of a better word) like Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man. In other words, no matter what, the reboot is not "old had proof" like you and Kyle like to imagine..

I really don't like being lumped into an 'opinion' set that your putting on me. I have agreed with Kyle about things, I agree with you about certain other things. I am not being arrogant or presenting anything I say as fact. I am not being stubborn in my view and will not be one of those people who go 'they aren't doing it my way, so i'm not watching it.

At the end of the day, it's a Superman movie. As awful as SR was, I left the cinema on a cloud, because ANYTHING that is about Superman is worth my money and my time, at least until the critic in me kicks in.

Okay, and the movie has to be full of people looking up at the sky, pointing and clapping every time... why? I mean, one of the things that annoys me about Superman II (which, contrary to what Kyle wants you to believe, I don't really like as a film) is that a lot of the people in the city during the big battle at the end act like he's putting on a show for them.

I'd take a Superman that "seems more mundane" over that crap..

That said, if I were a tourist and saw a celebrity who had been famous for roughly ten years for doing unnatural yet heroic things, I'd probably be more "in awe" than if I suddenly saw some guy flying and fighting a giant robot, in which case--if I survived the heart attack--I'm sure I'd be more worried than anything else.
.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying it should be like that at all... I find it so unrealistic and cringeworthy.

I would personally prefer to see a crowd of worried and dubious people, than a bunch of idiots clapping and smiling, who are just DAMN LUCKY Superman is NOT a threat.

And it could be interesting. One thing I often point to is that Batman, Spider-Man, etc. go out and hunt down criminals, be they nameless purse-snatchers or colorfully clad archvillains; whereas while Superman does that too, he also deals with avalanches and earthquakes, which--for obvious reasons--Batman and Spider-Man don't..

God I would love to see Superman handling a natural disaster in a really incredible way in this new film.

For a long time, I carried the, "well, Superman is a vigilante," mindset because I felt that the comic press--if you will--just seemed to use that tag on anyone who was tougher than they should be or whatever. That said, I've changed my mind because when Superman spots a mugger, he's simply coming to the aid of another, rather than going on patrol every night. It's simply not his M.O..

Completely agreed, in fact I said something similar in another thread when I said that Superman is not really a law enforcer, he saves people, and when he does and there is a person responsible, he deals with them in societies way because he respects the rules of society.

 

[KrypJonian]

Erm... so you want not only the origin skipped but like the first 5 years too at least? And on top of that no villiain origin either? And I guess no mention of how Perry White became an editor or Lois Lane became a journalist should be made since that would be too much of an origin too.

I may be coming into this too late, but... Why the hell do you need to know either of those things? Don't know if you were being sarcastic or not... THAT would be a waste of time though...

 

[routhman]

I think most people are overestimating the general public's knowledge of Superman.

- He is a hero. He can fly, he is strong, etc. He dresses in red, blue, and yellow. Almost all people know that.

- Lex Luthor is his archenemy. Lois Lane is his girlfriend. His name is Clark Kent. He is an alien. Most people know that.

- He is from Krypton. His stepfather is Jonathan Kent. He is a reporter at the Daily Planet. A few people know that (less than the majority).

- His birth father was Jor-El. His mother was Lara. People don't know that.

Now the above was only to prove my point -- don't try to deconstruct it, I didn't put tremendous thought into it. Still, it illustrates what I need to say. We can't assume that the whole world has seen Superman: The Movie and remembers everything about it. They haven't. And they don't.

We also can't misconstrue the reason for telling the origin: it is not to rehash the old information (Jonathan Kent, Jor-El, Krypton, etc), but it is to provide the motivation for his journey. The origin of Superman can be epic, it can be grand, and I don't think that live-action film has captured the scale of his beginning. If we really look at why he chooses to become Superman, then we provide the film with substance. Personally, yes, I think that the genre is getting tired of the formulaic origin story -- but a non-linear exploration of the Superman origin would bring meaning and depth to the character, which SR completely lacked.

 

[KrypJonian]

While I prefer the new Superman movie to have the origin in flashbacks, ala Batman Begins, one thing seems to be constant regardless of what you like. Whether it be Secret Origin, Earth One, or Superman:The Movie, we need Jonathan Kent to give him a reason.

Jonathan Kent is Superman's Uncle Ben. I don't think he needs a dead parent motivation like Batman (though it was played off well in S:TM, and not so much in Earth One, wasn't really necessary), but it is Jonathan and Martha that, without a doubt, that instill him with the values that lead him to become Superman. I feel like that needs to be shown somehow. Some flashes of Krypton would be nice though, but not worth an entire first act like STM

 

[Rust]

I think most people are overestimating the general public's knowledge of Superman.

- He is a hero. He can fly, he is strong, etc. He dresses in red, blue, and yellow. Almost all people know that.

- Lex Luthor is his archenemy. Lois Lane is his girlfriend. His name is Clark Kent. He is an alien. Most people know that.

- He is from Krypton. His stepfather is Jonathan Kent. He is a reporter at the Daily Planet. A few people know that (less than the majority).

- His birth father was Jor-El. His mother was Lara. People don't know that.

Now the above was only to prove my point -- don't try to deconstruct it, I didn't put tremendous thought into it. Still, it illustrates what I need to say. We can't assume that the whole world has seen Superman: The Movie and remembers everything about it. They haven't. And they don't.

We also can't misconstrue the reason for telling the origin: it is not to rehash the old information (Jonathan Kent, Jor-El, Krypton, etc), but it is to provide the motivation for his journey. The origin of Superman can be epic, it can be grand, and I don't think that live-action film has captured the scale of his beginning. If we really look at why he chooses to become Superman, then we provide the film with substance. Personally, yes, I think that the genre is getting tired of the formulaic origin story -- but a non-linear exploration of the Superman origin would bring meaning and depth to the character, which SR completely lacked.

Agreed. We need some sort of origin or motivation for Superman's actions and for us to care about why he goes where. And I guess it has to be pretty straight forward naratively.