Superman Begins?

[Rodrigo90]

It all depends on the writing.

People who dont want an origin, is because of the fear that action scenes wont be included as much as they want,me thinks?

Characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones are NO WHERE near as complex as Superman,and thats a fact.

Critics and the audience dislike movies without good character exploration and action taking over,James Bond was proof of that in the old days. With Casino Royale, we saw Bond with somewhat of an origin,and explanation into him,and that was very much welcomed. Same with Batman Begins.

IMO, a good origin story for Superman is needed

 

[The Batman]

Audiences connected with Indiana Jones and James Bond just fine.

It's not difficult. Movies, tv shows, books, and etc have been telling stories of characters without ever going on into the origin and done them well.

Just use the first page from All-Star Superman the exact same way and be done with it. Everyone wins.

Is it really that difficult? You could always use flashbacks if the story being told needs to pull of history from a character's past. Not to mention the right kind of story can you let get into the character's head to give insight and understanding.

Mostly people want the origin because they have been taught over the past 25 years that the only interesting Superman stories are his origin and his death.

Only reason I have much interest in the origin is because I want to see a Krypton that doesn't suck. But that can be easily fixed in a non origin movie by having Supes visit Kandor and in flashbacks.

Not that they'd ever have the guts to do that.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

If this is a Superman Begins story, with Goyer writing, and seeing his writing in Batman Begins, I would like the opening of the movie to be a Brainiac attack on the Kent Farm when Clark is an older teenager (about 18). The Brainiac drone, attacks Jonathon knowing that Clark was near and Martha calls for Clark, Clark comes speeding into the bedroom, throws the drone out of the window, into the barn, whie the drone calculates the possibility of him being Kryptonian (about 32% at this point). Clark then lays the beat down into the drone some more, until he calculates a 57% chance of him being Kryptonian. The dronw then begins to fight Clark but Clark is having none of it. He superspeeds into the drone. grabs him jumps and the drones reading keep going up and up, Clark's eyes then begin to glow red as he unleashes a blast of heat vision on it before it screams "100% likelihood of Kryptonian" and Clark throws away the charred remains into the sky, Clark floats, looking exhausted and proud. Then he hears Martha call down for him, he exclaims "Dad!" and flies down.

Clark then wakes up in the present in Africa.



For me that would perfectly show that the movie is a reboot, it shows there will be more action and that we will see what happens to Clark when he is younger, and how and why he becomes Superman.

 

[The Sage]

It all depends on the writing.

People who dont want an origin, is because of the fear that action scenes wont be included as much as they want,me thinks?

Characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones are NO WHERE near as complex as Superman,and thats a fact.

Critics and the audience dislike movies without good character exploration and action taking over,James Bond was proof of that in the old days. With Casino Royale, we saw Bond with somewhat of an origin,and explanation into him,and that was very much welcomed. Same with Batman Begins.

IMO, a good origin story for Superman is needed

Casino Royale wasn't really an origin story per say. It just started with Bond's first mission. You didn't see him going through training, or the family he was borin in. Matter of fact, they talked a bit about his backstory referencing him being an orphan. But you saw and understood his character based on his actions and situations he was in. Casino Royale would be akin to a Superman story beginning with him already being established and jumping into his first serious confrontation with someone.

Regarding why some don't want an origin story, it's got less to do with action scenes. Snyder's the director, there's no concern there. There's a fear that no new ground will get touched on. And I can understand that.

Yes, seeing why Clark Kent became Superman is good and all, but can the story at the same time touch on him being a black and white superhero in a gray world? Can it touch on why his morals and character are still relevant? Or will we deal with the whole "I'm an outsider" angle that seems to be in almost everything nowadays?

 

[Astrodust]

If this is a Superman Begins story, with Goyer writing, and seeing his writing in Batman Begins, I would like the opening of the movie to be a Brainiac attack on the Kent Farm when Clark is an older teenager (about 18). The Brainiac drone, attacks Jonathon knowing that Clark was near and Martha calls for Clark, Clark comes speeding into the bedroom, throws the drone out of the window, into the barn, whie the drone calculates the possibility of him being Kryptonian (about 32% at this point). Clark then lays the beat down into the drone some more, until he calculates a 57% chance of him being Kryptonian. The dronw then begins to fight Clark but Clark is having none of it. He superspeeds into the drone. grabs him jumps and the drones reading keep going up and up, Clark's eyes then begin to glow red as he unleashes a blast of heat vision on it before it screams "100% likelihood of Kryptonian" and Clark throws away the charred remains into the sky, Clark floats, looking exhausted and proud. Then he hears Martha call down for him, he exclaims "Dad!" and flies down.

Clark then wakes up in the present in Africa.



For me that would perfectly show that the movie is a reboot, it shows there will be more action and that we will see what happens to Clark when he is younger, and how and why he becomes Superman.

No the film should start with Clark traveling. No flashbacks please unless it's Krypton but save Krypton for the sequels.

 

[The Batman]

It all depends on the writing.

People who dont want an origin, is because of the fear that action scenes wont be included as much as they want,me thinks?

Does anyone know where that LEx Luthor picture is? The one with that says "WRONG" in giant white letters?

Critics and the audience dislike movies without good character exploration and action taking over,James Bond was proof of that in the old days. With Casino Royale, we saw Bond with somewhat of an origin,and explanation into him,and that was very much welcomed. Same with Batman Begins.

1. Critics nitpick everything....and even then, people have been criticizing Craig's films because they're not like the old ones. And You're absolutely wrong about the audience. There's a reason that, James Bond, even before CR, is the longest running film franchise. Ever since Brosnan's films, a new bond film makes more cash than the last.

And we're not even taking into account the inflation on the old films.

2. Batman Begins only happened because we never saw Batman's full origin in media before.

Once again, people make the mistake of thinking "Origin" movies are the only place where you can see character explanation.

 

[Rodrigo90]

@ The Sage

Good points.

The concept of Superman's origin,his motivations,etc,I believe could be explained through the narrative of the scenes.

Its more of a point in being able to understand and connect with him in any which way. An origin scene,I dont even think that can help as much as good exploration of the character.

The origin can help KNOW Superman,but I think it should be more of a journey in understanding him.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

To quote Kevin Spacey/ Lex Luthor. "Tell me Everything"


I want an origin. I don't want it to be Superman is already established. The build up and the anticipation of the big reveal (Shirt Rip and the first time the public sees Superman.) is a huge part of the excitement.

 

[ElDuderino]

If this is a Superman Begins story, with Goyer writing, and seeing his writing in Batman Begins, I would like the opening of the movie to be a Brainiac attack on the Kent Farm when Clark is an older teenager (about 18). The Brainiac drone, attacks Jonathon knowing that Clark was near and Martha calls for Clark, Clark comes speeding into the bedroom, throws the drone out of the window, into the barn, whie the drone calculates the possibility of him being Kryptonian (about 32% at this point). Clark then lays the beat down into the drone some more, until he calculates a 57% chance of him being Kryptonian. The dronw then begins to fight Clark but Clark is having none of it. He superspeeds into the drone. grabs him jumps and the drones reading keep going up and up, Clark's eyes then begin to glow red as he unleashes a blast of heat vision on it before it screams "100% likelihood of Kryptonian" and Clark throws away the charred remains into the sky, Clark floats, looking exhausted and proud. Then he hears Martha call down for him, he exclaims "Dad!" and flies down.

Clark then wakes up in the present in Africa.



For me that would perfectly show that the movie is a reboot, it shows there will be more action and that we will see what happens to Clark when he is younger, and how and why he becomes Superman.

That sounds pretty sweet.

To quote Kevin Spacey/ Lex Luthor. "Tell me Everything"


I want an origin. I don't want it to be Superman is already established. The build up and the anticipation of the big reveal (Shirt Rip and the first time the public sees Superman.) is a huge part of the excitement.

Agree. I want it all. This is a fresh start. I want every aspect of Superman explored. Krypton, his childhood, his parents, what drives him. Plus plenty of action and kick-assery. EVERYTHING.

As Llama's little intro shows, you can do origin and full-on display of superpowers at the same time.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The "we saw the origin 30 years ago" is a lame excuse thats not even ACCURATE. We've seen the origin in STAS, L & C, and smallville, which has been a 10 year origin story. Most people who use that excuse know this, so why they continue to act like people only watch superman when hes in theaters, i dunno.

1. Smallville is an AU story... with all the things that have happened over the 10 years, I refuse to accept it being called a Superman Origin story, sorry. I like the show, but that's just insane.

2. Lois and Clark started with him arriving in Metropolis. It hinted at him having travelled the world, but we never saw any of that. All we ever saw on the show was flashbacks of them finding him in a field in later episodes. From a baby to him getting off a bus in Metropolis, we never see anything else of Clark's life before Metropolis.

Now, it is the best Superman 'origin' we've seen, because you actually see him DECIDE to create the Superman persona, but there is still plenty of unexplored aspects of the origin story.

3. Superman: The Movie was an origin story told 40 years ago. It is IMO completely outdated, and does nothing to connect you to the character. Wacthing someone go into an ice castle and fly out wearing the suit, is just insane.

And you can say what you want about other interpretations, cartoons, comics etc... but the majority of the general audience will only have seen the Donner films. There are shown on TV all the time as well, which annoys the hell out of me. You put them next to modern movies, and they just seem so pathetic, both to me, and to a younger generation of viewers.

So then add SR to that, a movie that basically just copied the outdated way of doing things, and tried to compete with other modern superhero films, and you've basically cemented Superman with a lack of credibility.

Audiences connected with Indiana Jones and James Bond just fine.

Do they though?

I mean, I don't remotely feel that James Bond is a character that I understand or relate too. He is just a personality at the centre of great action and adventure. His personality compliments the storylines, but I don't feel connected to any inner struggles or conflicts he has. I don't feel a depth of relatability. (haven't seen anything of the Daniel Craig Bond though, so i'll have to check those out and see if the 'origin' story helps that).

It used to be something that I only really got from watching a TV show. That sense that you've watched a character's journey from the beginning, and that you have grown and learned along with them and know them well BECAUSE you know their history. You feel like you have this deeper understanding of how much weight certain events, fights, tragedies will have on the characters because you know their history and the reasons why they do what they do.

I think that's something that BB and TDK achieved very well. I wouldn't have given a rats arse about Rachel's death in TDK, if it hadn't been for BB and the fact I knew that she was the only one who had been there for him his whole life, and took no ******** off him.

And I personally feel that Batman comes across A LOT more interesting, relatable and believable, because of the training he put himself through in BB. We know HOW he can take all the punches, HOW he uses smoke as a diversion, WHY he dresses like a bat. And it all makes sense.

With Superman, because there are a few origins stories, that kind of fit with each different interpretation of the character in general, you kind of HAVE to re tell the origin, or it simply won't make sense in the context.

And I want becoming Superman to be something that makes sense (as much as putting pants over tights ever can ). I want it to be something that he becomes for HUMAN reasons, not because his AI father told him too, and I want that SHOWN in an origin style story.

Sorry, that post kind of turned into an 'I want' whine, but you get the idea.

Yes, seeing why Clark Kent became Superman is good and all, but can the story at the same time touch on him being a black and white superhero in a gray world? Can it touch on why his morals and character are still relevant? Or will we deal with the whole "I'm an outsider" angle that seems to be in almost everything nowadays?

All of it please

Agree. I want it all. This is a fresh start. I want every aspect of Superman explored. Krypton, his childhood, his parents, what drives him. Plus plenty of action and kick-assery. EVERYTHING.

As Llama's little intro shows, you can do origin and full-on display of superpowers at the same time.

t:

 

[JAK®]

Do they though?

I mean, I don't remotely feel that James Bond is a character that I understand or relate too. He is just a personality at the centre of great action and adventure. His personality compliments the storylines, but I don't feel connected to any inner struggles or conflicts he has. I don't feel a depth of relatability. (haven't seen anything of the Daniel Craig Bond though, so i'll have to check those out and see if the 'origin' story helps that).

Then what about Indiana Jones? You don't relate to him?

 

[Herolee10]

I personally think that Brainiac is too big of a character for Clark to go up against as his first major villain, provided that this is a origin story.

 

[The Batman]

1. Smallville is an AU story... with all the things that have happened over the 10 years, I refuse to accept it being called a Superman Origin story, sorry. I like the show, but that's just insane.

2. Lois and Clark started with him arriving in Metropolis. It hinted at him having travelled the world, but we never saw any of that. All we ever saw on the show was flashbacks of them finding him in a field in later episodes. From a baby to him getting off a bus in Metropolis, we never see anything else of Clark's life before Metropolis.

Now, it is the best Superman 'origin' we've seen, because you actually see him DECIDE to create the Superman persona, but there is still plenty of unexplored aspects of the origin story.

3. Superman: The Movie was an origin story told 40 years ago. It is IMO completely outdated, and does nothing to connect you to the character. Wacthing someone go into an ice castle and fly out wearing the suit, is just insane.

And you can say what you want about other interpretations, cartoons, comics etc... but the majority of the general audience will only have seen the Donner films. There are shown on TV all the time as well, which annoys the hell out of me. You put them next to modern movies, and they just seem so pathetic, both to me, and to a younger generation of viewers.

So then add SR to that, a movie that basically just copied the outdated way of doing things, and tried to compete with other modern superhero films, and you've basically cemented Superman with a lack of credibility.

1. It appears that what you refuse to accept does not agree with reality. SV is a ten year Superman story whether you accept it or not.

2. So now we need to see every little detail of his origin? If that's what you're saying, that's just an unrealistic expectation. Not even this movie will cover all the things you want it too.

3. I disagree with much of your third point, especially since you have a clear bias against Donner's Superman, which clouds whatever argument you had.

 

[Bad Superman]

I like the fact that the film will have that Batman Begins structure. It's the perfect set up for a reboot. One thing that I hope Snyder does is expand upon Superman's universe sometime near the end of the film so its expanded a bit more on the sequel. Just by mention or newspaper clippings. It's something I would love to see. Contrary to Nolan's take for Batman, I want other heroes to exist on that same Superman universe.

 

[jthom19802]

I said before that the background we have gotten (sans Smallville) has been weak. As HS said, 10 minutes on the farm, then going to a big crystal mountain and putting on a suit does not an origin story make. Also mentioned was L&C, where we got a few minutes of Martha and the suit but it was essentially him showing up in Metropolis.

Another example of that in S1 is when he's giving his interview and he makes it a point to say, "I never lie, Lois". Okay, well why not? Why are you such a big, blue boy scout? All things that - as I have also said - the audience is asked to either take for granted or fill in the blanks themselves.

Like most, with Snyder behind this I have almost zero fear of "lack of action". He has practically all but said such (big physical cat, want him to do awesome stuff, etc); therefore, I am solidly behind a little diving into the character via some sort of origin stuff. Like several people have said, my *preference* would be to see would be some BR stuff..

Hopefully casting Keaton and Lane are indications that we are heading for exactly that in some sort of way (even Snyder himself said - today or yesterday when speaking about hiring those two - "We're taking this s*** f****** seriously.")

 

[Zack Snyder]

We've been talking about this new film as if it is Superman Begins for quite awhile now, I prefer Superman Starts.

Yep, we spent time on this subject not that long ago. This could have easily been merged with the existing one I had up.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=347894

 

[kalelkilla]

I started assuming this was going to be "Superman Begins" as soon as I heard Chris Nolan and David Goyer's involvement.

Now the casting further drives home this assumption.

And even more recently, Snyder is trying his best not to say, "Yeah we are basically doing Superman Begins." Pretending no other films exist...making it as realistic as possible...etc..

I am happy it turned out this way.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Does anyone know where that LEx Luthor picture is? The one with that says "WRONG" in giant white letters?

 

[DieSmiling]

Characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones are NO WHERE near as complex as Superman,and thats a fact.

It's not really significant, but I feel the need to point out that this is not a fact at all, and merely your opinion.

Long running characters like these can be as complex or simple as they are written. Claiming that Superman is unequivically more complex than James Bond or Indiana Jones simply isn't true.

 

[The Batman]

thank you. so much.

 

[Kurosawa]

It's not really significant, but I feel the need to point out that this is not a fact at all, and merely your opinion.

Long running characters like these can be as complex or simple as they are written. Claiming that Superman is unequivically more complex than James Bond or Indiana Jones simply isn't true.

Exactly. Anyone who can watch OHMSS-especially the ending-and say Bond isn't complex is full of it. Just like Clark Kent is Superman's coping mechanism, so is Bond's usual cocky, womanizing persona. Bond has loved two women and they both were taken from him.

 

[The Batman]

people who say bond and jones aren't complex characters are just doing a weak attempt at trying to justify having an origin story. They're better off just admitting its a personal preference of theirs rather than trying to make it seem like its necessary

 

[ElDuderino]

Bond is a spy. Do you really need to explain how a spy came to be? And they actually did do origin stories for Indiana Jones.

Also, simply pointing out that (albeit rare) a good story can be done that does not include an origin, doesn't mean that origin shouldn't be included. Krypton, the farm, the parents, etc. -- the *ARE* parts of the Superman story. They make up who his character is just as much, if not more so, as having super strength or x-ray vision. To ignore major elements of the Superman character just seems ... odd.

 

[The Batman]

You make it sound like being a spy is something everyone knows about...which isnt the case. We don't know how they train, why they do what they do, etc. We've never seen WHY and WHAT made bond become a spy. We don't know how he became a great agent. Once again, acting like Bond is simplistic is a lame excuse to justify personal preferences regarding Superman's reintroduction.


And It's a good thing no one's saying major aspects of the character should be left out. Some of us just want to see these aspects explained in a different manner, one that dosent soak up screentime.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones are NO WHERE near as complex as Superman,and thats a fact.

Cinematic Bond and literary Bond are two different entities.