Why are so many people deadset against showing the origin?

[The Batman]

In Donner's movie we never saw Superman learning how to fly, deciding to put on a costume, or any of that. He went to the Fortress of Solitude, and one 8 years montage later emerged as Superman. There are PLENTY of ways that you can show Superman's origin that would be more interesting than what they did in SR. I mean, just like at Superman Birthright! As far as I'm concerned they can spend as much time on the origin as they like as long as they do a good job and leave plenty of room in the rest of the movie for a fully Superman.

And another thing plenty of people have mentioned: if the movie is good, the people who are anti-origin are going to love it anyway. They stand to loose a lot more of the audience by skipping over Superman's origin than they do by showing it (which for the latter would probably be almost no-one), so they should just go for it and try to make the best Superman origin flick they possibly can.

In BB, I never saw just how Bruce began his martial arts training...all we got was him stealing fruit. We dont even know why he started learning different styles before ducard.We never saw just how he coped with his parents death in his teens...they just jumped to him in college. We never saw him learn how to become a detective...which, you know...is batman's best skill above all else. I could go on and on. If STM was a rushed version of Superman's origin, than Batman Begins was a rushed version of Batman's.

of course you would think that they would potentially lose more viewers if they dont show an origin. you're biased. SR didnt underperform because they didnt show an origin. SR underperformed because it was underwhelming.

 

[Crook]

of course you would think that they would potentially lose more viewers if they dont show an origin. you're biased. SR didnt underperform because they didnt show an origin. SR underperformed because it was underwhelming.

Yeah, it's useless for both sides to really argue that because at the end of the day, the audience just wants an exciting film.

I just feel that for a reboot, encompassing all of the story would yield a more complete package in retelling the mythos. To me it seems to be taking advantage of the franchise to assume you can start off at any point of the story and avoid introducing these characters in some form. Watching SR at times did feel like I missed a great portion of the movie where I could see these characters evolve. That might have something to do with it being a loose sequel to Donner's films, but the point stands nonetheless.

Basically if they decide not to explore the origin as vivid as BB, then I'd rather they take the B89 approach rather than SR.

 

[MadVillainy]

For all you cool ppl who want a origin. Would you like it to be told linearly
or
in flashbacks (at least the Smallville parts)

Basically Im saying would you rather have it say: Krypton, Smallville, then Metropolis (in that order) sort of like Star Trek
or
would you like it to jump around a little kind of like Batman Begins

 

[Fresh Prince]

I want a B89 approach like Crook said, with Superman fighting crime already in Metropolis and been doing it for a month......You have everyone hype about him and all that stuff.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

And I'm sure they feel the same way about you.

Donner's version was a quickie? Really? I've seen much quicker versions of superman's origin...All Star Superman? The actual definition of showing a "quickie" Superman origin.

People can use Batman Begins for comparison all you'd like...but I know for damn sure that if Burton spent the first hour of B89 on Batman's origin...we sure as hell wouldn't of gotten Batman Begins. Its because Batmans origin was underveloped in older versions that we finally got an in depth one. And that was just as much a "quickie" as STM supposedly was for Superman. I find it absolutely hilarious that you constantly bag on STM, but praise BB when its basically ripping off STM's style...which chris nolan himself has admitted.

I don't see that as reason not to have an origin.

BB did not have the same origin as the Burton Batman. Even though vague, Burton had the Joker kill Bruce's parents turning him into Batman.

BB was an origin not just because Burton's movie did not show the specifics.

Nolan also wanted to show that his take was a Re-boot, and not attached to other movies at all, by given a new version of the classic story. Its the same story, with some minor changes, but those minor changes set it apart from other takes on Batman.

Likewise a new Superman film should be on its own, meaning a different origin shown than STM.

Unless the whole reason you are making the argument at all is that you want the movie to be another vague sequel to the Donner movies like SR was. Is that the case?

 

[The Batman]

I don't see that as reason not to have an origin.

BB did not have the same origin as the Burton Batman. Even though vague, Burton had the Joker kill Bruce's parents turning him into Batman.

BB was an origin not just because Burton's movie did not show the specifics.

Nolan also wanted to show that his take was a Re-boot, and not attached to other movies at all, by given a new version of the classic story. Its the same story, with some minor changes, but those minor changes set it apart from other takes on Batman.

Likewise a new Superman film should be on its own, meaning a different origin shown than STM.

Unless the whole reason you are making the argument at all is that you want the movie to be another vague sequel to the Donner movies like SR was. Is that the case?

I'm saying that if All Star Superman, the most accessible and most praised Superman book this decade spent a mere three panels detailing the origin of superman, than a film version dosent need to waste an hour using the same template it did thirty years ago. Either way, I couldnt care less. If they dont show an origin, fine, but if they do, hopefully its short

 

[Thundercrack85]

No. Nolan changed/twisted/altered things that were already there. There's a difference. Everything that was in BB, more or less in some form took inspiration from the books.

Not even gonna address the rest of that post because quite clearly you haven't read enough Batman stories.

Bruce Wayne was never trained and mentored by Ra's Al Ghul prior to becoming Batman, or the League of Shadows (Assassins). True he did spend some time training with Ducard, but he was never Ra's Al Ghul. It's quite a stretch to say that was already there. Also, there was no Rachel Dawes, or any character like her. They just made her up, the second most important character in the movie. I don't feel like getting in an argument over this, so I'm going to stop here.

My point is simply that in a reboot, origins movie, Superman has far more potential than Batman, as he could do much more from an early age.

Having said that, I'd actually like a movie that fully explores the origins.

 

[Webhead2006]

personally i dont really matter what the approach is for showing origin/past stuff. I wouldnt mind it being a to b to c way, flashbacks intermixing with present day, tih opening credits and flashbacks during the course of the film, etc..... There is many ways it could be shown. As for myself i just dont want to see things skiped out completely cause if we are rebooting and looking at things differently there is more you can do with krypton, lead to foes like brainiac/darkseid/zod(to be used in first film/sequels), and then his smallville life we can see more about his childhood with lana/pete his growing powers/kent raising. Which leads to why he decides to become a public hero and how he develops the whole metropolis clark kent look and his Superman persona. Then if we are getting corp lex luthor it would be nice to see things stated somewhere in the film how it all came to be for him ie killing his parents for money or what not.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Didn't you know? According to alot of so-called Batman fans Nolan and Goyer created Batman.

Well, at least I know for sure Bob Kane & Bill Finger created Batman. Thank godness I know my stuff & point out the truth there.

In Donner's movie we never saw Superman learning how to fly, deciding to put on a costume, or any of that.

Funny, but we never saw him deciding to put on a costume in the 90s animated series & many praise that cartoon as one of the best Superman stuff around.

And since when do we need to know how he learn to fly? But even that part would be very short & kinda pointless IMHO. They could just show that he learn how to fly by not splattering his brain on the ground after falling out of a building compare to a normal human or something. There isn't a lot to do there. Beside, didn't we see a little bit of that in Superman Returns?

He went to the Fortress of Solitude, and one 8 years montage later emerged as Superman. There are PLENTY of ways that you can show Superman's origin that would be more interesting than what they did in SR.

We can get some of that in flashback. What wrong with flashbacks anyway? It doesn't have to be very brief though. But not a whole origin all over again like the first film.

I mean, just like at Superman Birthright! As far as I'm concerned they can spend as much time on the origin as they like as long as they do a good job and leave plenty of room in the rest of the movie for a fully Superman.

That's why I'm ok with the origins through flashback. The next film won't be Superman: Birthright so they can do something else.

And another thing plenty of people have mentioned: if the movie is good, the people who are anti-origin are going to love it anyway.

So you won't enjoy the next Superman film if it doesn't show his origin all over again then? What if the next Superman film doesn't show his origin & is a good movie instead then? Probably will love it & forget the origin.

Another thing is this: The Incredible Hulk was a reboot of Hulk, but we didn't see his origin. Just a little flashback. How come no one complain they never got a new origin for TIH there, huh?

They stand to loose a lot more of the audience by skipping over Superman's origin than they do by showing it (which for the latter would probably be almost no-one), so they should just go for it and try to make the best Superman origin flick they possibly can.

Doubt it. Many general audiences wouldn't care if they don't show his origin all over again, but they probably would care if they see the origin all over again like it was Donner's first film. The movie would probably lose the origin supporters instead, which is in the minority & that doesn't affect the box office much.

 

[Webhead2006]

for me personally as i said i would like to see new origin and new reasons why things go down. So we can get away to relaying on superman the movie to be the only defining origin in live action form for the character. There is as we all are saying many ways and what not to make it different, new and fresh.

 

[The Guard]

I really don't think it should be a writer's job to explain every obscure element of the Supermythos in case someone, somewhere, hasn't seen something about it. I think it's a writer's job, at this point, to come up with something fresh, period, that is also compelling to the majority of viewers.

As a writer, I think in creative terms. I try to do something new, not to tick off points that can easily be addressed elsewhere in a film. I'm not interested in what percentage of the population has seen Clark learning how to use Heat Vision or fly. I'm interested in the following:

Is it worth spending time on these elements when there are, in my opinion, far more interesting and compelling explorations of the Superman concept to accomplish with the same screentime?

Won't even touch the nonsense about Batman's origins being boring.

In fact, the only parts Nolan/Goyer added to the mix were making Ducard an alias for Ras, having Bruce decide to kill his parent's killer, and combining Bruce's travels to learn his craft with a self-imposed exile that ends up at the doorstep of Ras.

And even then:

-Ducard actually being Ra's is just a twist on Ubu posing as Ra's, from the comics, and Ducard is a character from the comics.
-Bruce wanting to kill Joe Chill out of revenge and not being able to comes straight out of YEAR TWO
-Bruce's self exposed exhile, in the comics, put him on the doorstep of other martial arts masters.

BATMAN BEGINS was an incredibly rushed and compressed version of Batman's origins. Sure, Nolan and Goyer made some stuff up (altered the mythos, and in many cases, watered it down a bit). Not much of it was particularly clever, it was mostly done for efficiency's sake, creating thin "connections" between characters to allow them to fit into the story.

 

[Timstuff]

of course you would think that they would potentially lose more viewers if they dont show an origin. you're biased. SR didnt underperform because they didnt show an origin. SR underperformed because it was underwhelming.

So my reasons for wanting a new Superman origin movie are biased, eh? Care to explain to the class what you believe those reasons are, and why they are unfairly skewed?

I want a B89 approach like Crook said, with Superman fighting crime already in Metropolis and been doing it for a month......You have everyone hype about him and all that stuff.

Batman 89 woked because Batman and Bruce Wayne were both portrayed in it as being extremely mysterious. With Superman you kind of have to take the direct approach, unless the story isn't going to be from his POV (like in Batman, where the story was seen more through the eyes of Vicki Vale than Bruce). The only real mystery about Superman is that he's Clark Kent, and so it seems rather pointless to me to throw us in the middle of his career and be like "so what's the deal with this mysterious Superman fellow?" Superman isn't an ambiguous character, so I don't think they should take an ambiguous approach to telling his story.

 

[The Batman]

BATMAN BEGINS was an incredibly rushed and compressed version of Batman's origins. Sure, Nolan and Goyer made some stuff up (altered the mythos, and in many cases, watered it down a bit). Not much of it was particularly clever, it was mostly done for efficiency's sake, creating thin "connections" between characters to allow them to fit into the story.

Exactly...and yet, people want to say STM's origin was more rushed, just because they have some resentment over donner's superman? They pretty much spent the same the amount of time on the origin's of their characters. Batman Begins took the style of STM....Chris Nolan has admitted this.

So my reasons for wanting a new Superman origin movie are biased, eh? Care to explain to the class what you believe those reasons are, and why they are unfairly skewed?

You're kidding me, right Timstuff? You also thought 5 years ago, like all those other SV fans, that Tom Welling was the only way a new superman movie would be successful. You're a fanboy like all the rest, and much of this "Origin" bandwagon comes from a desire to see a 200 million dollar version of a superman that barely exists anymore.

Myself included, NOBODY'S reasoning for anything on here is rooted in objectivity.

 

[The Guard]

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE's origin was fairly rushed, yes (so they coudl actually get to Superman), but you have to remember...Superman HAD no real origin to speak of in the comics, beyond the very basics. He'd been Clark Kent, been in Kansas, grown up in Smallville with the Kents, and he'd been SUPERBOY at some point. The whole "globetrotting" to find himself angle never came into the mythos until afterward.

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE became something of a template for superhero movie origins. I think it was pretty well done, especially for being the first serious attempt at a superhero pretty much ever.

 

[The Guard]

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE's origin was fairly rushed, yes (so they could actually get to Superman, which is why I'm trying something a tad different with the origin elements), but you have to remember...Superman HAD no real complex origin to speak of in the comics, beyond the very basics. He'd been Clark Kent, been in Kansas, grown up in Smallville with the Kents, and he'd been SUPERBOY at some point. The whole "globetrotting to find himself" angle never came into the mythos until afterward. Donner and his writers essentially invented one for the character that allowed Jor-El to have a presence in the movie beyond the initial Krypton sequences.

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE has become something of a template for superhero movie origins. I think it was pretty well done, especially for being the first serious attempt at a superhero pretty much ever.

 

[Timstuff]

You're kidding me, right Timstuff? You also thought 5 years ago, like all those other SV fans, that Tom Welling was the only way a new superman movie would be successful. You're a fanboy like all the rest, and much of this "Origin" bandwagon comes from a desire to see a 200 million dollar version of a superman that barely exists anymore.

I outgrew Smallville, and seeing Tom Welling in a Superman movie is pretty much the LAST thing I want right now just short of a sequel to SR, because thanks to Smallville Tom Welling has just as much bad baggage attached to him as Brandon Routh. Superman Returns is not going to get a sequel anyway, so I fail to see how my past Smallville fanboyism somehow invalidates me wanting a fresh origin movie versus another movie that tries to act as a middle chapter for Superman's story without explaining to us us why Superman even exists. I want a new origin because if they're going to try and call this a reboot, I think they should go all the way instead of doing it half-assed like with SR.

Myself included, NOBODY'S reasoning for anything on here is rooted in objectivity.

That I suppose I can agree with.

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE's origin was fairly rushed, yes (so they could actually get to Superman, which is why I'm trying something a tad different with the origin elements), but you have to remember...Superman HAD no real complex origin to speak of in the comics, beyond the very basics. He'd been Clark Kent, been in Kansas, grown up in Smallville with the Kents, and he'd been SUPERBOY at some point. The whole "globetrotting to find himself" angle never came into the mythos until afterward. Donner and his writers essentially invented one for the character that allowed Jor-El to have a presence in the movie beyond the initial Krypton sequences.

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE has become something of a template for superhero movie origins. I think it was pretty well done, especially for being the first serious attempt at a superhero pretty much ever.

Part of why Superman's origin seems so rushed in STM is because they spent so much time on Krypton. I personally think that in MOS they should only show us enough of Krypton for us to get that Jor El is a scientist on another planet who wants to save his son from an impending armageddon that no-one believes him about. All the other juicy stuff about Krypton should be saved a sequels when Superman meets Brainiac or possibly Zod, and I think they should keep it as us not really knowing any more than Superman knows. That would get us into the good stuff a lot quicker than STM like Clark discovering how to fly and deciding to make a costume, as well as giving the writers more elbow room to write it with.

 

[The Guard]

Part of why Superman's origin seems so rushed in STM is because they spent so much time on Krypton. I personally think that in MOS they should only show us enough of Krypton for us to get that Jor El is a scientist on another planet who wants to save his son from an impending armageddon that no-one believes him about. All the other juicy stuff about Krypton should be saved a sequels when Superman meets Brainiac or possibly Zod, and I think they should keep it as us not really knowing any more than Superman knows. That would get us into the good stuff a lot quicker than STM like Clark discovering how to fly and deciding to make a costume, as well as giving the writers more elbow room to write it with.

You know, to a point I agree with you, but it's not that simple. That would give them more room to work with, but not that much. What do you save by not seeing Zod? Three, four minutes? That's really not that much screentime, and I don't know too many people who would argue that cutting out Brando's sequence with Kal-El and Lara would be worth losing to see Superman figuring out his costume, etc. .

Look, we didn't see Superman making his costume in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE because Donner wanted Jor-El to give it to him, because he clearly felt the connection to Jor-El's appearance and his desire to assist Kal-El in his time on Earth was important. That's the reason we didn't see a number of elements.

And the elements of Superman's mythos were rushed in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE for the same reason they're rushed in BATMAN BEGINS, or any superhero movie. Because there's just a finite amount of screentime to tell the story. Writers need to find more efficient ways to explore the elements of the origin than just laying it all out there. For instance, in Geoff Johns new SECRET ORIGINS series, issue one has him showing Superman discover how to fly, having his first exposure to Kryptonite, meeting Lex Luthor, and dealing with a tornado all in the first three pages. It feels incredibly rushed and awkward. It's all in the execution.

I agree wholeheartedly that this time around, Krypton elements, and even origin elements, should be parceled out, or outright saved for sequels. That's what I'm working on. Trying to figure out exactly what goes where in my storyline.

 

[Timstuff]

I'm not saying Donner was wrong for the choices he made, I'm just saying that those choices are hardly the only option available when telling Superman's origin on film, despite the vocal concerns of people who are worried about a new origin film ending up as a do-over of STM.

 

[Webhead2006]

There is so many ways things could be shown/explained and done this time around. Like i said i just dont want to be dropped in the middle of things with nothing getting shown/explained at all in a first film. We should at lest get a little bit about krypton either for just us fans to see or clark learns of, we should see his reasons for becoming a hero/suit and how he decides to be a reporter and makes the metropolis clark look/persona. then like others say leave some things out to get more defined in sequels from kryptonian threats or space foes like darkseid/mongul who migh thave had dealing with kryptonians or the planet krypton before it blew and all that. But it would be bad not to show any of this at all. Cause if you are rebooting and making things different we should see why its different then all the other media takes. Not showing any of that stuff like i said in a few posts you lose the chance of setting some things up in a sequel then something poping up out of the blow for no logical reason.

 

[Webhead2006]

There is so many ways things could be shown/explained and done this time around. Like i said i just dont want to be dropped in the middle of things with nothing getting shown/explained at all in a first film. We should at lest get a little bit about krypton either for just us fans to see or clark learns of, we should see his reasons for becoming a hero/suit and how he decides to be a reporter and makes the metropolis clark look/persona. then like others say leave some things out to get more defined in sequels from kryptonian threats or space foes like darkseid/mongul who migh thave had dealing with kryptonians or the planet krypton before it blew and all that. But it would be bad not to show any of this at all. Cause if you are rebooting and making things different we should see why its different then all the other media takes. Not showing any of that stuff like i said in a few posts you lose the chance of setting some things up in a sequel then something poping up out of the blow for no logical reason.

 

[Fresh Prince]

So my reasons for wanting a new Superman origin movie are biased, eh? Care to explain to the class what you believe those reasons are, and why they are unfairly skewed?



Batman 89 woked because Batman and Bruce Wayne were both portrayed in it as being extremely mysterious. With Superman you kind of have to take the direct approach, unless the story isn't going to be from his POV (like in Batman, where the story was seen more through the eyes of Vicki Vale than Bruce). The only real mystery about Superman is that he's Clark Kent, and so it seems rather pointless to me to throw us in the middle of his career and be like "so what's the deal with this mysterious Superman fellow?" Superman isn't an ambiguous character, so I don't think they should take an ambiguous approach to telling his story.

I understand what you mean.

 

[Crook]

Batman 89 woked because Batman and Bruce Wayne were both portrayed in it as being extremely mysterious. With Superman you kind of have to take the direct approach, unless the story isn't going to be from his POV (like in Batman, where the story was seen more through the eyes of Vicki Vale than Bruce). The only real mystery about Superman is that he's Clark Kent, and so it seems rather pointless to me to throw us in the middle of his career and be like "so what's the deal with this mysterious Superman fellow?" Superman isn't an ambiguous character, so I don't think they should take an ambiguous approach to telling his story.

Yes and no. The mystery was ambiguous in the context of the characters around him in the film. That same exact approach can be taken with Superman.

After all, unlike Bruce, CK spent quite a few years NOT knowing where he was really from. A writer can certainly take advantage of this, and have his history unfold before him in real-time with us. Obviously liberties would have to be taken such as not having Clark know his full origin until much later on, but I think that'd be an interesting approach.

 

[Webhead2006]

well i would like for him to know he is alien at least at start of the film maybe not knowing the name of his planet/birth parents to either finding a recording device or via brainiac or something.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Yes and no. The mystery was ambiguous in the context of the characters around him in the film. That same exact approach can be taken with Superman.

After all, unlike Bruce, CK spent quite a few years NOT knowing where he was really from. A writer can certainly take advantage of this, and have his history unfold before him in real-time with us. Obviously liberties would have to be taken such as not having Clark know his full origin until much later on, but I think that'd be an interesting approach.

So the B89 approach can still work?

 

[Webhead2006]

it could probably work, but for me like i said with any restart we need to have at least certain aspects shown/talked about so we know why things are different then others. Instead of just dropping in the middle of something with nothing of the past being shown/talked about at all.