Why are so many people deadset against showing the origin?

[M.O.Steel]

i think the origin should be touched upon, even if just as a reset button.

 

[Timstuff]

The legend of Superman begins with a Krypton exploding, and the Kents discovering the lone survivor (Kal-El) in a crashed UFO in Smallville. That's how it's been ever since the very beginning, and if this really is going to be a reboot of the franchise then that is where they need to start.

 

[The Guard]

Or is it?

Muah ha ha.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It is ridiculous that this is even a debate.

Superman came out in 1978. I wasn't even born yet, which includes a good base of the fans on this board.

Now we are in 2009, almost 2010.

It has been more than 30 years for a movie that remotely resembles a telling of the origin.

Besides the obvious technological leaps and bounds in movie making, there have been new adaptions that have successfully modernized the character in some way.

The most obvious example would be S:TAS. 99.9% of fans enjoyed the updated origin with a younger Jor-el (who looked to be about the age of an adult Superman) and story of Brainiac being the downfall of Krypton.

Even looking at a tv series in Lois and Clark we saw Clark as the person, and Superman as what he does. Let's combine a few shows now... S:TAS, L&C, and SV all protrayed successfully a corrupt scheming business man in Lex, that managed to be so slick he could sway some public opinion his way.

It isn't even a matter of telling the same story again, because even in telling another origin, with the updates in mythological proportions it would be a new story anyways!!!!


This thread should die. There should be no debate. It is ridiculous to argue starting a new f'n Superman franchise off by telling a new story from the beginning. Use some damn common sense Donner'ites

 

[SuperMike335!!]

^^^^^^

yes.

 

[Webhead2006]

i agree too lol.

 

[Timstuff]

I can agree with that.

 

[Webhead2006]

really the question is how should they do the origin stories this time around. What new spin on things could they do. How do we want it played out, etc....

 

[Timstuff]

Some big differences they could do:

• Show Krypton as a technological dystopia
• Jor El is much younger, less sure of himself
• The Kents are younger
• Jonathan lives
• Brainiac is largely responsible for Krypton's destruction (but so are the Kryptonians for letting him run their planet)
• No Fortress of Solitude until the sequel
• Jor El does not directly influence Clark to become Superman
• We see where the costume came from
• Clark and Lex Luthor were friends when they were young

The biggest twist would be seeing a darker, not-so-pretty version of Krypton, since most people associate it with a utopian ideal thanks to Superman: The movie. People haven't seen the "modern" version of Superman's backstory on film before, and I think it would be surprisingly fresh to a lot of people who think they already know the story from watching Superman: The Movie.

 

[MadVillainy]

Some big differences they could do:

• Show Krypton as a technological dystopia
• Jor El is much younger, less sure of himself
• The Kents are younger
• Jonathan lives
• Brainiac is largely responsible for Krypton's destruction (but so are the Kryptonians for letting him run their planet)
• No Fortress of Solitude until the sequel
• Jor El does not directly influence Clark to become Superman
• We see where the costume came from
• Clark and Lex Luthor were friends when they were young

The biggest twist would be seeing a darker, not-so-pretty version of Krypton, since most people associate it with a utopian ideal thanks to Superman: The movie. People haven't seen the "modern" version of Superman's backstory on film before, and I think it would be surprisingly fresh to a lot of people who think they already know the story from watching Superman: The Movie.

I agree with the bolded. For some reason I just dont like the idea of Clark and Lex knowing each other from Smallville to me it takes away from the meeting for the first time when Clark is a reporter/Superman and Lex is a villain

 

[Timstuff]

I don't think it takes away from it-- I think it enhances it. It's not just a clash good versus bad, because now there's a personal element to it. If Clark and Lex have history, it opens up a lot more story opportunities because now there's stuff going on at the personal level. If Clark was once Lex's only friend, then what would it suddenly be like for Lex to have Clark snooping around his sharky business as a reporter from the Daily Planet? Or if he actually one day discovers that Clark is Superman? It would bring a whole new level to Lex's hatred of Clark and Superman, because it's not just about Superman getting in his way-- it's also because they used to be friends, and now Clark is the greatest of thorns in Lex's side. It would also put some interesting feelings on Clark's side, because on the one hand he's sad that he couldn't keep Lex from diving into darkness, but on the other hand he's angry at Lex for turning into such an evil SOB. I honestly don't see how adding all that to Clark and Lex's relationship is at the same time taking away from it.

 

[Crook]

The SV friendship is so overdone, though. And too convenient for my tastes. If they want to twist up the relationship, have them be friends or good acquaintances during Clark's early months (or even years) in Metropolis.

You'd have to sacrifice the Luthor/Supes nemesis dynamic for a little bit, but it becomes of greater significance when there is a failed trust element going on in the foundations of their clashes.

 

[green]

This thread should die. There should be no debate. It is ridiculous to argue starting a new f'n Superman franchise off by telling a new story from the beginning. Use some damn common sense Donner'ites

Personally I think you are wrong.
I want a Superman story thats hits the ground running, I dont need another retelling of his orgin.
Different strokes...

 

[Webhead2006]

i agree with most of your list timstuff. I think there is so much you can do with the various origin peices of krypton, smallville life, and metropolis life. Sure you have to keep the basics, jorel/lara are scientists and loved each other and kalel, they save him when they learn the planet is doomed, it blows up the kents find and raise the boy with good morals, etc..... But we dont have to copy what was done 100% again either. There is alot you can change from visual look of things to the more finer details of stuff.

Green i can see why alot do want to just have an balls to the wall straight out of the gate movie with superman being superman. But if you just skip out of telling things we have no build up on why these characters are the way they are. I said it before it would be just plain stupid to do a new film series and not touch on to any origin bits at all. We loose setting up future story plots like zod/brainiac/etc.... and then we dont get to see how clark came to be clark and be a hero, and etc.... characters.

 

[The Guard]

The SV friendship is so overdone, though. And too convenient for my tastes. If they want to twist up the relationship, have them be friends or good acquaintances during Clark's early months (or even years) in Metropolis.

You'd have to sacrifice the Luthor/Supes nemesis dynamic for a little bit, but it becomes of greater significance when there is a failed trust element going on in the foundations of their clashes

Exactly. That's the tack my script is taking...sort of a "nod" to the Smallville/Superboy elements of their relationship, but not shoving it in there for the hell of it.

 

[DavidTyler]

Timstuff - I like your list. It does pretty much what I'm looking for in a new Superman film. It sets up a new continuity unattached from what's gone before. I don't need Clark and Lex to have been associated prior to his Superman years but it won't kill me if it's there ... as long as there is a good explanation for why Lex doesn't recognize Superman/Clark later in life.

Green - You make it sound like the scenes on Krypton and early Smallville will be boring! What's up with that? Don't you realize how much 'gold' there is there that can be fun and exciting? Jor-El's story by itself can have action and depth. And - it's not going to take away from Superman's ability to 'hit the ground running'. They can do the whole Kryptonian scene as a prelude and the Smallville scenes in flashback.

 

[Timstuff]

I think the ideal explanation for why Lex doesn't recognize Clark as Superman is because Clark was an awkward, pubescent teen when Lex last saw him (and played by a different actor), and when he meets him as an adult he has changed his appearance, both as a Daily Planet reporter and as Superman. Lex believes Clark merely grew up to be a geek with glasses, and doesn't make the connection with Superman. Also, there's the possibility that Lex might learn Superman's secret identity at some point in this new series, which would be an interesting plot twist (my own trilogy treatment actually had Lex learning it near the end of the first movie).

 

[The Guard]

Yeah. I get where you're coming from...but I don't buy that for a second. Especially when he introduces himself as "Clark Kent".

I much prefer the BIRTHRIGHT "I don't WANT to remember you" thing.

Though I'm all for Luthor discovering Clark is Superman.

David, what kind of stuff would you like to see on Krypton?

 

[Timstuff]

If young Clark and adult Clark are played by 2 different actors, it will help a lot in terms of suspension of disbelief. There are a lot of people whose visual appearance changes a lot during puberty, so Clark could easily be one of them. He'd probably only be about 13-14 when he was friends with Lex, and so as a 25 year old, filled-out adult he would look different enough that Lex probably wouldn't recognize him as Superman (especially if he wore glasses before his super vision developed, which was actually one of the few things about SR that I liked).

 

[Sam]

If young Clark and adult Clark are played by 2 different actors, it will help a lot in terms of suspension of disbelief. There are a lot of people whose visual appearance changes a lot during puberty, so Clark could easily be one of them. He'd probably only be about 13-14 when he was friends with Lex, and so as a 25 year old, filled-out adult he would look different enough that Lex probably wouldn't recognize him as Superman (especially if he wore glasses before his super vision developed, which was actually one of the few things about SR that I liked).

I dont like the idea of Clark and Lex know each other as teenagers (Lex litlle older), but u have a point right here.

Also, in Secret Origin Johns is writing right now, both lived in Smallville, but looks like they talked very few times. Better than both being great friends like Smallville (TV show) or Birthright.

 

[Timstuff]

I wouldn't necessarily say they were "great friends" in Birthright. In Birthright, Lex's relationship with Clark was more tense than it was in Smallville (at least earlier in the show). Clark and Lex recognized each other as being very intelligent social outcasts, and through that they shared a bond. However, Lex was ultimately a lot more obsessive and antisocial than Clark, probably due to bad parenting, and ultimately Lex and Clark ended up at odds with each other. Clark was an outcast because he was different and didn't quite feel accepted, whereas Lex thought he was smarter than everyone else and saw Clark as being the only rational person in Smallville (until they had a falling out).

Ultimately, I'd like to see it in the movie as being a love/hate relationship between Clark and Lex, with Lex outright despising Superman but having conflicted emotions about Clark himself.

 

[wattabrownsound]

i wouldn't mind they address his origin story just not by going back to the point where Krypton goes boom and then working their way forward. i'd like to see them have the new movie start at a later point in superman's life but still be able to bring up things to do with his past for example, the origin of his suit could be brought up after it gets destroyed when he fights Doomsday.

 

[solidsnake86]

So its agreed, new origin, lol... At the pace WB is loosing supermans trademarks there really going to have to do a new one.

On a more serious note, I think its no question if they're going to do a reboot at this point because the fact of the matter is, even if it were to come out in 2012 earliest its six years removed from SR and almost 40 years removed from STM. Once the court case gets settled and it will be, they're probably going to be commissioning a ton of scripts. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they've already got a few they like, especially if they were taking a bunch of reboot pitches in 2007. I mean, whats the point of hiring morrison, wolfman and johns if johns is the only one working on something.

 

[Timstuff]

i wouldn't mind they address his origin story just not by going back to the point where Krypton goes boom and then working their way forward. i'd like to see them have the new movie start at a later point in superman's life but still be able to bring up things to do with his past for example, the origin of his suit could be brought up after it gets destroyed when he fights Doomsday.

Why do people always suggest this, when it's almost exactly what they did with Superman Returns? They started in the middle of Superman's career and tried to move the story forward while offering little glimpses into Superman's past, like the destruction of Krypton and him learning how to fly. "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" doesn't apply here. You can't jump into the middle if it's a reboot-- the story needs a beginning, middle, and end, and yet some people think that it's OK to just start in the middle and ignore all the important stuff that leads up to it. How many of you, when you watch your favorite movies DVD, instead of starting at the beginning just chapter skip past the first act?

 

[solidsnake86]

Why do people always suggest this, when it's almost exactly what they did with Superman Returns? They started in the middle of Superman's career and tried to move the story forward while offering little glimpses into Superman's past, like the destruction of Krypton and him learning how to fly. "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" doesn't apply here. You can't jump into the middle if it's a reboot-- the story needs a beginning, middle, and end, and yet some people think that it's OK to just start in the middle and ignore all the important stuff that leads up to it. How many of you, when you watch your favorite movies DVD, instead of starting at the beginning just chapter skip past the first act?

You know, I see tons of people with the "lets start out a new movie with an opening scene of superman taking on robots and beating stuff up", and I really wonder if people have watched any superhero movies that are good. All of the movies that have succeed struck a cord with the audience and have made us care about the main character, ie. peter parker, bruce wayne, tony stark. Two of those characters, which the general audience should not be able to associate with, are filthy rich, but they pulled it off.

I say it all the time but if we dont care about clark kent, were not going to care about superman. You need to show his time in smallville, screw krypton blowing up, that can be addressed later on, it doesnt do anything to help us care for clark at the beginning. Smallville doesnt have to be half an hour long either, read the first issue of secret origins and he manages to make you feel for clark kent in a few pages.