Why are so many people deadset against showing the origin?

[Thundercrack85]

Having Kal-El / Clark Kent's origins be a mystery for a part of the movie and him trying to learn who he is, what he is, and where he came from makes it more interesting and engaging for an audience. Showing Krypton right away axes the mystery.

As for Lex and Clark being friends, I wouldn't mind, as long as it's not in Smallville.

 

[The Guard]

Agreed.

 

[Webhead2006]

well even if we the fans see krypton/jorel-lara at the start of the film kalel/clark may not learn about krypton/his parents to later point in the film. So yea he will know he is an alien probably at least know of the name krypton. Then say if brainiac is villain we can learn that krypton is gone, about jorel and say maybe brainiac took all the info and knowledge of the kryptonian race with him before he blew up the planet. Which can be used later on as history of the planet and maybe others in clark's FOS.

 

[DavidTyler]

I can agree with that.... We start the film with Krypton as the prelude then Smallville in flashbacks but we get the idea that he has NO idea where he's from until later in the film during a confrontation with Brainiac or some other character that can present him with that info.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea like i and others probably said we dont need to go from a to b to c story telling to have krypton/smallville-pre superman life shown in the next film series. As i said for me i want some of the stuff shown in first film. I dont want no smallville/pre superman life or krypton not shown. Since we loose out on alot of different characters, and story points we can get. Now the issue is what to show, how to show it, and how much time should be used to do it in total.

 

[mothy]

i am rather tired of the superman origin, having seen it covered endlessly.

 

[Webhead2006]

well like i and others have said with a new series, we need to have some/all of origin covered so we can see why this one looks different, story is different from other takes.

 

[M.O.Steel]

well like i and others have said with a new series, we need to have some/all of origin covered so we can see why this one looks different, story is different from other takes.

i agree. just to call the series their own and not placing other media in a "vague history"

 

[Timstuff]

Vague history = too lazy to either provide explanation or too sloppy to avoid plot holes. In the case of Superman Returns it was the latter, but in the case of what many fans seem to be asking for in an originless reboot, it's the former. Personally, I think starting off in the middle of the story would be very sloppy storytelling, and I really hope that's not what they opt to do. Some fans might think that's what they want, but ultimately the movie and rebooted franchise would be much stronger if it had started off on the right foot.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Vague history = too lazy to either provide explanation or too sloppy to avoid plot holes. In the case of Superman Returns it was the latter, but in the case of what many fans seem to be asking for in an originless reboot, it's the former. Personally, I think starting off in the middle of the story would be very sloppy storytelling, and I really hope that's not what they opt to do. Some fans might think that's what they want, but ultimately the movie and rebooted franchise would be much stronger if it had started off on the right foot.

^^^^ Reading on the same page.

 

[M.O.Steel]

i agree. one, of many, problem with SR was that it didn't have a proper origin. we need one. like i said, even if it's to the extent of batman 89, doesn't have to be BB

 

[Webhead2006]

totally any new series needs to have its own story and not be stuck saying oh hey its this and this but not this and this from this film crap. We need to have a good begining, middle, and end. Like most of us have said and i myself i dont care which way the origin is told of his krypton/smallville/pre superman life is in the film. As long as we got it there. I wouldnt mind if the film started out on his first day to metropolis then we get flashs back to smallville life/and his alien origins and all that. Or we could start off with krypton see why this krypton is different. but the character of clark doesnt learn of all the krypton/jorel/lara stuff to towards the end of the film or what not. There is so many different way they can play with the story. Plus with the rich history there is many ideals and plots they can borrow/use while adding new spins on things.

 

[M.O.Steel]

i agree. there is so much rich history that saying we're heard it a millions is no excuse. They can do an amazing job with it if they have creative enough writers/story teller

 

[wattabrownsound]

if they went back and spent the reboot doing the origin story wouldn't it just be something that has to be told and gotten out of the road in order to finally have some fun with the second movie? i heard john favreau talk about that in a video interview to do with Iron Man 2. has anyone else heard other superhero movie directors say the same kind of thing when it came to the second movie? it sounds like the second movie is the one directors actually want to make.
superman returns may not have done a good job of starting at point B in superman's life and then reveal information about his past. that doesn't mean though someone else can't go down the same path but do a more interesting job of it.

 

[M.O.Steel]

if they went back and spent the reboot doing the origin story wouldn't it just be something that has to be told and gotten out of the road in order to finally have some fun with the second movie? i heard john favreau talk about that in a video interview to do with Iron Man 2. has anyone else heard other superhero movie directors say the same kind of thing when it came to the second movie? it sounds like the second movie is the one directors actually want to make.
superman returns may not have done a good job of starting at point B in superman's life and then reveal information about his past. that doesn't mean though someone else can't go down the same path but do a more interesting job of it.

yes. technically that's what singer did with SR, he made "the second movie". but most people felt off because of it. and the story itself was terrible. if it had been a better story, it could have been more forgiving.

it's true that spiderman 2, TDK, X2, orginal superman 2, were all much better movies because the introductions were established, but there is a reason why they had to go through the initial movie, even if it's meant as a glorified 90m/2 hour trailer to number 2. TDK was a great movie, and if you go into knowing how batman became batman, then it could really exist as a stand-alone movie. doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Timstuff]

The second act of a movie is often better than the first act in most good movies, but does that mean that the first act should be skipped? The first act is meant to build anticipation, and if just skip over the anticipation of getting to see Clark Kent become Superman then the movie will feel like a disjointed mess. We can't move into a house that hasn't been built, and in the case of Superman that means that we can't jump into the middle of his career with no setup to how he got there.

Another thing to consider: all of the "no origin" crowd are still going to go see the movie regardless of whether or not it's an origin story. However, if they botch things up by starting in the middle of the story like with Superman Returns, they run the risk of alienating the audience again and dampening the film's success. There are certain things they need to play safe this time around, and IMO one of those things is starting with the character's origin.

 

[Webhead2006]

Totally there is alot of different ways the origin stuff can be handled next time around.

 

[MadVillainy]

Okay so what really are the arguments against origin?

Everybody knows it. First of all, thats not even true. Whole younger generation hasnt really been introduced to a Superman origin yet.
Second, "everybody" knew Spiderman's origin before the film

It was shown in Donner version. Donner film was in 1978 over 30 yrs ago. And why would you tell someone to go watch a previous film that by today's standards is campy* when a whole new origin can be told with better SFX and a bad ass super villain. If a Superman origin was told in a live action film in the last 5-10 yrs then I could understand not doing an origin...but its been 30 yrs
*Dont everybody go crazy about me calling it campy. I respect that it did alot to build the superhero film genre. But to me it has not held up against the test of time

Superman needs to hit the ground running/needs more action. Casino Royale & Star Trek were both origin films that were praised for their action and characters. Superman could do the same.

I want a sequel to SR. Well to each his/her own

Besides the fact that some people want a SR sequel, all the arguments dont even make sense to me.

 

[Webhead2006]

that is the hard thing how to please the majority of us comic fans, well also grabbing new/non fans alike.

 

[DavidTyler]

Is it just me or are we starting to see more people agree that the next film should show the origin?

I'm seeing less and less opposition to the idea.

And add to that the fact that the new producers could have a lot of fun making Krypton in a whole new light without having to 'ape' Donner like Singer did with the Smallville scenes.

 

[Webhead2006]

i do think we can agree mostly there should be some origins told in a first film of a new series. Plus since we know its more then likely going to be a total fresh start next go. It would be stupid not to have it at all. Only way i could see is if their is problems with the origin stuff with the siegels and them asking wb/dc for a price to pricey for them to bother with. But i am sure they will probably all try to make some sort of good deal to work for all.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You probably see less opposition because it's a difficult to argue against showing the origins, especially after the last movie.

 

[solidsnake86]

Is it just me or are we starting to see more people agree that the next film should show the origin?

I'm seeing less and less opposition to the idea.

And add to that the fact that the new producers could have a lot of fun making Krypton in a whole new light without having to 'ape' Donner like Singer did with the Smallville scenes.

Honestly with the SR sequel not happening I really don't see how you could start the next movie with an established superman since thats what SR was and it didnt work. STM, no kid now cares for that movie, sorry to the 30+ in this forum who grew up with it. I think its only a matter of time, before WB was unsure of what to do, but I think they realise it needs to be done, all they have to do is settle the court case.

 

[wattabrownsound]

http://www.fanzing.com/mag/fanzing06/feature1.shtml
after reading the fourth paragraph i would definitely like to see it part of the origin story.

 

[M.O.Steel]

Okay so what really are the arguments against origin?

Everybody knows it. First of all, thats not even true. Whole younger generation hasnt really been introduced to a Superman origin yet.
Second, "everybody" knew Spiderman's origin before the film

It was shown in Donner version. Donner film was in 1978 over 30 yrs ago. And why would you tell someone to go watch a previous film that by today's standards is campy* when a whole new origin can be told with better SFX and a bad ass super villain. If a Superman origin was told in a live action film in the last 5-10 yrs then I could understand not doing an origin...but its been 30 yrs
*Dont everybody go crazy about me calling it campy. I respect that it did alot to build the superhero film genre. But to me it has not held up against the test of time

Superman needs to hit the ground running/needs more action. Casino Royale & Star Trek were both origin films that were praised for their action and characters. Superman could do the same.

I want a sequel to SR. Well to each his/her own

Besides the fact that some people want a SR sequel, all the arguments dont even make sense to me.

i absolutely agree to each. to add to it...

1. Everyone knows that he is an alien from an exploding world of krypton. thats about it. just like everyone knew wayne's parents were killed when he was a kid. but there is a whole movie in addition to that.

2. i agree. it was 30+ years ago. and it's wasn't exactly the greatest part of the movie.

3. and BB. which helped make TDK. can't just have TDK.

4. right.

it doesn't make sense to me either.