Why are so many people deadset against showing the origin?

[Webhead2006]

totally there needs to be a new origin/past telling for any new series. So this one is on its own feet and not being tied to other stuff. And if there is to be any homages to STM/Smallville/etc past superman things. It should just be small little things. The whole movie shouldnt be the same thing over again.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't the people here are thinking about the people who are not fanboys and who are not Superman fans.

They don't like Superman because they have a misconception that he's boring. Sadly, Superman Returns proved that. If you're gonna do a Superman movie, you have to draw in new fans and prove the nay-sayers wrong. Unless a new origins story is SO kick ass that it has to be made, it's not gonna win people over because it's so well known.

It's like Superman is stuck in one place. I think we need to give the public the benefit of the doubt, and just make a Superman movie that make some progress in the series.

 

[Timstuff]

If people are turned off by Superman, why are they going to give him a second chance if they get the perception that the new movie is a sequel? If they don't start off with the origin, then at best we're probably looking at similar numbers to Superman Returns.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

It's like Superman is stuck in one place.

Yes, its called Donnerland.

You want to take him forward, you need to make it clear, by having a new Origin, that this one is not the old one, and is new.

If his Origin is as exciting as it was in STAS, that would be a good kickoff.

He should be Superman for the other 80% of the movie. That should include action as well, which should also include a massive brawl with a SuperVillain.

I am talking a Knuckle scraping building smashing, asphalt crunching twisted metal path of destruction, at high speed worthy of Superman.

Having a new Origin before that will not change what is to come, and should also be in the movie.

Not having an Origin does not cleanly remove it from DonnerLand.

 

[solidsnake86]

Right now, nobody cares about superman, just like nobody cared for batman at one point. If you get people to care about clark kent just like they made you care about bruce wayne then no one is going to complain. In fact some of the only complaints I've heard about begins is that the first half of the movie is the best part, which doesn't include batman. So who's to say that people are going to be bored if we do another origin, half the excitment is the anticipation of the journey and now they have the opportunity to do it again.

Hitting the ground running IMO is the biggest mistake they could do when they make the next film. You need to show the audience why we care about clark, lois and the rest of the gang. Throwing superman in there and having him fight a villain does nothing but satisfy those people who want to see a few punches thrown.

The formula for an origin story is there, its not like they don't have great source material to pull from, theres really no excuses for the next film not to be good. Also to those who say they don't want another origin or think superman should change it up, lets be real, if audiences are eating it up right now why not give them what they want because satifying the fanboy population gets you nowhere (i.e. keeping the donner continuity).

 

[wattabrownsound]

do you really need an origin to make it clear that the new movie is in no way related to the previous superman movies? couldn't they destroy the donner-looking fortress of solitude in the first five minutes of the movie to imply that their not using anything from the previous films?

 

[Fresh Prince]

We should get an orgin story in the veins of Batman Begins and Superman Birthright.

 

[Crook]

do you really need an origin to make it clear that the new movie is in no way related to the previous superman movies? couldn't they destroy the donner-looking fortress of solitude in the first five minutes of the movie to imply that their not using anything from the previous films?

PLEASE re-read what you just typed.

 

[wattabrownsound]

i know it sounds like i'm contradicting myself. i'll re-word what i said then: the donner-looking fortress of solitude should there in the first five minutes to simply be destroyed to imply 'out with the old in with the new'.

 

[BestGirl]

i know it sounds like i'm contradicting myself. i'll re-word what i said then: the donner-looking fortress of solitude should there in the first five minutes to simply be destroyed to imply 'out with the old in with the new'.

Keeping a Donner element in the next movie would simply make it look like a sequel, and I don't think the audience would grasp the subtle implication that destroying the FOS would mean a new continuity.

 

[Webhead2006]

Totally with rebooting and starting over this has to be clearly told this is not richard donner/bryan singer superman again. Making the story totally different, and visually different, and then promoting the heck out of the film as it is different will show the general public its different.

 

[The Batman]

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

No...there's less opposition because no one really cares right now. For one thing, it looks like we're far away from a new movie. The other thing is that this thread is just a bunch of people agreeing with each other and labeling anyone who disagrees with them as "Donner cultists".

 

[M.O.Steel]

Keeping a Donner element in the next movie would simply make it look like a sequel, and I don't think the audience would grasp the subtle implication that destroying the FOS would mean a new continuity.

forget the general audience. i have a hard time seeing it with him explaining it here.

 

[Young Superman]

Yes, its called Donnerland.

You want to take him forward, you need to make it clear, by having a new Origin, that this one is not the old one, and is new.

If his Origin is as exciting as it was in STAS, that would be a good kickoff.

He should be Superman for the other 80% of the movie. That should include action as well, which should also include a massive brawl with a SuperVillain.

I am talking a Knuckle scraping building smashing, asphalt crunching twisted metal path of destruction, at high speed worthy of Superman.

Having a new Origin before that will not change what is to come, and should also be in the movie.

Not having an Origin does not cleanly remove it from DonnerLand.

Agreed

 

[BestGirl]

forget the general audience. i have a hard time seeing it with him explaining it here.

I don't really get what he's saying either. Does he want a whole new continuity ushered in by the destruction of the FOS or a vague sequel in which the destruction of the FOS is symbolic?

 

[Webhead2006]

we do not need any more vague sequel to a vague sequel deal again. If its restart we need it to be full on restart to make it totally clear to all this is a new day, new story, and nothing is the same as before.

 

[Young Superman]

Agreed Webhead2006

 

[Crook]

To be fair, Abrams brilliantly pulled it off with Star Trek. But yeah, we probably shouldn't risk it again. Especially since we don't have time travel as a crutch.

 

[wattabrownsound]

i don't want a sequel to superman returns. i want a completely new movie with a new vision but...to usher in a superman movie that is finally going with something different than Donner's vision, i thought the old fortress of solitude could be destroyed very early in the movie. they could even do it before the opening credits.

 

[NeoRanger]

^Do what I did when Johns took over the Superman books; take a pack of ice-cubes from the fridge, stack 'em up and then hop on them like an 8-year-old on sugar-high. Immediate disassociation and oddly cathartic.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

To be fair, Abrams brilliantly pulled it off with Star Trek. But yeah, we probably shouldn't risk it again. Especially since we don't have time travel as a crutch.

It was like a prequel-sequel-reboot combo (young original characters with new cast, original old Spock, re-imagining of the canon through the parallel universe). If someone can pull that off, you know they know what they're doing. Or it's a fluke of astronomical proportions.

God I love that film. Especially as a fan of the original series.

And strangely enough, the Superman franchise is much in the same boat as Star Trek was. I agree that doing anything but a reboot is very risky.

 

[Timstuff]

Star Trek was a pre-se-boot. Wackiness, but it worked brilliantly!

With Superman though, it needs to be a straight reboot IMO.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

i don't want a sequel to superman returns. i want a completely new movie with a new vision but...to usher in a superman movie that is finally going with something different than Donner's vision, i thought the old fortress of solitude could be destroyed very early in the movie. they could even do it before the opening credits.

By having the Fortress in the movie, even if you destroy it, just by showing it; that ties it in with the old universe.

By not showing that version of the fortress at all, would better remove the new one from any Donnerverse.

 

[Young Superman]

Star Trek was a pre-se-boot. Wackiness, but it worked brilliantly!

With Superman though, it needs to be a straight reboot IMO.

Agreed

 

[Webhead2006]

yea trek came out wonderful being a reboot, but also that its a parallel universe deal. As for superman we just need a clear and total clean slate and start all new and not holding onto the donner take forever. We need to see some new stories, and honnor more of the mythos from the 30s-present day and so forth.