Even before the concept of Superman Returns was announced, I didn't see the need for a retelling of the origin story. As has been pointed out, we've had the 1978 movie, Smallville and Lois and Clark among others.
I would simply take the Goldeneye approach, rather than the Casino Royale one. The lead character may have been off screens for some years, but everyone knows who he is. Everyone knows who Q, M or Moneypenny is and everyone knows who Lex, Lois and Perry White are. There's no need for concessions to the audience - everyone knows who James Bond is and what he's about and everyone knows the same about Superman. You have a slap bang intro, maybe have 5 or 10 minutes of exposition to bring us up to date on where the hero is now, then just stick him in an adventure. Goldeneye was a real old-fashioned, crowd-pleasing traditional 007 adventure and I think that's what The Man of Steel needs.
As Casino Royale was the first Bond novel and there'd never been a movie telling of Bond's origins before, you can see why they went for this approach when Eon finally got the rights to it. But there's no such gap in Superman's history to be filled.
I tend to agree, but I'll even go a step further.
The story shouldn't REQUIRE the audience to know the history of the character. Yes, it should do everything possible to avoid overtly contradicting things that people do know... but a GOOD "Superman" film won't need to rehash anything... and ideally will "fit in" to whatever version of the origin that a particular reader remembers most fondly without having to reference any of them.
Start off with an adult, established, Clark Kent. Don't bother to tell us everything about his past, or to dwell on ANY prior incarnation (but avoid contradicting them). And tell us a NEW STORY which stands on it's own without requiring huge amounts of canonical knowledge.
Oh, and of course make it a good story... that ought to be obvious.