The difference there is people know Superman. That alone can get people to come to see it. Whether it is good, is a different question. In any event, a period piece would be interesting. Although, like someone else had mentioned, maybe doing a Tim Burton with a modern setting, but with 30s style. When Bruce is training with Ducard, we flash back to the death of his parents up to when he throws away the gun and begins to work with criminals to understand them. By the time Bruce burns down the League of Shadows HQ, the flashbacks are done (save for an emotional point callback towards the end).
I can't believe this many people can be that wrong about something that's this much of a no-brainer. - No period pieces. That'll flop. - No continuing Donner or Singer's versions. That's just sound logic. - No origin story. Nobody needs or wants it. - Create real, relevant, smart drama for the Man of Steel. If anything is be learned from Nolan, it's make a good movie, not a good Superman movie. Put Superman in peril. - Give Superman a physical threat that he can punch, surrounded by a smart movie. - Explain to the audience why Superman matters, even if you have to hit them over the head with it. I suggest "What's So Funny Bout Truth, Justice & The American Way" as a starting point, one of the last relevant Superman stories.
I agree nowadays people want Superman punching brainiac for two hours straight, no story no dialogue just mindless action >_>. That was one of the biggest complaints I heard about Superman Returns. It was too talky and some wanted superman to just beat the crap out of something.
For me, the only thing a Superman movie has to have is an equal bad guy. The other elements have all worked well, but he never fights anything close to himself on screen. As for the Nolan like thing, well, there's some potential if you want to see how he makes himself into the man after living in Smallville, but the TV show covers that ground.
It was the lack of Superman fighting someone equal to him that people complained about, not the inclusion of good drama. Why can't the film have both? Excellent drama, as well as action that is more than Superman just lifting progressively heavier things.
You can tell a Superman story that is different than what a lot of the public knows today. There are about 5 versions of Superman out there that the general public knows: The Reeves movie, Lois and Clark, TAS, Smallville, and the comics of course. Anyone that has watched or read any of these knows that they are different. The best example being the way that Clark acts and the way Luthor is. My kids know cool Clark who is smart and cunning, a master reporter that he always was in the beginning, not the goofy nerd a lot of people think of. I don't like him as a Superman villian, but Luthor today is the alpha male, the most powerful man on the planet. He sees being President of the United States as being beneath him. He is not some mad insane scientist. You can definitely tell a brand new Superman story that is different than what people know and what they would expect. You just have to think outside the box.
If they have to do another origin story, I would like to see a movie from Lois' perspective, it would begin with her coming to work and being introduced to Clark. Clark and Superman would be treated as two seperate characters and parts of the backstory would be told to Lois by Superman (for obvious reasons he would leave out the "growing up in Smallville" part), a short scene is enough, basically just "I'm the last survivor of the planet Krypton", no flashbacks, no details, they're really not important. The first half of the movie could resemble a screwball comedy, with Lois and Clark getting to know each other (maybe they could use the old pose as a couple shtick to make sure Clark has enough screentime) and with Superman popping in once in a while to fight some minor villains and becoming the hero we all know. In the second half Superman would start to kick ass.
That would be perfect for a Nolan version superman. It would be like batman dealing with the mob in "The dark knight" and also handling the main villian. Clark is investigating military tech from a ship that came in and he has to go down to a harbor and ask questions to fisherman and people. Later he finds out of Lexcorp was involved in smuggling weapons in.
No one wants to see an origin story...how wrong you are about that...at least for myself, can't really state anyone else's opinion. I LOVE Superman's origin and the more re-tellings I can get of it the better. Actually I was thinking that we could take the one page splash from the first page in All-Star Superman to re-tell the origin with a voice over from whoever is playing Clark/Superman. That would be enough for me. I guess what is truly needed is an actual story for this idea to truly work? As for doing a period piece...I wouldn't mind an adaption of the great book Its's Superman...that is different from anything else that has been done on Superman before. Not sure how well it would translate on screen though.
A short retelling of the origin would be fine, whether it's a montage in the credits sequence, or whatever, but a long retelling would be a stretch.
Were a reboot deemed necessary, I think the best approach that would please the most people would be to do a story with Superman well-established in his career, but that has a reason to touch upon aspects of his origin as a story point. Not unlike SR, actually, save that SR was revisiting someone else's origin movie rather than establishing an origin of its own.
I can't believe how many people are opposed to a complete reboot from the beginning of Superman when they just did the same thing in Batman and it worked well. A new origin to me would be essential to a new Superman reboot especially if you want to make a different type of Superman.
A beat by beat origin story had never been put on screen for Batman before Batman Begins. That's not the case for Superman. Working the origin in somehow is fine. I just think it would be better not to go through it again in detail the way that Superman: The Movie did.
I'm sure some would appreciate the full origin treatment, but for those with longer memories, it's like the franchise is on a treadmill. They're telling his origin again? The character has been around for 70 years, they've told his origin many, many times. Enough to just get on with telling some stories already!
I would disagree with that. It is the same origin with different details added or changed to keep with the modern take on Batman and why he is the way he is. The exact same thing could be done for Superman. Like someone said before that telling is 30 years old now.
But there have been many less-definitive retellings of his origins in that 30 years--two animated series, two comics reboots, Lois & Clark, Smallville, probably something else I'm forgetting. (I deliberately left out Superboy as it didn't dwell on his origins because he didn't know he was a Kryptonian yet.) The character is constantly being reestablished, time to just enjoy him as an established figure.
In the last 20 years Batman has had 6 movies, 4 animated series, countless tellings and reimagining in the comics. It is not like either character needs promoting. If you look at the rating not that many people watch Smallville and even if you do, that Clark is nothing like the Superman that most of us know. TAS and Lois and Clark ended around 10 years ago. There is more than enough room to tell a Superman origin story.