Superman Begins

[The Old Mixer]

Galactus wrote:

---

Ok I am not following what you are saying. We needed to know how Bruce became Batman complete with his training, yet we don't need to know how Clark became Superman including where his powers come from especially if they want to expand on the idea or make changes?

I was arguing against the proposed movie that would spend 1/2 to 2/3 of its time on Krypton. I know you want another all-out origin movie, but can you honestly say that you would support that? I've seen you argue that Batman '89 was an origin movie...yet it didn't get into Batman's background with anything like the detail of BB. Why wouldn't the same approach work with Superman? The most detail that the audience needs to know about Superman's origin can be recapped very quickly, a la the intro of the first Fleischer cartoon, or the one- or two-page origins in the early Superman and Batman stories. The origin doesn't need to be the focus of an entire movie again. If the focus is on an established Superman, the origin can be a brief bit of exposition.

TheArsenal wrote:

---

At some point you just have to get on with it.

A-fucking-men!

Assuming a reboot, if his origin is needed for story purposes, get Superman up and running in one good film with out it, and circle back on it during a second film after viewer goodwill has been reestablished.

Indeed. That gels with my idea of having an established Superman who doesn't yet know where he's from. He could encounter Kryptonite in the first movie, possibly being used by Metallo, which would provide clues that would be explored in the second film.

Galactus wrote:

---

There are too many versions of Superman with too many different abilities for you to do a reboot of Superman without establishing what this Superman is.

You've argued that most people don't know the details of Superman's origin. I'll up the ante and argue that most people don't care about the details of Superman's origin. Give them a good Superman adventure with minimal origin details and they'll be perfectly happy. The only people who have to know every detail of how the current movie incarnation of Superman differs from all of the previous versions of Superman, are the people who are familiar with various versions of Superman. The fine continuity details that you as an informed fan require are going to be lost on Joe Public.

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

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.

Indeed...similar to that World's Finest trailer, which draws implied continuity from various sources. Keep the origin and background details vague enough, drawing from a number of sources, and you potentially disappoint less fans who'll be looking for "their" version of Superman.

[Galactus]

Ok so are we arguing the length of the origin or no origin at all. Those are two different arguments. Since we are talking Begins, I was thinking of that type of origin with different aspects being shown, something I wanted to see with SR. I am coming at this like it is the first Superman movie ever done. It doesn't matter if you have seen or read everything ever done about Superman. My goal would be to simply make this the best take on the character.

I think that is what Nolan did with Batman, based on all the praise the movie has received. Ledger followed Nickelson's Joker, which despite what people think here, was well liked and for a lot of people is still the best Joker.

So it doesn't matter if people care if a origin story is told or not, the person that does the movie should care and should try to tell the best Superman story ever told, even if it is the millionth time it has been told. They should want to create the defining Superman.

[The Old Mixer]

Galactus wrote:

---

Ok so are we arguing the length of the origin or no origin at all.

There are a number of different ideas being thrown about it this thread. I like quite a few of them to varying degrees. The one with the majority of the first movie taking place on Krypton is the one I would support least. My second least favorite would be to do the beat-by-beat full-length origin in chronological order al la the Donner film and the origin episode of the George Reeves TV series. It's been done many, many times, and it's old and stale. If you want, as it seems, a new take on Superman for a new generation, why not break the old paradigms and tell the origin in a different way, at least?

My goal would be to simply make this the best take on the character.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. One person's "best take" might suck mightily to others.

So it doesn't matter if people care if a origin story is told or not, the person that does the movie should care and should try to tell the best Superman story ever told, even if it is the millionth time it has been told. They should want to create the defining Superman.

And does the best Superman story necessarily have to be his origin? Why constantly reinvent the wheel when you can go somewhere fresh? There are more stories to tell than the origin.

[Galactus]

When I say I want an origin, I am not saying I want a life story. I do want a telling of this Superman and who he is. That is the superhero story telling formula, since the beginning. Can you do a Superman movie without telling his origin and it be good sure. But you don't have to give it up just because other people have done it in the past, which is what I hear a lot of people saying.