‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ & ‘Man of Steel’ to Feature Altered Origin Stories

Published 3 years ago by , Updated May 17th, 2012 at 8:16 am,

Amazing Spider Man Man of Steel Spoilers The Amazing Spider Man & Man of Steel to Feature Altered Origin Stories

In addition to capitalizing on the unprecedented popularity that superhero movies currently enjoy, the upcoming series reboots The Amazing Spider-Man and The Man of Steel will no doubt attempt to breathe new life into familiar mythos by approaching the heroes’ origin stories from some new, audacious angle.

But recent plot revelations regarding both films are beginning to raise the question: how many changes to the source material are too many?

It goes without saying that, from here on out, we’ll be presenting MILD SPOILERS for both The Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel – so, if you don’t want to know anything about the films, best to turn away now.


The Amazing Spider Man 4 minute extended preview The Amazing Spider Man & Man of Steel to Feature Altered Origin Stories

The Amazing Spider-Man

For fans of the Sam Raimi trilogy, the decision to scrap the entire franchise and start over (at first) seemed rash, to say the least. On the other hand, many followers of the comics likely wanted a darker, grittier, more brooding tone than that of Raimi’s often-cartoony adaptations. In that respect, at least, The Amazing Spider-Man seems sure to deliver, if the trailers are any indication.

What’s less-certain is exactly what the filmmakers mean when they say that the film tells the “untold story” of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Previous reports suggested that marketing spin referred to Peter’s search for information about his long-missing father (something Raimi’s films never bothered to touch on), and the previews seem to support this plot point.

However, according to Badass Digest, The Amazing Spider-Man also tinkers with the hero’s long-established origin story. Apparently, this time around, Peter is not imbued with superpowers by the bite of a radioactive spider, but rather by some sort of dormant mutation for which his father is responsible – and the spider bite merely triggers it. This detail could potentially alter the entire dynamic of the Spider-Man character and story. Instead of some timid high-schooler who has to struggle with and adapt to the hand which fate has dealt him, is he now some sort of “chosen one,” or genetic super-soldier? Because that’s how it’s starting to sound.

Man of Steel Header The Amazing Spider Man & Man of Steel to Feature Altered Origin Stories

The Man of Steel

The issue of “destiny” also crops-up in the forthcoming Zack-Snyder- helmed, David S. Goyer/Christopher-Nolan-penned Superman reinterpretation The Man of Steel. Think McFly Think reports that this time around, Kal-El isn’t just any Kryptonian refugee, but rather a full-fledged prince, who is somehow preordained to save Earth from destruction. This isn’t necessarily as significant an alteration to the legend as the aforementioned Spider-Man re-envisioning, but it may add a layer of mysticism that will feel out of place in what’s supposed to be straight sci-fi/comic book movie. Then again, Superman has never been the most complex or compelling superhero, as Brian Singer’s underwhelming Superman Returns made painfully clear, so maybe a new layer to his backstory could actually provide some much-needed depth. These deviations from the accepted Superman origin mythology are reportedly holdovers from an earlier J. J. Abrams script, Superman: Flyby, which apparently contained other, far more radical, plot elements.

The success of The Avengers and intense anticipation for The Dark Knight Rises have both, no doubt, weakened interest in The Amazing Spider-Man, but who’s to say it can’t still turn out to be a dark horse success? All anyone really has to go on are a few trailers and blind conjecture. Predictions about The Man of Steel are even more futile, given that it’s not scheduled for release until summer 2013. That said, the project has a powerful asset in Nolan. Hopefully he can redefine and reinvigorate the last son of Krypton as he did with Batman.


The Amazing Spider-Man hits theaters on July 3rd, 2012. The Man of Steel is tentatively scheduled for release in the U. S. on June 14th, 2013.

Sources: Badass Digest, Think McFly Think

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Re: “Peter’s search for information about his long-missing father (something Raimi’s films never bothered to touch on).”

    Could that instead say, “Something Raimi’s films never touched on”? Or are you suggesting Raimi neglected something crucial. I never remember any mention of Peter’s parents in the comics until the 90′s, and then they were in silly stories as international spies or something.

    Expanding these stories could end up being subtraction by addition.

    • Agreed….

    • Actually I seem to recall Marvel did have a storyline where Spiderman’s parent’s were involved with the cold war and played a role in creating Captain America who in this storyline had a team of heroes alongside him.

      • Thanks for ruining my day. The world is a much darker and bleaker place knowing that movie can’t be made. Both the origin’s of Spider-man and Captain America seem like pale shadows in light of this revelation.

      • the movie series already has steve rogers butting heads with the son of a man involved in his ‘creation’. mr parker jr as another spanner in the wheel isn’t possible, anyway, as they are owned by different studios and so forth.

  2. Sorry but I just really don’t care what they do to these movies any more because they are always doing something that fans disapprove of (and usually are right about). The choices they make really do leave me scratching my head and wondering if they just think they are clever or really don’t give a damn.

    • I, a Spider-man fan, actually enjoy the direction of the new movie. It actually depicts the important relationship between Parker and Gwen Stacy (first evident in early Amazing comics), it will tell the story of his absent parents (done in the 90′s Amazing Spider-man comics and Ultimate), and will also incorporate tweaks to his origin (Amazing Spider-man, and Ultimate) This new movie at least appears to be more accurate than Sam Raimi’s movies with the organic webbing, 80′s emo dance scene, and the screw-up that would have been Spider-man 4 (namely recreating Felicia Hardy- the Black Cat- into “the Vultress,” a sidekick to the Vulture

  3. In the comics,due to the celestials experiments,super-powered humans were split into two, the 1st group: those whose powers are there frm birth(most are mutants), the 2nd group: those who have a latent gene dt needs an external force to activate (Spiderman, the Hulk, Daredevil e.t.c). Therefore the change is closer to that of the comics.

    • Yes and no, it seems to imply that Peters dad tweaked his genes either invitro or when he was a small child.. Or he tested gene alteration tech on himself and as a result his child (peter) aquired the latent genes when he was conceived.

      • Sounds a LOT like what they did to HULK in 2003 and we all know how that story line played out.

        • It wasn’t the concept itself that was bad. I rewatched the movie recently and was surprised at how thorough they were with the pseudo science aspect. If not for the bad performances from what was otherwise a very strong cast, and for the editing choices from someone who is usually a very good director, I think that concept could’ve been used for greater effect. Maybe that will be the case here.

          But at this point, we’re still just speculating.

          • Actually, I should correct myself. The editing wasn’t bad in my opinion. The style that Ang Lee chose to tell his story is what was, in my opinion, bad. I felt that the moving split screens were way over done and distracted from what was going on, on screen. I think Lee was too aware of the fact that he was making a comic book movie, when he should’ve just been trying to make a good movie in and of itself.

  4. I like this aspect added to both Spider-man and Superman’s origins. It makes a bit of sense to me. And will likely ad more depth to the characters.

  5. I guess I never truly thought about it, but I kind of thought that Superman WAS royalty of sorts. I remember thinking there was some kind of parallel between him and Vegeta (prince) or Goku (hero) from Dragonball Z.

    • I always assumed he was. The whole planet falling apart and his parents are the only ones with the tech to save anyone.

      • Ikr?

      • It’s not that Superman’s parents were the only ones who had the technology to save people. Jor-El was a scientist on Krypton and was the first to notice the impending doom of Krypton. The other Kryptonians were too arrogant to think that a thing like that could happen to such a superior race or beings and chose to ignore Jor-El’s warnings. He only had time to build a small ship to carry Kal-El to Earth.

        • He had more time to creat the stuff that made the fortress of solitude! It seems to me he had a long time to think about what he was doing. Plus pre-recording all those messages for Superman. All I was saying was that I assumed Superman’s family were some pretty damn important people. Why didn’t Zod hate every family on Krypton? Jor El had enough pull to be the one to get his ass banished. Maybe not royalty, as I would assume a planet that advanced would have done away with totalitarian rule, but at least pretty high up in the running of things.

  6. “because that`s how it`s starting to sound.”
    you have the word “could” in there as if it “could happen” or any words that express that.”Previous reports suggested that marketing spin referred to Peter’s search for information about his long-missing father (something Raimi’s films never bothered to touch on), and the previews seem to support this plot point”Apparently, this time around, Peter is not imbued with superpowers by the bite of a radioactive spider, but rather by some sort of dormant mutation for which his father is responsible – and the spider bite merely triggers it. This detail could potentially alter the entire dynamic of the Spider-Man character and story. Instead of some timid high-schooler who has to struggle with and adapt to the hand which fate has dealt him, is he now some sort of “chosen one,” or genetic super-soldier? Because that’s how it’s starting to sound.” And in the sentence before that you used the word “tinker” which is not in my vocab. you have nothing that sounds like revealing info that for sure something`s gonna happen in the film. if spidey isn`t for sure going to “tinker”(be) with some origin story then lets not reveal anything else about the film. the 4-minute trailer is typically an entire commercial break, so i think that reveals enough before the film. it comes in 47 days, time will fly.

    • “Tinker” is an old word that means “mess around with” or “modify.”

      Are you new to the site? This site is all about speculation & analysis. Saying that one of the writers shouldn’t discuss the what-ifs and how-comes of the film seems odd. It’s like saying people shouldn’t sell stuff on ebay. That’s what ebay is for.

      • uuum, well they`ve already made the film so i don`t get the point of discussing the “likelihood” of what`s going to be in the film if there`s the likelihood that it won`t be in the film. i`m just an ordinary fan so i don`t know how this site works getting info+what kind of info, but it sounds like to me up there you`re just giving hints of what “could” be in the film instead of what is or hints about what will be in it. you don`t know whether or not it`s going to be a film worthy to risk wasting your money on, so i`d suggest only going to see it if movie critics give it atleast 4 stars. if you waste your money on a film, just like how people did on sm3, don`t risk wasting it again unless you have more than the ticket cost of extra money, because you may need extra money to pay for mistakes-things that we all make-to be repaired such as your house,your car, accidentally getting the wrong # on your celephone and wasting time on it that costs money, people have called me hundreds of times telling me that they have the wrong #, so anything, that you accidentally damage or lose that`s an everyday need.

        • excuse me,”but it sounds like to me up there you`re just giving hints of what “could” be in the film instead of what is or hints about what will be in it.” you see right there i made a mistake, i already said hints about what will be in it, i meant next to say that you`re also not giving revelations about what`ll be in it.

          • oh, excuse me, critics don`t give their critique until it gets released and people have had the chance to see it, so i just suggest that you follow my advice that i gave you as i`m pretty sure you`ll understand my point. we make mistakes, could we never make big ones?

            • None of what you’ve said makes any sense.

            • What are you on?

            • wait…what?

            • I read all 3 posts and couldn’t figure out what this person is trying to say. No offense, but is English your native language?

              • Tinker” is an old word that means “mess around with” or “modify.”

                Are you new to the site? This site is all about speculation & analysis. Saying that one of the writers shouldn’t discuss the what-ifs and how-comes of the film seems odd. It’s like saying people shouldn’t sell stuff on ebay. That’s what ebay is for.
                ok um i should`ve asked you to be more specific then you would`ve understand what i was saying better, “what if” and “how come” of what of the film?

                • oops, i should`ve quoted everything in that comment before the word “ok” because that was ken`s comment

                  • “Ma’am, you should never drink the bong water.”

                    - Sir Carson Daly

                    • i think he means we shouldn’t go to see the movie based on speculation, but wait for reviews to come in. that way we don’t waste our money…money we could use on phone credit…or something.

                    • WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!?!?!?!?!?!?

                  • Jesse, I think you’re the only one that understood what 62 is trying to say. I agree with you, I believe your statement on what “you think” 62 is trying to say is accurate. He is trying to say don’t waste money on speculations (like the stock market). Pardon him for his English, maybe its not his native language, or maybe he’s just drunk.

                    Either way, why do people always fight on these posts as if whether speculation is right or wrong, it is worth getting bent out of shape for? To the general, remeber, THIS IS A MOVIE, if you want source material, read the comics, MOVIES are meant to entertain as A MOVIE with some material, not all. Somethings from the Comics just won’t make sense on the big screen, therefore they alter it. Watch it or not, it is your choice, no need to cry about it lol. The one’s who say they hate something thats rebooted much like Spiderman or MOS, they’re the ones that are usually first in line to buy the ticket lol

        • Enough with the origin stories already. All comics are written in Act 2, so why must the movies based on those characters all start with a first act ? Ridiculous.

          How about you studio execs approve a script that starts these movies in the second act and let us do our homework on the origins. Or do like Burton did with Batman and give us flashbacks throughout.

          What is being done to these characters in INJUSTICE !

          • I could point you to ” The Spirit.” The second act of that movie refers to the origin of the hero, without going to into it. It’s a rather quick flash back.

            Sin City is not full of ” Super” heroes, but none of them have origins while still being based off a comic book.

            The real point of this movie adaption is that an origin story can set the mood for the other movies in the series. The Amazing Spider man Video game takes place afterward, and links Oscorp to genetic testing for human/animal hybrids like The Rhino, And Black Cat. Since he’s fighting the Lizard his origin linked to ( speculation) his dads work on genetic modification at Oscorp could lead to a theme with his Villains origins and so on throught each movie to follow.

  7. Everyone just take a deep breath…

    Now I remember reading a comic book series called The Ultimate Spider-Man that took Peter Parker back to high school, changed all the major characters in his life, and it was AWESOME! One of the things is nailed was that, even with all the changes, it was STILL Spider-Man.

    I was not happy with this reboot initially. Even after the MAJOR disappointment of Spider-Man 3, I loved so many things from the first two films that I was eager to give him another chance. After watching all the previews for this new Amazing Spider-Man, I am looking forward to seeing it! I see different aspects of the Spider Man character I’ve loved in the comics than I ever saw in Sam Raimi’s version, and THAT is exciting to me.

    As far as the origin story…doesn’t bother me. So he is no longer a “normal” kid who is dealing with unexpected powers because the father he doesn’t know has something to do with it? Let’s talk about the original origin…didn’t it ever bother ANYONE that this high school student randomly got bit by a radioactive spider and got these powers unexpectedly, yet he was also a super genius who was able to make these web shooters which created this incredibly strong webbing?

    As long as the character is intact, with his human weaknesses and his desire to live up to the idea that with great power comes great responsibility, I’m there.

    • I agree with that one hundred percent.

    • I was never bothered with it, but I get you. Also, I agree that so long as the human weaknesses are still there, and the desire to live up to the idea that with great power comes great responsibility is there, then you still have the heart of the character. That’s all that matters to me… actually, the humor matters too, but it seems like it’s there so I’m optimistic.

    • Originally Peter was a smart kid, as you’ve said. If i remember correctly he radiated a spider in a science experiment, and it retaliated. It wasn’t a random radiated spider. It was Peter’s own slight hubris all along.

      • uhhh… no.

        it was a random radiated spider.

  8. Why does Spider-Man’s dad creating (or helping to create) his powers change the Spider-Man we know?

    Because, it makes him less relatable, despite the fact that he is fantastic and clearly fictional, a major draw for young boys to Spider-Man is his relatability. That far-off chance that we too could be imbued with fantastic powers if only we could find that illusive radioactive spider and have it bite us.

    Now we have to have a dad who tinkered with our genetics? LAME-O

    • yeah it’s lame. they should have changed something else. That dad tweaking made spiderman sound more like a fairy tail. You know, like the princes getting blessed by fairy god mothers at infancy so when they grow up they’re beautiful.

      The Amazing Spiderman might fail.

    • All this talk about changing “Spider Man” If any one of you remember a short group of stories called “The Red Spider” Anyways, It was about how Peter finds out he is a pro-do-type and the Peter that we all know and love is a clone. The story says his parents are made up and that his Aunt & Uncle was hired to raise him. The Red Spider has powers, and escape form the lab that took him. I can remember how it ended but, they in the comics have change all of there top story lines over the years. So why not the movies? As some one said, it is still “Spider-Man”

    • relatability is overrated. a good story with good characters will find its audience.

  9. Fanboys are crying I am so happy for these changes. Fanboys will be in line before me to get the sweet spot seat!

  10. Hope we get a teaser trailer for Man of Steel during The Dark Knight Rises showing!

  11. @Wes…

    Gonna disagree with you. As a HUGE Spidey fan, my butt is NOT going to be seeing this disaster in the making in the theater. (PH)ony can kiss my butt if they think they’re getting any of MY cash on this garbage. I’ll find a theater still showing The Avengers and see that again, or, gasp, I might just not GO to the movies that weekend! You can keep giving (PH)ony your money to keep making cr*ppy Spidey films like TASM and Spidey 3. They ain’t getting mine.

    • I love when people tell me that despite what I say I’ll be there in the theater to see this atrocity.

      I didn’t see X-Men First Class, check back in my comments – you’ll see I held true…I really don’t feel like I’m missing anything either.

      The same is true for this “Spider-Guy” movie.

      • Dante, I thought X-Men First Class was a really good film. MUCH MUCH better than the Brett Ratner X3 disaster. Right up there with the first X-Men film, IMO.

        • Dante didn’t see it in the theaters for the same reason I didn’t……it was total and complete canon pillaging at its very worst to get the material they wanted to make XMFC workable.

          I don’t know if Dante saw it at all but I did eventually on Redbox and agree it was a good film as long as you did NOT think about the above. If you factor that it it was mediocre at best.

          • I still haven’t seen it either, although some of my friends have said it was good. I can’t get over being pissed at how much the story/characters/timeline was butchered. Little things don’t bother me, but XMFC I just can’t move past.

      • ok, ok. i give in. you can have this cookie…

        what?… why else were you bragging about not watching a good movie.

      • ok, ok. i give in. you can have this cookie…

        what?… why else were’you bragging about something so silly as not watching a good movie.

    • @Andy S.

      It’s a disaster and the Powers That Be at Sony knows it! Don’t be surprised when the reviews come out and it’s skewered.

      The success of Avengers and inevitable success of Dark Knight Rises only adds to their problems.

      I’ll be watching my Spider Man 1, 2 and YES 3 DVD’s during my holiday vacation. I’ll probably find Avengers in the theaters as well!

      • The new spider man film will be amazing. The first 2 batman films were crap and im sure the 3rd will be good. The films had good actors but Nolan messed with the story line to much. Also avengers was fun to watch but the fight scenes went on and on and on. I want a good amount of fighting but more of a base story than..LETS FIGHT.
        So sir, you are completely wrong about the new spider-man film.

  12. @Wes- I think there will be a short teaser trailer for Man of Steel in front of TDKR. So pumped! Superman is my favorite. Oh, and Andy- you’ll see Spiderman in the theatre. Don’t kid yourself, man.

    • lol…word

  13. Im looking forward to TASM more than TDKR.

    • Lol, I’m looking forward to Prometheus more than TASM & TDKR :D

      • Way to go dude! Even if it’s lame your the dude! And I can’t wait for both Prometheus and TDKR….

  14. Superman being Kryptonian royalty is not really a huge leap from the established mythos, the House of El were a very respected family on Krypton. Jor-El was a part of the scientific council, which in Kryptonian society was kinda like the ruling class.
    And in the Ultimate line, Peter Parker’s father was a scientist. I’m not sure if he had anything to do with Peter becoming Spider-man, as I didn’t read those, but that could still add some interesting elements to his story. As long as his core personality traits are intact I’m ok with this.

  15. We all love our characters but ever now and then we need to refresh them or change aspects so that we don’t get bord with the same old thing (Comic do this all the time like the new 52) and it mentioned in Stan Lee documentary

  16. I don’t much care about TASM, because I don’t really like Spider-man, I’m definitely going to watch the film though.

    As for MoS:

    Superman movies have always sucked in my opinion, including the very first one(in lesser extend). The people involved with the films don’t really understand how complex the character’s situation is. Also they don’t seem to understand the Kal-El is a huge bodybuilder type man(just look at JLU he is the biggest of all normal sized heroes). I’m tired of watching skinny people us Superman.
    You can do a lot of different things with Superman and Clark Kent.
    You can do a lot of things with Lois/Clark/Superman romance (although most of us would prefer if just ONE movie didn’t involve Lois SO much.
    You can show the struggle of Clark with justice and killing.
    You can do a lot of things with Superman enemies, he has A LOT of powerful and/or cool and/or complex villains e.g. Darkseid, Brainiac, Doomsday, General Zod etc.

    And yet we had 5 Superman films so far and we’ve only seen Zod and he was beaten be taking away his powers. (LAME!!)

    For the Superman film to work they need to get a page from the animated movies: Superman: Doomsday (the death of Superman)
    Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (the arrival of Kara Zor-El/Supergirl)
    Or even an episode of the aminated series would be better than Superman Returns

    For a Superman movie to work though they need to drop the hour-long origin story featured in every single film. Everyone knows where Superman comes from, just reduce the origin story to 15-20 minutes (including the whole growing up in a loving family on a farm, something something, with animals blah, blah)
    Also bring in more than Lex Luthor. He is a great villain but because he is just human Superman’s true power can’t be seen. Bring on “Apokolips”, or Doomsday, or Brainiac, or Metallo, or Parasite, or Bizarro, or Ultraman or even Mr.Mxyzptlk (best villain ever :)).

    I want to see Superman KICK SOME A$$!!

    Rant over.

    P.S. I would love to see the speech from the last episode of JLU when Superman says this to Darkseid:

    “[...]Me? I’ve got a different problem. I feel like I live in a world made of cardboard, always taking constant care not to break something, to break someone. Never allowing myself to lose control even for a moment, or someone could die. But you can take it, can’t you, big man? What we have here is a rare opportunity for me to cut loose and show you just how powerful I really am.”

    • I am having trouble recalling what other Superman films had hour long origin stories besides Richard Donner’s original (which was almost 35 years ago). Perhaps you could remind me…

      • Superman I: No need to explain, it was the first movie so it’s reasonable to have the origin story in full.

        Superman II: It took a really long time to explain who is Zod, why he hated Jor-El and the El family, where he was all those years (Phantom-Zone) how he escaped, how Zod, Ursa and the other guy ended up on the moon, attacking the astronauts and finally landing on earth. What I hate about this? Such a long time wasted when they could easily explain why Zod hates Superman just by having Zod talking (which he does, A LOT), furthermore, all that time these events took and they didn’t bother to explain why the 3 Kryptonians ended up on the moon, how they could breathe in space and how they knew that the son of Jor-El was on earth in the first place.

        Superman III: Do you remember any thing from that horrible piece of “cinema”? The thing I remember the most is how long we get to see some Superman. That horrible actor who has (and I quote) “a knack for computer programming”!! takes forever to establish a background story about something I don’t remember(something to do with coffee? and oil?), but after all that time of storytelling, there are no villains Superman can fight, so Superman fights himself for a little while so he can give time for the bad guys to produce something “evil” for him to fight.

        Superman IV: The only thing I remember from that probably worst movie of all time is how long that nuclear bomb takes to “EVOLVE” into a man that is evil so Superman can fight, seriously it took 50 minutes out of a 90-minute movie to establish a villain. Oh and all that time the villain was “EVOLVING” we watched “Clark thinking that he doesn’t want to sell the farm, then finds a recording from his mother which suddenly appears” (seriously who wrote these things?)

        Superman Returns: part of PLOT FROM Wikipedia :
        “Superman has been missing for five years, since traveling to the location where astronomers believed they had discovered the remains of Krypton. During his absence, Superman’s nemesis Lex Luthor was released from prison and married a rich widow to obtain her fortune upon her death. Superman, having failed in his quest to find surviving Kryptonians, returns to Earth and, as Clark Kent, resumes his job at the Daily Planet in Metropolis. He subsequently learns that Lois Lane has won the Pulitzer Prize for her article “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.”

        This took more than 30 minutes. Need I go on?

        • demoui…

          You’re mixing up “origin story” with setting up the plot of the given movie. ALL movies that have ANY semblance of consitency, coherency, or commitment build up their stories…even the ones that just jump into the action go back at some point to establish the path taken to get to that current level of activity.

          “Superman: The Motion Picture”: understandable telling of origin
          “Superman 2″: brief flashback retelling; then, jumps to Paris action
          “Superman 3″/”Superman 4″: no origin other than setting up story
          “Superman Returns”: brief flashback(s) about joy of discovery

          In other words, the ONLY one of the five films that spends any SIGNIFICANT time on Superman’s origin is the first film. “Man of Steel” will have an origin thread because it is rebooting the franchise, but it is (from everything we’ve read and seen about the film, so far) taking a different approach from the previous series (of course, with the release of “Superman Returns”, #s 3&4 didn’t even really count as part of that continuity any more…).

          In short: Ummm, NO.

        • In Supes 2, Zod didn’t know that Kal-El was on Earth, Lex Luthor told him that. Also, any Kryptonian could exist in space as long as they are near a yellow sun. The Phantom Zone being near Earth could be explained for the same reason Kryptonite is on/near Earth (the exploding planet drove it to Earth).

          • Being able to exist in space un-aided is a point of controversy. I fall on the side that believes, no hatter how invulnerable he is he still needs to breathe. This gives him another weak point because he can be suffocated.

            • Breathing in space wouldn’t have anything to do with invulnerability. It would more be related to whether Kryptonians need food/water/air to subsist, or are they entirely solar powered? Krypton’s red sun provided energy to live, Earth’s yellow sun supercharges Kal-El’s physiology beyond measurable levels. I don’t remember what various writers & interprations say about the food/air/etc thing with Kryptonian metabolism.

              • Supermans lungs act like an air compresser, it’s how he has superbreath and why he can “breathe” in space.

              • But it kind of does. If he needs to breathe, not amount of bullet bouncing off his chest is going to keep him from suffocating. So while the lack of atmosphere might not immediately kill him, no oxygen may.

                And while the eating part is open to debate, it has been shown numerous times that he does need to breathe.

                • His lungs are like scuba tanks that store compressed air, hence “breathing” in space.

                  • This was the explanation given in the comics.

                  • uh yes but even scuba tanks run out of air. ;)

                    I’m not saying he couldn’t go into outerspace/vacuum/underwater for a limited period of time but he WILL eventually run out of air.

                    • Yeah, eventually, but he doesn’t spend extended periods of time in space without a suit or ship, in the books or the cartoons( JLU and Superman:TAS). In the movies he was never in space for more than a few minutes.

                • “it has been shown numerous times”

                  Any comics fan knows this is poor evidence. Things change from one writer to the next, one reboot to the next. Depends on which version you want to rely on.

                  • I wouldn’t call it poor evidence because the evidence IS abundant. As you said, his exact powers/abilities vary from writer to writer which makes it impossible to reconcile.

                    • Super man has always flown into space. The amount of time he can stay there may be in question, but his ability to do it has never been an issue.

    • @ demoui

      When they casted Superman, they wanted a unknown for the role. They didn’t want someone like Robert Redford or Sly Stallone. Marlon Brando especially didn’t want Stallone as i read online in the role. At the time Superman was around that build as Reeve & Dean Cain’s. Of-course as the years go by they draw Superman more buff. I wouldn’t go as far to say he’s a huge bodybuilder type man. Even in JLU, Batman’s close to his height aswell WonderWoman.

      Long story short i agree with some of what you said. I love that quote from Superman in JLU’s finale aswell. Darkseid always had greats ones aswell from Superman:TAS-JLU. Darkseid: If you will not be my knight, you will be my pawn.

      • @WallyWest

        I didn’t know they wanted an unknown for the part, nevertheless, they could just as easily find someone bigger.
        Not to be an @ss but I did say “bigger” not “taller”, and actually Reeves was pretty tall: 193cm (6ft 4in).
        But look at the very first appearance of Superman:


        He is actually very big especially considering this was in the 1930′s
        and not many men had that kind of muscle.
        But if you see how Superman is drawn in comics and animated movies/series the only actor that came close was Tom Welling from Smallville(after the first 3 seasons).

        • Dean Cain was bigger than Tom Welling; I’d say that Chris Reeves was also bigger than Welling.

        • If we could actually pick who would be the best physical match for Superman from all the actors of the last century it would be Clint Walker. This guy was 6’6″ barrel chested and actually looks more like Superman than any other actor I have ever seen.


          Now could have have acted the part? That I can’t answer but it’s just unfortunate he was born 40 years too early for us to have found out.

          • I like when Superman has some muscle, but the idea that he has to be huge & bulky runs counter to the physics of how his powers work. If he got his strength from muscle mass, he’s have to enormous. He’d be so bulky that he’d look like a blue tennis ball with hands & feet sticking out. Superman’s strength comes from his body’s processing of energy, not from muscle mass. The idea that Reeve was too skinny is preposterous in my mind, because a body-builder physique isn’t required.

            • So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

              • I agree Superman doesn’t have to be a bodybuilder, muscular yes, but not huge. On the other hand, neither should he be overly tall. A 6’6” guy is hard to be inconspicuous. Baggy clothes can hide physique, make him look pudgy even, but being a head taller than everybody else is more noticeable. Especially nowadays when everybody is into working out. We got stuff like P90X out there, gym memberships are at an all time high, buff guys aren’t that rare anymore. Freakishly tall would draw more attention.

                • I rember back in the 70′s it was estblashed how Clark Kent makes himself look diferent from Superman. He compresses his spine and slumps his shoulders to make himself look shorter. I know you can do this in A comic book and not in real life or A movie.

          • I have to say that I really agree with you on Clint Walker. In his prime he would have been the perfect Superman.

        • @ demoui

          Well one person they thought of who was bigger was Sly Stallone in the role but Marlon Brando made it clear he didn’t want Stallone in the role & favored a unknown aswell. I meant to say bigger by the way, aswell as taller.

          Goin by the picture of Superman’s debut of Action Comics #1, imo his built looks similiar to Christopher Reeve & Dean Cain aswell. Compared from that image & Superman shown in in later comics he got even more buff as others drawn him that way in both comics & animation. Like the Max Fleisher cartoons & Bruce Timm’s work,etc. you can till they buffed Superman more since aswell. Imo. i don’t think Tom Welling came close. Even Dean Cain had shown more muscle than Welling.

          • Well you don’t want him to big or else…

            • @ Specshlk37

              Lol. Thats funny. It seems thats what some people expect Superman to be like, especially when the Clark has the costume under his clothes.

      • That’s incorect. On comicbook superheroes unleashed (I think that is the name of the show), they were saying that they wanted redford, and that reeve was not even a candidate. He was an unknown, but when he walked in the door, they were taken aback by his height and his chizzled face, and the dipple in his chin, and that’s why he got the part.

        • @ Mr. Day

          Redford was one of the choices they had in mind. Donnor,Brando,& studio pretty much thought it was better to cast a unknown instead of a actor like Redford is people well know of. As i stated before even Stallone was thought up for the role but Brando personally didn’t want him in the role. Not only was Reeve’s model-like appearance got him the role, but his test screening that finalized it outta everyone else they had. If you haven’t seen Look, Up In The Sky!, The Amazing Story Of Superman is a great DVD to watch about the character. There were things i didn’t even know before & after Superman’s creation.

  17. The Christopher Reeve Superman films were great for what they were back then since they didn’t have the better special fx we have now. The first two films were great but 3 & 4 were not as much as for different reasons. Despite the bad fx it had,etc. it pains me to admit that i think liked Superman 4 more than i did Superman 3. Nuclear Man was original & meant business but that film was not long enough & ran on low-budget because money was being spent on that POS Masters Of The Universe film among other films. As for Superman 3, i always wondered if that film was to be taken seriously as a Superman film w/ Richard Pryor who i like btw. It just seemed nothing exciting to me compared to part 4 if that film had the money needed to better.

    As for Superman Returns, i wonder if Singer realized that his film was lookin more like Donnor’s original film than a return story. Atleast it’s what it looked to me.

    • Yeah Superman Returns was meant to be a direct sequel to the Donnor version of SupermanII. If you’ve never seen the Donnor cut, I recommend it, it’s a wholly different movie from what you’ve seen.

      • I agree. Even Brandon Routh’s acting as Superman/Clark Kent was a dead ringer for Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of the part. He even looked like him in certain parts of the film.

  18. “Dormant mutation?” DORMANT MUTATION?!?!? Yeah, I remember the last time they deviated from the comic origin and used the “father experiments and creates dormant mutation in son that activates later” origin story. It was Ang Lee’s “Hulk.” Nuff said…

  19. I’m not going to judge the movies based on this information, but here’s some of the things I don’t feel quite right with these alterations.

    In the comics readers never knew anything about Peter’s parents until decades into the series. Then they are presented as capable and heroic spies. I don’t know what the movie plans but we can at least assume his Father is some kind of important scientist.

    For me, I’d rather not know anything about them or even have his parents be irresponsible drug addicts who had to give Peter up. Making them super spies or genius scientists kind of takes away a little from Peter’s own personality and accomplishments, from a story or mythological standpoint. It suggests that his intelligence and even heroism may have a genetic basis.

    The same goes for making Kal-El a Kryptonian Prince.

    Comics are touted as a new mythology. There is very little new here. They seem rooted in a family based royalty system, where one is granted power and position by right of birth. A lot of “new” stories are like this. Tarzan is of English royalty. Luke Skywalker’s family is strong with the Force. Thor is a prince. Bruce Wayne and Iron Man come from the upper class. Now Superman is royalty. And Peter, who is raised in a working class environment, now seemingly inherited his talents in science, and perhaps his power, from his father.

    Personally I don’t discount genetic factors in anything from intelligence, athleticism, to personality. But I also believe in environmental factors, and mostly the interplay between the two that we can’t account for or truly understand. But these are stories that are about heroism, and are looked to for inspiration.

    For American mythology this is pretty far from Horatio Alger. These are not “rags to riches” stories. At best these kinds of stories suggest that “the cream rises to the top,” or that superior genetics placed in an inferior or impoverished environment, will still produce superior people.

  20. @Wally i agree, the first two Superman movies were perfect in almost every single way (Part 2 > Part 1 for me though). I also like Supes being on the lean side (and it also helps him fit in as Clark Kent).

    However i was NOT a fan of Bryan Singers Superman.

    • ALL of those Superman movies sucked!. In Superman one, I could say i liked the origin. I really liked the look of krypton and Marlon Brando was great as Jor El. They end of Krypton was pretty dramatic, and so was the maturing Clark Kent becoming Superman. Other then that… The movie was boring and campy. And then Superman turns back time??? What the hell was the director smokin to allow this? Its pretty obvious, If Superman were to make the planet’s orbit spin in reverse then he would destroy Earth…Not turn back time. Wow, that was just so stupid. Part 2. well part 2 was a little better I thought. But I sure as hell could not stand some of the powers they were giving these guys like wtf. Zod uses telekinesis in one scene. Superman throws a huge candy wrapper with an “S” on it(wtf) And in Donners cut, again, he turns back time….so freakin stupid. 3 and 4…Well u already know. they sucked.
      Bryan singer…..That guy is an idiot! He coulda made a great X men 3 movie…But instead because he wanted to direct a Superman movie SO MUCH, he left X Men and made another shittyy Superman movie!

      • If the feats Superman performed in 1 and 2 bothered you that much, you must have really hated “The Avengers”.

        We will simply have to agree to disagree about ALL of the previous films ducking. 1and 2 were excellent, and components of SR were, as well.

        • Did any1 turn back time in The Avengers????….Did any1 throw candy wrappers? did Captain America all of the sudden have new unexplained powers an use telekinesis? Please remind me even though I have watched it twice. Yea u would say 1 and 2 were excellent.

      • Each to his own lol

    • @ lamedude

      Exactly! Lean & little muscle with like Reeve, Cain had were good. I mean if they had Clark shown wearing a button shirt at work w/ tie or something lookin buffed up, you’d think people find Clark odd even more besides wearing the glasses. I wasn’t fan of Singer’s Superman very well aswell. I did thought Brandon Routh had portential in the role. He was just given a bad script was all.

  21. That Plot of Superman Man of Steel is taking my hopes on this movie so down. Till this moment, i’d had high hopes on the proyect, i just don’t like the saviour prince story, is too much cilche and lame. i prefer to see superman as someone that has take a hard desision on chosing use his powers for the good side, and make a sacrifice for a whole race that needs to see on him the example from what they are so faraway now, somone unbreakable in every sense, not just fisically but spiritually and ideological. He must save us becouse he wants to, not because his destiny has been already written.
    Anyway ill whait to see it.

  22. Okay… This is more than stupid… First, with the Parents of Peter Parker… Was anything mentioned about them in the comics? Yes, it was mentioned in the 1990 comics, and they were some kind of international spy, or something of that sort. The story was convoluted, nearly unfollowable, and in the end chalked up as a ‘dream’. Yeah, sorry to burst some bubbles there, but the entire thing was explained away. Changing Peter’s personality into becoming ‘The Chosen One’ is moronic. The Radioactive spider worked fine, and Raimi’s Mutated spider worked just as well. Also making Peter into an edgy Batman like character isn’t a good idea. Spiderman is, and always will be a wise cracking hero.

    Now… On to the Man of Steel…

    Really? A Prince? Wow… how many times has that been used? What was making him a Wizard out? Oh, I know… How about making him a Wizard who’s parents was killed by an evil Wizard overlord. Then he’s adopted by mortals who mistreat him. Of course he learns of his true heritage, and from there he becomes the greatest hero of all time…

    But damn it that takes away the super part, and the alien part… Still it would make them tons of money, so expect it at some point…

    To be honest the best representation of Superman, on film, was the Christopher Reeve movie. And so far I’ve been a huge fan of Spiderman 1 and 2. Three was rushed.

    This ‘reboot’ doesn’t need to happen, and to be honest… I won’t be watching either of them. That includes when they come on HBO, and then eventually standard cable.

    • @lordfrieza…I agree with you concerning spiderman. The radioactive spider works just fine, however, now in the ultimates it is referred to as a genitically engineered spider. Nevertheless, the spider bite origin of spiderman works fine. This is what i have been saying for years…these outside film companies will always want to change something about our superheroes, straying away from the source material. There is no need for that because the stories in the comics works and fits fine in film.

  23. @ Lordfrieza

    I agree with what you say regarding both Spider-Man & Superman films.

    Regarding Man Of Steel though, are you serious about Kal-El being a Prince in the film? Lol, im lost for words about that. I agree about Best representation of Superman on film was the Christopher Reeve films. I agree about Spider-Man 1 & 2 and 3 not only was rushed but Sony pretty much messed that up just as Warner Bros. had a hand in ruining the Batman franchise after Batman Returns.

    I too won’t be seeing neither of these two films in theaters. Id only be seeing them from a redbox or on HBO at the least.

  24. hey me as well the info that i`ve read on the amazing spidey sucks if that happens in the film i won`t buy it on dvd. it`s already bad enough that mj already knows his identity and that there`s going to be a “opening in the sky” from a machine, now his father knows too and instead of all the time his father could`ve made himself spidey, he waited until making his son turn to spidey? also the title”the amazing spiderman” sucks they should just name it a plain sm, sm2, sm3, etc… until the last spidey film which they can name that title. and now how do you make it worse, spidey`s identity already becoming revealed to the public? the trailers and the info of the “possibilities” of what`ll be in the film so far has ruined it for me and for sure if those are the things that happen i won`t waste a ticket on any sequel to the new spidey franchise as well. andrew garfield as an actor i know will suck as the hero and i don`t even care about the info about the superman film that actor is so bad and just for that i know that it`ll suck. i almost guarentee i won`t buy either of these 2 films.

    • 1. That’s Gwen Stacy, not Mary Jane
      2. That’s not an opening in the sky, it’s a biological/chemical weapon
      3. Amazing Spider-man is one of tge different comic series titles (Spectacular Spider-man/Ultimate Spider-man, etc) and is probably jumping on tge train of not just naming the movie after the hero (Batman Begins, The Incredible Hulk, etc.)
      4. He doesn’t reveal his identity to the whole public but one kid who is terrified for his life. Better than a train full of adults I suppose.

    • Mary-Jane knew his identity in the books, and so did both Green Goblins and Venom. So I guess the last thirty years of the comics has sucked for you.

      • oh but this is gwen stacy so with a different girl for peter i`m not sure how i feel about that in relation to mary jane. this kinda stinks because with the original cast&characters they were really carrying something in the spidey trilogy that was”genuinely gripping” but now with a different girl for spidey the meaning from the films feels kind`ve lost. the villains know who he is and i don`t have a problem on it. replacing the characters and not carrying what they had from the maguire`s spideys as well as changing the origin story really makes me feel like the old spidey franchise`s quality is replaced and/or requantitized.

        • Well, the point of a reboot is to start completely over and have absolutely no connection to any previous spider-man films. And the reason they are using Gwen Stacy is because in the original Spider-man comic book, Gwen Stacy is Spider-man’s first love. Which is admittedly strange since this movie seems to take more inspiration from the Ultimate Spider-man comic series where Mary-Jane is his first love interest (and she does find out his identity rather early on in the series). Which all gets confusing on what these filmmakers are trying to do. Are they being more faithful to the original comics? Are they making changes simply to distance and distinguish the film from Raimi’s trilogy? It’s like they want to have their cake and eat it too. I’m absolutely going to see it though because it looks well made and entertaining.

  25. well actually, none of this info sounds like a “mild spoiler” to me that just sounds like what ken told me, “speculation” or what i`ve said “possibilities” of what`ll be in it. also i`ve noticed that something that you see on a trailer is actually deleted before the film comes out so still i haven`t found any “revelation” except that “spidey`s greatest secrets will be revealed” but i just feel it, the reboots will suck all because of partic

  26. sorry something went wrong that comment went on the site before i submitted it, continuing-the reboots will suck all because of particularly bad things that stand alone to ruin the films for me.

  27. I don’t understand why movie producers/directors don’t just stick to the original comics instead of having their own re-imaginings of the story.

    • It kind of ruins it for those who read the comics–it does for me.

  28. “Superman has never been the most complex or compelling superhero”

    pick up and comic book and READ. superman is not limited to just what has been presented to you in mediocre films which do no justice to him.

    • It bugs me that someone always has to take a shot at Superman no matter the subject.

  29. Kal El being sent to Earth to fulfil a prophecy is like a M. Night type twist, you think he’s just a kryptonian refugee save from his dying home planet but also to save the Earth from destruction, probably from Zod and his minions.

    • M. Night lol the worst director ever!