Originally Posted by Erix
Thing is, Superman is such a popular character that the origin is really irrelevant at this point.
I disagree. I think the origin (specifically his upbringing) is so important that it informs everything he does as a character. Now, I know you understand that and that what you're saying is the origin is so familiar that it's already in the back of everyone's mind when they see Superman, but I'm not so sure a film audience doesn't need to be reminded of it. Most non-comic fans are probably only familiar with the origin story from the '79 film at this point.
But more to the point of the relevance of the origin, I see Superman as so entrenched in modern mythology at this point that I think of him as intrinsically linked with the origin, as if the more important aspect of the mythology is the story itself, rather than the character. Much as when people think of King Arthur, they think of the story elements in the Arthurian legends more than the qualities of the character himself-- the drawing of the sword form the stone, Merlin's guidance, Lancelot's affair with Guinevere, the treachery of Morgan le Fay, etc.-- because the qualities of the character are defined by those events.
Now, you can make a King Arthur film without any of that, and just have it be about him in some battles and then rescuing some noble family, the end, but that's boring. I don't think 2 hours of Superman punching giant robots would be as boring as that, but to me that detaches the character from what "the myth of Superman" should express if the character is to come to the big screen again.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convert everyone to my point of view, but I wanted to express it so that you all can see where I'm coming from, since I think it's an interesting way to view the "phenomenon" of Superman.