Is it necessary to revamp Superman's origin every decade or so?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

While the fundamentals of the origin never change, it is an inarguable fact that the details of Superman's origin have been in a near constant state of flux since the character was created.

Unfortunately, not enough fans seem to realise this so you end up with constant hissy fits that Man of Steel Superman replaced the Julie Shwartz's Superman and that the Byrne Superman was itself replaced with the Birthright Superman. And, most recently, another incarnation has replaced that short-lived Birthright version.

From my perspective, the idea that Superman's origin doesn't need to be revamped every few years is ridiculous. Superman is modern mythology, which means that it can and should be interpreted and re-interpreted constantly so that the character continues to resonate with modern audiences.

Since Superman's origin is amongst the character's most interesting and engaging stories, it makes perfect sense that this is something creator's and readers will want to revisit again and again.

To set the character in stone, forever unchanging, would be a huge mistake.

[CBikle]

I think the revised/new origin story works best when it is told within the framework of a current story (ie: a new villain appears and seems to somehow be tied into hidden or unknown elements of the hero's origin).

I think the new origin for Superman is probably just a waste of everyone's time, effort & money, unless it introduces or reintroduces some significant radical change to the character that works (like reintroducing the Superboy history to Kal El's origin).

On a side note, I don't really agree with the wording of the "anti-origin" option on the poll, but that option was the closest to my opinion.

[DonC]

I also voted for the "No" option. It seems like the past couple of new origins have been done, not to move forward, but to move backwards. Birthright restored much of the Silver-Age origin and I'd wager the next one brings back whatever Mark Waid left out. We've already got the LSH back in, now they're going to redo everything else. Instead of bending over backwards catering to writers who want to relive--and retell--the past, DC should maybe think about moving forward. The best Superman era of the past 20 years, the triangle era, didn't need to change everything around just they could tell their stories.

[Magneto Rocks]

No. Man of Steel is the best origin to have been told, and it has not been surpassed before or since. I'd be perfectly happy to stick to it and never change it.

In case it wasn't clear, that means I'm NOT a fan of the Superboy/Legion stuff. :p

[The Shadow]

No. Man of Steel is the best origin to have been told, and it has not been surpassed before or since. I'd be perfectly happy to stick to it and never change it.

Yeah, I'm a fan of the Byrne Superman origin too.

I don't like them trying to make everything fit. They keep trying to jam a round peg into a square hole... and it just makes a mess of it.

[Mat001]

I wasn't a fan of "Birthright", because while it was a valiant attempt, the way it was handled going in was just didn't work as well as it should've. "Secret Origin" seems to be working off the basics, while trying to maintain everything that came before it.

I think the revised/new origin story works best when it is told within the framework of a current story (ie: a new villain appears and seems to somehow be tied into hidden or unknown elements of the hero's origin).

I think the new origin for Superman is probably just a waste of everyone's time, effort & money, unless it introduces or reintroduces some significant radical change to the character that works (like reintroducing the Superboy history to Kal El's origin).

Well, so far that's what has been happening. Every bit that we've seen since "Infinite Crisis" has been told as a flashback that occured during the present. The majority of which has centered around the Krypton and Smallville bits, though more has been said of Krypton. I think that's why "Secret Origin" is focusing on the time period of from Smallville to Metropolis. The multiple Brainiacs allow for certain stories to fit, like "Crisis On Infinite Earths" where Brainiac played a significant part in the story. That's been allowed back in. Plus, some stuff is pushed back so that it fits better. I recall that Loeb had wanted to focus on Clark's rogues in "For All Seasons", but couldn't because of how the timeline was set up at that point. Now that it has changed, we can see Metallo and the Parasite sooner.

Besides, even in Schwartz's era, there were changes and retellings throughout. Krypton may have looked the same, but every few years, more stuff was added. Hell, the changes date back to the Golden Age. Krypton in 1938 is different from 1942 and 1948.

[The Batman]

I voted for the third option. Change the origin however you want, in the end, what is important to me are good stories.

I do agree that there's value in the constant flux that Bored is talking about, that it keeps Superman alive so to speak; but I also think there's value in creators knowing when to leave well enough alone. The origin is a great story, probably the best of them, but it loses something if it's revisited too often or tinkered with too much.

I mean, did "Return to Krypton" make for a better origin? Did Birthright? Did either make the character resonate with the modern audience? Or did they just move the character backwards? Did either make Superman stories better? (I'm asking)

I like that Johns and Co. set up their Superman and then just rolled with it (for the most part) letting a retelling of the "Secret Origin" wait for a while. I like what Morrison did with in in All-Star Superman too, showing that you can make Superman resonate without having to revamp the origin at all.

[DonC]

I like that Johns and Co. set up their Superman and then just rolled with it (for the most part) letting a retelling of the "Secret Origin" wait for a while.


I thought I read somewhere that the updated origin was supposed to be told sooner, but got sidetracked by all the delays with Action Comics.

[Mat001]

In early 07, fans asked when we'd find out more about the origin. We were told by Idelson or Didio that we'd learn more in the future, but not right away. Since "Birthright" wasn't that long ago. Later when "Secret Origin" began over in the pages of Green Lantern, Johns said that Superman would probably get a similar treatment. In the interim, we had bits and pieces told to use in the books used as flashbacks to set up what was going on in the present and what was coming up.

[livin_target]

So long as they have a good reason for rewriting it, I don't really mind it being retold. While a lot of fans will argue that "Man of Steel" and/or "Birthright" are better than the current John's origin, John's version has allowed him to reintroduce some classic villians and tell some pretty good stories in Action.

[CYOTI]

I'd argue that Birthright really isn't very much of a revamp say compared to Byrne's or the new origin by Johns and Frank while the former overhauled Superman's origin post-Crisis and the latter brought back many of the pre-crisis elements of Superman back, what exactly did Birthright do? Other than establish that Krypton wasn't a dystopia and that Clark knew Lex, it really did NOT overhaul the Superman origin as compared to what Byrne did or what Johns will do.

[md62]

I voted yes because Infinite Crisis changed some details again plus it is a good idea for new readers to help them out.

[Bo-Man]

i voted yes, because of the changes since Infinte Crisis.

[Super Buddies Forever]

Absolutely not. How many origins has Batman had since Year One? None. And the more controversial elements of that mini-series (Catwoman as a prostitute, for example) have been carefully retconned or worked around without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why can't the same be said for Superman?

Man of Steel is still very much a definite, vital origin story. Yeah, it looks a bit dated. Things are a bit more sophisticated as far as writing and art goes, but conceptually it's as solid as ever. So you want a broader take on Krypton? There's no need to rewrite the origin from scratch. Just start weaving your Donner or Silver Age elements into the fabric of the Byrne version. You want the Legion back in? Surely there are clever ways to do that without trashing the entire mini-series.

Because in the end, what are you really going to change? Clark was no longer a jock, he palled around with the Legion, and Krypton was straight out of the movies? Okay, got it. But the Kents still live into the present day. Lex Luthor was still a business mogul. Chances are some iteration of the space plane scenario are still a part of his debut. There was probably a run-in with Lex's Bizarro. And going into Birthright territory, Lex visited Smallville and Clark traveled the world. I don't see any of that changing, because it's been referenced Post-IC.

Of course, my main beef is that none of this should have ever been messed with. While I've come around to respecting Birthright, it did a great disservice to Superman continuity. I think all of its additions (or re-additions) to the lore could have been built upon Man of Steel rather than supplanting it. And now we the second origin story in this decade alone. I may be able to muster enthusiasm if I had a crystal ball that would tell me that this would be the final origin for at least thirty years, but I see it becoming more of a tradition with each new creative team.

Five years from now...

"Hey! Remember how Lois & Clark's Perry would always say "great shades of Elvis"?"

"Yeah..."

"I was a big fan of that, so I'm going to make it a character trait."

"But how come he hasn't said it until now?"

"Hmm. Better reboot continuity."

[Mat001]

I'd argue that Birthright really isn't very much of a revamp say compared to Byrne's or the new origin by Johns and Frank while the former overhauled Superman's origin post-Crisis and the latter brought back many of the pre-crisis elements of Superman back, what exactly did Birthright do? Other than establish that Krypton wasn't a dystopia and that Clark knew Lex, it really did NOT overhaul the Superman origin as compared to what Byrne did or what Johns will do.

"Birthright" allowed for more Kryptonians to exist away from Krypton. It tried to give a different spin on the Clark and Jonathan relationship. And tried to use modern story elements to demonstrate why someone like Superman is needed. The stuff we've been seeing to date has allowed for new elements like Kandor being fully Kryptonian and try to streamline things more. Waid did his best to combine MOS and BR, but despite his efforts, it didn't quite work. Disregarding certain elements helps and I believe that's what Johns has been doing. He's kept that Lex grew up knowing Clark, but kept them at the same age and apparently has made Lionel the actual father and not an actor hired by Lex.

Absolutely not. How many origins has Batman had since Year One? None. And the more controversial elements of that mini-series (Catwoman as a prostitute, for example) have been carefully retconned or worked around without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why can't the same be said for Superman?

Because no one at DC could agree on Superman. Look back at the 70 year history. Krypton, Smallville and the early days of Metropolis have all changed on multiple occassions. There are five versions of what Jor-El and Lara looked like. Different stories on the life and times of the Kents. Different accounts on Clark's childhood and his public debut.

Man of Steel is still very much a definite, vital origin story. Yeah, it looks a bit dated. Things are a bit more sophisticated as far as writing and art goes, but conceptually it's as solid as ever. So you want a broader take on Krypton? There's no need to rewrite the origin from scratch. Just start weaving your Donner or Silver Age elements into the fabric of the Byrne version. You want the Legion back in? Surely there are clever ways to do that without trashing the entire mini-series.

Because in the end, what are you really going to change? Clark was no longer a jock, he palled around with the Legion, and Krypton was straight out of the movies? Okay, got it. But the Kents still live into the present day. Lex Luthor was still a business mogul. Chances are some iteration of the space plane scenario are still a part of his debut. There was probably a run-in with Lex's Bizarro. And going into Birthright territory, Lex visited Smallville and Clark traveled the world. I don't see any of that changing, because it's been referenced Post-IC.

A lot had to change in order to get to where we are. "Day Of The Krypton Man"/"Eradication" established that Kryptonians were genetically bonded to their planet because of the Eradicator. Which makes it impossible for Kara and the Phantom Zoners to exist. Much less a Kryptonian Kandor since it was blown up long before Brainiac was an itch in his daddy's pants. "Birthright", Action Comics Annual #10, "Secret Origin" and "Brainiac" have allowed for this. Without relying on pocket universes created by the Time Trapper or Brainiac 13. It allowed Lex and Clark to be close to the same age, rather than years apart. We've got Clark working with the Legion as Superboy and Clark wearing glasses, which allows for people like Pete Ross to go for years without knowing the truth.

Plus, origin elements are kept much more simple. Try explaining Byrne's origin to someone who has never read MOS and watch them go cross-eyed. Movie, television and animated elements have been a staple since the days of the radio drama. Kryptonite and Jimmy Olsen, to name two.

Of course, my main beef is that none of this should have ever been messed with. While I've come around to respecting Birthright, it did a great disservice to Superman continuity. I think all of its additions (or re-additions) to the lore could have been built upon Man of Steel rather than supplanting it. And now we the second origin story in this decade alone. I may be able to muster enthusiasm if I had a crystal ball that would tell me that this would be the final origin for at least thirty years, but I see it becoming more of a tradition with each new creative team.

Well, because DC was so certain that Superman would be better off without the very things that made him so popular in the first place, that they made it nearly impossible to bring them back without changing the backstory. You cannot make an ommlete (sp) without breaking a few eggs.

[John Lynch]

From my perspective, the idea that Superman's origin doesn't need to be revamped every few years is ridiculous. Superman is modern mythology, which means that it can and should be interpreted and re-interpreted constantly so that the character continues to resonate with modern audiences.Typically public domain characters are treated in such a way by different companies.

I don't think we need Yet Another Superman Origin (YASO), after only getting Birthright recently. I know I won't be reading it. Has the modern audience truly changed so much from the 2004 audience? I don't think so, and so a YASO isn't necessary.

[Sean Walsh]

...the way this thread is titled, it reminds me of THE GODFATHER.

"That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one."

:tongue:

[WorstThingUS]

He's kept that Lex grew up knowing Clark, but kept them at the same age and apparently has made Lionel the actual father and not an actor hired by Lex.

Though I voted for #3, I hated this because it was a horrible corporate mandated change to match the Smallville TV show that destroyed dozens of stories (everything having to do with Perry White and how could Luthor fake an adult Australian son if both he and Clark are both in their early 30's?) and offered nothing in their place because they didn't understand you cannot put what Michael Rosenabaum did on the printed page. If you can't even sell the Smallville comic, what makes you think people will buy the regular comic made more like Smallville? If they had to use an outside source, Superman The Animated Adventures was excellent for two reasons: 1) it explained how an advanced civilization would ignore its greatest scientist and let the planet blow up under them and 2) THE ROCKET CARRYING KAL-LANDED!!! NOT CRASHED, IT LANDED!!! BECAUSE, YOU SEE, A GREAT SCIENTIST PUT HIS INFANT SON IN IT! Sorry, but that's another sore point with me in every single freaking version. We know dick about space travel, but we can send probes to Mars that don't friggin' crash land, but Jor-El cannot? With his son inside? Even with superpowers I can't think he'd take that chance.


I don't think we need Yet Another Superman Origin (YASO), after only getting Birthright recently. I know I won't be reading it. Has the modern audience truly changed so much from the 2004 audience? I don't think so, and so a YASO isn't necessary.

I disagree. We desperately need a definitive origin for Superman, which is going to take some doing given how much of the last 20 years of stores was integrally tied to Bryne's dystopian Krypton. You've already lost what may be the only good Superman story James Robinson can tell. While he's crashing and burning on Superman now, he wrote an excellent story about that Krypton in Starman. That's pretty much wiped from continuity now. You need the Eradicator because he brings Superman back from the dead, but he came from The Cleric which was tied to the Krypton where it was fatal for them to depart. It's a headache so I can somewhat understand why it's taking them so long to deal with it.

Not to mention Birthright just sucked. When I did my semi-annual comic purge, it had to go and I almost never get rid of anything Superman, no matter how bad.

[J. Robb]

While the fundamentals of the origin never change, it is an inarguable fact that the details of Superman's origin have been in a near constant state of flux since the character was created.
I don't know about that- from 1958 to 1986, Superman basically had one origin. A lot of details and clutter had been added through the years, but very little outright changed.

After the revamp, Superman had a pretty consistent history from 1986 to 2000 or so. It's only been since then that we've had the revolving door Krypton/Supergirls/Zods/De-aging and re-aging Kents, etc etc.

From my perspective, the idea that Superman's origin doesn't need to be revamped every few years is ridiculous.
Superman's origin being revamped every few years is ridiculous. Once a generation is fine, but even that isn't really needed.

Every few years is just embarassing to read, and it finally chased me off the books.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I don't know about that- from 1958 to 1986, Superman basically had one origin. A lot of details and clutter had been added through the years, but very little outright changed.

After the revamp, Superman had a pretty consistent history from 1986 to 2000 or so. It's only been since then that we've had the revolving door Krypton/Supergirls/Zods/De-aging and re-aging Kents, etc etc.


Superman's origin being revamped every few years is ridiculous. Once a generation is fine, but even that isn't really needed.

Every few years is just embarassing to read, and it finally chased me off the books.

Obviously, it would have been better to only revise the origin every 20 years, but since DC never fully committed to anything when it started tinkering back when Loeb came on board, the whole thing seems to have given readers origin revision fatigue.

However, I'm glad DC didn't settle for any the previous revisions because they were all hampered by pointless and nonsensical editorial idicts to not contradict Man of Steel too much, but just enough to confuse and enrage the fanboys.

Loeb's revamp, like many of his stories, was hopelessly convoluted. Retro Krypton made the Matrix Supergirl's origin seem simple in comparison. And don't get me started on Russian General Zod, whose origin never made a lick of sense.

Waid's revamp was better and a stronger break from the past, but, like many of his stories, was a bit hit or miss. And Yu's art was a poor fit for Superman. Birthright Krypton just looked fugly.

Unlike these two previous attempts, Geoff Johns & Gary Frank are two creators at the top of the game, much like John Byrne was when he did Man of Steel, who have been given a clean slate to work with. However, Johns' great strenght is that he always manages to incorporate elements from virtually every incarnation of a character, distilling it all into one iconic package.

Of course, if DC announces yet another Superman origin in a couple years, I'll be the first one to complain.

[Doc Goblin]

When you're dealing with the sliding timescale that superheroes occupy, then yeah it does get kind of necessary to revamp their origins every couple decades or so. Generally speaking.

Superman's origin is kind of a timeless one though. The best ones are. It's simple and straightforward, so it should work the same whatever the time period. The problem is all of DC's tinkering created all these contradictions and confusion. All these different takes on Krypton, was there a Superboy or wasn't there, how far back do Clark and Lex go, the headache that is the Legion of Super-Heroes.

If done right, the Johns/Frank origin story can be the last time this has to be done. They just have to keep it simple and relatively timeless. Find a solid compromise between all the varying takes on Superman's origin rather than just create another alternate take. Johns has a track record that leads me to think he'll pull it off.

[Mat001]

Though I voted for #3, I hated this because it was a horrible corporate mandated change to match the Smallville TV show that destroyed dozens of stories (everything having to do with Perry White and how could Luthor fake an adult Australian son if both he and Clark are both in their early 30's?) and offered nothing in their place because they didn't understand you cannot put what Michael Rosenabaum did on the printed page. If you can't even sell the Smallville comic, what makes you think people will buy the regular comic made more like Smallville? If they had to use an outside source, Superman The Animated Adventures was excellent for two reasons: 1) it explained how an advanced civilization would ignore its greatest scientist and let the planet blow up under them and 2) THE ROCKET CARRYING KAL-LANDED!!! NOT CRASHED, IT LANDED!!! BECAUSE, YOU SEE, A GREAT SCIENTIST PUT HIS INFANT SON IN IT! Sorry, but that's another sore point with me in every single freaking version. We know dick about space travel, but we can send probes to Mars that don't friggin' crash land, but Jor-El cannot? With his son inside? Even with superpowers I can't think he'd take that chance.

Well, Lex being in Smallville predated the show. So while they did use elements from the show, they were also revisiting older history. Also, when it comes to the rocket landing on Earth, under a yellow sun, it too is like Kryptonians. Difficult to destroy. So Clark was well protected when he arrived. Further, as we've seen in Action Comics Annual #10 and Superman #669, Krypton ignored Jor-El because they were arrogant. And even if not, the Council would not want to rebuild a fleet of starships which could be used for insidious purposes. Kryptonians have always been depicted as arrogant, elitists and we see that currently with "New Krypton".

I disagree. We desperately need a definitive origin for Superman, which is going to take some doing given how much of the last 20 years of stores was integrally tied to Bryne's dystopian Krypton. You've already lost what may be the only good Superman story James Robinson can tell. While he's crashing and burning on Superman now, he wrote an excellent story about that Krypton in Starman. That's pretty much wiped from continuity now. You need the Eradicator because he brings Superman back from the dead, but he came from The Cleric which was tied to the Krypton where it was fatal for them to depart. It's a headache so I can somewhat understand why it's taking them so long to deal with it.

The Eradicator still exists. His role will have changed slightly in the past, but retain the overall flavor of what came before. We know this because he was referenced in "Tales Of The Sinestro Corps Presents: Cyborg-Superman".

I don't know about that- from 1958 to 1986, Superman basically had one origin. A lot of details and clutter had been added through the years, but very little outright changed.

There were changes between 1938 and 1942, then again in 1948. Then in the 50's and early 60's to include Superboy. The design may have remained consistant, but they kept going back and retelling his origin every few years leading into "Man Of Steel".

[The Batman]

I thought I read somewhere that the updated origin was supposed to be told sooner, but got sidetracked by all the delays with Action Comics.

Oh, I hadn't read that it was delayed. Serendipity then, I guess. I don't think I'd have been as interested in another retelling of the origin a year or two ago as I am now.

[Alex Dragon]

I also voted for the "No" option. It seems like the past couple of new origins have been done, not to move forward, but to move backwards. Birthright restored much of the Silver-Age origin and I'd wager the next one brings back whatever Mark Waid left out. We've already got the LSH back in, now they're going to redo everything else. Instead of bending over backwards catering to writers who want to relive--and retell--the past, DC should maybe think about moving forward. The best Superman era of the past 20 years, the triangle era, didn't need to change everything around just they could tell their stories.

I agree with you totally. DC's constant need to re-live, revisit, and re-tell the past is the reason I can never really become a DC comics fan. I'm far from a reader who worries about continuity but I've always been annoyed by DC's never ending need to revamp and restart their characters and continuity and expect casual readers to keep up with what stories did or didn't happen and how it all fits. I see it as a big mess that compounds itself with every big event and crossover.

If DC truly wants to make Superman a vital character for the current age they should do it by moving forward, not by going back to the past yet again. It's just silly at the point to give Superman yet another origin story. I'm a fan of the Byrne MAN OF STEEL revamp and even though since it's been done it seems that most writers want to get away from it and move back to the origin and elements of the Golden/Silver Age Superman there are ways to do it without going back to retell that story over and over again.

For awhile DC and the writers seemed to be able to accept the MAN OF STEEL origin and make slow logical changes to to move forward and add things to bring back elements that they liked from the pre-Crisis era without simply throwing out the MOS stuff. Then it seemed that the Superman books got saddled with a few nostalgia heavy writers who seemed to want to spend too much time in the past bringing back old concepts instead of thinking of new ones. Those writers were simply lazy and just decided it's easier to toss out current continuity to dwell in the past.

This all stems from a very basic problem at DC. DC seems to have given up on the strength of their characters and have decided that talent and events are the only things that move their product. DC allows their big name "hot" talent to basically come in and do what they want to make them happy. So readers are stuck getting getting new origins and revamps every few years. In recent years DC decided big event comics are the way to go so now we see event upon event from DC and the characters are always in a confusing state of flux. Does a year go by now at DC when their characters stories aren't inturrupted to get tossed into yet another event/crossover?

[Alex Dragon]

I disagree. We desperately need a definitive origin for Superman, which is going to take some doing given how much of the last 20 years of stores was integrally tied to Bryne's dystopian Krypton.


Actually what we're getting is the "definitive" origin for 2009. DC has shown us multiple times that "definitive" origin will only last until the next "hot" writer or editor with some clout decides to change it. Or when the next movie or tv show that contradicts that origin becomes a hit.

[Will.S]

Given how we were never given the origin straight (merely snippets) it makes sense to finally reveal it with Secret Origin, especially with the Legion being back in Clark's past again.

If they do another one after this though, I'm sure as hell not buying it.

[Augusto]

I voted to stick to one origin. It would be cool if its MoS, but I admire Johns work and I want to see what's going to happen...

It would be wonderful if it's true what Didio said, Secret Origin will be the definitive origin for Superman (maybe I'm too naive) and set up for new stories to follow.

No matter waht happens, Superman Secret Origin will be in my pick up list.

[pariah-1972]

I say no because it's so iconic that it's pointless to change it and also causes confusion for people who don't keep up with the changes all the time.

why mess with perfection honestly.

[Mat001]

Well, it's understandable why changes are made. "Man Of Steel" made it so that we had one Kryptonian survivor and it was "World Of Krypton" and "Eradication" which cemmented the one Kryptonian origin to the point where "Birthright" was needed in order to have Kara. But because of certain changes that Johns, Busiek, Nicieza, Robinson and Gates have instituted over the last two years, "Secret Origin" was required to unify everything. Clark has glasses as a teen, as we've seen in Action Comics Annual #10, Action Comics #850, 856-858, 862-863, 867, Superman #673 and New Krypton Special #1, it only stands to reason to work that in as part of a new origin. Especially since "Brithright" didn't have it previously. And it allows for Clark to be around Pete Ross and Lex Luthor for years without them noticing how Clark looks like Superman. This goes with the other changes that have appeared here and there.

[Ontir]

Yes, science moves forward and the sci-fi has to be updated to fit it.
The character also has to be made accessible and relatable to a new audience, or that audience walks away.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'd argue that Birthright really isn't very much of a revamp say compared to Byrne's or the new origin by Johns and Frank while the former overhauled Superman's origin post-Crisis and the latter brought back many of the pre-crisis elements of Superman back, what exactly did Birthright do? Other than establish that Krypton wasn't a dystopia and that Clark knew Lex, it really did NOT overhaul the Superman origin as compared to what Byrne did or what Johns will do.

As I read Man Of Steel and Birthright for the same time in the same week, the biggest change was when Clark found out he had super powers.
In Man Of Steel it was late in his teen years, in Birthright he knew from the get go, pretty much.

Other than that, it inserted Luthor into Clark's past*, and that's about it.
Not sure it need twelve issues.


*Something I'm always a bit 'meh' on.
Smallville did it because it was set in his teen years, not because it adds much too his later stories.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Clark has glasses as a teen....
it only stands to reason to work that in as part of a new origin. Especially since "Brithright" didn't have it previously.

Yeah totally... a change that major needs his whole origin re-worked, and at least five issues to explaining not only the change, but why they weren't there in previous appearances.

[Mat001]

It's more than that. That's just one example of why this change is done. Another is to work in the Legion and Superboy stories. To push back when Clark first encountered his rogues gallery, making it possible for their roles in the first Crisis to happen again. Working in the Sunstone crystals into Clark's youth. To clear the air between the Clark and Lex dynamic in their youth. To establish Sam Lane's current attitude towards Superman and so on.

[John Lynch]

Yes, science moves forward and the sci-fi has to be updated to fit it.
The character also has to be made accessible and relatable to a new audience, or that audience walks away.As I said before, what science has changed in the last 4 years to necessitate another origin story?

[Ontir]

In the last four, I think our understanding of nano technology and where that's going has moved quite a bit forward, and much more into the public's consciousness. As they've brought in the film's crystalline tech, which certainly seems to be connected to such tech, it's worth giving everything a fresh coat of paint.

Ultimately, I just think DC didn't know what they wanted to do with Superman and let Waid do Birthright, but then Waid dropped in favour, and finally left. Meanwhile, Johns who is the "It Boy" right now is re-vamping both Superman and the Legion and re-connecting them, which is far more the reason to re-do it now.

When I initially answered, however, I was talking about re-vamping the origin as a general concept.

[Mat001]

I don't think it is technology that is the driving factor here. Rather it's just to intergrate 70 years of Superman into one origin.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I don't think it is technology that is the driving factor here. Rather it's just to intergrate 70 years of Superman into one origin.

Exactly, what Johns has done with every character he's done is distill every incarnation into one.

With Krypton, this approach has certainly worked, you've got all the wonder and sci-fi magesty of the Flash Gordon Krypton with the cold, sterile Dystopian Krypton with all its clones and technopuritanical conservatism. Plus, you've got the Space Opera Heaven of Brando and Donner with all its crystaline clarity and perfection.

All three standing side by side, working to make Krypton feel more diverse and complex and facsinating than ever before.

If Johns can manage this with the Smallville era, I'm all for it.

[stealthwise]

Origin stories often just rehash the past in a new way, taking out certain elements and tossing in new ones, but we really don't need that told over and over again. Personally I'm not interested in buying any of those kinds of stories with Superman.

[Expletive Deleted]

If it turns out to be a good read, I'm all for it.

On a purely conceptual level, though, I guess I just don't see the point. The origin (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y92/expletivedeleted/superman_origins.jpg) hasn't changed. All they're doing is taking six issues to swap out a few relatively minor details. I don't mean this in a negative way, but no matter how you arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic the boat still sinks.

Eh, at least it'll be pretty.

[John Lynch]

I'm going to sit this one out and get the next one in 2012.

[EbonAveng3r]

i'm not a big superman fan, but it seems that every couple of years they change something about superman. he gets new powers, his origin is changed, he's got a new s-curl. while variety is the spice of life, not everything has to be different. no other character has gone through so many changes so frequently. after awhile you can't keep up, it gets annoying!

[Ontir]

Beyond Johns and this current re-tooling, you do have to update things. Otherwise you get the old origin which was very much stuck in the "Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon" tradition, without update for decades. If it looks old fashioned, people aren't going to buy it.

Part of the reason Star Wars did so well, is that it was unlike anything we'd seen before in terms of FX and space ships. These weren't aluminum, finned rockets, wobbling on wires with a lighter out the tailpipe, and that caught everyone's imagination.

[Mat001]

It is the precise details that have always changed rather than the whole she-bang. At least insofar as "Man Of Steel" which bypassed the idea of Clark being put in an orphanage after being found by the Kents, who then formally adopt him. Which leaves a problem of a fantastic baby that is taken in by an elderly couple and no one questions when Superboy shows up with similar abilities. Stuff like that has always changed. DC isn't going to completely re-invent the wheel, especially given the lawsuits over copyright and the fact that universally the basics have always remained the same.

What I'm driving at is what Bored at 3:00 AM has said. There is so much Superman out there in the world and as Didio said, they've been intergrating all mediums into the comics. The familiar stuff that people know and will recognize, which can help in selling it.

[earl]

I think re-doing the Superman origin story is the same as why there are so many Batman Year One stories. They sell and many of the big artists want to tell their version of those tales. In another few years, DC will be doing another version of the Joker's first appearance and another version of Superman's origin.

Another thing that occurred to me is that DC seems to be having big Batman and Superman story lines, while actually seeming to get them out of the regular DC universe.

I think as Geoff Johns didn't want to maybe use them in Darkest Night. This way having Battle of the Cowl and then re-doing Superman's origin with a popular writer/artist team is a way of having a big series tied to the big character and yet having them kind of out of the way, so that they can tell their big Green Lantern and Flash stories.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It's more than that. That's just one example of why this change is done. Another is to work in the Legion and Superboy stories. To push back when Clark first encountered his rogues gallery, making it possible for their roles in the first Crisis to happen again. Working in the Sunstone crystals into Clark's youth. To clear the air between the Clark and Lex dynamic in their youth. To establish Sam Lane's current attitude towards Superman and so on.

Yeah, if he's actually going to have Superboy - costume and all - elements then I can see why they'd want to do a few updates - I don't know that it's necessary, but it makes sense.
Just sounded funny when the difference you listed was he was wearing glasses.

Origin stories often just rehash the past in a new way, taking out certain elements and tossing in new ones, but we really don't need that told over and over again. Personally I'm not interested in buying any of those kinds of stories with Superman.

I don't know - I find with Batman and Superman, their origins are the most interesting parts about them - the journey to become the hero - so I'm not averse to reading different riffs on it.

[John Lynch]

In another few years, DC will be doing another version of the Joker's first appearance
Yeah I've stopped reading those. I got a version that I like, I'm just sticking with it.

[Mat001]

I think re-doing the Superman origin story is the same as why there are so many Batman Year One stories. They sell and many of the big artists want to tell their version of those tales. In another few years, DC will be doing another version of the Joker's first appearance and another version of Superman's origin.

There's a difference. Batman's origin has remained the same since 86. First encounters with certain rogues and allies were done over the years. Legends Of The Dark Knight #50 had Batman's first encounter with the Joker, but given the nature of the book and continuity, it's easy to see why "The Man Who Laughs" was done. Why "Lovers & Madmen" was done is beyond me.

Another thing that occurred to me is that DC seems to be having big Batman and Superman story lines, while actually seeming to get them out of the regular DC universe.

But they're not really gone. Bruce isn't going too far away. For all we know, he's in "Battle For The Cowl". And Clark is still there, he's just in outer space.

I think as Geoff Johns didn't want to maybe use them in Darkest Night. This way having Battle of the Cowl and then re-doing Superman's origin with a popular writer/artist team is a way of having a big series tied to the big character and yet having them kind of out of the way, so that they can tell their big Green Lantern and Flash stories.


Or maybe they are involved. Batman and Superman are their own books with their own plans. People complain about having to tie-in all the time, but when DC wants to keep them separate and let the creative teams do their thing, they're accused of what you just accused them of.

[PatrickG]

Er...

Can anyone tell me how Batman's history was changed BEFORE 1986?

As near as I can tell, the only thing COIE changed was that Jason Todd went from a blond circus kid to a brunette street urchin and Catwoman was briefly thought to have been a hooker instead of an airline stewardess.

You can say that Batman's history hasn't changed since 1986 but it really didn't change much IN 1986.

The Dick Sprang stuff with Batman and Robin cracking jokes while fighting on giant typewriters was never retconned out. The Club of Heroes, Chief Man-of-the-Bats, the second Two-Face, Alfred as a mutant, Thomas Wayne as "the first Batman", Barbara Gordon as Batgirl... Heck, it even seems like the current lesbian reinterpretation of Kathy Kane/Batwoman may well have had adventures in the yellow and red outfit while dating Bruce Wayne and mentoring her niece Betty as Bat-Girl.

Bat-Mite is still out there too, as are Ace the Bathound and the rainbow Bat-costumes.

Batman wasn't changed by Crisis. Batman was changed in terms of the tone of his stories and a few casual retcons that have never totally stood up. And I'm not even sure if Year One, Year Two and Year Three really count as continuity anymore or if we're back to the original Bill Finger/Bob Kane stories. Or if anybody even cares.

[Mat001]

Er...

Can anyone tell me how Batman's history was changed BEFORE 1986?

As near as I can tell, the only thing COIE changed was that Jason Todd went from a blond circus kid to a brunette street urchin and Catwoman was briefly thought to have been a hooker instead of an airline stewardess.

You can say that Batman's history hasn't changed since 1986 but it really didn't change much IN 1986.

The Dick Sprang stuff with Batman and Robin cracking jokes while fighting on giant typewriters was never retconned out. The Club of Heroes, Chief Man-of-the-Bats, the second Two-Face, Alfred as a mutant, Thomas Wayne as "the first Batman", Barbara Gordon as Batgirl... Heck, it even seems like the current lesbian reinterpretation of Kathy Kane/Batwoman may well have had adventures in the yellow and red outfit while dating Bruce Wayne and mentoring her niece Betty as Bat-Girl.

Bat-Mite is still out there too, as are Ace the Bathound and the rainbow Bat-costumes.

Batman wasn't changed by Crisis. Batman was changed in terms of the tone of his stories and a few casual retcons that have never totally stood up. And I'm not even sure if Year One, Year Two and Year Three really count as continuity anymore or if we're back to the original Bill Finger/Bob Kane stories. Or if anybody even cares.

Changes brought on by the first Crisis.

-Alfred Pennyworth went to work for Thomas and Martha Wayne, a short time before their deaths. Pre-Crisis, Alfred went to work for Bruce Wayne after he and Dick had begun their crimefighting career.

-Pre-Crisis, Bruce Wayne was raised by relative and the housekeeper was revealed to be Joe Chill's mother. Post-Crisis, Alfred raised Bruce for a few years before he left Gotham for 12 years.

-Pre-Crisis, Lew Moxxon hired Joe Chill. Post-Crisis, Chill did it on his own.

-Pre-Crisis, Bruce went to law school but had dropped out because he disagreed with their policies. Post-Crisis, law school wasn't mentioned. He did attend the FBI and was a member for six weeks before quitting.

-Pre-Crisis, Dick Grayson was Robin when Batman first encountered the Joker. Post-Crisis, Dick joined afterwards.

-Pre-Crisis, Catwoman was an ordinary women who became a theif. Post-Crisis, she was a theif and a prostitute for a time, before becoming Catwoman. And a strong martial artists.

-Pre-Crisis, Jim Gordon's son was named Anthony and his wife wasn't named. He was a Gotham cop who investigated the death of the Waynes. Post-Crisis, he was still a cop in Gotham briefly, before settling in Chicago. His wife was named Barbara and they had a son, James Jr., who was born in Gotham. Barbara Gordon/Batgirl was his niece though there's been an implication that she's his actual daughter from an affair with his sister-in-law. Jim came to Gotham because of his efforts to stop corruption in Chicago.

-First encounters with Bruce's enemies are different from the original printed story. Either a whole new encounter was written or the old one was re-written to match continuity.

"Year One" and "Year Three" are still in continuity since they refered to. The stuff that Morrison is doing is just confirming that these events happened. Either as is or as a result of the isolation experiments and hallucenations brought on by Professor Milo.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Much like Superman, Batman's origin and early years have been retconned and re-retconned and revised and tweaked ever since the character was first introduced.

And, much like Superman, the fundamentals of his origin haven't really changed.

Doomed planet. Wealthy family.

Desperate scientists. Murdered parents.

Last hope. Graveside vow.

Kindly couple. Rigorous training.

Superman. Batman.

Details like the Superboy and Joe Chill may ebb and flow over the years, but the origins always remains essentially the same.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And, much like Superman, the fundamentals of his origin haven't really changed.


Yup, you can spend as much time on it as you want, or 4 panels like in All Star, as long as the key points are there, the rest is just superficial.

[AlistairCrane]

I think Superman needs his own definitive "Batman: Year One" story that remains canon and is the foundation for modern Superman stories. They sort of did this with "Man of Steel" but for some reason they felt the need to change it.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I think Superman needs his own definitive "Batman: Year One" story that remains canon and is the foundation for modern Superman stories. They sort of did this with "Man of Steel" but for some reason they felt the need to change it.

Because, unlike Batman: Year One, Man of Steel didn't receive the universal acclaim that Year One did. Aside from stupidly screwing up Barbara Gordon's backstory and making Selina Kyle a hooker, Year One was loved by pretty much all Batman fans, even the most devoted Adam West fans.

Man of Steel, not so much. It sold very well, but it divided Superman fans into two very different camps that have been fighting for control of the character ever since.

However, I think that is coming to an end. Much as Morrison has managed to merge the grim & brooding Batman with the more family-friendly and nonsensical Batman with his Black Casebook concept, I think Johns is going to merge the Classic Superman with Man of Steel, the films and everything else that almost everybody will be happy, with the exception of the fanboys who are never happy....ever.

[kalorama]

I'm far from a reader who worries about continuity but I've always been annoyed by DC's never ending need to revamp and restart their characters and continuity and expect casual readers to keep up with what stories did or didn't happen and how it all fits. I see it as a big mess that compounds itself with every big event and crossover.

i agree, more or less. I think this obsession with retelling already told stories with new twists and spins has put comics in a position where they're kind of locked into place, chasing their tails. I find it problematic not from a continuity standpoint (because I don't really care about continuity) but from a growth of character and story standpoint. The constant need to check the rearview mirror is inhibiting comics from moving forward with new ideas.

This all stems from a very basic problem at DC. DC seems to have given up on the strength of their characters and have decided that talent and events are the only things that move their product. DC allows their big name "hot" talent to basically come in and do what they want to make them happy. So readers are stuck getting getting new origins and revamps every few years. In recent years DC decided big event comics are the way to go so now we see event upon event from DC and the characters are always in a confusing state of flux. Does a year go by now at DC when their characters stories aren't inturrupted to get tossed into yet another event/crossover?

I agree that that's a problem, but it's hardly a problem only for DC.

[kalorama]

Yup, you can spend as much time on it as you want, or 4 panels like in All Star, as long as the key points are there, the rest is just superficial.

Which, of course, begs the question of why they feel the need to keep retelling it.

[Mat001]

Which, of course, begs the question of why they feel the need to keep retelling it.

Because you cannot have 100,000 Kryptonians running around with MOS Krypton. BR failed to ignite as DC wanted it to, which is why we have SO.

[kalorama]

Because you cannot have 100,000 Kryptonians running around with MOS Krypton. BR failed to ignite as DC wanted it to, which is why we have SO.

That's not really a justification, because they don't have to have 100,000 Kryptonians running around in the first place.

[WorstThingUS]

That's not really a justification, because they don't have to have 100,000 Kryptonians running around in the first place.

If you want to tell "New Krypton" you do.

[kalorama]

If you want to tell "New Krypton" you do.

Or, conversely, they could not tell New Krypton and instead require their writers to tell stories that are consistent with the already established foundations of the character, instead of endlessly chasing their tails by remaking and rehashing the past, telling new twists on old stories, constantly breaking up and re-pouring the character's foundation into the whole thing is a soggy mush.

[Karl O'Neill]

As long as the story is good, and Johns and frank are going to rock this mini so loud you will need earplugs.

[Mat001]

Or, conversely, they could not tell New Krypton and instead require their writers to tell stories that are consistent with the already established foundations of the character, instead of endlessly chasing their tails by remaking and rehashing the past, telling new twists on old stories, constantly breaking up and re-pouring the character's foundation into the whole thing is a soggy mush.

What the hell do you think Byrne, Ordway and Wolfman were doing in the 80's? They were rehashing old stories. So was the rest of the creative teams that followed. The only new stories were the marriage, the actual death, Lex the clone, the new powers, Brainiac 13 and the Imperiex war.

As it is, DC is acknowledging Superman's 70 years and since this Clark never dealt with so many Kryptonians, it only makes sense to tell this tale.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Which, of course, begs the question of why they feel the need to keep retelling it.

Because a good story isn't about the plot, it's in how it's told.

On the other hand, there is a way to work in the 'New Krypton' story that doesn't involve another mini, if that's what you're getting at.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

What the hell do you think Byrne, Ordway and Wolfman were doing in the 80's? They were rehashing old stories. So was the rest of the creative teams that followed. The only new stories were the marriage, the actual death, Lex the clone, the new powers, Brainiac 13 and the Imperiex war.


Even the Lois & Clark marriage was a rehash of the Mr & Mrs Superman stories and the Death of Superman had been done before during the 50s and 60s, just as "imaginary stories", which doesn't make them any less rehashes. Nor does it make them worthless. The only thing that matters is if it makes a good story.

Legends like Superman are constantly telling the same couple dozen kinds of stories over and over again because those are the kind of stories that Superman does best.

[kalorama]

What the hell do you think Byrne, Ordway and Wolfman were doing in the 80's? They were rehashing old stories. So was the rest of the creative teams that followed. The only new stories were the marriage, the actual death, Lex the clone, the new powers, Brainiac 13 and the Imperiex war.

All true and none of which actually refutes my point, since I never exempted the 80's stories from the trend, did I? That being said, Man of Steel remained the stable foundation for the character for about 20 years. Now, in the last 4 or so, they've rebooted, retconned, tweaked, whatever you want to call it, Superman's origin at the base level at least twice (more if you count divergent versions like All Star).

[kalorama]

Because a good story isn't about the plot, it's in how it's told.

(A) It's not an either or thing because (B) the plot is an integral part of how the story is told. Don't really see how you're attempting to arbitrarily separate the two. In any case, your response doesn't actually directly addresses the point in my question.

[Mat001]

All true and none of which actually refutes my point, since I never exempted the 80's stories from the trend, did I? That being said, Man of Steel remained the stable foundation for the character for about 20 years. Now, in the last 4 or so, they've rebooted, retconned, tweaked, whatever you want to call it, Superman's origin at the base level at least twice (more if you count divergent versions like All Star).

Yes, but the writers had stories to tell and to tell them, they had to change his origin. The "Man Of Steel" mini-series is great and I love it. But everything that came out of it became rather convoluted and no other media even bothered to use everything. No other version of Superman featured a Krypton with a Birthing Matrix. The origins of Supergirl and Krypto were convoluted to the point that you were cross-eyed. Writers and fans wanted to see Phantom Zone villains making an impact. The DCAU and "Smallville" proved that a hybird of different ideas from the long history can work in the comics today. "Birthright" was an attempt to make things easy, but it didn't turn out as well as DC liked. So a new attempt has been given to make it work and make it last, as well as celebrate the whole rather than a part. To streamline history and make it as clear as possible.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

(A) It's not an either or thing because (B) the plot is an integral part of how the story is told. Don't really see how you're attempting to arbitrarily separate the two. In any case, your response doesn't actually directly addresses the point in my question.

Plots are actually the least important part of a story - and that goes for any medium.

The plot is just the frame.

As such, there are many different ways to tell the origin story.

[stelok]

When Superman's origin was devised, the writers still had no clue about the fundamental laws of gravity. For example, the Golden Age Kryptonians were not supposed to have super-powers on their own planet but they did, according to the 1940's writers' terrible explanation about Krypton having heavier gravity than
Earth. The concept about yellow sun being the source of Superman's powers was not included in the Golden Age mythos.

Besides the Golden Age Superman could only leap, not fly. He is also not nearly as fast as the Silver Age or post-crisis Superman.

Several years later, the silver age Kryptonians in Supes' revised origin are normal and non-superpowered on their homeworld but have superpowers due to Earth's lighter gravity and yellow sun.

You do not see any Silver Age authors write about the advantages of Superman's super-hearing including the lie detection ability, like in Daredevil's case. Nor the advantages of his microscopic vision like the ability to identify an indivdual's DNA from seeing someone's blood. He can even trace the person's DNA to his parents.

Do you know why anyone hasn't given Superman more abilities like infrared vision, ultraviolet vision? Because infrared and ultraviolet visions were unheard until early 1970's. So was the meaning of DNA. But microscopic, telescopic and x-ray visions were already conceived because everyone knows about what to see through x-rays, microscopes and telescopes.

The technology, architecture and fashion clothing on Silver Age Krypton may look futuristic by 1950's standards but very old-fashioned and primitive by 1980's standards, just as the Man of Steel Krypton is considered old-fashioned by 2000's standards.

[stelok]

When Superman's origin was devised, the writers still had no clue about the fundamental laws of gravity. For example, the Golden Age Kryptonians were not supposed to have super-powers on their own planet but they did, according to the 1940's writers' terrible explanation about Krypton having heavier gravity than
Earth. The concept about yellow sun being the source of Superman's powers was not included in the Golden Age mythos.

Besides the Golden Age Superman could only leap, not fly. He is also not nearly as fast as the Silver Age or post-crisis Superman.

Several years later, the silver age Kryptonians in Supes' revised origin are normal and non-superpowered on their homeworld but have superpowers due to Earth's lighter gravity and yellow sun.

You do not see any Silver Age authors write about the advantages of Superman's super-hearing including the lie detection ability, like in Daredevil's case. Nor the advantages of his microscopic vision like the ability to identify an indivdual's DNA from seeing someone's blood. He can even trace the person's DNA to his parents.

Do you know why anyone hasn't given Superman more abilities like infrared vision, ultraviolet vision? Because infrared and ultraviolet visions were unheard until early 1970's. So was the meaning of DNA. But microscopic, telescopic and x-ray visions were already conceived because everyone knows about what to see through x-rays, microscopes and telescopes.

The technology, architecture and fashion clothing on Silver Age Krypton may look futuristic by 1950's standards but very old-fashioned and primitive by 1980's standards, just as the Man of Steel Krypton is considered old-fashioned by 2000's standards.

[Zombie Superman]

I'm not going to read all of these pages, but here's my two cents:

The only reason there's a need for a new origin is because of Crisis on Infinite Earths. While the idea was a good one, i.e., to make the DCU more accessible, it wasn't executed very well.

Birthright didn't work because it wasn't fully endorsed by DC (yet they greenlit it) and the reason more of the Silver Age is returning is because it was in fact really great stuff.

I suspect Secret Origin will be the definitive origin for decades to come. I don't think we'll see anything like COIE again, thus this origin will stand hopefully for another fifty years or so.

Z\S/

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'm not going to read all of these pages, but here's my two cents:

The only reason there's a need for a new origin is because of Crisis on Infinite Earths. While the idea was a good one, i.e., to make the DCU more accessible, it wasn't executed very well.

Birthright didn't work because it wasn't fully endorsed by DC (yet they greenlit it) and the reason more of the Silver Age is returning is because it was in fact really great stuff.

I suspect Secret Origin will be the definitive origin for decades to come. I don't think we'll see anything like COIE again, thus this origin will stand hopefully for another fifty years or so.

Z\S/

Man Of Steel took advantage of Crisis, they didn't do it because they 'had' to.
Sales on Superman were well down, and so they felt they had to do something to make him fresh and exciting again, and they felt making him more human may be the way to go - and they were right - it worked, sales and interest in the character went up.

[Super Buddies Forever]

I don't think we'll see anything like COIE again, thus this origin will stand hopefully for another fifty years or so.

Hah, I used to say the same thing at the start of the decade whenever someone proposed another universe reboot. I never thought they'd actually have another Crisis, but then along comes DiDio and we get a "Crisis trilogy."

And I think if anything holds up from Byrne's reboot, it's his Krypton. Fans may be split on it based on their own preferences, but I think it's a uniquely alien take that made for the most interesting Krypton-based stories we've ever had. In fact, my favorite part of New Krypton thus far has been the return of the Byrne Kryptonian robes and headdress (combined with the Silver Age, Birthright, and Johns/Donner-style Kryptonians).

[Binker]

I would say it is needed. It's not weird or wrong, it's just the norm. Origins being updated, or recreated, or whatever, has happened and will happen. It happened to Green Lantern, if it does, if they are, and I'm all for it if they do it to Wonder Woman and Batman, then so be it, and it will happen soon with Superman. On one hand, it could be because the origin is outdated in the comic book timeline where it is a flowing timeline. Another, and most important reason, could be because if a character's backstory has been altered, then we would demand a new origin story (which we did FOR Superman if you didn't know) for we are that kind of beast on these things.