Previous Post Just call is SUPERMAN BEGINS, get a whole new set of cast and creators and I think people would catch on. No more homages, no more crystals, no more land obsessed villains, no more Reeves impersonations. A fresh take is what's needed. Burton didn't keep the Bat-Shark-Repellent and Nolan didn't keep the camp. We need new and continuity free for the next generation, because "oh well this takes place after the Donner films from the 70s and 80s, but really after part II because we don't like part III and IV and we're going to ignore that" is more confusing than a SUPERMAN BEGINS film could ever be.

My only problem with that is the fact that, pound for pound, Superman: The Movie is tonally pitch-perfect for the first half (Krypton/Kansas) that I'm not really sure what you could do to improve it other than for the sake of doing things different... which is not a good enough reason to change things around when the Public recognizes Krypton/The Fortress being made out of crystals.

With Batman, you at least had the fact that the 60's Batman never showed his origin, the Burton Films never really did focus on Bruce's rise to Batman all that much (aside from the flashback where his Parents are killed and the fact he has a lot of money, how/when did Bruce acquire the knowledge and tech to become Batman?) and Nolan had a perfect reason to go forth and examine how a rich kid from Gotham became a rooftop vigilante.

But is it really worth trying to repeat and compete with an origin that virtually everyone and their Mother knows, which was more than successfully translated to the screen?

With virtually everything else that has been mentioned, the earlier films were either not creatively successful with their characters (Hulk, Punisher) or had something left out that COULD be fleshed out (how Bruce trained and became Batman). Superman already has a great origin film that everyone is familiar with. Be much better and easier to run with the ball. Just, as you said, tone down the homages (lines lifted from the film, thematic re-creations of scenes) but keep the aesthetic and don't set it up as a direct sequel and things should be fine. I like to think that audiences aren't morons and will be able to figure out that this is a follow-up on the Donner vision but yet not tied to it. Certainly be easier than what Returns tried to do, which was say that it takes after Superman 1 and 2, but not certain portions of 1 and 2. Just establish that Superman came from a planet based on crystal manipulation, raised by kind farmers with the Husband dying of a heart-attack, went to the big city to be a Reporter, fell in love with Lois Lane and has foiled one plot by Lex Luthor. What's so hard about that and then jumping forward? You could recap that like in The Incredible Hulk or Spider-Man 2 and NO ONE should get confused.

This isn't even addressing the newly revealed factoid that DC is now following Marvel's lead and having their comic writers oversee certain film properties (Geoff Johns on the Flash, for example)... so since Donner's vision has finally been implanted into the comics (ever since Bryne tried and failed back in the 80's) AND it's the version virtually everyone in America is familiar with (with help from shows like Smallville using the aesthetic), I highly doubt we'll see a different version of Krypton. As skeptical as I am that a full-on origin reboot could happen, even if it does I just don't see a different version of Krypton being used.