The worst part of it is, his basic argument makes some sense in that anyone new to Superman (or any character for that matter) doesnt necessarily know the origin, which is why companies like DC and Marvel redo or reprint the origin stories from time to time, but its his way of getting the point across that turns people against him.
Granted, you dont need the origin being told once a year every year, but its a useful thing to do every five to ten years as it not only helps newer readers, but it also allows creative teams to expand on things and maybe drop in some extra bits to help a current storyline.
Thats a rational way of putting it. Byrne is not rational.
I agree with this assessment. We don't need a Byrne 'Man of Steel' mini every few years, but once in a while, especially in relation to outside media like movies and TV shows, the origin needs to be retold for the new generation so that they can link to the characters and become fans. I think too many people here are thinking about themselves too much and not looking at the big picture. The youngest of us here is at least, what, in the mid 20's or so age wise. And the oldest is a survivor of the Titanic (sorry to out you there G-man). Of course
we're familiar with the origin story. But why are we familiar with it? Because Richard Donner retold it with Christopher Reeve and Marlon Brando in the late 70's. Because Byrne retold it in the mid-80's. Because George Reeves retold it in the early 50's(and the 50's & 60's comics brought Krypton in every other issue). Dean Cain and crew as well as Paul Dini and Bruce Timm retold it in the 90's. And Tom Welling and the bleeding vaginas on the WB/CW retold it again in the 2000's
{wink}. Each generation is given the origin as a basis for how to understand their Superman. Just because you get it and have yours doesn't mean that the five or six year olds who watch the next movie or start reading the comics/buying the toys shouldn't have theirs.
