1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Faster than a speeding bullet!

The One Thing You Don’t Change About Superman’s Origin? Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel Might Have Changed It.

We can debate how much non-superhero fans know about one of the world’s most famous superheroes but when surveying the general population, they’d probably be able to give you the gist of Superman. There are certain themes, plots, and characters central to what makes the character who he is, but if a recent magazine blurb is to be believed, Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel has altered the 75-year-old DC Comics origin in a huge way. 

While we can’t call this particular item fact (it wasn’t said by anyone at the studio), it was written in a major entertainment magazine’s summer film preview story discussing Man of Steel’s plot. With that in mind, proceed at your own risk for possible/probable SPOILERS.

To be fair, Snyder has gone on record to say he’s been pretty happy about keeping the plot details of the film quiet but we have heard there’s no kryptonite in the movie. Now originally I thought that was just a creative choice – kryptonite has been overused as Superman’s weakness for years – but now I think there’s an in-film reason for it. Entertainment Weekly writes:

In this iteration, Clark Kent’s heroic tendencies would rise to the surface only when the threat was great enough. It would have to be a global menace — one that might also trigger an internal conflict about whether he belongs on Earth even as he yearns to be among his own kind. That’s what pits him against General Zod (Boardwalk Empire‘s Michael Shannon), a Kryptonian tyrant who wants Clark to join him back on Krypton, which would mean abandoning his post as defender of the weaklings of Earth.

Uhh…is Krypton still around in Man of Steel? And if so, what the ever-loving shit?!

The idea to keep Krypton “alive” as it were, isn’t new. It’s certainly a plot device thrown around by several creators involved with the failed Superman Lives project. My podcast co-host Alan Kistler and I discussed this just a few weeks ago on our show. Producer Jon Peters was one who pushed for Krypton to not be destroyed in several drafts of the script to which Alan said, “of course it has to blow up, that’s the story!” We equated it with someone asking if the One Ring had to be evil in The Lord of the Rings, it’s the basis for the entire story.

We can hold out hope the blurb is actually indicating Zod has no idea Krypton has been destroyed by the time he reaches Earth but I’m genuinely worried now. What do you think of the possible alteration to Superman’s origins? I’ll still be seeing the film regardless, don’t get me wrong, but if it’s true, it’s going to bug me as a fan to no end. Particularly if it doesn’t serve a good purpose or takes away from the specialness of the character.

(via io9)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | | |

  • Anonymous

    I read the Jr. Novelization of Man of Steel : The Early Years. In that book Krypton exploded. From Chapter Two: “The blast that had destroyed Krypton had briefly shaken the capsule but Kal-El had not been harmed” So unless they are going to change what they’ve already promoted for the kids’ books, I would guess Zod (in the Phantom Zone?) didn’t know Krypton exploded.

  • Jason Jeansonne

    It seems a little to early to call, i re-watched the trailer and they don’t specifically show the entire planet being destroyed but i felt they were definitely alluding to it. My guess is that as far as the blurb saying Zod wanting to bring Kal-El back to krypton is that some how Zod has figured out a way to bring Krypton back at the expense of destroying earth. That may explain the part in the trailer with some weird looking mining things on earth that are doing some unknown thing.

  • Mordicai

    My guess has always been a sort of guess toward the Post-Crisis Krypton– that is, a sterile boring “logic is evvvvvil” place where love doesn’t exist except among Mary & Joseph Jor-El & Lara. Superman is the only-non-clone or something, the only non-birthing-matrix baby.

  • Free hat

    Could be something along the lines that Krypton is still there, just the whatever magic that doomed the planet only striped the atmosphere/cracked the planet or something. Meaning Zod can just loot Earth to restore Krypton.

  • Deggsy

    Between this news, the rebooted tight-less costume, the lack of Kryptonite, the huge amount of time our protagonist seems to be spending out of uniform, as it were, and the apparent inability or unwillingness to use the name Superman (the title of the movie itself, the scene in the interrogation room) I feel like this is being made by people who are almost embarrassed to make a Superman movie.

  • cloudywolf

    Wasn’t Kal-El’s father like royalty or something? Perhaps Zod was initiating some kind of coup or takeover and Jor-El and Lara were sending Kal-El away to prevent him from being killed? And it’s taken all this time for Zod to find Kal-El. Just a thought. I’m not overly familiar with Superman canon so don’t slam me if I speak rubbish :)

  • Guest

    Look at the soundtrack listing, it has a track called terraforming, it seems Zod would turn earth to some form of new Krypton. May be worth checking the avaliable evidence before making assumptions. Internal conflict seems the key protagonist of the movie but I doubt at the expense of one of the key conflictions of the Superman story, which is him being without a home world.

  • Lucas Picador

    I never felt like having Krypton forever lost and destroyed was a central part of the Superman origin story, particularly because the “last son of Krypton” is apparently anything but, with other Kryptonians popping up every ten minutes to fight with him, and chunks of kryptonite raining down on the Earth all the time.

    I get the Holocaust parallel, but you know, there are still Jews in Europe, and Europe itself wasn’t actually blown up in WWII (well, not all of it). The metaphor still works with a Krypton subjected to some horrible catastrophe or war that motivated Kal-El’s parents to send him away like Moses in the reed basket.

    In some ways, having a Krypton that Kal-El could conceivably return to makes his situation all the more poignant: he was raised by humans, and he grew up with a sense of responsibility toward humanity. If he learns as an adult that his home planet is still out there, filled with “people like him”, and that he could return to it if he wanted, it would make his choice to remain on Earth and help humans into a real decision rather than a default. It would even imply, and I know this is a shocking ideological point to make in 2013, that the “race” somebody is born into matters less than the values they are raised with. I know, pretty radical.

  • Anonymous

    Very much agreed. There are many, many situations in which he can’t go home without getting into “planet exploding”. I mean really. I’m not a huge Snyder fan, but he has a good sense of theme, and which canon elements would be tonally inconsistent in a serious movie. If the movie’s bad it won’t be because of this.

    Besides, the heart of the character is that Superman wouldn’t go home.

  • Dean Kish

    It wouldn’t mess with the whole idea that Superman is an immigrant and that his parents wanted a better life for him… If anything it might make his new home more less likely to want to adopt a man with superpowers… And it could even amplify Clark’s struggle to fit in… why do I stay on Earth if they hate me, don’t understand me? When I can go home and try to help reestablish my world as the prodigal son… There have been plenty of stories where Krypton’s destruction was eliminated… I don’t think it screws up the origin… just might add more complications

  • thebravestheart

    I’m going to call this shoddy journalism, actually. Entertainment Weekly has been declining in quality for nearly a decade now, and we know from experience that journalists are no longer required to even see or understand a comic book movie in order to write about it.

  • Michael McDonnell

    All the childrens books of MOS and trailer shots tell us that Krypton is doomed.

  • Craig Forshaw

    Seriously? The last film Zack Snyder made with “superheroes” in was ‘Watchmen’, and it was an awful exercise in Hollywood ‘common sense’: a space-squid detonating in New York is unrealistic, but the entire world deciding to team up with Richard Nixon against the threat of the weapon Richard Nixon has been ordering to fight for US forces for decades makes sense? That the “heroes”, most of which were aging and out of practice in the book are now all toned and ready to kick ass? And all the “stylised” directing done by Snyder in an attempt to be named an auteur, even though he is clearly a hack music video director with no actual substance to the work he puts out? Yawn.

    Then, there is Christopher Nolan, and let me just say this: his films have been getting progressively worse, ending, most recently, with a genuinely awful Batman movie that made not a lick of sense. The worst thing is that the guy creates an ill-defined bomb, with a mad conspiracy to plunge Gotham into dire straights with no real pay-off in any way, forgets about the fallout from the blast… and then maintains his version of Batman wouldn’t fit into something as unrealistic as ‘Justice League’. The ONLY way Batman could have survived would have been if Superman saved him!

    Anyway, I’m totally not interested in this movie. Especially as ‘Superman Returns’ was a perfectly good film that a few idiots online have endlessly campaigned to have reassessed by history as, “That super-stalker movie/just a remake of the Richard Donner film” which it wasn’t. If anything, it was far more influenced by 50s melodrama in its look and feel, just updated with modern sensibilities. And Kevin Spacey was great as Luthor, managing to balance the mainstream take made famous by Gene Hackman, and a more menacing, more true-to-the-comics meglomaniacal madman. Plus, the Super-son storyline was fairly unique and interesting, and it is a crying shame that we are not seeing that continue, as it felt like a new, interesting direction for a character that has been around forever. Brandon Routh was also pretty good.

    Finally, if ‘Superman Returns’ is getting battered now for being a rehash of the first Superman films, how the hell is ‘Man of Steel’ not getting criticism for bringing bad the villains from the second one? Why did Singer get such flack for making a film which was good and true to the character in many ways, whilst all Snyder appears to have done (from the trailers) is crib a few lines and ideas from Grant Morrison, and make him “gritty” and “conflicted”: this is Superman. He doesn’t need to be gritty and conflicted, he stands for the best in all of us. Plus… do we really need another, “Superman finds his place in the world” story? That is the plot of the first film, the second film, much of ‘Superman Returns’, and ‘Smallville’. I’ve seen that story. I don’t care if it is a massively original take, if you’re just telling the same story over and over then it has absolutely no cultural value.

    So, as you might guess, I’m reluctant to go see this one.

  • Brian

    Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple. Superman.

    Nine words, people. Nine words are all you need, and they’d better get that much right.

  • Brian

    “That the “heroes”, most of which were aging and out of practice in the book are now all toned and ready to kick ass?”

    One of them was not ‘toned’ in the book, nor was he in the movie. And only two of them were out of practice, and I can easily see two trained fighters holding their own against some street punks, even if it has been a while.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    I very much agree with this, having kyrpton still around if anything would deepen his character.
    Clark Kent was born and raised in Kansas, learned growing up that he was different from other people and discovered he is an immigrant from far off. The tone of the trailers seems to be more about trying to discover who he is and Supermans never just been ‘im an alien who would leave earth given the chance’ Hes a country boy who tries to help people and do the right thing. Who identifies as human even if his heritage lies elsewhere.
    A person who is curious about his heritage and might even try to keep to the ways of his homeland but he is very much a citizen despite his status as an immigrant to the planet.

    Theres alot of golden story potential here that is quite neato ^^

  • Daniel Reasor

    DC Comics has never been attached enough to the destruction of Krypton to avoid bringing ever more survivors from the planet into the “last son of Krypton’s” life – Supergirl, the Phantom Zone criminals, the Bottled City of Kandor, etc. Why should I feel more strongly about it more than DC does? Superman’s upbringing still makes him a man torn between two worlds at heart. That’s the story.

  • Kevin Weaver

    If that’s the case, I think it’s kind of hilarios.

    We’re all excited because this movie isn’t about Lex Luthor’s crazy real-estate schemes! It’s actually about *Zod’s* crazy real-estate schemes.

  • LordReserei

    I had a feeling that Krypton might not be destroyed from trailer #3 when we see a battle of some sort. I was thinking that there clearly must be a kind of civil war going on or something on Krypton and maybe Jor-El thinks Kal-El would have a better chance on another inhabited world capable of sustaining him.

    To be honest. I’m not too bothered if any of that is the case. This is supposed to be a retelling of the “Man of Steel”. We get reboots of origin stories or other things in comics a lot of the time, new looks or aspects to a character.

    As long as it all fits together into a coherent plot. I’m good either way.

    I’ve been a huge Superman fan for many years, but I’m also comfortable with some changes.

  • Duffy Austin

    Seriously, what is it about Jon Peters and Superman? Why does he want to keep producing movies about a comic book character if he doesn’t like any thing about the comic book character?

  • Branden Terel Drew

    I have this very issue of EW and have read the Summer Movie Preview article a few times and nowhere does it state that Zod wishes Kal-El to join him back on Krypton. It does talk about Zod being a “tyrant eager to establish himself as a planetary ruler” which is probably what gets him booted from Krypton in the film. It also calls him a “die hard supremacist”, but says “he has affections for anyone Kryptonian, including Superman, and doesn’t have malignant feelings toward Superman but only wants him to be patriotic.” “That would mean joining forces with Zod instead of defending the weaklings of earth”. The article later states that “Man of Steel keeps Superman’s classic origin story largely intact, while adding a few twists: Jor-El ( with Russel Crowe taking on the Marlon Brando role ) still saves his infant son, Kal-El, by launching him away from the imperiled planet Krypton on an interstellar journey toward earth. But in this version of Krypton, children are not born…they’re engineered”. That is more than likely the “twist”, Kryptonian children are not born of natural conception, the article doesn’t allude to a surviving Krypton. I usually never comment here but I just love DC Comics( and The Mary Sue )and am so hyped about MoS that I couldn’t help but share the excerpts from the issue of EW. Anyway the issue is $4.99( USD )if any of you wish to read it for yourselves. Have a good weekend everyone :)

  • Amarsa

    I remember in the first superman movie Zod was put into the phantom zone before the planet got destroyed. How could he know that the planet got destroyed?

    If story play it like that it could bring in new element of excitement to the story

  • Lady Viridis

    I’ve never been particularly fond of the Superman mythos or the character. Superman is so powerful that it’s hard to come up with good conflicts for him, and the writers almost never do the conflicts I actually want to see. So my reaction to any major change for Superman’s story is always “Does that make the story more interesting? If so, I don’t care.” If the writers do their job and sell me on the story, the details are unimportant.

    I’ll say this: I have a lot fewer objections to Krypton not blowing up and the writers coming up with a new explanation for how Kal-El ended up on Earth than I do to Krypton blowing up and then a ton of other Kryptonians appearing later who “mysteriously survived” with various bullshit explanations as to how.

  • Lady Viridis

    I don’t know, the destruction of Krypton never really made all that much sense to me. If the planet was obviously doomed to an imminent explosion or something, you’d think there would be a mountain of evidence that was hard to ignore. Especially in an advanced space-faring race. Sure, there might be some deniers (like the people who deny climate change), but you’d think that enough people would be persuaded who would then choose to GTFO the planet. Kind of like the Vulcans in the Star Trek reboot– the surviving population is in the tens of thousands, which is quite low from a planet of billions, but it’s more plausible than one baby in a pod getting away and no one else.

  • Totz_the_Plaid

    Krypton not being destroyed is unacceptable to me.

    However, saying that Superman’s powers only manifest when the entire world is in danger already misses the entire goddamn point of Superman!

  • Jill Pantozzi

    The blurb we quoted can be found at the “Entertainment Weekly” phrase we linked:,,20483133_20694515,00.html#21304362

  • Branden Terel Drew

    I see, but the actual article written by Anthony Breznican in the Summer preview issue of EW does not reflect the same train of thought. That is the reason why I replied, his article is actually a very good read by the way.

  • Kadeem Deemz D.

    The official synopsis of the movie that Zod and faora are SURVIVING kryptonains, which means everybody dies in war ( which from the trailer seems likely) or the planets blows up

  • Brian

    The Animated Series actually addressed this, by depicting Krypton as totally reliant on Braniac, who was falsifying all the information the other scientists were getting. Jor-El was the only one collecting his own evidence instead of trusting Braniac, so he looked like a kook.

  • Sgt. Hulka

    You lost all creditability by calling “Superman Returns” and atrocity.

    It may not have had the action and fighting that so many people want to see in a Superman flick, but if you look at it for what it was, a continuation of the Donner films, (the REAL part 3), then it was a pretty good movie.

    It certainly wasn’t an atrocity.

    By this time though, I would think everyone has a pretty good idea of Superman’s origin, and what little changes they make won’t make a difference in MOS.

  • Sgt. Hulka

    Superman stopped being the “Last son of Krypton” a long time ago.

    Hell, with the introduction of Kandor in 1958 that designation went out the door.

    Maybe with this twist of Kal El being “born” and not “engineered” they could still call him the Last son.

  • Elias Algorithm

    I thought that set it up pretty well. Especially given Brainiac’s later admission to Lex Luthor was that his ultimate goal was to collect all the knowledge in the universe, then destroy the universe so that he’s the only one that has it. The elegance of the animated series was how blisteringly simple it made everything seem. To Brainiac, his purpose was obvious. Collect, destroy, move on to the next.

  • Joe G

    Wars of conquest: the original hostile takeovers!

  • Ben Lundy

    Holy melodrama Batman!

    Yeah, this is seriously not a big deal. There have been a million interpretations of the story and I doubt changing any one specific element would be a deal-breaker.

  • Ben Lundy

    “So powerful that it’s hard to come up with good conflicts for him” is copout bullshit for bad writers. If you think this then you haven’t read the right Superman stories.

  • Ben Lundy

    Some of these things are only bothering the people that don’t know enough about Superman to realize that they are not a big deal. The tightless costume is to be in tandem with DC’s New 52. Kryptonite doesn’t pop up in EVERY Superman story ever written; in fact, more often than not it’s used by the lesser Superman writers as a narrative crutch.

    Now, as for the “out of uniform” and “unwillingness to use the name Superman,” I think that’s being misinterpreted. The latter is simply following up on “The Dark Knight” by using something other than roman numerals to indicate a new movie. At this point, the only other thing they could have called it was “Superman Tries Again.” As for the former, Batman spent the first 45 minutes of “Begins” out of uniform, and even more in “The Dark Knight Rises.”

    My point is, I am a huge Superman fan and none of this stuff is coming across as red flags to me. I’m stoked for this movie and I’m willing to let it do it’s thing before I judge it. If it turns out I’m wrong, I’ll be hugely let down!

  • Lady Viridis

    As a rule, I don’t read most comic stories; I prefer TV or movie adaptations. And Superman has never been my favorite character even there– he is just such a goody two-shoes, I find him boring.

    Generally I like to see superheros as a means for exploring social and political dynamics in society, but the comics as a whole are pretty bad about doing that, in favor of featuring flashy fight scenes instead. There are some exceptions, but that’s what I’ve found. Between the often-recycled or weird plots and the huge and convoluted backstories, it’s hard for me to find comics I enjoy. The TV and movie adaptations are a little better about distilling the story and characters and exploring things other than fight scenes.

  • Ben Lundy

    It sounds like Superman is just not your thing. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But “so powerful that it’s hard to come up with good conflicts for him” and “he is just such a goody two-shoes” are good indicators.

    Superman is a fantasy for anyone who ever wished they could make things right when they didn’t have the power. He’s not supposed to be deep or political. Superman is a refuge for those who want to see good triumph over evil, and the righteousness of our basic human values affirmed. It’s VERY simple and some people don’t like stories without tremendous amounts of depth.

    I think Superman suffers the more complex modern writers try to make him. For years, fans have been saying that a Superman movie is not complicated– you have him save some people and punch some bad guys. Where Singer’s Superman failed was in over-emphasizing the Christ parallel to the point of nausea, and trying to make Superman “flawed” via an illegitimate son. I don’t see the Snyder film as having taken of these missteps as of yet.

  • Deggsy

    I hope you’re not wrong. To be honest, I was never a DC fan so the Superman and Batman movies have never been of much interest to me. Batman Begins bored the hell out of me, and I never got into Smallville; both appeared to follow the notion of making what are essentially colourful, larger-than-life characters “realistic” and “gritty”, as if we the fans (and the makers) are embarrassed by the medium and its four-colour origins.

  • Lady Viridis

    Generally no, Superman just doesn’t work for me. I think it just goes against my own philosophy and outlook on life. Having someone swoop in and magically fix things… that’s not how the world works, and I don’t enjoy that fantasy. It’s boring. Nobody is perfect, but struggling to achieve goodness despite the world’s imperfection is what makes life meaningful.

    Some aspects of Superman intrigue me, but they are much more the adopted-alien-adapts-to-human-culture aspects, which… yeah, not often played up in most stories. My understanding of the comics is that they focus on Superman as a Kryptonian, distant and aloof, which doesn’t work for me. If you’re adopted, you generally follow your adoptive culture.

    The stories I do enjoy focus on Clark as human trying to awkwardly deal with godly superpowers. The one series of Superman I’ve really enjoyed was the 90′s TV show Lois & Clark, which had my favorite versions of everyone except maybe Lex Luthor (I prefer very early-season Smallville Lex).

    It’s the reason that I generally prefer Marvel heroes vs. DC heroes… Marvel seems to write more of the struggling underdog and social commentary.

  • Abel Undercity

    That’s an impression I continue to get from Warner Brothers, also indicated by their reluctance to call Green Arrow “Green Arrow.”

  • Deggsy

    I get that the makers might want to attract the mainstream audience that only know superhero shows from Adam West and wouldn’t watch otherwise, but come on!

  • Benjamin Meis

    Here’s a thought, though someone else may have already said it; The EW writer misinterpreted something, i.e. Zod’s desire to create a new Krypton (a common desire of Zod’s from the comics, often requiring the destruction or redesign of Earth, hence Superman putting the kibosh on it) and having Kal-El join him instead of actually returning to Krypton. I think this is probably likely, especially if the writer is less than familiar with the source material.

  • Benjamin Meis

    Also Krypton seemed to have a particularly rough atmospheric envelope which made leaving difficult. But the main reason given (and most believable) is the one in which Jor-El shows all the proof to everyone, but everyone either thinks he’s exaggerating or flat out lying, but mostly just stick their head in the sands against something they don’t want to believe is true. Its in part a commentary on how humans behave when some new fact comes up and contradicts what everyone wants to believe (for good historical evidence look at Galileo among others). But regardless of the reason, the destruction of Krypton is core to how Superman views himself in many ways (the isolation, abandonment issues, dealing with being the last – for a while anyway- etc.). I wish people would stop saying it isn’t important.

  • Benjamin Meis

    Great opening, Morrison is a genius. Maybe somebody should get him onboard for future DC movies (Justice League/Future Superman movies, perhaps?)

  • Betty Windsor

    “Nobody is perfect, but struggling to achieve goodness despite the world’s imperfection is what makes life meaningful. ”

    Yes! And Superman is that.

    There is an odd brilliance to Superman’s complicated yet simple portrayal.

    If you would like to give Superman another chance. Please read Superman: Red Son. It may change the way you view him. I don’t think I fully understood Superman until I read it. Here is a summary
    “What if baby Superman had crashed on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain and grew
    up to become Stalin’s right-hand man? And what if insane genius Lex Luthor was
    employed by the US government to develop their own countermeasure against the
    Man of Steel, turning the Cold War hot?!”
    Though it may make you sad or question the way they portray Wonder Woman.

  • Lady Viridis

    Yes… but Superman is portrayed as a perfect or near-perfect character, and that’s what I can’t get behind. The worldview is too black and white, too lawful good, and so feels overly simplistic.

    I have heard of Red Son and it’s gotten pretty good reviews. Haven’t read it myself, but it’s on my list of things to pick up eventually. Most of the mainstream comic stuff, though… just not my style. I have a hard enough time finding well-written comics about characters I like (like Spider-Man or the X-Men) to fuss about looking at comics where I don’t find the main character all that interesting.

  • Roger A. Sneed

    I’d take rumormongering from io9 with many grains of salt.

  • Anonymous

    WHAT THE HELL?!?!? What is this movie doing to the continuity of the comics? No Kryptonite, “Jenny” Olsen, AND KRYPTON IS STILL ALIVE?!?! Krypton’s death is the reason Superman is on earth! Get rid of that and you might as well just make up your own new superhero because that is NOT Superman!

  • Craig Forshaw

    “First contact” implies “finding your place in the world” – after all, when he makes first contact, is he going to stay or go? If he stays, what will his role in the world be? Which is literally the main question in every superhero film ever.

    And we already know the answer in the case of Superman.

    Further, “First contact” emphasises the alien nature of Superman – which is the exact opposite of how the character works best. Superman may be an immigrant, but, at his core, he is the best of what makes us human. By the time he is an adult he is super, yes, but due to the influence of the Kent’s, he is also a man.

    An original take would be to just start with Superman as Superman because the audience already know his damn origin story a thousand times over, and then not lean on Zod or Luthor.

    Finally, “Superman Returns” was not bad. It wasn’t the most groundbreaking film ever, and the fact that Bryan Singer wanted Zod for the sequel was troubling, but, hey, now Zack Snyder has decided to remake “Superman II” instead, so, yey!

  • Anonymous

    People saying it doesn’t matter if Krypton blows up or not because there are other kryptonians around anyways are ignorant. They are interstellar travelers so they would be scattered sparsely throughout the galaxy. However having Krypton, and thusly the majority of kryptonians and kryptonian culture, destroyed is essential to the mythos of the character and any change to that is an arbitrary un-needed change for the sake of change that automatically sullies the legacy of the character.