Man. What is with these damn origin stories?
Superman has been around for 80 damn years. Everyone on the planet knows who he is, and probably has a good idea what his origin story is. Unless they're doing something really radical (like the excellent "Red Son" miniseries) with his origin, why do we need to see it again and again?
I get it with the occasional film - if you're establishing how you are different from the comics, that's fine if you do it well (Batman Begins). I'll also give it a pass if the origin story hasn't been put to film previously (First Class). But as far as I'm aware (as a longtime Marvel fan who never really got into many DC books), Superman has had a pretty damn consistent origin - Krypton refugee, Kent family, Kansas farm. If they make him a human that was hit by a chunk of Kryptonite and turned into Superman, then I'd be ok with an origin film - but without really drastic changes sort that shit out in the first 15 minutes tops. Pre-titlecard.
Hancock got Superman right - just dump us into the action and no one questioned that the guy is a superman or why. It's the same problem with Spiderman - we all know that Parker gets bitten by a spider, his uncle dies and then he fights crime. You can get that from literally any 7 year old on the planet. We don't need to spend another hour waiting for him to get bitten by a spider so we can see our film. And that's coming from someone who actually enjoyed The Amazing Spiderman (though my standards are exactly "Was it worth my $5.50 and did it entertain me for about 2 hours?").