-yes, it was Doomsday who beat Superman to death. One interesting thought is that, for me, what was really interesting about that story was not the whole "death of" storyline, but the fact that, immediately after Superman was gone, two of the most interesting characters in the Superman mythology made their first appearance: John Henry Irons (Steel) and Cyborg Superman, Hank Hanshaw. With regard to the later, there is something very, very cool about a suicidal half man, half andriod, completely twisted MoFo (who can recruit the manhunters to battle the green lantern corps) who just wants to be put out of his own misery, and who wants to take the rest of the universe with him.
-A point that has been made is that I don't think people knowing the ending would be a huge deal, but its a consideration. If that post had been made before people saw Titanic, you'd have more of a point (Spoiler alert: the boat sinks in the end, it hits an iceberg, in case you didn't know), also, the point would carry more weight if it had been made before the Star Wars prequels (spoiler alert: anakin turns to the dark side, and the emperor enslaves the galaxy, in case you didn't know). Back in ancient Greece, for example, this type of entertainment was the NORM, rather than the exception. Of course, today's audiences are different, but I do think something can be enjoyed while still knowing how it ends, it is the journey after all. If you want to get all technical about it, pretty much most mainstream movies are this way, how many romantic comedies have you seen where, after some wacky hijinks, the girl falls for the male lead?
-I do think, FWIW, that Hollywood needs to get off the teats of reboots/retelling origins. If every other comic book was a brand new retelling of the origin story, comics would go out of business very quickly. I guess its because studio execs and directors have their own egos, and they all think they could do it so much better than the other guy could. Nolan re-inventing Batman in his own image, into something hugely popular got the ball rolling in a copycat town. However, sometimes, it is justified. When was the last big screen retelling of Superman's origin? Hint: when Nolan made Batman Begins, the last retelling of Batman's origin had taken place much later than the last retelling of Superman's. Batman's last re-telling was in Batman 89, Superman's was in the first Superman movie, which dates back to the 1970's. Every generation, or so, I think such a move is warranted, especially when the last time was a generation ago, Superman's origin story, as told in the original movie, is a VERY 1970s take on the character (watch it again, stuff in it is dated)
This is especially true of Krypton. The 70s film portrays Krypton as a baren, icy world, not at all the kind of place where advanced technology and wonder would be found. Comics have done a lot to rectify this over the ages, but, for many scribes, the 70s movie sticks. The most influential person in DC comics today, Geoff Johns, got his start as an intern on the first Superman movie, and if I have one critic of Johns, its that he's wedded to that version of the origin, and that version of Krypton.
My idea is much more vast. I've said it before and I will again, the main villian of my movie would be Darkseid. Of all of Superman's villians, IMHO, Darkseid is the most interesting by far (not even close). Krypton obviously would be a movie where Lex Luthor doesn't appear at all (unless he's played by Michael Rosenbaum, I absolutely despise Lex in his TV/movie incarnations.) Why Darkseid? Because he's got the muscle, and the horde of evil minions, to take on anyone and everyone. Darkseid is one of those supervillians whose job is supervillian. There is definitely a room somewhere on Apocalypse that's nothing but TV monitors where Darkseid monitors everything that's going on across the entire multi-verse, and where his evil plans are made and refined. Think Emperor Palpatine, but with much cooler dialogue, better powers, and an army of immortal, superpowered, god-like beings who obey his every command.
If Krypton was on the brink, and they are as technologically advanced as they are supposed to be, what do you think someone like Darkseid does? Stand back and watch? Of course not, Darkseid has his hand in it, and he's trying to push it towards his own agenda. That's the way he works. There are some things that movies do, like the Joker killing Batman's parents, and the retcon of the death of Uncle Ben in Spidey three, that are completely unnecessary because they seek to make a tie where the universe the characters don't have the capacity to support it. I know Tim Burton thought "wouldn't it be cool if the Joker murdered Bruce's parents? Wouldn't that give the movie more of an edge/be a cool tie-in?" The point is, the Batman universe doesn't work that way, just like the Spiderman universe, Uncle Ben's murderer has to be "just a thug". Darkseid doesn't have that restriction, as, within the plot, it makes perfect sense that he'd be behind Krypton's destruction, or at least, that he would have pushed it in the right direction.