Origin stories? Who needs them?

[Trevor Goodchild]

I began thinking something here; wouldn’t it be more productive story-wise, if all these super hero movies just didn’t bother explaining how they came about?
You know, like Burton’s Batman. As far as I remember he was just there, appeared out of nowhere, with only minimum flashback scenes. Of course that was the Joker’s origin story instead…
Another example would be half of the X-Men - Prof X, Cyclops, Storm and Jean were just there, the mansion was just there, along with hundreds of mutant children.
I guess it depends on what the general populous likes to watch more - a character’s birth process or an actual story with less self centered events. Maybe that’s why many sequels with 2 in their title are better than their prequels - the story is not suffocated by the origin.
Anyways I would like to read some of your opinions on the matter as well.

 

[Joker]

X-Men had several scenes cut, showing where each character came from. They were cut due to time restraints. And Batman 89 did have a full flashback origin for Batman near the end of the film.

And you need an origin story for characters like this, as, for instance, the general audience isn't going to know why Tony Stark is dressing in this armor and killing terrorists unless you SHOW them. While all this crap may seem like common knowledge to nerds like us, the general public needs to have their hands held for at least the first movie.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

X-Men had several scenes cut, showing where each character came from. They were cut due to time restraints. And Batman 89 did have a full flashback origin for Batman near the end of the film.

And you need an origin story for characters like this, as, for instance, the general audience isn't going to know why Tony Stark is dressing in this armor and killing terrorists unless you SHOW them. While all this crap may seem like common knowledge to nerds like us, the general public needs to have their hands held for at least the first movie.

Correct the first X-Men movie really did deal with the whole team instead of just one person but because of time restraints all that was cut and focused mostly on Wolverine.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

X-Men had several scenes cut, showing where each character came from. They were cut due to time restraints. And Batman 89 did have a full flashback origin for Batman near the end of the film.

Even if they intended origins for everybody, that’s not what we got in the final cut.
And I could be wrong, haven’t seen that old Batman in ages but all I remember was a flashback to the death of his parents and then him falling into a cave with bats or something. I don’t remember any actual transformation from Bruce to Batman like in BB or Iron Man.
I’m not saying that those movies are perfect examples. They’re just the closest to the idea I could find.

And you need an origin story for characters like this, as, for instance, the general audience isn't going to know why Tony Stark is dressing in this armor and killing terrorists unless you SHOW them. While all this crap may seem like common knowledge to nerds like us, the general public needs to have their hands held for at least the first movie.

I’m not making this an enlightened versus ignorant audience issue. I’m proposing an original concept - why should there be any origin story at all? Why can’t a hero’s background be simply revealed through dialogue instead of wasting time showing it? Why not first make a movie with a different story and only then make a sequel with an origin? Why does it have to be so linear?

Correct the first X-Men movie really did deal with the whole team instead of just one person but because of time restraints all that was cut and focused mostly on Wolverine.

See, I’m of the opinion that X1 isn’t such a Wolverine movie as everyone else makes it out to be.
X2 was a Wolverine movie, there’s no argument there. But in X1 he was like the 4th or 5th character to appear. First and foremost we got Magneto’s power show-off, the very second was Rogue who has a pivotal role throughout the whole movie, then came Jean and Prof X. So it is as much their movie as it is Wolverine’s.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Absolutely right, origin stories are NOT needed. At least not those that take about 30 - 75% of the movie!

In the old comic books the origins of the character were made up later and only one or two pages long.

That's one of the few things Batman (89) got absolutely RIGHT!

 

[cerealkiller182]

Origin stories are not needed The biggest problem is some of them are not interesting.

There are better ways to explain a characters motivations.

For instance, the Iron Fist origin is reads like a legend. The credit sequence could be ancient pictures and narration depicting the story. Captain America comestomind to get the Burton Batman origin treatment.

Or even simply, like original films tend to do, have the motivations of the character be depicted in the characters personality and actions (which is what a movie is supposed to do) instead of telling us. In LA Confidential (not exactly original but fits the example) Bud obviously hates men who harm women. Its very apparent from his actions and when he is driven to hit a women he is obviously disgusted with himself. He mentions why he hates these people but I dont find it very necessary.

Some characters should have an origin story when it actually has an interesting: Question failing as a vigilante, getting trained by Dragon, and returning to his city.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, I'm in the "not needed" camp. Or, maybe more accurate "don't need to be drawn out" camp.

The good thing about an origin story is that the character typically is different by the end of it. From ordinary person to SUPERHERO! And it's useful for showing motivation, "to avenge the death of my parents" or "with great power comes great responsibility", etc.

The bad thing about origin stories is that too often they're too drawn out, dwell on unnecessary information, and don't allow enough time for a drawn out confrontation between hero and villain. The weakest part of Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Batman Begins was waiting until the second half for the villain's scheme to unfold in an extremely abbreviated manner. One of these days a superhero movie is going to fail out of the gate because although the filmmakers have an "epic trilogy" planned, they didn't get to enough of the good stuff in the first movie. That's one of the plusses to Tim Burton's Batman. Hellboy is another one that does a good job of feeding us the minimal necessary before getting headlong into the adventure.

We've had extensive origin stories for a long time now. Some work, some don't. And the audience has been trained in the beats of them, so you can play with the format. Or skip it altogether, as is the case for Mr. Incredible, Elasti-Girl, Abe Sapien, and most of the X-Men.

Most origin stories can be told in as few as one or two comic book pages. Bringing that efficiency to the big screen is something to be considered.

 

[The Major]

The public doesn't know most comic characters. They won't have any idea how what their origin is unless it is drilled into their heads. That's why popular franchises like Spider-man, Superman and Batman could get away without their origins more then others.

Not that origins hurt in films. Superman, Batman, Spider-man all did well despite the public knowing exactly how they began. Most comic franchises don't have that luxury.

Origins didn't hurt Hellboy or Iron Man at the theatres.

 

[Warhammer]

Origin stories are a necessity in most comic book films because the general audience needs it. Don't be close minded and say they are not necessary just because your geeky ass already knows it...

 

[Evil Twin]

Origin stories are a necessity in most comic book films because the general audience needs it. Don't be close minded and say they are not necessary just because your geeky ass already knows it...

I'm not saying that they aren't necessary because I already know it. I'm saying that often they aren't necessary because they don't tell you anything but trivia about a character.

Is The Flash anymore interesting as a character because he got hit with lightning and chemicals instead of inhaling hard water vapors, being magically embued with them, memorized a formula, or is a mutant? I'd argue that the method he acquires his powers in is the least interesting aspect of the character. And quite often says nothing about the character, motivation, or mission.

The concept of the superhero has been around for 70 years in multiple mediums. A guy dressing up in a costume, fighting evil, and doing extraordinary feats is a superhero and needs no further explanation. Just as a hag who uses magic is a witch. Is there anyone over 5 that really doesn't know what a superhero is? People don't need handholding on that basic concept.

If it's relevant to the story, than sure an origin has uses. But if Robin Hood, Zorro, James Bond, and Sherlock Holmes don't need origins, then there are options for superheroes to proceed without origins too.

 

[Evil Twin]

Sorry, multiple post.

 

[Warhammer]

I'm not saying that they aren't necessary because I already know it. I'm saying that often they aren't necessary because they don't tell you anything but trivia about a character.

I never said that all superhero films require origins. I only said that it's close minded to say that origin stories are not necessary. With most comic book films, origin stories are there for many reasons. They add depth and substance to the story, help the audience to understand and relate with the character, and to just not take the audience for granted. Of course, origins can also be told to some degree in flashbacks (Batman, Superman: The Movie, Daredevil), pre-title sequences/first scenes (Hellboy), or they can be straight up origin stories (Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man), or they can just not be at all (Blade, though this usually only works for minor/lesser known characters).

Is The Flash anymore interesting as a character because he got hit with lightning and chemicals instead of inhaling hard water vapors, being magically embued with them, memorized a formula, or is a mutant? I'd argue that the method he acquires his powers in is the least interesting aspect of the character. And quite often says nothing about the character, motivation, or mission.

Films have writers. When it comes to an origin story, it is their jobs to make a story with substance, for better or for worse. An example of amplifying an origin story is Bruce Wayne's origin in Batman Begins. With The Flash, an origin story being necessary depends on what the writer thinks, not what we think. If an origin story fits and molds with the story he is writing, then there you go. If the origin story is a focal point or integral part of the script, then there you go. The writer chooses. If he wants Flash to have an origin story, he will write an origin story that will fit the story. He will add the necessary substance, add depth to it, and make it interesting.

The concept of the superhero has been around for 70 years in multiple mediums. A guy dressing up in a costume, fighting evil, and doing extraordinary feats is a superhero and needs no further explanation. Just as a hag who uses magic is a witch. Is there anyone over 5 that really doesn't know what a superhero is? People don't need handholding on that basic concept.

And in some cases, an origin story can help a superhero be more than that same old, clichéd formula. It's not handholding. It's telling a story, keeping a fresh spin and not keeping a stale formula.

If it's relevant to the story, than sure an origin has uses. But if Robin Hood, Zorro, James Bond, and Sherlock Holmes don't need origins, then there are options for superheroes to proceed without origins too.

If it's relevant to the story, then the origin story is a necessity. If it's not, then it is unnecessary. Again, this is all decided in the hands of the writers, producers, and directors. Also, those examples are bad examples because they are literary characters (with the exception of Zorro). In Zorro's case, you are mistaken, because in his movies, his origin story is told. In The Mask of Zorro, an origin story is also told, though it isn't Diego De La Vega's origin story because his origin story is of no importance to the plot. The point of his character was to establish that the torch is being handed to Alejandro Murrieta.

In the end, my point is that origin stories are necessary. However, not all superhero films specifically need them. However, to ask "Origin stories? Who needs them?" is close-minded, because in most cases, the general audience needs to know who the character is. You can't just start Iron Man with him already in the suit and just take off with no indication of who he is, etc. It's easier for a fan of the comics to say it because we already know the storyline. It's biased in our favor, and it's not fair to everyone else if things were that way.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I never said that all superhero films require origins. I only said that it's close minded to say that origin stories are not necessary. With most comic book films, origin stories are there for many reasons. They add depth and substance to the story, help the audience to understand and relate with the character, and to just not take the audience for granted. Of course, origins can also be told to some degree in flashbacks (Batman, Superman: The Movie, Daredevil), pre-title sequences/first scenes (Hellboy), or they can be straight up origin stories (Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man), or they can just not be at all (Blade, though this usually only works for minor/lesser known characters).

But its a different medium, depth and substance comes from action not text. Your supposed to be shown things not told. This works for countless original made for the screen characters, Im sure it will pass. But if it has to be there they should try other techniques which you already stated.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Origin stories are a necessity in most comic book films because the general audience needs it. Don't be close minded and say they are not necessary just because your geeky ass already knows it...

Well, let me just go on a rant here and say that I support the idea of movies serving a specific audience and if only film companies would be more concerned with telling a specific story instead of making it simple and popular enough to increase their audience and profit, that would actually benefit the quality of the picture.
I would like audiences to make an effort on their own to understand a movie, as it is mostly practiced today anyways. If someone is interested enough in a particular film they will try and understand it or find out more about it on their own. While most of the time, if someone is not interested in a smart movie or a specific genre they won’t even buy the ticket to go see it in the theatre. I don’t treat the general audience as a mindless thing to make more money off of. We all have our own brains to think with. The audience should adapt to the movie not the other way around.
It’s not close minded to express your own taste in movies.
And once again people always get the wrong impression from these kinds of discussions:
It’s not that I know and therefore I don’t need it and I don’t care what all those other people not interested in comic books think or want from a comic book movie. The question is does an origin story really serve the plot itself, the quality of the movie, not its audience, and is it better off without it?

I never said that all superhero films require origins. I only said that it's close minded to say that origin stories are not necessary. With most comic book films, origin stories are there for many reasons. They add depth and substance to the story, help the audience to understand and relate with the character, and to just not take the audience for granted.

Any kind of character development can tell a lot of things about a superhero, not just an origin. It could be a simple dialogue scene or even an action scene.

Of course, origins can also be told to some degree in flashbacks (Batman, Superman: The Movie, Daredevil), pre-title sequences/first scenes (Hellboy), or they can be straight up origin stories (Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man), or they can just not be at all (Blade, though this usually only works for minor/lesser known characters).

Hmm, that’s actually interesting:
You would think that with such a legendary tale like Spider-Man’s origin, he wouldn’t need an origin movie. Everybody who has ever heard of the name Spider-Man knows that he got his powers from being bitten by a spider.
In fact it would be more logical to give less known characters more flashed out origin stories instead.
Maybe it has to do with people wanting to see someone being born or created more often than him advancing further in life.

Films have writers. When it comes to an origin story, it is their jobs to make a story with substance, for better or for worse. An example of amplifying an origin story is Bruce Wayne's origin in Batman Begins. With The Flash, an origin story being necessary depends on what the writer thinks, not what we think. If an origin story fits and molds with the story he is writing, then there you go. If the origin story is a focal point or integral part of the script, then there you go. The writer chooses. If he wants Flash to have an origin story, he will write an origin story that will fit the story. He will add the necessary substance, add depth to it, and make it interesting.

Now that I completely agree with.

Also, those examples are bad examples because they are literary characters (with the exception of Zorro).

What do you mean by ‘literarily characters’? Please explain.
To me Robin Hood, James Bond and Indiana Jones fall into the same category as Spider-Man - they are legendary enough worldwide not to need any origin story.

You can't just start Iron Man with him already in the suit and just take off with no indication of who he is, etc.

Why not? 89’s Batman did that and it worked fine.
Why can’t a superhero remain a mystery? Why can’t we start from outside the mask instead of always finding out all the juicy bits inside it right from the get go? Why can’t a superhero movie reveal those details little by little as we go along?
Why do we always have to relate to the superhero instead of maybe making it more about the bystander - someone who was caught up in between the superheroics accidentally and the hero would have to explain to him what’s what to get through it all.

 

[Majik1387]

Sure. I mean I don't think they should focus so much on origin stories ala Batman Begins, but some origin is what I'd prefer.

 

[Chris B]

Depends. I think that with a lesser-known character like Iron Man, you have to tell the origin as part of introducing the character to a broader audience. But characters like Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man are examples of characters where everyone already knows their origins, so they can easily be glossed over.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Depends. I think that with a lesser-known character like Iron Man, you have to tell the origin as part of introducing the character to a broader audience. But characters like Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man are examples of characters where everyone already knows their origins, so they can easily be glossed over.

This is no excuse to keeping an origin story. We didnt find out Indiana Jones origin, it was told over the course of the 4 movies (yes i included KOTCS) much of which was never depicted. Just because the character has an origin story in the pages of some comic doesnt mean it has to be put on screen for audiences to understand the character. I really dont think the audience will question people motivations and characteristics.

 

[Evil Twin]

In the case of Batman and Spider-Man, I think it's incredibly useful to reference their origins in the case of motivation. "To avenge the death of his parents" and "with great power, comes great responsibility" speak to the heart of both characters. The other parts are more interchangable, it really doesn't matter if Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider, a genetically modified spider, or a totemistic spider, but the other parts of his origin speak to his character and motivation.

Same with the Hulk, lab accident ala the 70s show or gamma bomb are irrelevant, radioactivity releases the monster in Bruce Banner when enraged and he has to cope with it are relevant ideas though. It's more relevant to know that Barry Allen was a comic book geek, that of course became a comic book superhero when blessed with powers than the exact recreation of his accident.

And there are many ways to convey this information to the audience. Exposition and flashback are two ways. And implying some of it via dialogue, action, and settings are other ways. Panning around Hollis Mason's garage and trophies in WATCHMEN is as likely to tell us as much about him as any detailed origin. There's no reason not to use all the tools available for storytelling instead of relying on just one.

My main point is that there are many ways to tell the audience about a character and a blow by blow origin isn't always necessary or the best thing for every character. There's a storytelling "rule" that says you should start a story as far into it as possible and I think that's something that needs to be remembered. Obviously, these kinds of "rules" have exceptions, but it's a good idea to consider why you want to break these rules in the first place. In media res is certainly a storytelling concept that's particularly useful in the action genre as well.

 

[tyler-durden]

Sometimes origins aren't needed completely but sometimes they are, I plan on doing my hero with bits and pieces that need to be put together to figure out his origin

 

[ChickenScratch]

As a fan f the Literary James Bond I've always taken the stance that an "origin" is really not necessary, just get in with it. Even Casino Royal technically his first case is still not an origin. What makes James interesting is that he's a very closed character, you now him by his actions and what people do in reference to him. In fact the reason the book From Russia With Love works so well is that James does not show till half way through the novel, the first half are bad guys planning his assassination and studying up on him and that's where most of our knowledge of him comes from.

So I say, skip origins, in most cases they are lame or ridiculous. Just get on with it and eventually when people are invested them slowly shade in the missing bits.

 

[Warhammer]

But its a different medium, depth and substance comes from action not text. Your supposed to be shown things not told. This works for countless original made for the screen characters, Im sure it will pass. But if it has to be there they should try other techniques which you already stated.

That is merely an opinion. However, while that is a good point, it doesn't necessarily have to happen all the time, and it doesn't. As long as it benefits the story, and is what the writer wants, you can be told. Sometimes, it's better to just show, and sometimes, it isn't easy to just show.

The thing with original made for screen characters is that there is no origin. They existed solely for that film. Superheroes, on the other hand, already existed in the comics. They are adapted from long character histories in the pages of the comics. That makes things more complicated for superheroes.

Well, let me just go on a rant here and say that I support the idea of movies serving a specific audience and if only film companies would be more concerned with telling a specific story instead of making it simple and popular enough to increase their audience and profit, that would actually benefit the quality of the picture.

95% of movies are made for the sole purpose of money. If it is not general enough, it gets no audience, and no audience equals no money. Film companies want money. That is the first priority, and always will be.

I would like audiences to make an effort on their own to understand a movie, as it is mostly practiced today anyways. If someone is interested enough in a particular film they will try and understand it or find out more about it on their own. While most of the time, if someone is not interested in a smart movie or a specific genre they won’t even buy the ticket to go see it in the theatre. I don’t treat the general audience as a mindless thing to make more money off of. We all have our own brains to think with. The audience should adapt to the movie not the other way around.

The world doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. Why would I want to pay money to see a movie that has no clarity and doesn't have enough in it to make sense to me? I think it is easy for you to say all of this because you are a comic book reader. Everybody else isn't, and it isn't fair to go see a movie, then have people go out of their way to find out and understand what they just saw. It's not mindless to see a movie and get enough from that movie to understand it and have enough information.

It’s not close minded to express your own taste in movies.
And once again people always get the wrong impression from these kinds of discussions:
It’s not that I know and therefore I don’t need it and I don’t care what all those other people not interested in comic books think or want from a comic book movie. The question is does an origin story really serve the plot itself, the quality of the movie, not its audience, and is it better off without it?

It all depends on the writer, the direction the people behind the movie want it, and if the origin story flows with or fits in context with the overall story.

Any kind of character development can tell a lot of things about a superhero, not just an origin. It could be a simple dialogue scene or even an action scene.

You are right. However, some may feel that more is needed. Some don't. It's whatever floats peoples' boat.

Hmm, that’s actually interesting:
You would think that with such a legendary tale like Spider-Man’s origin, he wouldn’t need an origin movie. Everybody who has ever heard of the name Spider-Man knows that he got his powers from being bitten by a spider.

Here's a question. How many people REALLY know Spider-Man's origin? His origin is not getting bitten by a spider. That is merely how he got his powers. He became Spider-Man because of Uncle Ben's death. He became Spider-Man because he let the robber steal the money that rightfully belonged to him in the first place, and that robber ended up killing Uncle Ben. Parker could have stopped it all, but he let allowed injustice to happen, and ended up paying the price for it.

Do you think that "everybody" could tell you that?

In fact it would be more logical to give less known characters more flashed out origin stories instead.
Maybe it has to do with people wanting to see someone being born or created more often than him advancing further in life.

I agree with that.

What do you mean by ‘literarily characters’? Please explain.
To me Robin Hood, James Bond and Indiana Jones fall into the same category as Spider-Man - they are legendary enough worldwide not to need any origin story.

When I said literary character, I meant that the character existed originally from literature (a book or novel). James Bond, Robin Hood, and Sherlock Holmes didn't have origin stories because they weren't necessarily superhero archetypes. Robin Hood, for example, serves a paper thin purpose. He steals from the rich to give to the poor. Bam, that's it. In the novel Casino Royale, James Bond serves as a spy. In that book, that's all he was. The novel was a one shot novel, until Ian Fleming decided to write more novels about the character. Then, he became a franchise character once the films took off. He didn't have the luxury of having an origin like Spider-Man or Batman, which is why it is Bond is not relevant to this discussion.

Why not? 89’s Batman did that and it worked fine.
Why can’t a superhero remain a mystery? Why can’t we start from outside the mask instead of always finding out all the juicy bits inside it right from the get go? Why can’t a superhero movie reveal those details little by little as we go along?

Well, since I was specifically talking about Iron Man, I'll just continue that. For starters, how many people actually knew Iron Man's origin before the movie came out? How many comic book readers know who Iron Man is, but don't specifically know the details of the origin? That's why you can't just start off an Iron Man movie without the details. If you reveal how he did with MINOR flashbacks like Batman did, not only would the origin lose power and impact, but it'd just seem out of place and sloppy storytelling for a character like Iron Man.

Why do we always have to relate to the superhero instead of maybe making it more about the bystander - someone who was caught up in between the superheroics accidentally and the hero would have to explain to him what’s what to get through it all.

It's not so much that people want to relate to the superhero. It's that many people would like to have the luxury to know how that superhero came to be. Many superheroes would lose appeal if their origins aren't explained before they don the persona.

...that's just me.

 

[The Major]

95% of movies are made for the sole purpose of money. If it is not general enough, it gets no audience, and no audience equals no money. Film companies want money. That is the first priority, and always will be.

It's been proven numerous times that adaptions which are faithful can be successful. Of course, it varies in the specific franchise being adapted. The more its treated like that by Hollywood the better. Some are easier then others to adapt, but that doesn't mean they can't still be successes or have great quality. Some are easier to adapt then others, but that doesn't mean they can't still be successes or have great quality. When Hollywood makes crap that doesn't sell, just like comics, tv shows or video-games, it has only itself to blame for not making money.

Just like any other movie the people who make it need to make a good product. They actually end up with that money that way.

 

[cerealkiller182]

That is merely an opinion. However, while that is a good point, it doesn't necessarily have to happen all the time, and it doesn't. As long as it benefits the story, and is what the writer wants, you can be told. Sometimes, it's better to just show, and sometimes, it isn't easy to just show.

No its fact. Its how film making is taught. Obviously people color outside the line, but essentially thats exactly what movies are.

But the point is everyone wonders where everything comes from. People keep asking why does Green arrow have his political stance? Who cares, he just has to show it in his actions a strong political stance. Theres so much origin BS that can just be skipped.

And when i say show not tell, i dont mean show the origin, i mean show the movie and reveal the necessary information over the course of the movie, not just tell the personal history of a character from start to finish. Perfect example:Last Boyscout

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

95% of movies are made for the sole purpose of money. If it is not general enough, it gets no audience, and no audience equals no money. Film companies want money. That is the first priority, and always will be.

The death of art basically, sure.
Believe me I am just as much a realist as you are.

The world doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. Why would I want to pay money to see a movie that has no clarity and doesn't have enough in it to make sense to me? I think it is easy for you to say all of this because you are a comic book reader. Everybody else isn't, and it isn't fair to go see a movie, then have people go out of their way to find out and understand what they just saw. It's not mindless to see a movie and get enough from that movie to understand it and have enough information.

I disagree with you saying that it shouldn’t. Because it can and it does. I’m saying this not as a comic book reader but as an intellectual, who likes to be educated and intellectually challenged by the entertainment of my choice.
Now it could be argued that the superhero genre isn’t the type of movie where that kind of challenge could be applied but no wonder the Japanese prevail in their anime and manga - they don’t treat cartoons and comic books as exclusively an adolescent medium.

It all depends on the writer, the direction the people behind the movie want it, and if the origin story flows with or fits in context with the overall story.

True enough. I never said origin stories are useless and worthless. I’m proposing that it is not the only way to approach superheroes and that the origin-less franchises should be practiced a bit more often.

Here's a question. How many people REALLY know Spider-Man's origin? His origin is not getting bitten by a spider. That is merely how he got his powers. He became Spider-Man because of Uncle Ben's death. He became Spider-Man because he let the robber steal the money that rightfully belonged to him in the first place, and that robber ended up killing Uncle Ben. Parker could have stopped it all, but he let allowed injustice to happen, and ended up paying the price for it.

Do you think that "everybody" could tell you that?

Jules: “That’s an interesting point.”

When I said literary character, I meant that the character existed originally from literature (a book or novel). James Bond, Robin Hood, and Sherlock Holmes didn't have origin stories because they weren't necessarily superhero archetypes. Robin Hood, for example, serves a paper thin purpose. He steals from the rich to give to the poor. Bam, that's it. In the novel Casino Royale, James Bond serves as a spy. In that book, that's all he was. The novel was a one shot novel, until Ian Fleming decided to write more novels about the character. Then, he became a franchise character once the films took off. He didn't have the luxury of having an origin like Spider-Man or Batman, which is why it is Bond is not relevant to this discussion.

Thing is we’re not talking about their adapted counterparts; we’re talking about their movies.
So what you are saying is that, if a character has a linear origin from the get go, he is doomed to have only that specific approach and no big creative endeavour would be necessary. All Sam Raimi did with SMI is copy and paste some comic book pages. It worked for Spider-Man, it definitely worked for Sin City but that shouldn’t be the only way of doing things. That would be creative bankruptcy.

Well, since I was specifically talking about Iron Man, I'll just continue that. For starters, how many people actually knew Iron Man's origin before the movie came out? How many comic book readers know who Iron Man is, but don't specifically know the details of the origin? That's why you can't just start off an Iron Man movie without the details. If you reveal how he did with MINOR flashbacks like Batman did, not only would the origin lose power and impact, but it'd just seem out of place and sloppy storytelling for a character like Iron Man.

You’re only saying that because you can’t imagine any other better alternative.
Both Iron Man and Batman worked fine for what they were.

It's not so much that people want to relate to the superhero. It's that many people would like to have the luxury to know how that superhero came to be. Many superheroes would lose appeal if their origins aren't explained before they don the persona.

That’s the problem with business that sets on making money from art - it sticks with what works first and rarely diverges. You can’t speak for everyone. Don’t underestimate the average movie goer. And there are many different ways to look at a potential story.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

As a fan f the Literary James Bond I've always taken the stance that an "origin" is really not necessary, just get in with it. Even Casino Royal technically his first case is still not an origin. What makes James interesting is that he's a very closed character, you now him by his actions and what people do in reference to him. In fact the reason the book From Russia With Love works so well is that James does not show till half way through the novel, the first half are bad guys planning his assassination and studying up on him and that's where most of our knowledge of him comes from.

So I say, skip origins, in most cases they are lame or ridiculous. Just get on with it and eventually when people are invested them slowly shade in the missing bits.

The difference is that we can imagine what Bond's origin was. Obviously he went through intense basic training. Whatever a 00 is wasn't important. He's a good killer.