Origin stories? Who needs them?

[terry78]

^To be honest, they do this because these are characters with decades of history, and there are even some mainstreamers who know the circumstances behind why they became heroes.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

1. In the real world, superheroes don't exist. And in the real world there's only a handful of beings out there with an origin story half as interesting as those given in the superhero medium.

What's your point?

2. Getting to know someone in essence is learning about their 'origins'...so don't tell me you've never been interested in the backstories of the people you've met in your life.

Interested? Yes. Necessary to understand and appreciate their actions? No.
You don't pick your favourite football player based on why he decided to become a sports star.
You don't pick a girlfriend based on how she was raised by her parents.

Without explaining some elements of a characters origins, what reason does the viewer have to really care about the character if they have no idea the who's and why's they are doing what they do...

Why should there be a reason other than natural compassion to a fellow human being and admiration of his or her heroic acts?

If Iron Man for example had no origin and simply had him going right into action, my main question would be, "Who the hell is this guy, and why should I care?"

Right, that's what you ask yourself every time you see a fireman or a policeman on the news doing something heroic?

Origins stories allow an opportunity for the viewer to get to know the person behind the mask/armor and in turn get to know them on a more personal level...that is IF the origin is done well.

That is one way to do it.
While Watchmen is a great alternative.
Even if half of the movie were flashbacks, none of them save Dr. Manhattan's were about how the hero first put on his mask.
And in John's case, what kind of a man he was prior to his accident has no impact on what he had become.
History doesn't define a character, their acts do and those acts can be shown or explained any time during the story, they're not exclusive to origin plots.

 

[luca_frontino]

And Iron Man 2 will be (hopefully) many times better exactly because it's not an origin story.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

^That’s a point I made in the very beginning of this thread.
So many sequels are better than the original precisely because they don’t have the origin baggage to deal with.

 

[DarkKnight88]

The origin stories make up for some of the best movies. How can people even complain about that? The first half of Spider-Man, Superman (1978), Iron Man and Batman Begins are praised the most... why do you think?

 

[luca_frontino]

Who the hell knows?
Because I don't know s**t how can anyone prefer those first halves over their sequels.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

The origin stories make up for some of the best movies. How can people even complain about that? The first half of Spider-Man, Superman (1978), Iron Man and Batman Begins are praised the most... why do you think?

Maybe I began this topic with the wrong premise but personally I have little complains about that other than it being the same old formula that almost every superhero movie is using these days.
I'm proposing for more variety.
I’d like to see someone take that ‘risk’ with some big name superhero.

 

[Chris Wallace]

It's been done. With Batman & the Hulk. I still maintain that it's a matter of how the character came to be. I wouldn't want a movie detailing BP's origin but I wouldn't want Hollywood to drop us in the middle of Spider-Man's life.

 

[luca_frontino]

I'm bumping this thread in the wake of the announced reboots of The Fantastic Four and DareDevil.
And don't forget to take into account the possibility of Marvel Studios rebooting Spider-Man and The X-Men.

So, about Spider-Man: in a possible reboot would you really re-do an origin story?
To me, in no effin way.
And I'm against origins for all characters.

So, I bumped this thread in the wake of the soon to come reboot of Spider-Man.
Anyone who says his origins need to be retold is really a delusional fanboy.
Also, I predict the upcoming Thor and Captain America will be pretty boring and cliched if treated as full origin movies.
I think in the long time the mass audience could lose interest in origin films, because, accept it or not, they're all just the same.

 

[GL1]

If the story their telling needs the origin, then the story needs the origin. It's that simple, it doesn't matter how many people already know the origin, or whatever.

Other "boring cliched movies" include Iron Man, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Hulk, Blade and the most boring of them all Superman.

Maybe I began this topic with the wrong premise but personally I have little complains about that other than it being the same old formula that almost every superhero movie is using these days.
I'm proposing for more variety.
I’d like to see someone take that ‘risk’ with some big name superhero.

It's been done. Did you see The Incredible Hulk? How about Superman Returns?

The reason that non-origins don't always work is because it doesn't mainstream audiences something to relate to. It puts us with the most unrealistic thing in the movie's world and says "this is the guy you should root for" and that's not how people think. It's certainly possible to make a film that's not an origin story that still connects with the audience, but if you're going to have a character who is supernatural in the natural world you have to introduce him in a way that makes him relatable as an audience avatar. The easiest way to do this is the make him start out emotionally, if not physically, like any person from the natural world depicted in the films.

Action movie heroes avoid this because they are already relatable, they have normal jobs, even if they have action packed ones. Even James Bond, they don't do anything we CAN'T do, or that don't make any sense (ie putting on a colorful or animal themed costume outside of halloween), only things we don't know how to do.

Sci Fi movie heroes avoid this because they are relatable in the context of their universe. If they are a robot, they may be alone, or there may be a bigger robot with lasers attacking it, or what have you. Metaphors for our experience that resonate.

Superheroes are Sci Fi movie heroes inside an action movie, and they need the emotional relatablity that an origin story provides for the mainstream to care about them. Comics fans already do, so unless you approach the topic intellectually, I'm not sure you'll even know what's going on, or why TIH and SR weren't more successful than, say Hulk or Superman 78, despite the fact that they cut to the chase.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Thoughts on them redoing Spider-Man's origin and the possibility of them doing likewise with Superman?

 

[MadVillainy]

Superman his origin hasnt been told on the big screen since the 70s so I dont see anything wrong with that

As for Spidey, eh if what I read is true and it's going to deal with Peter's search for answers regarding his parents then that's cool. But really they didnt need to tell the origin again

 

[Chris Wallace]

Superman's origin may not have been told on the big screen since the 70's but I tend to think that between Lois & Clark and Smallville, it's kinda covered. Besides, EVERYBODY knows it-from age 6 to 60.

 

[MadVillainy]

EVERYBODY knew Batman's origin and that seemed to work fine. EVERYBODY knew Spider-Man's

I dont really care as long as the movie is good

 

[Chris Wallace]

Everybody DID NOT know Spidey & Batman's origins. Prior to 1989, the 60's TV show had everyone thinking Bruce Wayne had just gotten into crime fighting for the hell of it. And if you didn't read a comic or watch a cartoon, chances are Spidey's background was a complete mystery to you. I base this on every conversation I ever had with a non-comic reader between 1992-2002. And in any event, NOBODY'S origin is as widely known as Superman's.

 

[The Batman]

^ This.

Batman didnt even get an onscreen origin until a superfriends episode...which couldnt show what happened to the waynes for obvious reasons.

Reshowing yet another spidey origin? yawn. They should've leapt right in. Same with Superman

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't remember Batman's origin EVER being touched on in a Superfriends episode.

 

[elgaz]

I don't get the hate for origin stories.

Look, we're all posting here on Superherohype, so we're obviously people who are familiar with superheroes. Some of us have been general comic book fans, others may have followed the animated series', others may solely have followed the TV shows and films. But we're all familiar with the more famous superheroes, and their origin stories.

That doesn't apply to Joe Public. My girlfriend is a prime example; she's intelligent and well-read, and would immediately recognise the likes of Batman or Superman, etc. But ask her does she know why Superman put on the cape or Batman put on the cowl, and she wouldn't have a clue. I can say the same for a number of my cinema-going friends too. And these are people who matter, people who will pay $$$ to go and see these films and contribute to the box office take and any future sequels.

My girlfriend actually wouldn't be a fan of science fiction or comic book movies. Like a lot of girls, she's into her rom-coms and dramas. But I sat her down last year and made her watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and she loved both. She actually remarked that they weren't what she expected (all explosions and fights, etc) but had a lot of backstory and character development - particularly in BB - and that's what sold the films to her.

From the point of view of film-makers, the origin story is a great tool to introduce your audience to the unique universe which you have set up. Take Batman for example. The last Batman universe seen on screen (Burton's 89 film) did tell of Bruce Wayne seeing his parents die, and that was his motivation for becoming Batman. But why choose bats? Where did he get his weapons? Where did he learn his skills? It wasn't very fleshed out. That was grand at the time, but the movie audience in 2011 is a bit more savvy and their expectations are higher - it's harder to just turn a blind eye to obvious questions which arise from a story.

That's why I like what Nolan did. The first half of Batman Begins doesn't feature Batman at all, and that's actually the most interesting part of the film for me. Of course it's great when Bats finally shows up and starts kicking some ass, but I loved how Nolan tackled the questions which many other Batman directors simply ignored - namely, how and why Bruce Wayne decided to become a masked vigilante. If Nolan had totally ignored the origin and brought out a version of The Dark Knight as his first Batman film - straight into a Batman/Joker faceoff - I can't accept that Joe Public would have bought it quite as well as they did.

And that's only using Batman as an example. His backstory is actually fairly simple - his parents get murdered, he grows up an angry orphan seeking vengeance. The costume, weapons, etc ...... it's all window dressing concealing the real story undernearth, which is not that complicated.

Take something light Green Lantern and the origin story is even more important. Without it, you're asking your general audience (with little or no knowledge of someone who doesn't have the instant recognisability of Batman or Superman) to simply buy into this guy dressed in green with a power ring which can project all his thoughts into reality. And who answers to a bunch of guys called the Guardians on the planet OA. Much more difficult to sell than Batman, and as we've seen from the Green Lantern flick, even with a full origin it's a hard story to make work on screen.

On the flipside, you can also overdo it. I think an origin story only needs to be told once for ever generation of fans - say every 15-20 years. That worked fine for Batman. Superman is long overdue a movie origin story (33yrs since the last one - and no point counting Smallville as it only had circa 3m viewers when it ended, which is a small portion of your cinema audience). Something like Spiderman on the other hand, I really don't think an origin story needs to be told again so soon after Raimi did it.

 

[redfirebird2008]

If Nolan had totally ignored the origin and brought out a version of The Dark Knight as his first Batman film - straight into a Batman/Joker faceoff - I can't accept that Joe Public would have bought it quite as well as they did.

Judging by the insane box office increase for TDK compared to BB, the average Joe didn't even bother with BB -- which is a shame IMHO. It's the better Batman movie of the two.

 

[elgaz]

Judging by the insane box office increase for TDK compared to BB, the average Joe didn't even bother with BB -- which is a shame IMHO. It's the better Batman movie of the two.

On the contrary, I think the word of mouth and strong DVD performance of Batman Begins is a huge factor in The Dark Knight's success. After the release of BB, even people who didn't necessarily see it in the cinema were aware that there was a new version of Batman, which was more realistic and not the campy, neon joke the Schumacher films were. This bode well for setting up the audience for the sequel.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think it took awhile for everyone to catch on to the fact that BB wasn't a prequel.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Right on. Origin stories are some of my favorite sections. Sometimes the best of the series when done right. Superman, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, X-Men: First Class. Great origin movies that definitely enhanced the rest of the films.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't get the hate for origin stories.

Look, we're all posting here on Superherohype, so we're obviously people who are familiar with superheroes. Some of us have been general comic book fans, others may have followed the animated series', others may solely have followed the TV shows and films. But we're all familiar with the more famous superheroes, and their origin stories.

That doesn't apply to Joe Public. My girlfriend is a prime example; she's intelligent and well-read, and would immediately recognise the likes of Batman or Superman, etc. But ask her does she know why Superman put on the cape or Batman put on the cowl, and she wouldn't have a clue. I can say the same for a number of my cinema-going friends too. And these are people who matter, people who will pay $$$ to go and see these films and contribute to the box office take and any future sequels.

My girlfriend actually wouldn't be a fan of science fiction or comic book movies. Like a lot of girls, she's into her rom-coms and dramas. But I sat her down last year and made her watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and she loved both. She actually remarked that they weren't what she expected (all explosions and fights, etc) but had a lot of backstory and character development - particularly in BB - and that's what sold the films to her.

From the point of view of film-makers, the origin story is a great tool to introduce your audience to the unique universe which you have set up. Take Batman for example. The last Batman universe seen on screen (Burton's 89 film) did tell of Bruce Wayne seeing his parents die, and that was his motivation for becoming Batman. But why choose bats? Where did he get his weapons? Where did he learn his skills? It wasn't very fleshed out. That was grand at the time, but the movie audience in 2011 is a bit more savvy and their expectations are higher - it's harder to just turn a blind eye to obvious questions which arise from a story.

That's why I like what Nolan did. The first half of Batman Begins doesn't feature Batman at all, and that's actually the most interesting part of the film for me. Of course it's great when Bats finally shows up and starts kicking some ass, but I loved how Nolan tackled the questions which many other Batman directors simply ignored - namely, how and why Bruce Wayne decided to become a masked vigilante. If Nolan had totally ignored the origin and brought out a version of The Dark Knight as his first Batman film - straight into a Batman/Joker faceoff - I can't accept that Joe Public would have bought it quite as well as they did.

And that's only using Batman as an example. His backstory is actually fairly simple - his parents get murdered, he grows up an angry orphan seeking vengeance. The costume, weapons, etc ...... it's all window dressing concealing the real story undernearth, which is not that complicated.

Take something light Green Lantern and the origin story is even more important. Without it, you're asking your general audience (with little or no knowledge of someone who doesn't have the instant recognisability of Batman or Superman) to simply buy into this guy dressed in green with a power ring which can project all his thoughts into reality. And who answers to a bunch of guys called the Guardians on the planet OA. Much more difficult to sell than Batman, and as we've seen from the Green Lantern flick, even with a full origin it's a hard story to make work on screen.

On the flipside, you can also overdo it. I think an origin story only needs to be told once for ever generation of fans - say every 15-20 years. That worked fine for Batman. Superman is long overdue a movie origin story (33yrs since the last one - and no point counting Smallville as it only had circa 3m viewers when it ended, which is a small portion of your cinema audience). Something like Spiderman on the other hand, I really don't think an origin story needs to be told again so soon after Raimi did it.

This

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Origin stories for Superhero flicks is getting overused, and no longer works. The formula has been used over and over.

 

[roach]

I dont think the origin is overused...there are a handful of characters you dont need to do origins for....You have to remember the GA doesnt know these characters