Origin stories? Who needs them?

[Chris Wallace]

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.

Okay-the problem with Batman is that we never did get to know Bruce Wayne or Batman; his parents dies & now, for some reason this has prompted him to wear a cape. We never learned his motivations or his mentality. We came out of the theater knowing pretty much everything about the Joker but nothing about Batman. Why title the movie after someone who in the end is just a supporting character for the villain? We got little pieces of him in the subsequent films (Well, not really in Returns or B & R) but not enough to ever really complete the puzzle. I think a large part of the appeal of "Batman Begins" is that it helped to complete that puzzle.
Origin stories give us a peek into not just the how but the why, and more importantly the who. We know who Peter Parker is after watching Spider-Man. We know who Tony Stark is after watching Iron Man. We know who Bruce Banner is after watching Hulk. And we know what these men are all about. Some characters' stories are far too intricate & complex for the director to just drop us in the middle & expect us to keep up.

 

[cerealkiller182]

But i dont always care why people do things, just that they do things. Batman has the benefit of having an interesting story though. Eeryone else feels like second rate batman.

I dont care why Question or Green Arrow or Iron Fist do what they do, just as long asthey are passionate about it.

 

[terry78]

Most comic book movies feature about an hour or so of origin, basically the hero having something significant happen, showcasing their newly found powers, a little comedy focusing on their attempts to use said powers, and so forth. That's always been the template, with some exceptions. Blade was a vampire hunter at the beginning, but his was told in flashback.

 

[cerealkiller182]

^^^thats exactly the thing i want to get rid of.

Do the Indy thing instead? He has abilities, he knows how to do things, but sometimes he screws up. No problem.

 

[The Major]

But i dont always care why people do things, just that they do things.

Fine.

Batman has the benefit of having an interesting story though.

Batman has the benefit of being in numerous cartoons, high profile tv shows and movies for decades with WB's backing through every step.

That exposure gives the franchise much more for the audience to grab on even without the origin in the movie since the public knows him very, very well. 99% of comic heroes don't have that exposure.

Other super-heroes are just as interesting as he is.

Eeryone else feels like second rate batman.

That's because Batman is an archetype which has been a huge influence on comic book heroes.

I dont care why Question or Green Arrow or Iron Fist do what they do,

That's fine for you but not everyone agrees with you on this subject.

just as long asthey are passionate about it.

Every adaption needs that.

 

[cerealkiller182]

So you'd rather have origin stories that are all too similar than really great innovative movies?

Look at Daredevil and Ghost Rider, they had too much exposition. If you cut it back they could actually do stuff like unformulaic plot lines, character development that doesnt involve "here's where they came from and heres what they do"

Id rather learn about my characters through how they react to their situations not learn their entire personal history.

Whats more important? That Indiana Jones is afraid of snakes, or why Indy is afraid of snakes? Did we need toknow where Indy got the hat? I hated the beginning of Last Crusade.We already knew most of the stuff given. We didnt need the intro to why he had a bad relationship with his father. it was obvious from the way they acted around eachother

 

[terry78]

I can understand someone like Question not having an origin as his mystery is what makes the character.

 

[The Major]

So you'd rather have origin stories that are all too similar than really great innovative movies?

It doesn't have to be multiple choice.

Once the origin is out of the way then franchises can go into new territory.

This isn't a formula only used in super-hero adaptions, most movies do it.

Look at Daredevil and Ghost Rider, they had too much exposition. If you cut it back they could actually do stuff like unformulaic plot lines, character development that doesnt involve "here's where they came from and heres what they do"

They failed due to them not being good films. If the people who made it did a better job you might not have disliked the origin's.

Iron Man and Batman Begins did a great job with origin. BB isn't perfect, but it did get a lot right revealing the origin IMO.

 

[terry78]

Pretty much every movie based on a tv show, comic book, cartoon series, or earlier movie remake is an origin story. That's the default. They rarely start them up without any backstory, and if they do it's the exception to the rule. Occasionally they may pull a Scooby-Doo and have the earlier stuff be a precursor to the movie.

 

[cerealkiller182]

It doesn't have to be multiple choice.

Once the origin is out of the way then franchises can go into new territory.

This isn't a formula only used in super-hero adaptions, most movies do it.

But why wait to get into new territory? You dont need the why, you need the what. Origin story is not a speed bump, its a tool. Its a tool that you dont need to go waving around, you just screw the parts of the movie together with it.

Batman Begins turned an honor code system of not using a gun into a traumatic experience with a gun. It lessoned the character.

And I disagree, we rarely know why other film characters do things, just what they do.

 

[The Major]

Pretty much every movie based on a tv show, comic book, cartoon series, or earlier movie remake is an origin story. That's the default. They rarely start them up without any backstory, and if they do it's the exception to the rule. Occasionally they may pull a Scooby-Doo and have the earlier stuff be a precursor to the movie.

Exactly.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

And we know what these men are all about. Some characters' stories are far too intricate & complex for the director to just drop us in the middle & expect us to keep up.

But they don’t have to be.
Would you be more ok with how Batman 89 was handled, if the movie was called The Legend of Batman?
Why does a superhero have to be the center of attention every time? Why can’t the appeal come from the mystery of his character?
The more movies that force the audience to think for themselves and ‘keep up’ the better.

Most comic book movies feature about an hour or so of origin, basically the hero having something significant happen, showcasing their newly found powers, a little comedy focusing on their attempts to use said powers, and so forth. That's always been the template, with some exceptions. Blade was a vampire hunter at the beginning, but his was told in flashback.

Those are the key words ‘an hour or so’.
I like how the Iron Man movie turned out. It makes me proud of being a Marvel fan. But with that hour wasted on his origin, what did we get? Crap villains and little to no hero activism - literarily just one scene.
I don’t know, if I can say the same about Batman Begins but, as far as I remember, both movies had a very limited world view, with their own microcosm of antipathies to take care of, if you get what I’m saying - what about the rest of the city/world, which you swore to protect?
Perhaps there really has to be a template, so I can ***** and moan how I want a better movie. There have been origin-less and little-origin movies in the past. But I’m still waiting for that one movie to dare make a big time superhero without an origin story. I’m always for originality and diversity.

 

[Evil Twin]

Okay-the problem with Batman is that we never did get to know Bruce Wayne or Batman; his parents dies & now, for some reason this has prompted him to wear a cape. We never learned his motivations or his mentality.

Sure we did. He was traumatized by the death of his parents and is taking that trauma out on criminals. And his mentality is that he's borderline psychotic with conflicts between his mission and a normal life. Heck, the movie challenges the audience to use their imagination with the line "I wonder what that kind of thing would do to a kid?" paraphrased. That line wasn't only directed at Vicki Vale but at the audience as well.

Yeah, we didn't learn where he got his belt, like in Nolan's movie, but we learned quite a lot about him all the same. Just from the limited p.o.v. of Vicki Vale. There's no rule that we must learn everything about a character right away spelled out so that nobody can possibly miss it. Heck, if you do that, what's the point of a sequel?

 

[Chris Wallace]

But they don’t have to be.
Would you be more ok with how Batman 89 was handled, if the movie was called The Legend of Batman?
Why does a superhero have to be the center of attention every time? Why can’t the appeal come from the mystery of his character?
The more movies that force the audience to think for themselves and ‘keep up’ the better.


Those are the key words ‘an hour or so’.
I like how the Iron Man movie turned out. It makes me proud of being a Marvel fan. But with that hour wasted on his origin, what did we get? Crap villains and little to no hero activism - literarily just one scene.
I don’t know, if I can say the same about Batman Begins but, as far as I remember, both movies had a very limited world view, with their own microcosm of antipathies to take care of, if you get what I’m saying - what about the rest of the city/world, which you swore to protect?
Perhaps there really has to be a template, so I can ***** and moan how I want a better movie. There have been origin-less and little-origin movies in the past. But I’m still waiting for that one movie to dare make a big time superhero without an origin story. I’m always for originality and diversity.

WHen the character's name appears on the poster & his image is on Taco Bell cups, T-shirts, etc, I don't expect the villain to be the center of attention. And quite frankly, "The Legend Of Batman" would've led me to think that even more time should have been devoted to him & less to the Joker.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Sure we did. He was traumatized by the death of his parents and is taking that trauma out on criminals. And his mentality is that he's borderline psychotic with conflicts between his mission and a normal life. Heck, the movie challenges the audience to use their imagination with the line "I wonder what that kind of thing would do to a kid?" paraphrased. That line wasn't only directed at Vicki Vale but at the audience as well.

Yeah, we didn't learn where he got his belt, like in Nolan's movie, but we learned quite a lot about him all the same. Just from the limited p.o.v. of Vicki Vale. There's no rule that we must learn everything about a character right away spelled out so that nobody can possibly miss it. Heck, if you do that, what's the point of a sequel?

Except that the sequel didn't give us ANYTHING. It was mostly about the Penguin & then about Catwoman. Batman was even more of a supporting character, whose actions made even less sense. To outright call Max a criminal to his face? Bruce Wayne would NEVER do that. Not the one I know. He fumbled & bumbled his way through the second movie, & only in "Batman Forever" did we get any glimpse into his psyche whatsoever, & even that got botched when they cut out the last line in his dad's journal.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I would definitely think Batman would call someone a criminal to their face

 

[Evil Twin]

Except that the sequel didn't give us ANYTHING. It was mostly about the Penguin & then about Catwoman. Batman was even more of a supporting character, whose actions made even less sense. To outright call Max a criminal to his face? Bruce Wayne would NEVER do that. Not the one I know. He fumbled & bumbled his way through the second movie, & only in "Batman Forever" did we get any glimpse into his psyche whatsoever, & even that got botched when they cut out the last line in his dad's journal.

I'm not going to get into the Batman Returns argument again, but the fact that all the villains are twisted reflections of portions of Batman's psyche is something I think argues against the idea that the sequel gave us nothing new about the character. Especially since all those aspects of his psyche try to kill each other.

Origins are great when the idea of "who he is and how he came to be" are among the most significant things about a character. OTOH, that's not always the case. Does anyone want to see a Wally West movie that centers around him adjusting to his new powers as Kid Flash, worshipping his uncle Barry, being a teen sidekick, spending time with the Titans, dealing with his uncle's death, and then putting on the Flash costume in the last scene or do people want to see a next generation superhero struggling to uphold a legacy and forced to grow into an adult? Do people want to see Steve Rogers struggling whether or not to volunteer for a experimental program, or do they want to see him get his shot and create the legend of Captain America? (Heck, arguably the best thing for that character is the "man out of time" stuff.) There's not a thing wrong with treating an origin as backstory if the current story is better than the origin.

Heck, maybe the motto should be, it's o.k. to be like WATCHMEN. Relevant information is filled in, but the overriding story is more important.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Now this I can agree on. But the fact is, when it comes to superheroes, more oftne than not, the how & why IS one of if not THE most imporant & interesting aspects of the character. Without it, we can wind up w/a mindless slamfest that goes nowhere. These are stories that need to be told.
Keep in mind, also, that unlike us, 2/3 of the people who go to see these movies DID NOT grow up reading the comics & would be lost w/o some type of explanation.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Now this I can agree on. But the fact is, when it comes to superheroes, more oftne than not, the how & why IS one of if not THE most imporant & interesting aspects of the character. Without it, we can wind up w/a mindless slamfest that goes nowhere. These are stories that need to be told.
Keep in mind, also, that unlike us, 2/3 of the people who go to see these movies DID NOT grow up reading the comics & would be lost w/o some type of explanation.

But their are original characters that exist and are loved who dont have backstories.

I dontthink mindless slamfests happen without origins. Daredevil and Ghost Rider proved that with all the exposition they had, they were slamfests, which was too bad because Daredevil had some great deleted scenes that were taken out in favor of more exposition.

Im not saying ignore the roots, but theres no way in hell that they should be filmed and shown before the story can start.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I'm not gonna reference my love for the literary James Bond again. What I will say is that like most people you learn about them from their actions. May great books and movies tell the story quite effectively a they stand without going back and doing the whys of how someone acts. Some exposition is cool, but the formula is wearing thin.

Think of other great movie heroes, Rambo, Commando, Die Hard, etc. They are who they are in the story and that serves the story quite well. THey jump right into the story and we learn who the individual is by his actions and his interactions with others.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I'm not gonna reference my love for the literary James Bond again. What I will say is that like most people you learn about them from their actions. May great books and movies tell the story quite effectively a they stand without going back and doing the whys of how someone acts. Some exposition is cool, but the formula is wearing thin.

Think of other great movie heroes, Rambo, Commando, Die Hard, etc. They are who they are in the story and that serves the story quite well. THey jump right into the story and we learn who the individual is by his actions and his interactions with others.

Definitely look at Die Hard. We learn that McLane is a nice friendly guy through his actions with the limo driver and Al. You see his sense of justice in both his fighting back during the whole movie and the fact that he didnt ignore that guys drug use.You know he doesnt let people walk on him because he mouths off to superiors which is probably why his marriage is on the rocks. And even though he always comes off as a brute, he cried when the plane exploded in Die Hard 2, so he actually cares.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Ok, I'm going to step back here and let others do the talking.
I feel I've said all I wanted to say concerning the matter.
Both sides bring up very interesting points.
It's like watching republicans and democrats go at each other.
Keep it up guys! t:

Heck, maybe the motto should be, it's o.k. to be like WATCHMEN. Relevant information is filled in, but the overriding story is more important.

Hmm, I've never read or heard of them until they were announced for an adaptation. Perhaps they will prove to be what I am currently looking for in the superhero genre.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I would definitely think Batman would call someone a criminal to their face

I didn't say "Batman"; I said Bruce. And he would never outright accuse anyone of a crime. Not without proof. That's not his style.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Definitely look at Die Hard. We learn that McLane is a nice friendly guy through his actions with the limo driver and Al. You see his sense of justice in both his fighting back during the whole movie and the fact that he didnt ignore that guys drug use.You know he doesnt let people walk on him because he mouths off to superiors which is probably why his marriage is on the rocks. And even though he always comes off as a brute, he cried when the plane exploded in Die Hard 2, so he actually cares.

Not the same thing. McClain wasn't a character who'd been through many incarnations & reinventions over the course of 50 years. And he was, when all is said & done, a cop. There was no great mystery to him, no dual identites, no double life. He didn't act one way in one part of his house & completely different in another part. My point is, in Burton's Bat-flick, what made the difference in Bruce choosing costumed vigilanteism as opposed to, say, joining the FBI or donating money to the Gotham PD? Or hiring abounty hunter to track down Napier? Or suicide? Or just getting some damn counseling & letting it go? There were several options available to him w/regard to how to respond to the tragic loss of his parents. They never clarified how he became the sort of man who would behave like an oaf in his dining room but be master of his domain in a cave beneath the house.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Not the same thing. McClain wasn't a character who'd been through many incarnations & reinventions over the course of 50 years. And he was, when all is said & done, a cop. There was no great mystery to him, no dual identites, no double life. He didn't act one way in one part of his house & completely different in another part. My point is, in Burton's Bat-flick, what made the difference in Bruce choosing costumed vigilanteism as opposed to, say, joining the FBI or donating money to the Gotham PD? Or hiring abounty hunter to track down Napier? Or suicide? Or just getting some damn counseling & letting it go? There were several options available to him w/regard to how to respond to the tragic loss of his parents. They never clarified how he became the sort of man who would behave like an oaf in his dining room but be master of his domain in a cave beneath the house.

Yet it still worked, spawned 3 sequels and an animated series that spawned one of the greatest shared universe of cartoons ever.

But Batmans one of the few people who actually goes out of his way to act differently as Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is more made up than Batman is. Other characters dont tend to play different roles. They usually act fairly similar in and out of their costumes. Batman needs the extra explanation.

And the fact that Batman didnt donate to GCPD or anything is because that would be a short movie. People understand the concept of a superhero. Its a person who puts on a mask and fights crime for whatever reason. Theres no real mystery to superheroes either.