Origin stories? Who needs them?

[ChickenScratch]

It does not matter that Batman has many sources to draw upon while Mclane has few (in fact he did start as a literary character too). Fact is, I see movies as moments in time of a fully formed character's life. A truly fully formed character stands on it's own within the confines of the story without reference to prior events.

When Arnold got off the helicopter in Predator and was sent off into the jungle you got all you needed to know initially, that he was a bad ass soldier and as it progressed you learned more about his leadership, his loyalty to his men, his value for women/innocent life.

Hell, they never got into the psyche of Dirty Harry either, each movie was a moment in time from his life and how he dealt with it and from that you learned more about him than some long drawn out exposition on his life and what changed him.

 

[Warhammer]

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.

I agree, except I wish that your last statement was 100% true. The good products don't always make the good money, and that's for any type of movie.

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

No, it's not fact.

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

It's obvious by this post and the other posts you made in this thread that you are anti-origin. I'll just do us a favor, and end our discussion because we're only going to disagree more. Whatever floats your boat.

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

Sadly, yep.

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.

You're right.

In America, when people think comic books, they think of two things. They think of adolescents and the stereotypical "geek." I am just saying that people aren't going to go see Iron Man or whatever superhero movie, watch it without a clue of an origin or backstory, and seriously want to flock to the comic book shops or do research on the net to figure it out. Now for a select minority, yeah, it happens and that is how new comic book fans are born, but for the vast majority, it doesn't work that way.

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.

I agree with you there, too. Blade, Hellboy, (etc.) did it, and in a way, it added so much more to the characters. The origin story can always work, but it's never necessary. Sometimes, it adds more to not have the origin story than it would to have it.

Jules: “That’s an interesting point.”

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.

Nope, all I am saying is that people can't really say how origins in superhero movies are unnecessary, then compare Robin Hood to Spider-Man. They are completely different types of characters. Robin Hood wasn't like a comic book character with an origin, and all of that. He was created with a purpose, and bam. Of course, he would not need an origin story because he never had one to begin with. The only way he'd have one is if he had a movie, and the writer decided to add an origin story to support the character and show more of a "motivation" for his actions. I'm not saying a Spider-Man movie with no full-on origin would be a bad movie, or wouldn't work.

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.

You're right. Iron Man's origin in the movie was like a cut-in-paste job, but my main point is that the origin was necessary as it added more to the character of Tony Stark. It helped him become more of a likable character, and for being a character that barely anyone outside of the comic book geeks know, not having an origin would have been a bad move. His origin is key to everything plot related in the movie.

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.

Yes, they did. My Iron Man reason is in the above post, but I feel that they did what they did in Batman Begins because we had never seen Batman's origin that fleshed out in any of the movies or cartoons. In Batman's case, it was unique and original because he hadn't had it with Tim Burton. It gave, at least, one version of Batman a true, solid origin.

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.

Yep, there are many different ways to look at a potential story. But hey, I'm just fine with whatever works. Origin or origin-less stories are out of my control. I can only judge on whether it on whether it was good or not.

 

[Mutagen]

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.

While I do agree with your statement, I feel that the origin idea should depend on if the movie will be better without it or with it.

If the director, writer, producer and / or actors feel that they can't do the origin justice, then they shouldn't do it.

However if they feel they can do it better or even uniquely than previous versions, then by all means I would not stop them.

 

[The Major]

I agree, except I wish that your last statement was 100% true. The good products don't always make the good money, and that's for any type of movie.

With the comic adaptions usually this seems to be the case IMO.

 

[cerealkiller182]

No, it's not fact.

Yes it is.

Film started out as early film which was mostly silent except for accompanying music. You werent told anything about the characters, you were shown. Its a visual medium, so everything about the characters can and should be given to you through audio and visual cues.

Most experts will tell you that narration is a cop out. That its lazy filmmaking because its so easy to just tell your viewer what the character is thinking and feeling, but filmmaking in general is about showing a story. If you are going to tell a story might as well read a book.

http://www.hodrw.com/charactersasactors.htm

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Nice post, Warhammer.
Go check out the response I gave to Chris Wallace and terry78 on page two.
You might find something interesting to reply to there as well.

While I do agree with your statement, I feel that the origin idea should depend on if the movie will be better without it or with it.

If the director, writer, producer and / or actors feel that they can't do the origin justice, then they shouldn't do it.

However if they feel they can do it better or even uniquely than previous versions, then by all means I would not stop them.

Hmm, here’s a question for you all to ponder on:
Could it be that origin stories are the easy way out for a good superhero franchise starter?
Is it the first thing that pops into the filmmaker’s mind as a ‘sure thing’? A ‘no-brainer’?

 

[Mutagen]

Nice post, Warhammer.
Go check out the response I gave to Chris Wallace and terry78 on page two.
You might find something interesting to reply to there as well.


Hmm, here’s a question for you all to ponder on:
Could it be that origin stories are the easy way out for a good superhero franchise starter?
Is it the first thing that pops into the filmmaker’s mind as a ‘sure thing’? A ‘no-brainer’?

It's true, it would be a lot easier. I also know that some of the best stories ever are the origin stories, and it's probably exciting to be a part of a story that has captured thousands, if not, millions of fans.

For fans who've seen and heard and read the story hundreds of times, it's probably a waste of time, because you know what's going to happen.

Although, for the first timers who haven't seen or heard of the characters before, it's a chance to connect to the popularity of the idea in question. Let's not forget where a good portion of the money comes from as well; the kids! Who may just be curious, and may turn into lifelong fans.

You're right though, it would be harder to earn the fans respect by their own means, and appears to be the easy way out.

 

[Warhammer]

Yes it is.

Film started out as early film which was mostly silent except for accompanying music. You werent told anything about the characters, you were shown. Its a visual medium, so everything about the characters can and should be given to you through audio and visual cues.

And?

Most experts will tell you that narration is a cop out. That its lazy filmmaking because its so easy to just tell your viewer what the character is thinking and feeling, but filmmaking in general is about showing a story. If you are going to tell a story might as well read a book.

http://www.hodrw.com/charactersasactors.htm

That is absolute.

That shows no reason why films aren't "supposed" to not show, and that they should only tell. Films can and do show origins of the characters. Whether it is "supposed" to be is irrelevant to the fact that it does happen in many films. Sometimes, showing an origin (this can be about any film, not just superhero films) helps the story play out how the writer intended it to be.

Music definitely isn't how it was when it was first created. Things change. The same can be said for film. Perhaps, the first films didn't have the narrative, and only "showed." Film making adapted, and if someone wants to put in a narrative and "tell," then he/she can damn well do so. There is no fact, or only way to be done, and the fact that it isn't like that proves my point. It's not like you hear a voice-over guy narrating the whole story for you. This whole thread is about origins, so I don't get what you mean by "That its lazy filmmaking because its so easy to just tell your viewer what the character is thinking and feeling."

 

[Warhammer]

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.

BINGO! That is the difference between the "original" on-screen characters and adaptations of comic book superheroes. That's the difference between Spider-Man and Indiana Jones.

 

[cerealkiller182]

But general audience doesnt know about all these different incarnations. Most learn about the characters the same way they learn about the original on screen characters.

 

[Evil Twin]

But general audience doesnt know about all these different incarnations. Most learn about the characters the same way they learn about the original on screen characters.

One would think that the fact that these are not original film characters would allow additional options in presenting or not presenting an origin not less. Heck, the biggest complaints about how origins are presented often come from those that are most familiar with the characters in the first place.

There's not a thing wrong with treating an origin as backstory, if the story you're going with is strong enough. And there are many ways to handle backstory. More people probably saw Bill Bixby - The Incredible Hulk on a weekly basis than actually saw the pilot/origin, and they weren't lost because the opening credits did a quick recap. Literally, one to two minutes is enough time to recap most heroes origins.

Not that there's anything wrong with an origin done well. Iron Man pulled it off, although Tony Stark's character arc pretty much ended in the middle of the movie. As I said, often you have a true character arc with an origin with the character going from everyman to HERO! The sequel is often harder to handle as once the hero is established, most of them stand still character-wise and primarily deal with external problems. That's fine if you want to do a plot based series, ala James Bond, but that seems somewhat out of vogue these days.

 

[Chris Wallace]

BINGO! That is the difference between the "original" on-screen characters and adaptations of comic book superheroes. That's the difference between Spider-Man and Indiana Jones.

Big time.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Here's a great example that just came to my attention - Spectacular Spider-Man.
I haven’t seen much of the series but, for whatever PG-ratings reason, Uncle Ben’s death nor Peter’s spider bite were given any extensive explanation early on in the series other than a mention or two.
What do you people think? What’s your ‘oh, but that’s different’ argument?

 

[luca_frontino]

I'm against origins.
For me, The Dark Knight works better as the first Batman movie.
I'm going to skip Iron Man because is an origin.
The Incredible Hulk should not have included any hint to his origins.
Superman Returns didn't need those flashbacks.
Fantastic Four is also extremely boring because it's an origin film.

I'm in hope that Captain America and Thor won't be origin movies, but I'm afraid yes.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Alright, luca.
But the question is - why?

 

[The Navigator]

I'm against origins.
For me, The Dark Knight works better as the first Batman movie.
I'm going to skip Iron Man because is an origin.
The Incredible Hulk should not have included any hint to his origins.
Superman Returns didn't need those flashbacks.
Fantastic Four is also extremely boring because it's an origin film.

I'm in hope that Captain America and Thor won't be origin movies, but I'm afraid yes.

So, if you were going to do a Green Lantern movie, you wouldn't explain how Hal Jordan got the ring?

 

[Chris Wallace]

Here's a great example that just came to my attention - Spectacular Spider-Man.
I haven’t seen much of the series but, for whatever PG-ratings reason, Uncle Ben’s death nor Peter’s spider bite were given any extensive explanation early on in the series other than a mention or two.
What do you people think? What’s your ‘oh, but that’s different’ argument?

Okay, bad example. 1-we have a VERY recent string of films covering that. And an animated series the decade before. The origin was established already, ESPECIALLY since the origin that they used tied mainly into the one from the movies. So in this case it was useful, but not essential as the characters have already been introduced.
2-you can't compare the approach taken for a cartoon w/that of a movie. A tv series can not cover everything b/c they can come back next week & fill in. A movie has 2-3 years before the next installment, if not longer. And that's IF there's a sequel.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm against origins.
For me, The Dark Knight works better as the first Batman movie.
I'm going to skip Iron Man because is an origin.
The Incredible Hulk should not have included any hint to his origins.
Superman Returns didn't need those flashbacks.
Fantastic Four is also extremely boring because it's an origin film.

I'm in hope that Captain America and Thor won't be origin movies, but I'm afraid yes.

Superman Returns was tied into the Donner films so its origin was already established.
Out of respect for those here who liked the movie, I'll say nothing more about that.
I strongly disagree with all of your examples & you really failed to illustrate why you're against origins.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Hopefully in 20 years when Marvel reboots their franchises, we won't see origins except for villains.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Okay, bad example. 1-we have a VERY recent string of films covering that. And an animated series the decade before. The origin was established already, ESPECIALLY since the origin that they used tied mainly into the one from the movies. So in this case it was useful, but not essential as the characters have already been introduced.

I wouldn't say it tied with the movies but that's exactly the point - it relied on a different medium to tell Peter’s origin and trusted its audience enough to already be educated in that.
In the film universe that's very rare but there's at least one example that comes to my mind of a story that similarly breaches mediums - Southland Tales, began in a graphic novel, ended in a movie. Although of course it's not of the same genre as Spider-Man.
You don't see a superhero movie doing that?

All I want is for the genre to be experimented with a little bit more, much like with Ang Lee's Hulk, which I mildly enjoyed. Not to mention I enjoyed it more than the Incredible Hulk (altho IH is still a good action movie).

 

[Chris Wallace]

A lot of the arguments I'm seeing against origins are illogical. To say that we don't need to know the how & why of superheroes? This is the kind of mentality that led to movies like "Batman & Robin". Take away the motivation behind what they do, & there's no point in telling their story at all. I don't mean that every hero across the board needs to come out with a 2-hour exposition of what brought them to this point, but to say none of them do is ridiculous.

 

[cerealkiller182]

A lot of the arguments I'm seeing against origins are illogical. To say that we don't need to know the how & why of superheroes? This is the kind of mentality that led to movies like "Batman & Robin". Take away the motivation behind what they do, & there's no point in telling their story at all. I don't mean that every hero across the board needs to come out with a 2-hour exposition of what brought them to this point, but to say none of them do is ridiculous.

Who says get rid of te motivation? Just because the exposition isnt presented doesnt mean you change the character. Its still the same character. Its no where near the same mentality as Batman and Robin. Im not talking about changing characters, its about diving into good interesting stories rather than having boring repetetive origin stories. Skipping the origin does not negate it.

 

[Chris Wallace]

How are origins repetitive OR boring? If Spider-Man, Iron Man, the Hulk & Batman's origins were in any way similar I'd buy that but they're not. How do you get that?

 

[cerealkiller182]

How are origins repetitive OR boring? If Spider-Man, Iron Man, the Hulk & Batman's origins were in any way similar I'd buy that but they're not. How do you get that?

Its all formulaic. Something happens to put them on some path, hero tries to use powers but rarely gets it down right, another bad thing happens usually very personal to them and they decide to become a vigilante.

The part where the hero practices but screws up is very boring and only really worked for Batman, since he literally learns as he goes and finds immediate solutions for his problems.

Regardless, not showing the origin does not change the character. If anything trying to fit the origin story as changed the characters the most (ie Doom in Fantastic Four, Hulk in Ang Lee's Hulk)

 

[Chris Wallace]

I wouldn't say it tied with the movies but that's exactly the point - it relied on a different medium to tell Peter’s origin and trusted its audience enough to already be educated in that.
In the film universe that's very rare but there's at least one example that comes to my mind of a story that similarly breaches mediums - Southland Tales, began in a graphic novel, ended in a movie. Although of course it's not of the same genre as Spider-Man.
You don't see a superhero movie doing that?

All I want is for the genre to be experimented with a little bit more, much like with Ang Lee's Hulk, which I mildly enjoyed. Not to mention I enjoyed it more than the Incredible Hulk (altho IH is still a good action movie).

Again, "Spectacular" is a bad example. Keep in mind also that it's aimed primarily at kids who-1, aren't as quick to ponder the how & why of an action series, & 2-have already been fed a backstory via the movies. And since the only contradiction between the movie origin & the series is the addition of the mechanical webshooters, you can't compare it to, say, a movie about Captain America, where the audience is coming in cold with no real point of reference to draw from.
Look, comics introduce & establish the characters. Movies that are based on comics & want to appeal to the readers thereof (albeit not exclusively) do the same thing. They're following a pre-established pattern. I've been put off many a comic simply b/c its backstory was either lacking or unclear. It makes perfect sense to do it this way, & I don't see it changing any time soon. I also don't see a reason to.