Origin stories? Who needs them?

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.
Dirty Harry & John McClain don't have superpowers, elaborate custom-made gadgets or fancy costumes. They don't have alternate personalities or any other traits of superheroes. Bad example.
 
Yet whenever the sequel comes around all filmmakers can say is "Now that we got all that tedious stuff out of the way we can focus on making an original, interesting story."
 
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.

If DK had been Nolan's first Bat-film, 1-he'd pretty much be doing the same thing Burton did, which would defeat the purpose of revamping the franchise, & 2-it wouldn't establish that this is in fact a new franchise.
 
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.
Mmm, it’s already been said here that reasons and motivations don’t have to be exclusively shown through cause and effect origins. There are many other ways to do that, both in casual and meaningful scenes.

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.
Ah, but that’s exactly right:
1) As I said it’s a fairly original idea to ‘breach mediums’ in such a way - if the cartoon relies on the movie, why can’t a movie rely on a comic book?
2) So what you’re saying is that not only kids are the most proper audience for it but that they are also the most educated to appreciate it - that they would almost certainly know Spidey’s origin through the movies.

Why can’t similarly superhero movies be oriented towards the educated comic book and geek demographic? As they already are, to an extent.
As I said before in this thread I’m thinking about the benefit of the story, not the benefit of the audience. I believe that popularising a franchise for all audiences hinders the quality of the plot. I believe that the more audience specific a movie is, the better its audience becomes - one that would go through the trouble to understand it without being spoon fed an extensive explanation right there on the spot. To me that means that viewer is much more dedicated and wants to appreciate the ‘art work’ for what it is - don’t bend the movie, bend the audience.

The fact that it’s heavily action oriented I consider to be a mute point.

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.
Wait, I’m sorry, I don’t get what Captain America has to do with a Spider-Man franchise??? :huh:

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.
Is there a reason to do anything?
What I’m suggesting is a creative experiment - to dare something original.
It doesn’t have to be always by the numbers.
I understand that your type of person wouldn’t be the right audience for such a thing but that’s also partially the point why it should be made.
And question - why were you put off by an unclear origin? What is it exactly that you are looking for in a superhero tale?

Dirty Harry & John McClain don't have superpowers, elaborate custom-made gadgets or fancy costumes. They don't have alternate personalities or any other traits of superheroes. Bad example.
It doesn’t have to be as complicated as you make it sound to be.
Here are a few examples how all those things can be tapped into fast and easy - a flashback, a dialogue scene, a test/exhibition scene. All those scenes can be deep and emotional enough without being in a linear 2 hour origin story.
It’s not that it can’t be done; people (both filmmakers and audiences alike) just like it easier that way.

Yet whenever the sequel comes around all filmmakers can say is "Now that we got all that tedious stuff out of the way we can focus on making an original, interesting story."
Hehe, yeah, they do say that sometimes. Although not in such a straight forward dry manner. :oldrazz:
 
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

Yes but I don't see your point in Spider-Man we're never told anything about Peter Parker. We're not told that he is bullied, we're not told that he and Harry became friends because they're both outsider's, we're not told that MJ puts on a face at school, we're not told that Peter tries to win money to impress her, we're not told that Peter let the guy go for revenge, we're not told that the guy is the same one who killed Ben and we're not told that he becomes Spider-Man to make up for that. We are shown all that. Batman Begins has problems with telling and not showing but that extends to the whole movie.

This whole thread is just turning into "I like origins!" "Well, I don't."

To me when they're done well they're great, when they're done poorly they suck.
 
Yes but I don't see your point in Spider-Man we're never told anything about Peter Parker. We're not told that he is bullied, we're not told that he and Harry became friends because they're both outsider's, we're not told that MJ puts on a face at school, we're not told that Peter tries to win money to impress her, we're not told that Peter let the guy go for revenge, we're not told that the guy is the same one who killed Ben and we're not told that he becomes Spider-Man to make up for that. We are shown all that. Batman Begins has problems with telling and not showing but that extends to the whole movie.

This whole thread is just turning into "I like origins!" "Well, I don't."

To me when they're done well they're great, when they're done poorly they suck.

I was referring to film in general in response to someones post. I dont even know where I was going with it at this point.

As for my stance with origins in general, Im referring more to Daredevil which was just boring as hell origin which took the place of some great Matt Murdock scenes in the Coolio subplot (see Directors Cut)and that most of the interesting origins like Spidey and bats are done. I dont care to see Green Arrow on an island hunting whatever is on the island. Even with the drug runners, its still pretty boring and played out (six days seven nights meets castaway). Supermax sounds way more interesting and easily transitioned for unaware fans as it is a masked vigilante which has just about become commonplace in film. Watching Blade train for years would be way less exciting than batman and the league of shadows.
 
The point I've been trying to make is, we shouldn't say "No origin stories ever". That's even more ignorant & unrealistic than saying "Every comic movie should be an origin story." The fact is, we are dealing with a meidum that has always thrived on narratives, backstories, the how & why of it all. There are times when it's not called for-Black Panther comes to mind. He's the strong, confident ruler of a prosperous country. I don't want to see him as a fledgling kid who doesn't know what he's doing. A quick little rundown or recap would be just fine in his case. Even if we'd gotten a new, original (& well-made) Superman movie in 2006, I didn't see the need to watch Krypton explode again. I don't see a great need to show how Thor got his hammer. But many heroes' origins are a major part of who they are & when introducing them to moviegoers who don't read comics, their stories should be told. The events that led Peter Parker to become Spider-Man define who he is. Same for Batman. The big mistake the Burton & Schumacher films made was taking the focus off of him. Sure we know his parents' death motivated him but we know precious littel else. However, we know everything about why Jack Napier became the Joker, how Penguin got the way he is, how Pamela Isley became Poison Ivy. The movies became about the villains, w/Batman being little more than a supporting character. (You guys like to argue, but Jack Nicholson got top billing AND twice as much screen time as Keaton.) I don't think you can do a good Green Lantern movie without showing us how he got his ring. You should really show Captain America's backstory before thrusting the audience into his world, for then & only then can you understand his set-in-stone mentality as to what America is about. But neither the pro- nor anti-origin side is 100% right, by which I mean neither policy applies across the board.
 
Now that the wait is finally over, check out Nolan's Batman movies for both sides of the argument. The first film covers Batman's origin, and the audience learns things about Batman's past that even the fans didn't know, but it was all very engrossing and showed a logical path from a scared kid watching his parents die to the greatest crime-fighter ever.

For the sequel, when we meet the Joker, we never learn his origin. We don't know who he is, where he came from, what drives him, anything. He just is. And that makes him a billion times more menacing than if we saw him fall into the vat of acid, or first get his face sliced into that hideous grin.
 
Thanks for telling those of us who haven't seen "Dark Knight" yet.
 
The point I've been trying to make is, we shouldn't say "No origin stories ever".
And we're already long past that point.
Certainly you feel like some of the things you know about your favourite characters is essential information. I'm asking the question - are those things really essential to tell a good story? Is it really the only way to tell a story? Can we not do a version without them?
Now that we got Nolan's Batman, to our satisfaction, we can look at Burton's and ask - is it really so unworthy of the Batman mythos? Be it any other major comic book character, why can't there be a movie where the superhero is not the main focus and is treated more like a legend or a mystery?
Like I keep reminding of my stance towards the audience, similarly I wouldn’t mind pushing back the character’s reputation when it comes to a good storytelling idea.
Just like you said in your speech, all of us have their own preferences when it comes to what is important and what isn’t to know about that or the other superhero. That I believe hinders our enjoyment of the plot that we got.
I consider comic book movies the same as the comic books they were based on - it’s another writer’s version. There is no definitive ‘right’ way to make a superhero movie, other than your own. So I’m perfectly fine with filmmakers and comic book writers alike to make their own original version. My job is to like it or not but I can’t say that ‘this is not what [insert superhero] is about’ because there are many ways to tell the same story.

Nonetheless good speech.
 
Thanks for telling those of us who haven't seen "Dark Knight" yet.
It's hinted in the trailer, when Gordon says, "No name, no other alias, clothing is custom, nothing in his pockets but knives and lint..."
 
If DK had been Nolan's first Bat-film, 1-he'd pretty much be doing the same thing Burton did, which would defeat the purpose of revamping the franchise, & 2-it wouldn't establish that this is in fact a new franchise.

The Dark Knight alone establish even better that is overwriting the previous films.
Two words:
Joker
Twoface

Also, add the fact of all the people who loved seeing TDK and didn't see Begins.
Origins are useless.
 
Yes luca, you keep saying that but please elaborate on your opinion, why are they useless?
 
They are useless 'cause they're not needed.
Wolverine was well known for his untold origins, 'till 2001. After that, they started to publish Logan's early life on comics and now they're going to tell them even with a pointless movie.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Batman Begins is seen as a success, when the real cashing machine is TDK.
 
Not needed ever? That makes even less sense than saying they're needed always.
 
They are useless 'cause they're not needed.
Wolverine was well known for his untold origins, 'till 2001. After that, they started to publish Logan's early life on comics and now they're going to tell them even with a pointless movie.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Wolverine's a bad example. He was made to be a cypher to the audience deliberately. He didn't even know his own origin! With most super-heroes that isn't is the case.

Batman Begins is seen as a success, when the real cashing machine is TDK.

Without BB TDK wouldn't have been such a success. It set up the franchise both creatively with Batman's origin and got the public excited about the franchise again.
 
Without BB TDK wouldn't have been such a success. It set up the franchise both creatively with Batman's origin and got the public excited about the franchise again.

Wrong! There are thousands of people who didn't see Begins and went to see TDK. Thanks to Ledger's Joker.
TDK success is in NO WAY correlated to Begins.
 
Wrong! There are thousands of people who didn't see Begins and went to see TDK.

Batman Begins was still incredibly successful for WB.

People didn't need to see it to know the franchise was worth believeing in again. All they needed was to read articles about it or talk to people who had seen it themselves.


Thanks to Ledger's Joker.
TDK success is in NO WAY correlated to Begins.

Ledger's Joker and his death did bump up interest in the movie more then BB. Only they weren't the only reason people wanted to see it. BB created a demand for a sequel before Ledger was even signed on. They didn't need Joker or Ledger to make Batman relevant again.
 
Oh, really? BTW The Joker got no origins in TDK. Does it make him less interesting?

You're not supposed to know Joker's origin. It's part of his mystique.

You are supposed to know Batman's. It's what drives the character forward.
 
It's hinted in the trailer, when Gordon says, "No name, no other alias, clothing is custom, nothing in his pockets but knives and lint..."

That didn't make it abundantly clear that no trace of his origin was given. And at any rate, we're really talking about the heroes here, not the villains. Nolan is clearly out to avoid repeating Burton & Schumacher's mistakes. So he's taking the focus off the villains & putting it back on Batman where it belongs. He didn't give us an origin for Ra's or Scarecrow either. Last time we saw Joker, it was all about him. So I don't mind them keeping a bit of mystery to his story. Besides,
the way he kept giving multiple explanations for his scars, it's far more enjoyable for us to not tknow whether or not he was telling the truth. A story like that loses its impact if we know it's bull.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,268
Messages
22,076,509
Members
45,875
Latest member
Pducklila
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"