Origin stories? Who needs them?

[The Major]

That’s an excellent point.
Believe it or not, I’ve never seen any Superman other than Returns.

You should definitely watch the first and second Reeve movies. If you aren't a fan of Superman they'll make you see his potential.

How are those movies in the origin department?

They show the key details. They do it very well, in fact.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Being a defenseless weakling makes a better secret identity then being a person who lashes out at armed psychos.



Yes, he was stupid. For getting witnesses to notice he can get violent around dangerous people at a moments notice.



This wasn't a bar fight. He threatened a crazy psycho, who had killed the mayor in broad daylight not to long ago right in front of him, who was with a few armed thugs.

What Im saying is anyone can defend themselves when they start swinging **** around. He didnt look like a crime fighter in that scene to me.

He didn't just lash out with no planning. He armed himself with a poker before doing anything IIRC.

If someone was threatening me, I would grab something and defend myself. Doesnt make me I am moonlighting as a crime fighter.

It wasn't shock. He looked calm and distant.



Exactly.



No, it can't. You've already admitted he didn't act like he was in shock.

I didnt say he didnt act shocked. I said he wasnt shocked cause I knew what was going on. He could easily say he was shocked and people would believe him.

 

[Ziggyman]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine needs an origin story...Same goes for X-Men Origins: Magneto!

 

[Chris Wallace]

That’s an excellent point.
Believe it or not, I’ve never seen any Superman other than Returns.
How are those movies in the origin department?

Superman I told his origin pretty well for the most part, although I found several things to be pretty flawed. Brando gave a pretty halfhearted performance as Jor-El; he never bothered to memorize his lines nor learn how to pronounce the name of the planet his character was so desperate to save. My biggest problem origin-wise was the movie had Supes standing in one spot for 12 years as the digitized consciousness of Jor-El told him where he came from what he must do.

 

[Chris Wallace]

You should definitely watch the first and second Reeve movies. If you aren't a fan of Superman they'll make you see his potential.



They show the key details. They do it very well, in fact.

I found Reeve to be the best thing about those movies by far.

 

[Slain]

I do think that Origin stories are necessary. They make the character much more understandable, and I belive that they make you feel more "attatched" to that character as well.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Just watched The Dark Knight a few days ago and here’s a great example of two sides of the coin done right:
Joker - no origin whatsoever yet captured everyone’s attention without a problem;
TwoFace - the reveal of his face in the hospital wouldn’t have worked so well without the build up of his character earlier in the movie.

I believe all this can work with the heroes just as it worked for the villains.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Giving us Joker's origin would've killed all the lies that he told. Plus, I think Nolan was going old school with it, as there was no origin in the early comics. I saw elements of numerous comic plotlikes in TDK, from "The Killing Joke" to "Hush", & I found it to be overall very faithful to both the comics & the original film. Like I said, I didn't see a need for Joker's origin as Burton had already given us one. Clearly the new Joker didn't fall into a vat of toxic waste, but the way he was presented made him all the more interesting without knowing how he got that way.
On the other hand, Joker was presented with neither an origin, a motive, nor any sort of backstory whatsoever. I don't think this could be done with any hero comig fresh out of the gate. Perhaps they could do it w/Superman, whose history has been told countless times, but again, I can't see them going that route with anyone else & it working out.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Oh, ye of little faith…

 

[Chris Wallace]

I just don't see how they could logically pull it off. Again, I mean with no backstory whatsoever. Villains are done that way in the comics all the time, (Green Goblin, Joker, Jackal) & we get their origin down the road. The only hero I can recall them doing that with is Wolverine.

 

[Scooter]

Origins are often among the most interesting phases of the superhero-type character's story. The "birth" of something so unique and extraordinary as a superhuman is fascinating stuff. Most of what happens after that can get boring and repetitive: superhero fights bad guy, superhero struggles, superhero wins, etc. Shyamalan tapped into this when he made Unbreakable.

The problem is repetitiveness. So long as the origin story can be told in new and interesting ways, it should be continually valid. I don't need to see baby Superman crash down in a cornfield again (although, apart of me feels he never really got a satisfying version of this story), but I'd love to see T'Challa's rise to the throne of Wakanda, or Captain America's genesis as a military propoganda piece with generational issues. So it's good to stretch the limits of "adaptation" and let film creators do more or less what they please. Use what fits the story.

 

[The Major]

I just don't see how they could logically pull it off. Again, I mean with no backstory whatsoever. Villains are done that way in the comics all the time, (Green Goblin, Joker, Jackal) & we get their origin down the road. The only hero I can recall them doing that with is Wolverine.

Different medium, different rules.

What your suggesting would fit a tv show not films.

A villain may only get one shot at being in a movie never to be seen again in the sequels since there are much less films that can be made, even with the popular franchises. Compared to a tv show which could get 13 to 22 episodes a season.

That's if the franchise even gets sequels.

 

[The Navigator]

They already did a superhero movie where they didn't tell us the hero's origin, Batman 89. They started him out as a mystery, and the only thing we ever really learn was that Bruce's parents got killed. Not where/when he trained, or got (made?) all his gear, etc.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Origins are often among the most interesting phases of the superhero-type character's story. The "birth" of something so unique and extraordinary as a superhuman is fascinating stuff. Most of what happens after that can get boring and repetitive: superhero fights bad guy, superhero struggles, superhero wins, etc. Shyamalan tapped into this when he made Unbreakable.

The problem is repetitiveness. So long as the origin story can be told in new and interesting ways, it should be continually valid. I don't need to see baby Superman crash down in a cornfield again (although, apart of me feels he never really got a satisfying version of this story), but I'd love to see T'Challa's rise to the throne of Wakanda, or Captain America's genesis as a military propoganda piece with generational issues. So it's good to stretch the limits of "adaptation" and let film creators do more or less what they please. Use what fits the story.

For the most part I agree. I don't think more than 5-10 minutes needs to be spent on T'Challa's backstory-for my tastes-as I would rather see the majority of the film be devoted to him ruling with knowledge & wisdom & not trying to figure out what to do.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Different medium, different rules.

What your suggesting would fit a tv show not films.

A villain may only get one shot at being in a movie never to be seen again in the sequels since there are much less films that can be made, even with the popular franchises. Compared to a tv show which could get 13 to 22 episodes a season.

That's if the franchise even gets sequels.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm pointing out why I don't think it would work. You added to my reasons. If the hero is painted as nothing more than a guy who puts on a weird outfit & beats up criminals, we may never get to the rhyme or reason b/c we may never see him again.

 

[The Major]

They already did a superhero movie where they didn't tell us the hero's origin, Batman 89. They started him out as a mystery, and the only thing we ever really learn was that Bruce's parents got killed. Not where/when he trained, or got (made?) all his gear, etc.

The analogy doesn't work well with Batman.

Everyone knows the basics of his origin before '89 was filmed.

It's the same with Spider-man, Superman and the Hulk. Though the movies and tv show did alter Hulks origin significantly while the cartoons did get closer to the source material.

Most super-heroes just have their movie to reveal their origins in or the public will never know it.

 

[Heretic]

If its a mystery type character Id be fine with it. Id have no problem with a movie about The Black Hood without an origin, since the best part of that is having the hero die and then the hood passes on to someone else. Youd end up with an origin story for the NEXT hero without the public knowing it in advance. Id also be fine with someone like...I dont know...Grifter...starting the movie off by mowing people down.

I also liked someones idea of just throwing The Flash out there in a movie and briefly explaining his power, then killing him in the end so Wally could take over in part 2.

 

[The Navigator]

The analogy doesn't work well with Batman.

Everyone knows the basics of his origin before '89 was filmed.

It's the same with Spider-man, Superman and the Hulk. Though the movies and tv show did alter Hulks origin significantly while the cartoons did get closer to the source material.

Most super-heroes just have their movie to reveal their origins in or the public will never know it.

I agree. How would you do any Green Lantern movie without some form of origins?

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

If its a mystery type character Id be fine with it. Id have no problem with a movie about The Black Hood without an origin, since the best part of that is having the hero die and then the hood passes on to someone else. Youd end up with an origin story for the NEXT hero without the public knowing it in advance. Id also be fine with someone like...I dont know...Grifter...starting the movie off by mowing people down.

I also liked someones idea of just throwing The Flash out there in a movie and briefly explaining his power, then killing him in the end so Wally could take over in part 2.

Exactly. That goes with what I proposed earlier for the filmmakers to do something unexpected, totally outside the boundaries of a traditional superhero movie.

Also, it just hit me, I’ve seen it quite a while ago and surprisingly haven’t thought more about it till now - Hancock.
Along with Batman 89 and Spectacular Spider-Man, I consider that movie to be a very good example of an origin-less superhero.
Now many complained that they didn’t really explain Hancock’s past and that’s a point to my case. I enjoyed it for what it was - a popcorn flick, not really a full superhero movie…yet. I didn’t need to see his back-story. I got it all from the dialogue. Those who didn’t like that particular aspect of it simply means that the origin-less idea is not for them.

 

[The Major]

I agree. How would you do any Green Lantern movie without some form of origins?

I wouldn't, personally.

At the very least I'd show the key scenes in flashback, then have it linked to the plot of the movie in some way.

 

[The Major]

Exactly. That goes with what I proposed earlier for the filmmakers to do something unexpected, totally outside the boundaries of a traditional superhero movie.

Also, it just hit me, I’ve seen it quite a while ago and surprisingly haven’t thought more about it till now - Hancock.
Along with Batman 89 and Spectacular Spider-Man, I consider that movie to be a very good example of an origin-less superhero.
Now many complained that they didn’t really explain Hancock’s past and that’s a point to my case. I enjoyed it for what it was - a popcorn flick, not really a full superhero movie…yet. I didn’t need to see his back-story. I got it all from the dialogue. Those who didn’t like that particular aspect of it simply means that the origin-less idea is not for them.

Hancock doesn't have the baggage of continuity tied to it since it wasn't a comic adaption. That's how it can get away without his origin being shown.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Hancock doesn't have the baggage of continuity tied to it since it wasn't a comic adaption. That's how it can get away without his origin being shown.

Apparently, judging by the criticism it got, not really.
In any case, surely an adaptation implies certain resemblance to the source material, but the origin VS origin-less debate is not about how you change it, it’s about what and how much you choose to mention. Every writer/director has its own vision about it. Just like any particular audience has its own taste towards it.

 

[The Major]

Apparently, judging by the criticism it got, not really.
In any case, surely an adaptation implies certain resemblance to the source material, but the origin VS origin-less debate is not about how you change it, it’s about what and how much you choose to mention. Every writer/director has its own vision about it. Just like any particular audience has its own taste towards it.

Agreed.

 

[Ben Breeck]

Hancock doesn't have the baggage of continuity tied to it since it wasn't a comic adaption. That's how it can get away without his origin being shown.

Hancock was based on a seven issue indie comic by Rob Liefield. Well, okay. Maybe "loosly inspired by in an almost unrecognizable form" would be a better way to put it.

Still, Liefield started in the middle of the story, and didn't get around to the origin before he decided to call it quits.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The analogy doesn't work well with Batman.

Everyone knows the basics of his origin before '89 was filmed.

It's the same with Spider-man, Superman and the Hulk. Though the movies and tv show did alter Hulks origin significantly while the cartoons did get closer to the source material.

Most super-heroes just have their movie to reveal their origins in or the public will never know it.

No-everyone DID NOT know Batman's origin before the '89 movie. The most common association most people made with the character prior to '89 was Adam West, & that show never touched on his reasons, his motivation, even his personality. Many people came out of the '89 movie wondering why it was so dark, why he was so grim & why none of the TV show's humor was retained (except in some over-the-top bits from the Joker.) Which is why Schumacher went the route that he did; to bring the films closer to the Batman that he remembered.
I'd say the same of the Hulk, as his TV show permeated the image of a painted bodybuilder in the minds of most people, making them resistant to him being a massive, monstrous engine of destruction. As much as I liked the 2008 film, I wish they hadn't felt the need to shrink him down & weaken him to (IMO) placate the Ferrigno fans.
I'm thankful that Spider-Man's TV series didn't last long enough to taint the common perception of him, as I would hate to have to defend the loss of his uncle being the event that galvanized him into heroism, or debate the loss of the bulky utility belt.
Where Supes is concerned, his origin is pretty much universal & is the only one that has not had any significant changes in its numerous TV & film incarnactions. Everyone knows it. There's nothing you can really add or take away. And there's no need to.