The audience DOES want to understand the character, but you can do that by throwing them into an ongoing plot and see how they react.
That's why I said ''
not necessarily''.
You can, but I won't agree that it is the best way to go. You don't just throw things at the audience and expect them to react positively. You work things out and give it to them well explained so they have a better understanding and can relate to the character more.
That is better than lecturing how and why. It is how film works.
It is not. The superhero movies don't just put you in the middle of the action anymore. They give us something to understand and follow.
-Green Lantern is supposedly not being a labored origin story.
As said by Reynolds, no. They won't spend too much time on that, from what it seems. But it will have an origin story nonetheless explaining it. How can you have a movie about Green Lantern without having that?
-Batman 89 wasnt an origin and was very good.
I don't deny that, but also it is a movie about the villain, not the hero. It explains the villain's origin, his deeds and death. A cicle of life. Batman was almost secondary in that movie, if not at all. They focused more on the villain than in the title character. Bruce Wayne was just a boring character that got noone interested. He was forgettable.
You missed the travels through Europe and Asia, but I never once misunderstood the whys and hows of Batman from that film.
And somehow you knew how he became Batman just by watching a story that wasn't about him? Maybe someone with knowledge from the comics, not the general audience.
The general audience certainly didn't. Batman Begins explained that and I only got to understand the whole Batman mytho with BB. We couldn't do that with Batman 89.
-Daredevil had way to much origin and forced them to cut the interesting stuff. DD could have been successful otherwise.
That depends on how long is ''too much'' for you. Its origin showed his father, his accident, his devotion to studies to become a lawyer someday, he learning to control his skills and showing to the audience why he does what he does, instead of just throwing him into the movie, an unknown character for the public, and put him fighting crime, which is what I judge interesting in your terms. It didn't take too much time of the movie and had lots of time to introduce Elektra, Bullseye and Kingpin without rushing it.
What made it less interesting was the cuts that Fox made. The director's cut proved to be a far superior movie. It actually looked like a completely new movie, and it is not a lack of origin story that made it better, it's the character development and the story going on about and around him.
-Fantastic Four is cut and dry. They could spend 5 minutes on it, and do some of the nitty gritty.
You're selling it short. It can be a great sci-fi movie if done properly. They probably are the superheroes who most need a origin story of the bunch.
A rock guy, an elastic one, an invisible girl and a literal human torch. You don't just throw that to the audience and expect it to be a story with nexus.
-Norton's Hulk is the "Hulk without origin" movie. It would have worked as a film project without Ang Lees.
Norton's Hulk came out 5 years after Ang Lee's. And the latter had an origin story. Why do it again when you have an origin story explained not so long ago?
Now comes the ''not necessarily'' I talked about. It isn't necessary in this case because people are aware of its origin story, since it had one in the previous movie and the old movies But even so, they made a fast flashback with his origin just to remind people.
Same thing with Punisher. He's a recent case. Same could be done with Spider-Man and even Superman. Could...doesn't mean they will.
The audience demands a good story nowadays and characters they can understand and relate to. It is not as simple as throw the character there and let go.
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/m/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
