Which superhero story origin structure do you prefer? Chronological or flashbacks?

[SpandexFan]

Origins of superheroes are vital. They are what makes the hero and define their purpose in life. They can also play a huge role in the hero's lifelong nemesis. But it seems like there are two popular ways to go about this in the screenplay. Both methods have worked at the box office and with critics. Which do you prefer?

#1 Chronological

The classic model is to play the film in chronological order with the superhero's roots at the beginning. These films can often start with the superhero as a toddler and progress up until the point when they first wear their costume. Maybe a disadvantage is that it can lead to a slow start, but an advantage is that it helps the audience relate much more to the hero and his or her past.

Some examples of movies that went this direction: Superman (Christopher Reeve version), Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Hulk

#2 Flashback

Another popular model is to start the film off with a bang. The hero is already the hero, and we witness his or her origin story as the movie goes on, but often before the halfway point of the film and often the origin tidbits relate to something going on in the current story. Maybe an advantage is that the movie is more fast-paced and gets our attention early not to mention it also picks a reboot up faster when origin isn't as vital, but a disadvantage is that we possibly don't relate to the character as much as we should.

Some examples of movies that went this direction: Batman (Michael Keaton version), Superman Returns, Daredevil, The Incredible Hulk

 

[Eggyman]

Interesting question. I think there's pros and cons for both sides - chronological, you get a full backstory of the events, whereas with flashbacks it normally gets it over with quicker so you can get straight to the good stuff.

I'm gonna have to think about this.

 

[dark_b]

i think it depends on the movie.

if the flashbacks are good and fit in the movie why not. on the other hand if they can make the first 30 or 60 minutes interesting then go chronological.if

 

[CWP]

Technically, Batman Begins and Iron Man started with the characters on their way to becoming a superhero and then we follow them through flashbacks on the way, explaining points in their origins such as Bruce's fear of bats and Tony's purpose in Afghanistan.

But anyway, I prefer Chronological. Flashbacks can be pretty poor storytelling for me, as it leaves most of the scenes unexplained and spontaneous (for lack of a better word) and make me believe they're simply unrealistic, only to discover something later that explains what happened a 1/2 hour ago and leaves me to try and piece it together while the movie's going on. No fun.

 

[dude stannis]

Flashbacks. Cronologically save for Iron Man, every Origin film took way too goddamn long to get to the good stuff. Seriously, look at Indiana Jone's intro in Raiders, Blade's intro, BatKeaton's intro, Rambo walking into town, even John McClane looking tired on the plane. That stuff is iconic, you don't get that with long drawn out origins.

 

[The Sage]

It depends on the character. One approach is better for some than the other.

 

[Laderlappen]

Like mentioned it depends on the movie. When the childhood is important for the orgin, its better to have flashbacks. Otherwise you dont need it. Batman Begins would have been worse if the movie was a chronological.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Like people have said there are pros and cons to both. Generally I think I prefer a more straightforward narrative when it comes to superheroes so chronological is what I voted for. On the other hand flashbacks are trickier to pull off but could be much more rewarding. Flashbacks are also sometimes the best possible way to introduce a characters origin. A character like Matt Wagner's Grendel (the Hunter Rose Grendel) shouldn't have a chronologically told origin because part of the appeal of the character is in the initial mystery and then the unfolding discovery of who he is and what his motives are.

 

[Evil Twin]

I object to the term "random" flashbacks. Well used flashbacks aren't random. They comment on the "past" and "present".

The real answer is "it depends" on the story. I think flashbacks are highly appropriate when the main character's past, particularly his childhood, plays a role. Batman Begins is misplaced as chronological, IMO, as we start with Bale in a Chinese prison. Skipping ahead decades is tough to do chronologically, especially if you end up not seeing the main character until much later. I think it also depends on how interesting the origin is in the first place.

And, if you have other goals. For instance, I think a chronolgical retelling of a Barry Allen Flash movie would be the way to go as it sends the message of the character moving forward constantly. A Wally West Flash movie might flashback to signal that Wally still dwells on his relationship with Barry. (Not to mention that Wally's origin as Flash takes years, from teenager to kid sidekick to successor.) It wouldn't surprise me if a reboot of Superman starts on Krypton to signal that this is a fresh take.

If pressed, I'd choose flashback as I think it's easier to avoid falling into the standard formula cliches of the standard chronological Act I, Act II, Act III structure.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Wasn't Ang Lee's Hulk told in flashback? Or at least at a certain point in the past.


I guess the question for me revolves around what the flashbacks are used for which can be kind of lazy. Most of the time flashbacks are used to create a mystery, but BB used flashbacks to simply flesh out where Bruce was at psychologically.

 

[Doctor Jones]

IM wasn't really chronilogical?

But I agree it depends on how the character came to be. SM you had to show Uncle Ben and everything. Maybe in the next set of SM films you can just dive head long into Spider-Man.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Batman Begins definitely wasn't told chronological which is why it worked so well. The origin was sprinkled as flashbacks as the films moved forward.

 

[protocida]

It depends.³

 

[Hound55]

Batman Begins definitely wasn't told chronological which is why it worked so well. The origin was sprinkled as flashbacks as the films moved forward.

Classic Nolan.

The man loves himself a flashback...

 

[Ratcrawler]

Wasn't Ang Lee's Hulk told in flashback? Or at least at a certain point in the past.

Worse. Flashback WITHIN a flashback. I mean I dunno if technically explaining a dream in a flashback counts, but considering we actually saw the dream, it was ridiculous.

Iron Man wasn't really told in flashbacks. One scene was taken out of order and placed at the beginning for shock factor in a largely action-less first act.

Batman Begins was confusing at first but worked out nicely in the end and was probably the best example.

Then there's the issue with reboots. The more recent their previous franchise, they pretty much HAVE to tell their story in Flashbacks. This is usually a mixed bag.

The Incredible Hulk's worked alright as it drew on what people knew about the Hulk, whether it be from the 70s tv show, the comics or general pop culture and had an original sPin on it while distancing itself from the '03 film. At the same time, though, it was too close to that movie and audiences didn't know what to make of such a reboot.

Punisher Warzone's was stupid. Yeah, it was closer to the comics but it looked silly in flashback form and the massacre of Frank Castle's family reunion in the '04 movie was a hundred times more visceral.

Superman Returns pulled it off alright in context but the film itself couldn't decide whether it was a reboot or a sequel. A straight up origin story was pretty much out of the question with Smallville on the air.

 

[8wid]

Since Watchmen has such a gorgeously complex narrative structure that tells the story for an entire group, while The Dark Knight works for a single character I believe it varies by the need for whatever theme the filmmaker wants to present through whoever he or she chooses to characterize.

 

[ChickenScratch]

It depends on the situation really. I'm also a proponent of the "get on with it" aesthetic where we don't need to spend time on an origin when a story can be told effectively without one. I'm a big fan of noir fiction and guys like Spillane, Chandler and flemmi9ng just got on with it, you learn about the character through his actions. Heck, you didn't know much about Bond himself till FRWL when the first half of the book was the Russians pouring over his files.

 

[Thundarr]

You should have had a 3rd choice, "Depends on the movie". My choice would've been "Depends on the movie". Some movies work very well with just flashbacks. Others work better in chronological order. Spiderman probably wouldn't have worked in flashback format, imo. Likewise, Watchmen probably wouldn't have worked in chronological format. Batman Begins is a bit of a combination. It starts off with Bruce Wayne in a Chinese prison, being trained in ninjitsu by Raz-Ahl Ghul (spelling?). Then we see his childhood and the murder of his parents in flashback. Unlike Michael Keaton's Batman in which the movie begins with him as Batman then shows us his origins in flashback.

 

[GoldLucy]

Origins of superheroes are vital. They are what makes the hero and define their purpose in life. They can also play a huge role in the hero's lifelong nemesis. But it seems like there are two popular ways to go about this in the screenplay. Both methods have worked at the box office and with critics. Which do you prefer?

#1 Chronological

The classic model is to play the film in chronological order with the superhero's roots at the beginning. These films can often start with the superhero as a toddler and progress up until the point when they first wear their costume. Maybe a disadvantage is that it can lead to a slow start, but an advantage is that it helps the audience relate much more to the hero and his or her past.

Some examples of movies that went this direction: Superman (Christopher Reeve version), Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Hulk

#2 Flashback

Another popular model is to start the film off with a bang. The hero is already the hero, and we witness his or her origin story as the movie goes on, but often before the halfway point of the film and often the origin tidbits relate to something going on in the current story. Maybe an advantage is that the movie is more fast-paced and gets our attention early not to mention it also picks a reboot up faster when origin isn't as vital, but a disadvantage is that we possibly don't relate to the character as much as we should.

Some examples of movies that went this direction: Batman (Michael Keaton version), Superman Returns, Daredevil, The Incredible Hulk

Chronological or flashback is just a choice of presentation. In all cases there is a loss of a State of Perfection and then the attempt by the Superhero to return to it in some form or other ("I will never let the bad guy win again" etc). See http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html

In fact, alot has to do with the superhero's nature (which is why super antiheroes are so similar); the nature of the individual will determine the turn to the good-side (as above) or the dark-side ("I will destroy the World for what it has done to me).

 

[El Payaso]

It depends on the approach obviously.

 

[MadVillainy]

BB had a really great structure. The chronological path to becoming a hero while having flashbacks thrown in.

Basically what everybody said...it depends on the movie/approach

 

[Tacit Ronin]

They both suck. Superhero origin stories have become really formulatic. Everytime I hear "origin story" I cringe.

 

[xwolverine2]

flashbacks should only be for the superhero movies where the audience has already seen their origin a million times before (Hulk, Superman) and is just waiting to see the hero in action

 

[Bim]

I don't really care to be honest, especially after watching LOST . As long as the movie is done right, i`m open to whatever style the director chooses, because both can work.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Flashback definitely, or sometimes just a brief epilogue.