Origins in superhero movies

[Mister_Comics]

Not that I have anything against origins in movies. Most I've seen were well done, but; What do you all think of origins in superhero movies? Seems every superhero film has to have either the heroes origin or the bad guys origin. Do the origins take too much time away from the films story? Are they really necessary? Can a superhero story be told on the big screen without someones origin in it. Just once I'd like to see a movie that didn't have the long drawn out origin in it. A good right-to-the-action film. Is it possible or not?

[joe_collector]

Of course, an origin should not be part of a movie, unless the movie is about the origin,,, if you get my drift.

 

For example, Batman didn't have an origin, but there was some hints as to his parent's demise and then later they tacked on that daffy Joker is the Killer ending. But still, no long scenes of Bruce as a kid, training to be Batman, etc. cluttering up the flick.

 

On the other hand, Spider-man was basically one long origin scene, as the movie dealt with Pete's first experience with super-powers. That was a choice they made, and it was a good one for that movie.

 

Daredevil, on the other hand, didn't really work, as it relied on flashbacks to tell us an (unneeded IMO) origin story that just cluttered up an already-rushed movie. The movie was not about DD's origin and it would have been a better bet to do a Batman and only hint at the accident and father's death later on.

[The_Man_Of_Steel]

IMO, origins are helpful for people outside of the comic book "circle". People that know nothing about a comic book characters can make more sense out of the movie, if they learn about how the character became what they are. For us comic veterans, origins aren't necessary, but I think they are important to "mainstream" audiences.

 

I think that speaking for the majority, origins are important to almost every comic book fan. Afterall, don't we like to know the answers to things so that they will make more sense? When you read about a guy that is faster than a loco motive and able to leap buildings in a single bound, doesn't that arouse your curiosity as to how this guy can do these remarkable things?

 

Oh, and comic book publishers have learned that issues featuring the orgin of a character are generally more sought after, which amounts to more sales. Just ask Wolverine about this one...

[joe_collector]

I agree with this, assuming it fits the movie.

 

A great example of an origin is in Blade. We don't need or want a long drawn-out origin cutting into the action, and there are hints in the opening sequence, and then during a lull, Whistler gives a 30-second account of who Blade is.

 

All done, and now we're back to slicing and dicing Vampires.

[uclapeterg]

You ask a very interesting question and I'm anxious to see how the first superhero sequel, X2, deals with it. The movie does contain a lot of new characters so it may have origins of all of them.

[ArAich]

I still think the best movie origin was in Conan....goes from boy to man in front of your eyes...

[Aman619]

Yeah but all the XMen origins are the same....a teenager wakes up one day and discovers a mutant power.

[blowout]

Blade is actually a great example of a movie that works without an origin per se. It all depends on the type of hero, people know what a vampire is so no huge explanations were neccessary. If on the other hand the hero has some way out there powers then some kind of explanation as to what they are/ how they got them helps the film move along semi realisticaly.

 

Sequels are often more action packed than the originals as all the origin stuff is out of the way. But they wouldn't neccessarily work as well as a movie without the first part getting the origin out there.

 

Anyway, who wants a series of movies that are all saying the same thing?

X2 and the Amazing Spider-Man will both be great movies as much for the fact that a departure from the first one is probable.

[fiendish]

Origins in movies are tough. When you're spending between $50 and $100 million for a superhero movie, you need to make certain your product (yes, it's a product) appeals to the widest audience. Even though the fanboys will inevitably [!@#%^&^] and moan and nitpick the way you've staged the origin sequence, it's vital to have one so that the majority (yes, it's the majority) of the audience will suspend their disbelief and accept young Toby bouncing around Manhattan in his footie pajamas.

 

I thought "Spider-man" handled it well. The first act is the origin (Toby acquires his superpowers), the second and third acts turn on the question of how Toby will deal with the superpowers, when he could barely deal with puberty.

 

The countless villian origins weakened each of the four modern "Batman" movies considerably. In Hollywood a favorite development note is to say that a -script is too "episodic" -- this happens, then this happens, then this happens, and so on, but without a compelling central conflict or tension to drive the narrative forward. I agree that the first "Batman" movie handled Bruce Wayne's origin nicely, but the Joker's took like 30 minutes! They just repeated the problem with each subsequent movie. The narrative flow is broken by the origin of Catwoman, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, etc. When we finally see any of them in costume, you expect hear a narrator boom: "and now, back to our story."

 

Take for example the first two Chris Reeve "Superman" movies. The first movie seems overly long and takes about an hour to pick up any steam. That's because the first hour takes us to Krypton and we have to listen to Brando lisp wise, then they launch the crystal spitball with the baby inside, then Glenn Ford finds the baby, etc. It's ONLY when Clark settles in at the Daily Planet that the movie picks up any energy. We don't have to sit through a lot of "backstory" (that's Hollywoodese for "origin") for Lex Luthor. In Hackman's first scene it's established that he's smart, he's rich and he's a little crazy. On with the show. Luthor's gonna steal some nukes. (Doo dah, doo dah...)

 

"Superman II" was universally lauded as being a much better movie than the first, owing mostly to the fact that it was structured like an actual movie. The bad guys arrive early in the first act, they're as strong as Superman, and there's three of them. The rest of the movie seems to whiz by (relatively) because its only concerned with telling the story at hand and doesn't have to go off onto long, 20-minute tangents filling in everyone's backstory.

 

In "X-men" we saw two origins: Magneto's and Rogue's, both of which were critical to the story, but for different reasons. Magneto's story gives you a handle on his character and allows you to understand (but not agree with) his motives. Rogue's story demonstrates the mechanics of her powers, but more importantly it puts her on the road as a runaway--a metaphor for the physical (and emotional) isolation she may be doomed to.

 

[diablo508]

I loved the seen with Magneto's Origin....I thought it was well done....but then it leads to a whole new question....knowing that those sick Nazi Ba$$'s did many experiments on the Jews what would of happened to Magneto as a result of so many guards witnessing his power?