I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Unbreakable? They don't really go into it, as I recall. Just some people are born glass, others are born steel.
I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Push, Chronicle, the good half of Hancock comes to mind.
Chronicle technically has an origin for their powers but all of thirty seconds is spent on it and Hancock does have an origin but it had nothing to do with the parts o the movie that were good and a lot to do with the parts that sucked.
Basically I don't see origins being as important as others think.
The Incredibles and Unbreakable, but that's not really "a lot".
Technically it was the origin for the family becoming a super-hero team. The kids don't need origins since they were born with powers from super-powered parents.
I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Push, Chronicle, the good half of Hancock comes to mind.
Chronicle technically has an origin for their powers but all of thirty seconds is spent on it and Hancock does have an origin but it had nothing to do with the parts o the movie that were good and a lot to do with the parts that sucked.
Basically I don't see origins being as important as others think.
Chronicle is the origin for both Andrew and Matt.
Andrew evolves into a villain and Matt is well on his way to becoming a pseudo super-hero when he finally arrives in Tibet.
The origin isn't only about how the characters got their powers but what development they get by the finale. That's why ASM, Superman: The Movie, Batman Begins and Spider-man: The Movie are still origins, despite the heroes having their super-hero personalities about how half way or earlier in the movies.
Chronicle had the absolute barest of explanations.
Push gave none at all.
Hancock was enjoyable up until thy started trying to explain his.
Explanations for why/how their powers work just aren't necessary unless it's an actual focus of the story.
I don't see it as a deal breaker. I like to know where and how their powers work, as long as it makes sense. Another thing is the new audience will speculate on the details unless it's confirmed. Chronicle didn't explain the
meteorite
which gave them their powers, it did establish the rules for their powers later on.
I don't see it as a deal breaker either. I just don't see it as necessary.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
My feeling is the movie needs to stand on its own as an experience even for people that never heard of the character, but that doesn't mean we need a long history of powers and origin. I'd rather see them handle these things quickly, possibly as flashbacks or two characters briefly discussing the history for the benefit of the audience. I see no reason that you couldn't have had the Captain America movie start with him as the captain, and then someone is talking about a mission and says "we need that super soldier r&d has been working on for this one. With his supernatural strength and toughness, we actually have a shot at pulling it off.". Done.
My feeling is the movie needs to stand on its own as an experience even for people that never heard of the character, but that doesn't mean we need a long history of powers and origin. I'd rather see them handle these things quickly, possibly as flashbacks or two characters briefly discussing the history for the benefit of the audience. I see no reason that you couldn't have had the Captain America movie start with him as the captain, and then someone is talking about a mission and says "we need that super soldier r&d has been working on for this one. With his supernatural strength and toughness, we actually have a shot at pulling it off.". Done.
I liked how The First Avenger showed his origin. Cap has a unique origin that's filled with pulp and psycho super soldier Nazis, may as well use it as an advantage. It also ties into his arch-enemy's origin as well. People knew less about Red Skull then Cap and he's a very important piece within Cap's mythology.
edit: I agree that movies need to stand on their own.
Superman Returns is one of the few reboots that doesn't bother rehashing the origin and it still sucks.
Sure technically it is a sequel reboot that cuts off the two bad movies but considering how long it had been since those movies you'd have thought that they would have gone the re-do the origin thing.
This latest Spider-Man movie would have been the perfect time to not rehash the origin but noooope.
Wow. The origin bits, or rather the pre-hero bits of The First Avenger were some of the strongest characterization in the movie. That is not the example I would use for ditching origins.
Superman Returns is one of the few reboots that doesn't bother rehashing the origin and it still sucks.
Superman Returns is a strange movie to categorize whether it's a reboot or not. I consider it a continuation of the Reeve movies (except only to the first and second movies).
Sure technically it is a sequel reboot that cuts off the two bad movies but considering how long it had been since those movies you'd have thought that they would have gone the re-do the origin thing.
This latest Spider-Man movie would have been the perfect time to not rehash the origin but noooope.
My uncle was a huge comic book buff and showed me all the early Marvel movies in all their glory. This was the first time most people got exposed to Capt. on the big screen.
It's not like Batman who will probably get what, the fourth big screen reboot in thirty years soon?
My uncle was a huge comic book buff and showed me all the early Marvel movies in all their glory. This was the first time most people got exposed to Capt. on the big screen.
It's not like Batman who will probably get what, the fourth big screen reboot in thirty years soon?
Batman's an exception among exceptions in Hollywood. Superman hasn't been able to compete with him one on one for decades on the big screen.
My uncle was a huge comic book buff and showed me all the early Marvel movies in all their glory. This was the first time most people got exposed to Capt. on the big screen.
It's not like Batman who will probably get what, the fourth big screen reboot in thirty years soon?
I believe there was in fact an 80's Captain America movie. It was, as almost everything not involving supes, completely awful.
Edit: IMDB says I missed it. One from 79, one from 90.
My uncle was a huge comic book buff and showed me all the early Marvel movies in all their glory. This was the first time most people got exposed to Capt. on the big screen.
It's not like Batman who will probably get what, the fourth big screen reboot in thirty years soon?
I believe there was in fact an 80's Captain America movie. It was, as almost everything not involving supes, completely awful.
Edit: IMDB says I missed it. One from 79, one from 90.
There were three of them. I think I saw the first, which had Matt Salanger's son as Cap against an Italian Red Skull and a second with a Cap who rode around on a motorcycle looking extremely ridiculous hanging around a dismal rural town with a fanboy POTUS.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I actually didn't like the cap movie at all, but I thought the origin went WAY too long. I liked the Iron Man origin though. Short, neat, and entertaining on its own.
I thought they spent way too long on origins in Xman first class too. Doing magneto and professor x was neat, but the rest was a bit much. Better to do quick vignettes or just introduce them as set characters like in the first Xmen movie.
I hated everything about the new spiderman, but going through the origin again (right down to his uncle being shot) was more than I could bear. I watched it on an airplane, and even by airplane mood standards it was brutal.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
More on topic for the thread, I actually thought the new batman origin wasn't bad, despite thinking the new batman movies were very boring (I actually fell asleep during begins, and I watched it in the middle of the day, when I wasn't tired, and I don't normally fall asleep during movies).
I actually didn't like the cap movie at all, but I thought the origin went WAY too long. I liked the Iron Man origin though. Short, neat, and entertaining on its own.
I thought they spent way too long on origins in Xman first class too. Doing magneto and professor x was neat, but the rest was a bit much. Better to do quick vignettes or just introduce them as set characters like in the first Xmen movie.
I hated everything about the new spiderman, but going through the origin again (right down to his uncle being shot) was more than I could bear. I watched it on an airplane, and even by airplane mood standards it was brutal.
More on topic for the thread, I actually thought the new batman origin wasn't bad, despite thinking the new batman movies were very boring (I actually fell asleep during begins, and I watched it in the middle of the day, when I wasn't tired, and I don't normally fall asleep during movies).
I disagree with everything here, except the bit about Iron Man's movie.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
In the case of Superman and Batman, they have their own hometowns they look after. Batman looks after Gotham, and Superma looks after Metropolis. The Flash looks after Central City, Green Arrow looks after Star City, and so on and so forth. They have their own "jurisdictions", so to speak, and most of the time the heroes deal with stories that are uniquely suited to their own talents, because this is fiction and they are the protagonists of their own stories.
In the case of mutants and the Marvel Universe, the main reason mutants are everywhere in X-titles is that in the Marvel Universe, mutants see themselves as a community of similar individuals who organize around mutant-oriented institutions like the Xavier school or Genosha or Utopia or Australia, depending on what era of X-books you're looking at. However, mutants do often pop up in other books. The Avengers has had mutants such as Beast, Wolverine, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch on their roster for a long time.
I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Push, Chronicle, the good half of Hancock comes to mind.
Chronicle technically has an origin for their powers but all of thirty seconds is spent on it and Hancock does have an origin but it had nothing to do with the parts o the movie that were good and a lot to do with the parts that sucked.
Basically I don't see origins being as important as others think.
Push was basically "mutants". Haven't seen Chronicle yet, but I agree re: Hancock.
I don't think superheroes need firmly established reasons for their powers or anything, but if you are doing "real world + super hero" you need to acknowledge either a reason for the power or the weirdness of that power existing.
Beyond that, I think origins compromise far more then that. Most of the time, they compromise motivation and backstory too. That's not always necessary, but you've got to write a different kind of story if you wanna skip over that or handle it it flashback or the like.
Chronicle had the absolute barest of explanations.
Push gave none at all.
Hancock was enjoyable up until thy started trying to explain his.
Explanations for why/how their powers work just aren't necessary unless it's an actual focus of the story.
The thing that bothered me about Hancock is the implications of having an unstoppable immortal black superhero who was around during the civil rights movement. Because that would have been a much more ambitious story than the one we actually saw.
X-men (up to First Class) didn't really have an Origin story, it was more here are some super powered characters and here is a little back story before the movie started rolling.
X-Men's origin story is always "Welcome to the X-Men, pretty teenaged girl."
They did it with Marvel Girl in the first issue, Kitty Pryde again in the first cartoon, Jubilee in the second cartoon, Rogue in the Singer movies, Magma in X-Men legends, etc.
First Class broke the mold.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
In the case of Superman and Batman, they have their own hometowns they look after. Batman looks after Gotham, and Superma looks after Metropolis. The Flash looks after Central City, Green Arrow looks after Star City, and so on and so forth. They have their own "jurisdictions", so to speak, and most of the time the heroes deal with stories that are uniquely suited to their own talents, because this is fiction and they are the protagonists of their own stories.
In the case of mutants and the Marvel Universe, the main reason mutants are everywhere in X-titles is that in the Marvel Universe, mutants see themselves as a community of similar individuals who organize around mutant-oriented institutions like the Xavier school or Genosha or Utopia or Australia, depending on what era of X-books you're looking at. However, mutants do often pop up in other books. The Avengers has had mutants such as Beast, Wolverine, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch on their roster for a long time.
I guess it's more a matter of people still being surprised by people with super powers in a world full of mutants with superpowers. Like why should the fantastic four be a big deal when there are mutants EVERYWHERE?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
X-Men's origin story is always "Welcome to the X-Men, pretty teenaged girl."
They did it with Marvel Girl in the first issue, Kitty Pryde again in the first cartoon, Jubilee in the second cartoon, Rogue in the Singer movies, Magma in X-Men legends, etc.
First Class broke the mold.
IMO, they should have just done Xavier and magneto. No need to focus on lame second stringers like how Banshee learned to fly. Just Xavier and Magneto are awesome, and there are some other guys too. Cut the movie in half.
So how is it that there are seperate comic series like Superman and Batman, and most of the time it is like they are the only heroes and their villains are the only villains, when the world is so full of heroes and villains?
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
In the case of Superman and Batman, they have their own hometowns they look after. Batman looks after Gotham, and Superma looks after Metropolis. The Flash looks after Central City, Green Arrow looks after Star City, and so on and so forth. They have their own "jurisdictions", so to speak, and most of the time the heroes deal with stories that are uniquely suited to their own talents, because this is fiction and they are the protagonists of their own stories.
In the case of mutants and the Marvel Universe, the main reason mutants are everywhere in X-titles is that in the Marvel Universe, mutants see themselves as a community of similar individuals who organize around mutant-oriented institutions like the Xavier school or Genosha or Utopia or Australia, depending on what era of X-books you're looking at. However, mutants do often pop up in other books. The Avengers has had mutants such as Beast, Wolverine, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch on their roster for a long time.
Part of it is the way the comics were initially written way back when too. Marvel had a combined universe, in part because of the same settings (generally New York) that all of their characters shared in so it was a given they'd see each other every now and again.
DC's characters were each mostly in their own universe all of which were slowly cobbled together as properties were obtained and they saw the value of Marvel's model. However by that time like you pointed out most of them had their city that they always looked out for.
Origins are the worst, dumbest aspect of superhero movies.
No one cares, they're all pretty similar, not all directly relate to the characterization we're looking to explore, and fucking I just want a movie that's not half origin. Fight two villains maybe. Beat up some henchmen. I don't know, just don't spend 15 minutes going through an average person's day.
I really don't think an explanation is necessary. A lot of movies don't give actual explanations for powers, the characters often just have them. I see no reason for super hero movies to be different, I think we just get caught up in the idea because origins play a major (but hardly necessary) part in comics.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Push, Chronicle, the good half of Hancock comes to mind.
Chronicle technically has an origin for their powers but all of thirty seconds is spent on it and Hancock does have an origin but it had nothing to do with the parts o the movie that were good and a lot to do with the parts that sucked.
Basically I don't see origins being as important as others think.
Push was basically "mutants". Haven't seen Chronicle yet, but I agree re: Hancock.
I don't think superheroes need firmly established reasons for their powers or anything, but if you are doing "real world + super hero" you need to acknowledge either a reason for the power or the weirdness of that power existing.
Beyond that, I think origins compromise far more then that. Most of the time, they compromise motivation and backstory too. That's not always necessary, but you've got to write a different kind of story if you wanna skip over that or handle it it flashback or the like.
Absolutely. Origins can be a very good thing. They're just not essential for the audience to enjoy the film.
Also, check out Chronicle. It's a very, very stealthy super hero movie.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - it's Superman! Strange visitor from another world, Superman fights for truth, justice, and the American way.
That's all the origin story we need.
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I guess I also don't see why "superhero movie" needs to be a genre. Why can't they just be structured as action movies starring superheroes? Look at Terminator or the Matrix. They have origin stories, but they are integrated into the actual film, and help establish the universe and the story to come, vs superhero origin stories which tend to be seperate from the movies, too long, and boring. By the end of the new Spider-Man origin story, I was rooting against him (although, to be fair, his hair had me rooting against him anyway).
Posts
The people making the Flash movie are Silver Age enthusiasts that were responsible for the Hal Jordan Green Lantern film.
Which movies?
I honestly can't think of any right now.
Unbreakable? They don't really go into it, as I recall. Just some people are born glass, others are born steel.
Chronicle technically has an origin for their powers but all of thirty seconds is spent on it and Hancock does have an origin but it had nothing to do with the parts o the movie that were good and a lot to do with the parts that sucked.
Basically I don't see origins being as important as others think.
Technically it was the origin for the family becoming a super-hero team. The kids don't need origins since they were born with powers from super-powered parents.
Chronicle is the origin for both Andrew and Matt.
Origins comprise both aspects.
Chronicle had the absolute barest of explanations.
Push gave none at all.
Hancock was enjoyable up until thy started trying to explain his.
Explanations for why/how their powers work just aren't necessary unless it's an actual focus of the story.
I don't see it as a deal breaker. I like to know where and how their powers work, as long as it makes sense. Another thing is the new audience will speculate on the details unless it's confirmed. Chronicle didn't explain the
That does not fill me with hope
I liked how The First Avenger showed his origin. Cap has a unique origin that's filled with pulp and psycho super soldier Nazis, may as well use it as an advantage. It also ties into his arch-enemy's origin as well. People knew less about Red Skull then Cap and he's a very important piece within Cap's mythology.
edit: I agree that movies need to stand on their own.
Sure technically it is a sequel reboot that cuts off the two bad movies but considering how long it had been since those movies you'd have thought that they would have gone the re-do the origin thing.
This latest Spider-Man movie would have been the perfect time to not rehash the origin but noooope.
He has had a real movies before. A few in fact. They were all low budget shitfests Marvel would like everyone to forget existed.
Superman Returns is a strange movie to categorize whether it's a reboot or not. I consider it a continuation of the Reeve movies (except only to the first and second movies).
Agreed.
My uncle was a huge comic book buff and showed me all the early Marvel movies in all their glory. This was the first time most people got exposed to Capt. on the big screen.
It's not like Batman who will probably get what, the fourth big screen reboot in thirty years soon?
Heh.
Batman's an exception among exceptions in Hollywood. Superman hasn't been able to compete with him one on one for decades on the big screen.
I believe there was in fact an 80's Captain America movie. It was, as almost everything not involving supes, completely awful.
Edit: IMDB says I missed it. One from 79, one from 90.
There were three of them. I think I saw the first, which had Matt Salanger's son as Cap against an Italian Red Skull and a second with a Cap who rode around on a motorcycle looking extremely ridiculous hanging around a dismal rural town with a fanboy POTUS.
I thought they spent way too long on origins in Xman first class too. Doing magneto and professor x was neat, but the rest was a bit much. Better to do quick vignettes or just introduce them as set characters like in the first Xmen movie.
I hated everything about the new spiderman, but going through the origin again (right down to his uncle being shot) was more than I could bear. I watched it on an airplane, and even by airplane mood standards it was brutal.
I disagree with everything here, except the bit about Iron Man's movie.
This is even more perplexing for marvel, since mutants are everywhere in the Xmen and nowhere to be found in other series.
In the case of Superman and Batman, they have their own hometowns they look after. Batman looks after Gotham, and Superma looks after Metropolis. The Flash looks after Central City, Green Arrow looks after Star City, and so on and so forth. They have their own "jurisdictions", so to speak, and most of the time the heroes deal with stories that are uniquely suited to their own talents, because this is fiction and they are the protagonists of their own stories.
In the case of mutants and the Marvel Universe, the main reason mutants are everywhere in X-titles is that in the Marvel Universe, mutants see themselves as a community of similar individuals who organize around mutant-oriented institutions like the Xavier school or Genosha or Utopia or Australia, depending on what era of X-books you're looking at. However, mutants do often pop up in other books. The Avengers has had mutants such as Beast, Wolverine, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch on their roster for a long time.
Push was basically "mutants". Haven't seen Chronicle yet, but I agree re: Hancock.
I don't think superheroes need firmly established reasons for their powers or anything, but if you are doing "real world + super hero" you need to acknowledge either a reason for the power or the weirdness of that power existing.
Beyond that, I think origins compromise far more then that. Most of the time, they compromise motivation and backstory too. That's not always necessary, but you've got to write a different kind of story if you wanna skip over that or handle it it flashback or the like.
The thing that bothered me about Hancock is the implications of having an unstoppable immortal black superhero who was around during the civil rights movement. Because that would have been a much more ambitious story than the one we actually saw.
Hancock itself had a fantastic premise the script rarely seemed to want to deal with and abandoned by the half way point.
He can be known as the White Widow.
They did it with Marvel Girl in the first issue, Kitty Pryde again in the first cartoon, Jubilee in the second cartoon, Rogue in the Singer movies, Magma in X-Men legends, etc.
First Class broke the mold.
I guess it's more a matter of people still being surprised by people with super powers in a world full of mutants with superpowers. Like why should the fantastic four be a big deal when there are mutants EVERYWHERE?
IMO, they should have just done Xavier and magneto. No need to focus on lame second stringers like how Banshee learned to fly. Just Xavier and Magneto are awesome, and there are some other guys too. Cut the movie in half.
Part of it is the way the comics were initially written way back when too. Marvel had a combined universe, in part because of the same settings (generally New York) that all of their characters shared in so it was a given they'd see each other every now and again.
DC's characters were each mostly in their own universe all of which were slowly cobbled together as properties were obtained and they saw the value of Marvel's model. However by that time like you pointed out most of them had their city that they always looked out for.
No one cares, they're all pretty similar, not all directly relate to the characterization we're looking to explore, and fucking I just want a movie that's not half origin. Fight two villains maybe. Beat up some henchmen. I don't know, just don't spend 15 minutes going through an average person's day.
Absolutely. Origins can be a very good thing. They're just not essential for the audience to enjoy the film.
Also, check out Chronicle. It's a very, very stealthy super hero movie.
That's all the origin story we need.