Origin Stories in Adaptations

So, a lot of comic origins stories are simply iconic now. Everyone, even non-comic fans, tend to know the overall idea of how Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc. came to be who they are.

But doesn't this get a bit tiresome? I know some fans who are utterly sick of revisiting Crime Alley.

I first thought "maybe try something different" when I was watching The Batman. Underrated show in my opinion but anyway, Robin's origin story was pretty much the "norm." Well, Dick Robin's origin story. I didn't see anything special about it.

By contrast, Babs in the show was a friend with a girl named Pamela. They were eco rebels until Pam went too far and then also got herself all screwed up with some weird plant stuff. Barbara goes on to become Batgirl to help fight Pam who had become Poison Ivy.

That was different. I appreciated they did something unique.

But maybe not everyone feels this way.

If a show or film is going to adapt a comic book, what do you feel are its "responsibilities", if any? is it obliged to copy the comics in establishing the foundation for the character? The origin story is very important obviously so maybe some people don't like them being tampered with.

The answer is this: you can put a new spin on the origin as long as you don't abandon the foundation behind it.

Take for example the Flash's origin at the end of Arrow Season 2 mid season finale. It retains the idea of Barry gaining his powers through a lab accident after being struck by lightning, but adds the reason behind it relating to a particle accelerator exploding creating metahumans in the city (this includes Barry). Another good example is the movie Iron Man, which basically follows his original comic book origin to a 'T'; it just replace Chinese communists with Muslim terrorists.

Personally I feel the works should only do origin stories for characters the general audience don't know. Guys like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Fantastic Four and the Hulk have had their origin told multiple times that it doesn't really matter as we all are familar with who they become. I have to give Marvel Studios props for not retelling Spiderman and the Hulk's origin in their movie debut . . . well at least for the Hulk it was all told in the opening of the film, but at least it doesn't take up most of the first act of the film.

Also Ang Lee's Hulk had come out just a couple of years beforehand, and can just about fit into MCU continuity if you squint.

The bones of an origin story should be kept intact, in my opinion, while details can possibly (sometimes) be changed to fit a writers particular tastes. One of the reasons for this is that said details can be cool in the moment but are easily forgotten or written out at need. For instance, it used to be that Bruce Wayne was found. after his parents' murder, by social worker Leslie Thompkins. At one point he was raised by his uncle, Philip Wayne., later by the family butler Alfred (who originally didn't come into the picture until after Batman had acquired Robin). These things aren't terribly important, though, and can be shuffled around so long as it's kept that his parents were murdered in front of him. Whether his parents' murder was an act of random violence or part of a conspiracy (the Joe Chill/ Lew Moxon bit) is more important, I think, because it changes the tone of the story; I think it's stronger if it's a random thing, while some people insist that it be a conspiracy.

I'd say Barbara's origin needs some punching up, because I never found it particularly convincing. Originally, she became Batgirl essentially for the hell of it. I never cared much for characters who become super heroes just because it's exciting.

Some origins don't really need revisiting, though. Pretty much everyone knows the basics of Superman's origin, so it'd just eat up screen time to no purpose to go through it again. I'd rather the focus in any given Superman story be his life on Earth. The fans who get tired of the hearing the "same old" origin every time probably wouldn't if the writers'd just stop belaboring them.

edited 30th Apr '17 11:48:04 AM by Robbery

I squint, but all I got was that the Bill Bixby series.

But all seriousness, yeah Incredible Hulk could be considered a continuation to Ang Lee's Hulk since the film last left off with Bruce Banner being in South America and the Marvel Studios films opens up with him being in said country. Speaking of where the films last left off, why the hell Bruce was in India in the Avengers movie while at the end of Incredible Hulk he was last seen in Canada? I get that the Hulk travels around a lot, but still I would of preferred that Bruce is in the location where he last left off (and give a possible secret fuck you easter egg where it implies that he has fought a dwarf in yellow spandex with metal claws).

Okay, this is starting to get off topic. Point is I kind of disregard the Hulk movie as being canon to the MCU since the origin of Hulk in that movie differs from the one in Incredible Hulk (in this case, how he gets bathe in gamma radiation).

Agree. Especially with Superman since honestly I cared more about how he grew up to be the Man of Steel rather than where he come from. Hell, its kind of the reason why I want to rework on his Superboy days where the whole town of Smallville are aware of Clark's alien origin and made it a secret by creating the whole "Superboy" urban legend to make outsiders believe that the super powered kid is merely a hoax. And because of said urban legend being created, this will allow Clark to practice his powers without fear of being taken away from his family.

So again, Spider Man, Superman, Batman, Hulk, Fantastic Four, (maybe) The Flash don't need their origins retold. Green Lantern is debatable as the question that follows is usually which one.

If you really think about it, part of Batman's much-vaunted versatility (not to mention his zillion-entry media empire) might stem from the fact that so very little of his origin is genuinely mandatory. You can use as much or as little of it as you like, or even none - remember, Batman didn't get an origin until around six months after his debut. And it arguably wasn't a core part of his character till Frank Miller; The Bronze Age Of Comic Books, if we're being really generous.

Come to think of it, that might be why Badass Normal heroes in general are so enticing; they take less imagination (and thus less effort) to write and to read. Batman, in essence, needs no more explanation than Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, or James Bond.

On the other hand, Wonder Woman is generally agreed to be the hardest character to adapt, because you need to explain freakin' everything (and that's before we get into any social-justice issues). Just establishing the whole Greek-Gods-Are-Real thing could take an entire movie in itself before the public becomes satisfied, to say nothing of all the "Are Amazons immortal? Where were they when the Holocaust happened?" and other such charming questions...

(Superman, like in many other things, sits at a comfortable median between the two. On paper Krypton is every bit as fantastic as Themyscira, but since Krypton is gone, a potential writer can tease out its specifics at his or her leisure.)

edited 30th Apr '17 7:17:19 PM by Rubber_Lotus

Audiences have zero problem accepting gods as real. It's nowhere near as complicated as people think. More complicated lore like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have made it into film. The Amazons are an isolationist group which can't take more than 5 minutes to explain. Assuming that's even a question on the audience's minds at all. Viewers are no where near as obsessed with these trivial details as one thinks.

Diana's lack of media exposure boils down to WB in general forgetting they have properties other than Batman and Superman as well as a lot of good old fashioned sexism

edited 30th Apr '17 8:39:26 PM by windleopard

The thing with Superman is, you can find out pretty much everything you need to know about his origin from the "Faster than a speeding bullet..." opening from his old radio show. Which is pretty artful, when you think about it. I've frequently thought that the best origins are ones that you can succinctly encapsulate in similar fashion, as it makes them easier to explain to the new reader/ viewer.

Batman's origins were revisited quite a bit in the Silver and Bronze age, but yeah. never so much as they have since Frank Miller.

Just before Infinte Crisis and The New 52, DC was vaguely intimating that Clark Kent's being superhuman was an open secret in Smallville (they passed it off as a local legend, the "Smallville Superboy"). It was introduced by either Geoff Johns or J.Michael Straczynski; I always kinda liked the idea. There was a special that dealt with a number of things from Clark Kent's childhood (and even re-introduced Mon-El into then-current continuity), mostly by those two writers, in which that was the case.

Well so much for being original with my Superman lore. Still cool to hear that DC actually went that route with Superman, even if it is just vague implications.

I dunno, man - LOTR took a whole trilogy to hash out (and each individual movie was so meaty that marathoning them all is considered an endurance test), and if I remember right the craziest parts didn't come into play till the last leg.

Moreover, Wonder Woman's Gods tend to be a lot less isolationist than, say, Thor's; I understand the Asgardians are played (in the MCU, at least) as a bunch of Sufficiently Advanced Aliens that just happened to inspire some old stories a long time ago; the only reason Thor's rubbing elbows with puny mortals at all is because his dad thought he needed a lesson in humility, or something.

In contrast, the DCU Olympians have directly interfered with the mortal world in at least one way: creating the Amazons, then creating Wonder Woman to be their big Ambassador to Peace. Okay, why do they want peace? Moreover, why should they get to dictate it, when their faith is lagging behind the three Abrahamics - probably Buddhism and Hindiusm too - by millions? These are all fascinating questions with no easy answers; in other words, poison for any Hollywood blockbuster.

edited 1st May '17 6:13:38 PM by Rubber_Lotus

It isn't the Olympians as a whole but a select few goddesses and Hermes. Why do they want peace? Endless war means no one to worship them and Ares takes over.

Again, most people watching the film won't care. Greek myth is already familiar to most audiences. There are always going to be questions regarding superheroes. Like why doesn't Bruce just use his money to help Gotham or why do Superman film makers still think a pair of glasses are an effective disguise. These might make for great online discussions but the majority of people watching these movies won't care. But tell you what; when the WW movie comes out and these questions completely sink the movie, then I'll concede

The Asgardianx also serve as Earth's protectors and Odin once dumped the Tesseract on Earth. These questions haven't stopped people from enjoying them.

edited 1st May '17 8:56:01 PM by windleopard

Regarding Superman and Batman, those are actually questions that have definitive answers. Batman does use his money to help Gotham (admittedly, they don't show him doing it nearly as much as they used to, probably because they don't show him doing Bruce Wayne stuff nearly as often as they used to) and in regards to Superman, a pair of glasses can be an effective disguise (this has actually been proven, like, with tests and stuff) especially when combined with different clothes and body language (just for one example, Henry Cavill actually walked around New York for a day dressed as Clark Kent as an experiment, and apparently no one said two words to him).

Unless by "there will always be questions" you didn't mean questions that the writers fail to address so much as questions fans will eternally belabor on the internet, even though ample evidence can be found to supply the answers.

edited 2nd May '17 7:09:36 AM by Robbery