Are Origin Movies Needed?

No, I think we'll see bits and pieces, I expect the movie to be largely in the present.

Depends on how well the character and his/her origins are known by public. Also the origin story may provive a good plot for the movie. In a case of a reboot, it might be considert that how recently the origins were told in a previous instalment.

@Scourge
But again, the ones you are complaining about have only be retold once each.

I really don't expect them to reboot any of the those series anytime soon, with the exception with Batman.

Origin stories are there so it can put you in the characters frame of mind. After the first movie there shouldn't need to be much retelling of the origin, but that's if you start off a new series like Batman Begins or A retelling Like the last Spiderman movie.

I agree that characters that are unknown (antman-even though the movie is a terrible idea) to the general public or had terrible first outings (daredevil and dr strange) might need to have their origins done again, but characters that widely well known (batman, superman, spiderman, ect.) do not.

I think clever artistic reinterpretations or modernizations of origin stories when artistically done are very refreshing. what we should ask is whether or not we shouldn´t get superhero origin stories that aren´t Batman or Superman by DC? Batman Begins was excellent, and Man Of Steel looks great, but I would accept the need for these modern takes on classic stories a bit more if DC used their other characters more. Too much Batman and Supes is the problem, not their origin stories. I prefer how Man Of Steel looks than Superman Returns, which of course was not an origin. Nither was Batman the first film technically, and the worst in that series were the two last films, so no I don´t agree with this article in the slightest. wrong focus. Bring on Flash and Wonder Woman origin stories anyday.

Yep, everyone has seen Superman's origin story in the 70's films. All of the general movie audience was alive in the 70's and has watched it. Man, why would they reboot a 40 year old movie! (Sarcasm)
Zod and Lex Luthor are being reused because they are Supes' main villains! Maybe we'll see Brainiac or Metallo in the sequels or Justice League films.
No offense intended, but this article was pretty weak and could have presented its point in a much more valid way. Such as talking about the Fantastic Four reboot or the incoming Batman reboot.

Origin stories should be told once in each version of the character's media. Hence, I expected an origin in The Amazing Spider-Man. Granted, I still thought it superfluous (the Raimi films were too fresh was the problem--that, and I prefer their brighter look on things, because dark and edgy is so overdone), but I also conceded that it would happen. After all, it's most simple to tell where people are going to go with the character based on how they handle that origin, and that movie also tied in everything to the origin.

Superman's origin is very well-known, yet most everybody wants to tell it. The Fleischer cartoons put it as a little intro to their first short, setting up everything needed to know. The radio show radically changed it, showing a very different direction to things. The serial showed it for the first time in live action (and then the second serial retold it by means of a narration by Luthor midway through the thing--not a good choice in my opinion, as it was just using the footage from the first serial). Then the Donner movies showed its take, the first time Krypton was seen as a very alien society to Earth, with crystals in the place of metals, and for the first time showing Superman having training by Jor-El. The animated series also went their own route, tying a supervillain (Brainiac) into it rather nicely. Now we could use a Superman origin to know what is going on with this one. For instance, why would he wear the awful costume he's sporting in the movie? What is his view of his own powers, as how he developed them and how he decides to use them? Is Zod intertwined, like in the Donner movies, or is he not (remember that seeing Zod in Superman's origin in those movies let us know immediately why this man would have such a hatred for the hero)? How does Superman make his debut to the world, and how does this create an impression on the public? Do they fear him at first, or do they trust him (I hope the latter--it's Superman, not Spider-Man or the X-Men)? This is important stuff to know how he interacts with the world, and with the specific movie's villain.

Batman's origin has been handled clumsily for the most part. Usually, they decide to avoid it entirely (the serials, the Adam West series), but you also get the odd execution in the Burton/Schumacher era, where the first film dwells on it a tiny bit (again tying in the villain, which is still controversial to Batman fans) and then they revisit it in a different way in Batman Forever, which is actually one of the more interesting things about that movie. Batman Begins is actually the first time you see it onscreen in live action and not in flashback (well, sort of, considering that bit of the movie could technically be flashback considering how the movie opens), and it firmly entrenches how the movie is going to work, how grounded in the real world it is. Plus, tying in the villain, but in a less direct way than Batman did (and therefore not in a way that fans would be upset).

If we began Man of Steel with Superman already known to the public, already a factor, the average movie-going public would probably assume first that this is a continuation of the Reeve movies. After all, there is no immediate break from that--they have nothing to definitively tell them that it's a different continuity, other than different actors (which, considering things like James Bond, we do know the public can accept the same exact character in the same exact continuity played by a radically different actor). Starting with the origin tells people that THIS Superman is not the one that Donner directed and it would lay the groundwork in tone to know that this guy will not fly around the world to reverse time or repair a wall by looking at it.

The only superhero we've seen to origins twice up to now is Spider-Man. We are about to have a new Superman, but it's not for now.

"The same is not true for characters like Bataman, Spiderman, Superman, and even the X-Men at this point because they have had multiple movies to tell their origin."

Superman has one origin movie, the X-Men has one origin movie, and it's not even the real origin (2 if you count Wolverine) and Batman has one origin movie.

Origins movies are a good thing if we have never seen them on screen, Like for Batman, I think we have nailed this story in 2005, let's explore something else. I'm all for starting a franchise with the superhero already a hero, but it's so interesting to see how one becomes a hero that it's a story you HAVE to tell, if you're going to start a franchise.

I would be in favor of a franchise without origins, like if they did the rebooted FF skipping the origins, I wouldn't mind. But it's a downside.

You know you idiots who keeping making articles about a movie sucking before even seeing it, just throw in the towel.

Here's idea, don't see the [frick]ing film, pretend it doesn't exist and move the [frick] on. It's that easy to avoid something.

Warner Brothers is playing it safe because nothing else has worked out for them yet. Hell every studio is playing it safe they are only doing the stuff thats popular and sure fire.

An origin to a reboot is redundant. Most hero origins are already known anyway. I'd rather see origins be villain-centric.

I think with Man of Steel they are doing the origin again because this isn't going to have the same elements of past movies.
Batman is the only movie that had no origin. Even the flashback was only his parents getting killed, not how he became Batman. Some critics saw that as a strike against the film. It's fine to jump right into things for a sequel, but first time out, it is important to establish your world and your rules, especially if its not going to be connected to what we may have seen before.

Have faith :)

As a comic fan I cant get as excited when i hear origin story, but I understand the need. I'm not saying they cant be good. Its just if I hear that the majority of a movie focuses on an origin, i only get a half chub. For me the majority of the time, I like the second movie more. That being said the second movie would not have been as good without the set up of the first. Donners superman is near and dear to my heart( i cant stand all the hate it gets here) but the second was my favorite, to date. Same with Raimis spiderman, Tdk, Blade, Xmen, Hellboy, and Tim Burtons batman. I think the only exception I have is Ironman2. It just seems like for an avid reader, the origins take up precious time, and the more time you spend on the origins the more I want to yawn. I do like origins stories but I like the follow ups more, especially if the hero spends half the movie un superheroic.

I do like the idea of focusing on the villians first and for most. Hell Ive been known to say give big villians there own movie sans hero. Could you imagine a horror flick with the joker, without batman. Let joker wreak havoc for a solo and then clash with batman in a crossover sequel. I am probably the only one that likes this idea but i would love it. Give carnage or venom there own story sans spiderman. Those guys would make great horror movies if you take the hero out.

@fortycals...AMEN!