The Stan Lee cameos are awful, but they aren't the first. Bob Kane had a cameo in Tim Burton's Batman, and I've been told that either Siegel or Shuster appeared in Donner's Superman.

Couldnt agree more, except the stan lee thing. Sure we dont need him reciting lines, but if they reduced him back down to visual cameos, then all would be good.

Number one is perfect.

I don't recall seeing Stan in War Zone. Man, I liked War Zone.

Here's the thing with origin stories, the general audience doesn't really know how these heroes became who they are. Batman and Superman are pretty much etched into public consciousness because they've been around for 80 plus years, but Ironman and other peripheral characters are not so well known. I think origin stories need to be done if they are done well and can bring excitement with them. Ironman did this right. The Spider-man origin was good because while many know he was bitten by radioactive spider many more still do not know why he became a hero. The Donner Superman film did it well except it was a little long so they split it into two movies.

I think if they reboot the a franchise like Superman a new origin story would not be so bad, but instead of Lex Luthor just have Zod or Doomsday be the enemy. Speed it up a little and show why Superman is called "super".

I like seeing Stan in cameo appearances, after all, he is the King of marvel comics. I think he earned it.

I like the Stan Lee cameos, the rest of the list I agree with.

Unlike everyone else, I'm with you on the Stan Lee cameos... it's getting ridiculous. He even had a cameo in Spectacular Spiderman for fuck's sake! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG2cTaE9eFk#t=3m32s

i like the stan lee cameos as well. also, i like origin stories as long as they are done well. batman begins is a good example. it was a long time before we actually saw batman in costume, but the movie was entertaining, and showed some character development as opposed to "my parents were shot, i guess i'll dress like a bat now."

"So while everyone shows up to watch Spider-man take on Sandman, they know eventually they're going to have to sit through a bunch of shit involving Venom, who nobody cares about and really has no reason to be in the film in the first place"

I've fixed that for you. ;) Seriously though, I thought Sandman was by far the superior villain in Spider-Man 3 and Venom was the one who had no reason to be there except Raimi had his arm twisted into it. Good list, except for Stan Lee. Stan's the man, y'know?

Ugh. Stan Lee's cameo in Spiderman 3 was painful to watch again. Who thought that was a good idea?

I'm a bit sick of the Lee cameos. Directors tend to focus on him longer than a typical actor's cameo, really. They really should follow Hitchcock's example: just do a super-quick cameo and leave it at that.

I have been bitching about #3 since Batman Returns. And yet, I'm going to nitpick #3 as well.

In the case of Spider-Man 3 Sandman was one of the few things that movie did right. As big a villain as Venom is, and as big a draw is his name was, you can tell Raimi was more interested in Sandman. But if I remember right I think Sony stepped in and made him include Venom.

Which would be an additional item on the list...but one that goes for a lot of movies, not just the comic book ones. Studio execs need to butt out and let the creative people be creative. Execs are not creative, they are business people. They tend to listen to focus groups and accountants more. And while some creative people might be hacks (a la Brett Ratner) they have a vision. And if they are hacks, then don't hire them. Spider-man 3 would have been a much better movie had Raimi been allowed to make the movie he wanted and not been forced to make the movie the studio wanted.

I think the second Hulk movie did a great job putting in an origin without dwelling on it. Quick scenes in the opening credits, a little expository dialogue later on and we now know why Doc Banner gets green and ugly and why General Ross wants to stop him. It took, what, five minutes? Beautiful.

As for the wasting of characters, I can't agree with you more. Kitty Pryde and Colossus both got screwed in the last movie, the former did not even get a code name! Sure, she's had three in the comic, but I think it would have been great to make fun of that in a running gag:

"I'm Sprite!"

"Like the soft drink? You're angling for an endorsement, aren't you? (have Colossus show a pic with Kitty in a costume with a Sprit logo splashed across her chest).

"I'm Aerial!"

"What, like the Little Mermaid?" (Colossus draws pic of Kitty drawn like a mermaid).

"I'm Shadowcat (glares). Not a word. Shadowcat."

Another one I would add to the list: Do not tie the film's villain into the origin of the hero. You saw this in Tim Burton's first Batman film. The whole "I made you, you made me" is cliche at this point. It got even worse when the FF movie had Dr. Doom mutated by the cosmic radiation also. Surely a villain can be motivated by something outside of his relationship with the hero.

What @Davengencer said.

And definitely enough with the origin stories, already!

You forgot the most important:

STOP TAKING YOUR MASK OFF SHOWING THE WHOLE WORLD YOUR SECRET IDENTITY! :)

This is especially geared towards Spider-man flicks...

Off topic for a minute, has anyone seen a definitive answer from Paramount as to where the R2D2 Easter Egg was in Star Trek for their contest??

5. Completely agree

4. Keep the cameos, but for God's sake shorten them up and maybe swap who it is. I would like to see Ennis or Brubaker.

3. As long as the story is good, cram all the villains you want. Spider-Man 3 was a perfect example of where this goes bad. I loved watching Sandman, but couldn't stand Grace's Venom.

2. Not sure if I'm grasping what you are saying. Cameo appearances are used all the time in comics. We may only get a brief intro to a character and then down the road another author delves into that character a bit more. As a fanboy, I enjoyed seeing Shadowcat run through the door in X-Men. These little nerdgasms are some of my most favorite moments in the movies.

1. Sucks, but you have to keep it the origins. There is a small population that attends the superhero movies that have no idea where the hero/villain comes from. Again, if it's done well, there is a lot of potential there. I loved Batman Begins and don't think that the origin detracts at all. Also, I think this point only holds true for the movies that had TV series to support them (Batman, Hulk, etc), so maybe we could skip lengthy origins on Wonder Woman and Flash. Alternatively, trailers could give us some origin info that the movie doesn't necessarily have to have. Trailers could also advertise to go to a certain link to learn more about this hero/villain. Upon visiting the link we could either read, but it would be better if it had animation or live action. Fingers crossed.

I agree with brem. Why does EVERY superhero film have to include the final fight being done maskless (and usually in front of various people)? I absolutely HATE that about superhero films!

The other thing, about full length origin movies, is that the studios are probably trying to cover their own asses. If the movie doesn't do as well as expected, then they claim, "It was the origin film, the next one will be better!", so we need to sit thru sometimes tedious origin films...again and again and again.

#6: Quit using the same villains.

In addition to cramming 'em in, we always get the same villains, especially when a franchise reboots. We've seen the Joker and Two-face twice already, Spiderman had some version of the goblin twice in three movies, Magneto was in all three X-men, and has Superman fought ANYONE besides Lex Luthor?

There a ton of good villains in each characters' rogue galleries. Yes, we expect at least one movie featuring the "main" nemesis, but let's stretch our creative legs a little, ok?

At least Batman Begins had the balls to use TWO villains not seen before, and Iron Man isn't bringing Stane back while saving the Mandarin for the 3rd movie, so maybe there's hope.

Demasking. Every damned masked superhero gets demasked for the climax of the film, or even earlier. I'm pretty sure everyone in New York City knows who Spider-Man is.

Does Stan Lee's appearance in Mallrats count as a cameo, even though it's not a comic book movie?

I'm glad someone mentioned the public unmaskings that have zero repercussions; as Spidey showed in Civil War, heroes (and villains) wear masks for a very good reason.
A counterpoint I've heard is that given how movies are often marketed based on which actor is in it, the audiences should get to see their faces more. My counter point to THAT is "no, no they shouldn't."

Also, no mention of Stan Lee's cameo in 1989's 'Trial of the Incredible Hulk?' That was his earlies cameo that I've seen, but knowing Lee, I doubt it was his first one.

Have to half agree with the Stan Lee cameos because some of those were downright painful to watch.
But I guess the ones I sort of liked when they had cameos to other important people in that comic characters history, like with Stan Lee walking with Lou Ferrigno and Chris Claremont showing up as well in The Last Stand.
But best cameo is probably Spider-Man showing up in the first X-Men movie. Sure it was a joke but it was still fun to see.

--
No origin stories?

Then why the hell did you go see Star Trek this summer and not "just wait" for it's sequel.

STFU.

Personally, I like the Stan Lee cameos. And it's not like they are in EVERY superhero movie or even every Marvel movie - just the ones for characters he created which is - coincidentally - the ones people were likely to watch.

That's why he appeared in Daredevil, but not Elektra. That's why he appeared in both Hulk movies but not both Punisher movies.

Besides, after what Stan pulled this weekend with the Spider-Man newspaper strip, he can appear in every movie ever made from this moment forward if he wants to.

I agree on the Stan Lee cameos, although I would take it further and say enough with his automatic "Executive Producer" credit on the Marvel movies. Yes, he helped create many of the characters, but who actually believes he had that much input in these movies?

And about #3- I think "The Dark Knight" actually did a great job incorporating two villains in a natural way. Two-Face didn't seem crammed into the story. However, I've always said that Spider-Man 3 was the mash-up of one good movie (Spider-Man vs. Sandman) and one bad movie (everything dealing with Venom).

Fun list. I completely agree with the overstuffing of villains, and I agree with the posters above that Venom was the one shoehorned uselessly in. (And with that storyline's elimination, we'd have been spared the Spidey Night Fever Peter Parker, too.)

I have a soft spot for Stan Lee cameos, but I'd be all over making them a little more subtle.

Hey...I LIKE the Stan Lee cameos. In fact,I think he should be revealed as a Super Skrull whos been keeping tabs on earths heroes and be the main villian in THE AVENGERS movie. Other than that,sweet-ass list...especially no. 1. Iron Man was a movie that worked in spite of its played out plot...at this point its like SuperHero Mad Libs.

i like some of Stan Lee's cameos, but sometimes they are forced. With that said he was an awesome Willy Lumpkin in the FF movies.

i thought one of the 5 things would be making the characters "darker" and "grittier".

Come on. Because of the Venom storyline we got to see what a black Spidey suit looked like. That is so incredibly important to my life. I mean it's like the normal red and blue and silver suit, but it's black and silver. That is so effing cool. It's like red and blue aren't the new black, black is the old black and it's black too.
Black.

Most of what you said was pretty strong, but your last point was baseless. You're presuming to know why everyone wants to watch a superhero movie, and that they all have the same reasons. A good writer and director can take a character's origin, streamline it and work it into an exciting storyline while at the same time showing the audience the character's motivations. Of course everyone knows Peter was a nerd and got bitten by a radioactive spider, but we also know he swings on webs, fights the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, he always wins, and loves Mary Jane. Why not leave out that stuff too?

I won't argue that some 'origin story' films haven't been overdone, or just outright sucked, but that doesn't invalidate the convention. All that matters is if the movie is good or not.

Umm...Ryan? Executive Producer means he helped pay for it. Nothing else.

I really disagree with most of the list except for the first one. First point: Excellent, that stuff's stupid.

I can't disagree more about Dark Knight - the movie was about the contrast between Batman and Harvey, with the Joker in the middle being awesome.

Also, Batman Begins was awesome, Spiderman 1 was pretty good, and I thought the most recent Hulk suffered from lack of new backstory - they saw how much people hated Ang Lee's version and went crazy in the opposite direction.

Oh, and fun fact: Stan Lee currently has the highest combined take of all "movies appeared in" of any actor, ever. (well, minus Frank Welker, but he's just voice)

I agree with most of your points, and I'd also have to add in how dumb taking masks off all the time is. While some people defend Stan Lee cameos, I have to go out of my way and say they should go away. It's gotten gratuitous, and even Heroes had a Stan Lee cameo. I have a feeling that if he's alive in another ten years, DC movies will start featuring him in a small cameos out of respect.

I think they do well with the stan lee cameo's. They actually shortened some of them, if you watch behind the scenes of Iron man, Stan was actually supposed to have lines, but they decided it ruined the Hefner joke.

As for multiple villains, this can be a problem, unless done right, the problem isn't to many villains, it is that they try to focus on all of them. Next spidey film should start out with a 5-10 minute fight with someone like shocker, or rhyno, and then you never see that guy again for the rest of the film, cause that is how a spidey story starts.

I think you're spot on with your critique.

On origin stories: I think you've got a point there too. I was, at first, going to write that I do like to watch the origin story told in full feature length movie format, but upon reflection, this depends on the hero in question. Some have better stories than others. For example, I think Ghostrider would have sucked a whole lot less if they had *not* done his origin story, but focused on something else instead where we could've just watched him be bad ass for the whole show. (Note: I actually loved the Ghostrider film even though it sucked. But that's because I think flaming demonic skeletons that wear leather coats and ride flaming motorcycles that scare the s*** out of bad guys with a penance stare are just really, really, insanely cool.)

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

agree with you on the list. but hollwood sees comic films as a gold mien to tap to death they will not change. as for the stan lee camoe's that is marvel way of making it so they do not have to pay him so many royalties for the film versions and espiclly would love them to stop having some many vilians for it weighs down the films. and hero vs vilian battle.

What about the secret identity, seems like every movie the hero must reveal his or her secret identity in th efirst movie!!!

Off topic, but please have better looking female leads in the new Batman series... PLEASE!

You lost me when you said everybody wanted to see Venom in Spidey 3. We want to see the Ditko/early Romita Spideys - and Venom was no damn part of that. Raimi made a perfect movie in Spidey 2, dealing just with the 60's material, when the character and mood were perfect.

I think you take an entirely too fannish point of view. No, my grandmother as no idea how Spider-Man got his powers. General audiences need thing s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t in the main plot.

I don't mind the Lee appearances, as long as they are subtle Hitchcockian fun. As soon as he speaks or plays a character, all the charm is ruined.

DEFINITELY agree on the multiple villain criticism though. This has wrecked many movies, and just reeks of studio interference in order to sell more toys.

I disagree about the origin thing, that's totally necessary to set up the characters and the world they live in. Filmmakers today just need to do it a bit quicker. Not opening-montage quick, but say, 45 minutes out of a 2:10 feels OK for a first chapter. And they need to learn to stop doing these ridiculously long three-hour movies. I think that the first Spider-Man movie handled that pretty well, as long as Peter/Spidey is concerned. The Goblin scenes are pretty boring to watch now, in comparison.

Love the list, EXCEPT for #1. I definitely have to disagree with the origin stories. Granted, there are some really bad ones out there, but I look to the ones like Batman Begins to show that an origin story can be really good. And I agree with THE PR0F3550R--most mainstream audiences don't know the various origins, so it's a way to draw them in AND educate...Provided you tell the story correctly.

I can agree with everything here, although the Stan lee cameos do polarize me somewhat. I preferred the types in the first X-Men and Spider-Man films where he was slotted into the background briefly, making it a bit nicer when you picked him out. Now they are just too obvious

I'm also going to agree with the people on here who thought Sandman was the best villain on Spider-Man 3. Probably the best thing in the film. His story really was engaging, and tragic and I was moved by how much he cared for his daughter and how he didn't mean to kill Uncle Ben. Venom was tacked on and the new Goblin was sheer pointless, especially with that bad bit of writing about the butler knowing Norman has killed himself and keeping it from Harry.

Multiple villains would only work if the villain can't carry a film. Spider-Man 3 would have been better served if they had taken 5 memorable but minor villains (ones that don't have compelling backstories...Electro, Vulture, Rhino, Shocker, and Sandman) and have them united under Harry's leadership to be the Sinister Six. Also, intro the black costume which would help Spidey beat them...and then get rid of it and let it be the teaser for a full-on Venom flick...oh well, at least the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon managed to do it.

A 6th entry for this list would be "Stop Dumbing Down the Flicks For Easy Money After a Successful Film Offers Deep Characterization and Compelling Story." The Last Stand and Spider-Man 3 are of course guilty of this...and to an extent, so did Blade.

I don't get the hate for Stan Lee cameos.

He's the reason most if not all of us became comic book fans. So the cameos are sometimes silly, so what. We should be happy he's still here to make them. Too bad Jack Kirby couldn't have lived long enough to cameo with Stan in FF2.

The best points have been mentioned in these comments, specifically, the hero's inevitable unmasking and the baddies' connection to the hero's origins. Unfortunately, I think these plot twists are characteristic of Hollywood's adaptation of comics in general; if you're going to cast an A-list actor in a role like Spidey or Iron Man, whose faces are totally obscured, you have to show them ACT in those critical final scenes, I'm afraid. Also, Hollywood presumes that comics are very incestuous with everybody having a connection to everybody else, so Joker killing Batman's parents, or Sandman being on the scene of Uncle Ben's murder, makes sense. Comics are a small world through Hollywood's eyes -- despite their attempts to expand them to the big screen.

Points 2, 3 and 5 are spot on. But like so many others here I don't understand the complaints about the Stan Lee cameos. You have to come up with five things and that one somehow made the cut? His cameos do nothing to harm the overall films he's in and they're still very cute and fun. It's like a game of "Where's Waldo?"

You're also absolutely dreaming if you think everyone and their grandmother knows these origin stories. Superman? Yeah, I'll give you that one. He's been around forever as THE iconic superhero of at least three generations now. I've never cared for the character but I recognize his importance. But everyone doesn't know Spidey's origin or Hulk's or Daredevil's. Heck, even Batman's isn't as well-known as you think. There's nothing wrong with telling the origin story. But just like any movie you have to tell a GOOD origin story. Spidey and Batman Begins worked them in very well. Just assuming you have a smart, build in audience for a franchise that you have scheduled for at least three movies isn't a good idea. They make these movies hoping to draw in everyone from kids, to older folks to yes the comic book nerds. Tell the origin but only tell it once. From then on out do what Spidey does with a recap of events until now during the title sequence.

Oh, and on a side note. WHY does Gambit have a legion of fans? He's the most boring, cliched X-Man of all time. The less we see of him the better.

First I charge de card... deh I throw de card! LAME.

The thing about the masks: If they DON'T take them off for the important dialogue bits, it ends up looking like a Power Rangers episode, with bad dubbing. It's mostly a problem in the SPIDER-MAN movies, which is Reason #57 why Sam Raimi should have done Batman instead (Hardly anyone in BATMAN wears masks, and those that do don't conceal the actor's eyes and mouth)(Reasons #1-56 boil down to Raimi actually being a lifelong Batman fan, unlike Burton or Schumacher or Nolan, and thus actually LIKING and UNDERSTANDING the material...)

Karaokefanboy is on the right track. The reason there are so many unmasked battles in superhero films are twofold: First, many stars demand as much on-screen face time as possible. They want it known that it's really them on the screen as opposed to a stuntman (though more often than not you'll get a stuntman with the A-lister's face pasted onto the body by CGI magic). Secondly, combat scenes are filled with tension and emotion, and the director wants the actor to be able to bring out these intense feelings on screen. It's much easier to do so without a mask. Particularly in the case of somebody like Spiderman, who's mask normally conceals everything.

Doc

5,4,2,1-100% on the money.

3-Not so much. My GF and I were discussing Batman 3 (whatever it's called) villains and came to the conclusion it now HAS to be a major threat in order for the Bat to win back the public's trust. But with Joker not coming back, Twoface dead, Ghul already done-we're looking at B-listers as penguin has been ruled out, it's too early for Bane and Poison Ivy, Riddler and Catwoman...well not that threatening.

I hope they'd use someone like Firefly, Zsasz (Properly done mind, not that bald goomba in Begins) or even Killer Croc. Firefly's a threat to Gotham Physically but Croc-a monster that eats people will work the psyche of any city. Or worse Zsasz-a killer who can murder anyone, at home, on the street, in school....
Esssentially certain films are going to NEED a bigger threat than 1 villain can supply.

I agree with most of this great list. I think stan cameos are fine as long as they are like the cameo in FF2 where he was himself and his only line was "I'm Stan Lee." Not trying to deliver some deep meaningful lines like in spidey 3. The multiple villian worked in the Dark Knight and well I might add because batman wasn't dealing with two face till the very end of the movie. He had his hands full with the Joker. I figure origin stories are ok when done right and not done by pretentious douche bags like raitiner. I think that another flaw of comic movies is actually killing the bad guys. Save em for opening fights like DE12 said. Cuz that's how most comics are formulated. Quick fight then a story.

Face it: The Stan Lee cameo is to superhero movie as the Wilhelm scream is to adventure movies. It's here to stay.

The Stan Lee cameos are fine. He did great as the Fantastic Four's doorman; fit the image perfectly. Could do without Bruce Campbell in every Spider-Man movie (and game, for crying out loud!)

The ONE thing they need to stop doing is CHANGING EVERY CHARACTER. Doctor Doom was NOT with the Fantastic Four...Superman did NOT have a crystal spaceship (which they've since written into the #&*(@& comic books!), and DOES NOT shoot beams from his palms (a la Superman II), the X-Men would not be the same if you killed off Professor X and Cyclops (X-Men III)...the list of "movie screw-ups" goes on and on.

The only thing I can do is what Toriyama said about the Dragonball movie: "Consider it another universe, and enjoy it for what it is." I'm going to do the same with the new teen Star Trek movie, and go on enjoying my original Star Trek as well.

Oh, BTW: Some people have never seen the "origin story" for comic books, so the first movie NEEDS to be the origin. I had never heard of The Mask, Wanted, Barb Wire, Constantine, The Crow, Hellboy, Judge Dredd, Men in Black, Monkeybone, Painkiller Jane (TV movie), the Rocketeer, Sin City, The 300, V for Vendetta, Witchblade (TV movie/series), or Heavy Metal before the movies came out. Putting these on the Big Screen opens them up to thousands of viewers that may not know the origin story at all.

Will Smith's character in ID4 screams, 'I have GOT to get me one of THESE!' while piloting the alien saucer

I think this whole list is bunk...fodder to produce arguments. I usually enjoy the Topless Robot articles, including these "Top (Whatever)" lists, but this one's just lazy and totally nit-picky. They're not giving Stan Lee a big role, just a few lines...what's so bad about that? Sure the "I gotta get me one of those" thing is overdone, but who cares about one line? Origin stories are necessary. Multiple villains? Get them in the comics ALL THE TIME. Wasted side characters? Most of them aren't needed anyway...it's background fun. Have you ever read an X-Men comic that didn't show multiple mutants standing around in the background but never used? I rest my case.

"I've got to get one of these."
Yeah. Hell, Triple-X 2 had that cliche too.

What they need to do for the next Batman flick is have ALL the b-listers show up for a proper beatdown. And, I know it's DC, but Stan Lee needs to cameo in there somewhere.

@Doc:

Ha... After seeing their movies, most people wished they STILL had never heard of Wanted, Barb Wire, Constantine, Judge Dredd, Monkeybone, Painkiller Jane, Witchblade, and Heavy Metal...

Not to mention Spawn, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Captain America, Ghost Rider, the(Ang Lee)Hulk, Josie and the Pussycats, The(Dolph Lungren)Punisher, the Shadow, Steel, Supergirl, the Spirit (!!), the Swamp Thing, and others.

As much as I may love Stan Lee, they're overdoing his cameos somewhat. Like someone previously said, keep them down to the brief Hitchcock style visual cameos & they'd be great. Everything else I agree with.

I completely disagree with number four. It's still funny and a highlight for every Marvel movie I see. Some are better than others (Spider-Man 3's cameo had the worst, most forced line of them all), but most of them are harmless and they don't detract from the story. Any one of those cameos could have been replaced with some random guy and we wouldn't think twice. Except for Spider-Man 3. That would have been even weirder if that wasn't Stan Lee. Rise of the Silver Surfer too, I suppose. And technically Iron Man...
...
You know what? Fuck you, I still enjoy them.

Yep I am a Stan fan too. It's not as if they are SO forced to create a problem with the movie. And hell I thought the Spidey 3 dialogue scene was cute. It raised a huge smile from me. Personally It would bother me either way and I think many folks couldn't care less.

On the subject of maskless end battles... I got into a debate about this circa Spidey 2 which I thought the more astute people would have gotten by now. Ahem... people in final scenes and moment of tension and emotion MUST have their faces visable. It's the only way to bloody EMOTE! That is what separates live action from animation - In the cartoons you can have the mask on forever but why bother hiring an actor if you can't see him act because of a mask. It's how we can relate to them for flip's sake!

So yeah - KEEP STAN!

Every time I point out that Spider-Man needs to take off his mask to emote, EVERY GODDAMN TIME, the person I talk to ALWAYS says, "That's because Toby McGuire can't act." They may not even necessarily think he did a poor job-- they just assume if he was that much better of an actor he could convey the entire realm of human emotions even when his entire face (and body, for what it's worth) is completely covered showing an emotionless, albeit iconic, face.

Take C-3PO for instance. Anthony Daniels did a fantastic job conveying emotions with body language, but that's just it-- you needed to see his body to understand what he was feeling (just dubbing over with enthusiastic acting would look horribly fake). The result? 3PO never got a close up. Not when he was emoting, anyway.

For Spider-Man to have his mask on at ALL times, you'd get nothing but wide shots and/or have him flailing his head around like a Power Ranger.

I like origin stories. Believe it or not, I didn't know Iron Man's origin until I saw the film. Seriously. I still know squat about the origins of the other three characters leading up to the Avengers film, so I'm actually looking forward to those.

Also, did you even watch The Dark Knight? It wouldn't have been nearly as good as it was without Harvey Dent. But, yes, most of the time the multiple villains thing is rather annoying.

There are a few RARE occasions when a "throwaway" appearance by a character doesn't mean they won't be shown ever again. Kitty Pryde had throwaway cameos in the first 2 X-Men movies and still became one of the featured cast in the Last Stand. But overall, I agree, a lot of great characters get shafted because they're shown once for 5 seconds.

@Selaphiel:
Dark Knight needed Harvey Dent, but it didn't need Two-Face. Not the wasted and killed off before he even really became one of Batman's rogues Two-Fae they gave us, at least.

This list, while being only the tip of the iceberg, is why I FUCKING HATE COMIC BOOK MOVIES. HATE THEM. Can't remember the last time I walked out of a theater after seeing one and thought "hey, that was excellent!" but I am filled with self-loathing and am apparently determined to punish myself so I keep going to see them. Wheeeeee!

1. Yeah, I think this is the wrong place to praise Venom over Sandman. Venom showing up was the beginning of the two-decades-long descent into shittiness of the Spider-Man comics; Sandman's a reminder of the good times before crap like Carnage / clones / spider-totems / Green Goblin fucking Gwen Stacey / OMD / etc. Venom wasn't everything wrong with 90s comics in one package (... that's Gambit...), but it was one of the tipping points.

2. That said, "He's the reason most if not all of us became comic book fans." Um, no. Marv Wolfman, George Perez, Neal Adams, Jim Aparo and Denny O'Neil got me first.

3. The maskless thing is a problem with "name" actors in the lead roles - and even if they're unknown, by the time a sequel hits they're enough of a name that they will demand additional face time during the action scenes anyway. You can bet that Mandarin / Whiplash / whomever is going to tear off the Iron Man mask towards the end of the sequel, because that way Downey gets to remind everyone that he's the lead character. That's just how Hollywood works. Speaking of which...

4. Executive Producer just means "producer in name only" (I think Kevin Smith coined that phrase during the Superman / Jon Peters story). They get paid, but they don't actually do anything. It's usually thrown around as just another credit during the development of a film. An actual producer is more like George Lucas' role in Empire and Jedi, overseeing the entire production but not involved in the day-to-day making of the movie.

5. Hollywood loves origin movies because they're easy to produce and promote. Unless you've got a Dark-Knight-calibre script, it's hard to hang 120 minutes' worth of flesh on a superhero movie's proverbial bones.

I'd be okay with the Stan cameos if they had him doing something interesting or integral to the movie for a split second.

As much as I like the idea of other creator cameos, there aren't a lot of people who know what anyone but the biggies look like. I suppose it'd be a pretty hardcore nerd nod, though.

5. YES, PLEASE. STOP THAT.

4. Don't really give less of a shit who cameos. I'm not particularly attached to the comic book artists.

3. Agreed. One villain with tons of development is better than 3 with minimal development, although I honestly thought Harvey Dent was fine.

2. Totally agree.

1. I'm mixed on this. Most of the origin stories done for superheroes so far that I've seen have been fantastic - Iron Man and Dark Knight being the stellar examples. If they can make more those, I don't mind.

- Masks need to stop getting torn off in final fight scene

- the murder of the hero's parent(s) should not be the villain in the first movie

- Ditch obligatory love interest

murder of parents as villain? which films are we talking?

Multiple villains can be used if they make sense to the story line. For example Superman 2 featured 4 villains: Lex Luthor, General Zod, Ursa, and Non. All had a link to each other, and a reason be there, and most importantly all seem to have advanced the storyline naturally

I'm in complete agreement with the origin stories comment. Better yet, if you have to do the origin story, why not make it a complete mystery? The Man with No Name had no origin story. James Bond has no origin story. You only need to establish the hero's abilities so that the film makes sense. Leave the revealing the dead parents until we've spent enough time with the hero that we actually care to know.

"murder of parents as villain? which films are we talking?"

I assume he meant "murderer", in which case - take your pick, basically. Joker in Batman 89, Ra's in Begins (indirectly), probably a bunch more I'm forgetting. Spider-Man also did that, but waited until the third movie.

And I think Superman II's one of the worst examples of the multiple villains trope; Lex really doesn't need to be in the movie, and probably wouldn't have been as prominent if it wasn't for the dual-film nature of those first two.

I am actually a fan of back stories for the super heroes if done right i also wish that they would do some on the villians from time to time. Not as long but a little bit on how this character became who he is now. Kinda like sandman in spiderman 3 or two-face (harvey dent) in batman. It is bad to just see a villian come out of no where with powers of his own sitting there wondering WTF. Most people know back stories on comic book characters but not everyone.

Superman II is one of the bad examples, actually - you could very easily do the same movie without Luthor's involvement. He was basically only there because both the first two were filmed simultaneously, and doesn't contribute much beyond getting Zod and company up to the Fortress.

Thank you! I freakin hate origin stories. Every single stupid comic book movie has to have this long drawn out boring origin. What is wrong with just having a story without having to explain the character's origin, a good story doesn't require the origin. I am glad others see it the same way.

As somebody said, Batman Begins was an origin story, but was amazing. It made the story better, and didn't detract from it. Spider-Man also did a pretty good origin story. Then Iron Man did it. Basically we have The Hulk as the biggest negative example.

Origin stories are important because they allow a rare focus on the character development. Once a person dons a mask, he tends to stagnate. He is Batman, he is Superman, he has discovered who he is supposed to be. Sure there are little tweaks from time to time, but the biggest decision ever is why he started doing it in the first place. I happen to love origin stories for that very reason. Sometimes their sequels are better, but sometimes they are only as good or worse. The Dark Knight was great, but I think Batman Begins was just as good. They were different movies and had a different purpose.

As somebody said, Batman Begins was an origin story, but was amazing. It made the story better, and didn't detract from it. Spider-Man also did a pretty good origin story. Then Iron Man did it. Basically we have The Hulk as the biggest negative example.

Origin stories are important because they allow a rare focus on the character development. Once a person dons a mask, he tends to stagnate. He is Batman, he is Superman, he has discovered who he is supposed to be. Sure there are little tweaks from time to time, but the biggest decision ever is why he started doing it in the first place. I happen to love origin stories for that very reason. Sometimes their sequels are better, but sometimes they are only as good or worse. The Dark Knight was great, but I think Batman Begins was just as good. They were different movies and had a different purpose.

best stan lee cameo in a movie: mallrats (which isn't a comicbook movie per se, but is at least marginally about comicbooks). 'nuff said.

If you remove Lex Luthor from Superman II, you still have a movie with 3 villains, General Zod, Non, and Ursa. It seems kinda natural that those 3 would appear in the same movie, because of the shared history of the 3.

The Stan Lee cameo idea is ludicrous. He deserves to be in every Marvel film and I look forward to his cameos. True, he should be more like Hitchcock and not have distracting roles, but I enjoy finding his appearance in every classic Marvel hero film.

The exclusion of long origin tales is also ridiculous. The origin is THE superhero. Spider-Man is Spider-Man because of "With great power comes great responsibility." Batman is Batman because of his parents death and the trauma it inflicted. Superman is Superman because he was raised by humble blue-collar folks who instilled Truth, Justice and the American Way. Daredevil is Daredevil because his father was murdered and not avenged. Well... you get the picture. How about we stop having BAD origin stories like Wolverine, or flashback origin stories like Daredevil or the Tim Burton Batman that don't do enough to show us the character's growth?

The main ones I agree with are inserting too many supervillains, or inserting too many great characters in side roles, which honestly, you could lump that all together. Hollywood goes crazy (especially in sequels) and wants to insert so many famous fictional names, that it becomes one big jumbled mess.

I actually many of these origin stories are a very important part of telling the overall story and think that hollywood will eventually incorporate the internet and animated dvd's to tell these origins.

Imagine if you could see a 6-15 minute origin story for free on Youtube. It would be one of the best advertising vehicles for the studios and it will get fans excited about seeing the movies.

Follow me at www.twitter.com/thecrypticone

Fuck that . I like the Stan Lee cameos .

@ragetreb

Cheers and thanks for listening.

i think blade was the first successful superhero movie of the current run of them. granted he is not as well known but it came out in 98, 2 years before x-men, and was successful enough to spawn two sequels. it also had bullet time before the matrix. the original blade rarely gets its due.

Wow.... I disagree with EVERYTHING you just said, except possibly number 3, and even that is because most directors can't handle it, not because there is anything inherently wrong with it.

You are 100% right on cramming too many villains into these movies.

I've been complaining about it for years. There just isn't enough movie to try to jam so many freaking story lines in. Simple typically means better (with The Dark Knight being a rare exception, although you have a good point on how necessary Two-face was.).

Give Stan Lee his cameos; he deserves them. Just be glad that he's lived long enough to see some of his creations become box-office blockbusters. If Jack Kirby had lived long enough to see this, would YOU have denied him the opportunity to be in a Fantastic Four or X-Men movie?

Pretty much agreeing with this list. But thanks for reminding me how awesome Doc Oc was and then the sad mess the next movie became. ;_;
D Styl has the right idea with the cameos. I want my Stan Lee 'Where's Waldo?' style and nothing more.

I for one like the Origin stories the best. Spiderman 1, Iron Man, Batman Returns and even the old Superman 1 are among the best, if not the best of the genre.

As for "2) Wasting Awesome Side Characters", I think the worst case was Spider-man 3 with Gwen Stacy. Though that's more like turning a strong supporting character, you know the main character's love of his life, into an extended cameo.

The cameos kill me! I remember screaming at the movie screen during X2 when Colossus ask Logan, "Do you want me to come with you?" Fuck yes! Ultimate team-up. But...nope!

I agree with Rob. Stan's gotta relax a little.

"Basically everyone who goes to a Batman movie knows how Batman became Batman."

Uh, no, that's why we all went to go see it. We only had hints about how he was trained, etc. It may have been more well understood amongst comic nerds, but to the general public this was not known at all....and I'd venture to guess that most geeks only had hint here-and-there throughout the years. Origin stories are essential--otherwise there's no buy in from the general public. And let's face it, there aren't enough geeks to make a superhero movie successful--the gen pub needs to make it a success.

Geez, people, Stan Lee is definitely not the first to appear in movies like this. Alfred Hitchcock appeared in a LOT of his movies in cameos, as does Stephen King. Good company, I think.

Unpopular opinion I suppose given the tone of this article, but I needed Wolverine's origin's explained. Although admittedly it didn't need to be what it was in the theater.

For example I didn't know his claws were bone that were plated in adamantium. Though I suppose I should have predicted that much in retrospect.

One thing movie articles always bring me back to is this notion of perfection, or betterness. Cliches are a safe way of having a neat introduction to fillerspace. your example was good for this. We really don't need a car chase for batman, but it is entertaining, and you don't go to movies for any other reason except to be entertained.

Spiderman, Batman, and Superman really didn't need an origins story, but many characters need them. Iron man has no apparent reason to do what he does if you encounter him midcomic (as I did). Superman, batman, and spiderman have their origins explained so thoroughly even in the oldest of old cartoons that its not necessary for them.

I talk too much.

wow man, does it really bother you that much to see stan lee for about 3 seconds in a movie?

You lost me with that crap about Venom being a better villain than Sandman. Screw 1990's Spider-Man comics and screw Todd MacFarlane.

All good points except for Stan Lee. Stan is marvel and if a cameo ruins a movie then that movie has bigger problems. Stan's the man make mine marvel

Judge Dredd film bad. Law is blind, therefore do not show it's eyes.

All the comments above mine make good points in regard to the article's list. I just wanted to reply to one a few comments back, about Wolverine's claws being bone.

It has been depicted in the comics and now this new Wolverine movie that his claws were always there (that's fine) and made of bone (not fine). In reality, the claws and nails of all animals, including humans, are made of the same material, a protein compound called keratin, not bone. My guess is that whatever comic writer was charged with writing the script for the (whatever x-men) comic wherein his claws are revealed to still be there (sans-adamantium) and be made of bone, probably didn't take a few minutes to look up what animal claws are actually made of and write it in there. Now, years later, this small mistake is still present in the collective comic readers' mind, forcing the movie's writers to continue this error (unless they didn't care to look it up either).

Though it may seem stupid and trivial, these are the kind of little detail mistakes that break my suspension of disbelief while watching a decent overall comic movie adaptation of Wolverine's origin story (or other comic based movie). I like grounding fantastic comic charatcers in reality, at least a little, that makes their world that much more believable and enjoyable.

Sucking.

All of this points are right, can't agree totally with Lee cameos, but all the other stuff is OK. I think the worst crime in a comic movie, even more than cramming villains, is wasting cool B-characters, the Wolverine movie is the best (or worst?) example of this, what they did to Emma Frost, Gambit and Deadpool (specially Deadpool) is a blasphemy.

Peace.

Yeah, they threw in the origin story for Spider-Man, but at least they didn't ruin it by forcing him to choose between saving the bus full of kids or Mary Jane. That would have sucked.

All I know is that if Kirsten Dunst plays Mary Jane in the next Spider-Man movie, I'm going to be the one wishing for Mephisto to come and wipe her out of continuity.

I love Kiki, but hate her as MJ.

actuallty i enjoyed peter parker turning into batman more than when he was actually batman.

sorry i meant bruce wayne :P

I like this list. But I can't say I agree with you in the slightest regarding the stan lee cameos and the feature length origin movies.

First of all the stan lee cameos, while incredibly cheesy and unnecessary in every way, are okay with me. Why? Because the man invented most of the marvel universe and set the stage for everything the marvel universe is today. Unlike most old school DC comics, the old issues of Avengers and Fantastic Four and others (all collected in Marvel Masterworks) are still good stores. So what if he's a has been, these characters are his "babies" let him do his thing and get over it!

Second, the feature length origin movies are getting better and better and are an exciting and fun story telling piece on the silver screen. And if the movies are handled properly they set the stage for the rest of the movies in their particular franchise. I know the sentiment of most people writing on this site is anti origin movie, but seriously, not everyone knows the things we know and can just jump into the characters like we can, they need to know how it all started.

I know this is slightly different but do you really thing the Star Wars Trilogy would be better without A New Hope? Or that one should only watch The Two Towers and the Return of the King for the full cinematic LoTR experience? I certainly know the Matrix trilogy wouldn't be better without the first one.

Yes sequels are often better (ie - Dark Knight and Batman Begins) But in my book that just means they did a good enough job with the origin movie to be able to continue the story better the second time around. The superhero franchise needs and will continue to have the feature length origin movie! While some of you may not appreciate the first movies, just leave them to those of us who see the values of a good beginning.

I will have to say,I hated all the origin crap in Batman Begins. Remember Jokers great line in the first Burton film-"Where does he get those wonderful toys?" THATS ALL YOU NEED!!!! The worst parts of the new Batman movies are the 30-40 minutes of Morgan Freeman explaining how and where he purchases tires for the Batmobile. I dont care which Wayne Enterprises front company was used to purchase the ears that make up Batmans cowl...I just wanna see Batman beating the hell out of the Joker and driving the Batmobile!!!

also, you know what really pisses me off most about the Spider-man movies??? When people like you bitch about them being too cheesy or corny. When people do that I want to punch them and then quickly hand them some assorted spider-man issues from over the years. Not just the early stuff, but more recent ones too. And then make them watch all of the various forms of Spider-man cartoons old and new. And then you'll realize that to make a Spider-Man movie that isn't corny at all would be unfaithful and untrue to the characters and nature of story telling.

The Dark Knight needed two face, I will never forgive someone saying otherwise.

Stan Lee cameos: Keep them, but keep them brief or referental (In "FF:Silver Surfer", it was a repeat of a joke from FF Annual #3 and it worked)
Origins: Iron Man needed it. Superman doesn't. Best "origin" within a film / tv show: "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm"!
Interesting to note that older movies / tv shows DIDN'T do origins! The '60s Batman & Green Hornet didn't need them. They were just THERE, fighting crime, and the audience accepted them!

Didn't read all 110 posts before this but, let me add another to the list of things to stop doing.

NO MORE BURNING INITIALS OR LOGOS ON THE GROUND (or anywhere) !!!

One of the dumbest things film makers do when they don't understand the genre they're working is to look at or copy those that have done it previous. It was fine for the the Crow to do it because he was the type to send a message to those he was going kill. But why the f*#k would Daredevil do it? Or why would the Punisher do it and in such a way that only people flying over in airplanes can see? I haven't seen it recently thank goodness, but please Hollywood don't go back to this ever again.

I'll disagree with all the whining you've just done. Too many villains but not enough on the heroes? If they want to expand the hero (or quasi-bad good guy, quasi-good bad guy, etc. ad nauseum), they can just make another episode with them featured. It's a whole hero universe so Marvel could mix it up with each X-Men, rather than have Wolverine XIV.
Kids... don't know the origins. Not everyone actually reads 'comics' or 'graphic novels'... and not every character's comic... but most of us like the action flick. Beginnings are good. So maybe we know about Super and Bat Man, ok. You want flashback beginning cameos, fine, just make them complete. We don't want to have to guess why the next obscure comic hero's magic decoder ring is specially green instead of gold/silver. The cameos and the oh wows... ohmigod, how terrible! And lose the fucking profanity... it's not literary gem-a-riffic... it just points out the whining factor.

Didn't see Stan Lee in Wolverine. Of course, I didn't see Len Wein, Herb Trimpe, nor John Romita Sr. either.

@Aaron: Claws also don't grow out of animals' wrists and break the skin every time they're drawn. You can't have mutants who defy reality and then get hung up on one detail that doesn't match with what nature shows us. Keratin is weaker than bone, and at the length Wolverine's claws are they would be breaking constantly. So while calling them "claws" could be seen as a misnomer, there isn't exactly another suitable word for them. "Long, pointy bone things", perhaps?

I'm reminded of the story I heard on I think it was the Finding Nemo DVD. During the production, some people pointed out that fish don't have eyelids. The response given was basically, "They also don't talk, hold things with their fins, or really do much of anything portrayed in this movie."

I completely disagree with you about the origin stories. In the majority of cases regarding "successful" comic book to film adaptations, the initial film in the series (the one containing the origin story) is the best of the series. Is anyone going to argue that the first X-Men or Spiderman were actually worse than the sequels? I certainly wont. Also of note, The Dark Knight (the only solid exception to this trend) also contained two well done villain origin stories intertwined with the film. Without those, The Dark Knight would not be such a masterful film. ;)

Similarly, the latest Hulk reboot could have been so much more. Even though I thought it was a "decent" film, the lack of a quality origin story made me feel as though something vital has been taken out and replaced with more plot/action devices that weren't at all needed. It actually detracted from the film in this case.

As a fan of comics when I was younger, and eventually losing my interest in them as I "got older", I really enjoy well done origin stories for comic book characters. Hell, I don't even mind when small liberties are taken to make it better for film. Not all of us are of the mindset that we want to see people with extraordinary powers do heroic deeds, non stop, for two hours or more. I am MORE interested in watching GREAT movies about comic book characters. I am MORE interested in watching a memorable character I followed as a child be born, and evolve, over the duration of several quality films.

Origin stories are the REASON for the comic book film revival. Saying they are the "Number 1" thing you dislike is just silliness at best; seriously misguided logic, tastes, and attention span at worst.

Your Wrong about the last one!

Just because you are a comic book nerd and all your friends are comic book nerds dosnt mean that main stream america is a comic book nerd. All of these movies MUST have some sort of origin film for the GP to understand where they are comming from.

You are giving the average american too much credit. Here is a good thing to ask yourself when you want to know if the average american would get it. "Would Paris Hilton get this?" From now on whenever in doubt about the american public, just ask yourself that question and you'll find your answer.

"Would Paris Hilton know Peter Parker is Spiderman?" - I dont think so....make the movie!

I think you're giving the general public too much credit and/or overestimating their comic book intelligence. Origin stories are cinema fodder for the comic book savvy but your average joe blow often has misconceptions about the comic book beginnings of any given hero or villain. Over the years the multiple movies, cartoon series, comics, spin-offs etc have polluted the public consciousness so much so that they don't know which medium is the right one. In an effort to constantly milk their comic book franchises, Marvel or DC often leave whichever studio bought rights to a comic to make up their own stories and usually they can corrupt certain origins in order to make a more attractive series.

I think you didn't completely understand Nolan's take on the Dark Knight. Harvey Dent/Two Face was actually the center of the movie. Seeing how Batman looked at Harvey as the "white light" for Gotham and then Joker "agent of chaos" taking that beaken of hope and smashing it in Batman's face thus creating Two Face: A man with nothing but a gun and a coin as the judge; 50-50, no debating, no plea just chance. For what its worth this was a two face that served a great purpose in the film but maybe the campy, over the top, zebra printed Tommy Lee Jone version is more your cup of tea.

The Stan Lee cameos are well deserved. Stan helped produce a great many marvel characters, when I used to read the comics and the old cartoons, it was always neat to hear Stan's voice or read his words at the beginning or end. Considering some of the times marvel has weathered thanks to the characters Stan created, the cameos are the least I think he is allowed.

Pretty much everything else you've listed boils down to one thing, trying to pack N years of comic book history into a 2 hour movie (and then if it does well sequels). So much is crammed into a small time that they cant do it well, and I thought the xmen movies werea perfect example of this. They could have been good, instead they were ok at best. I recently reread some of my old xmen comics (the mutant massacre for anyone who might care) and realized just how bad the movies are from a purists point of view, though they aren't bad in the eye candy sense.

5 and 4 are just personal pet peeves. Seriously, they take up maybe 2 lines of dialogue in the entire movie. You can get over it.

3 is important--shoving in villains is pointless. However, Two-Face in The Dark Knight worked, and while nobody cared about Sandman, Raimi did. More than Venom. So it was Venom that needed to go, not Flint Marko.

And the origin story thing? Your argument is only valid because, so far, most of the GOOD superhero movies have centered around heroes that have origins even the general public knows. We don't need Batman's origin. We don't need Superman's origin. We don't even need Spider-Man's origin.

But Iron Man's? Nobody knew that. Nobody knows Thor's, Green Lantern's, Captain America's, and any of the other superheroes being considered for films. Asking Hollywood to stop giving the origin films NOW wouldn't be a smart move.

i don't understand the love for spider-man 2

i really don't

you drown a reactor almost as powerful as the sun by dumping it in the river? it would still continue functioning (and it was at it sank), so the threat is still there

lazy storytelling

and the elevated nyc train that just ends at the east river?

the awful "how bad can peter parker's life get" sequence at colonel jameson's homecoming party?

the horrific aunt may speech about heroes, repeating the same message over and over in case anybody missed the point?

awful, awful, awful

and as far as cameos go, it's just a shame jack kirby didn't live to see his creations on the big screen

then again, he might've pitched a fit watching daredevil/ang lee's hulk/x-men 3/both ff flicks

biggest issue (seems to be comic book movie curse :P).

do a trilogy of movies RIGHT.

spiderman 1 and spider man 2, both good movies.
spiderman 3. CRAP

xmen 1, decent enough
xmen 2, probably the closest they came to the comic book(s) storylines.
xmen 3: ruined.. trashed destroyed all faith i have in mankind and has simply resolved me to not see any future xmen movies until a reboot (as such wolverine was crap didn't see it lol).

and so on. can we get ONE team of writers or something that can successfully get a 3rd movie out w/out turning it to utter garbage?

Since everyone else echo'd the same 'cameos are cool' that I was going to say, can I recommend replacing it with 'Stop killing the villains'?

I completely agree with the multiple villain thing. I always wondered why movie studios would want to throw in multiple villains. It seems to me they would want one at a time in order to allow more sequels. If they do want multiple villains, they should take a nod from the current Batman movies with the Scarecrow. Instead of the villains dying, let them escape to give a little bit of trouble later on. I, personally would love to see a batman sequel where he squares off against the Riddler where Harleen Quinzel is treating the Joker throughout the movie. Then at the end could find out at the end that the Riddler is actually a disciple of the Joker.

i'm gonna go out on a crazy limb here and use the venture brothers to make a point. remember how in the first season there was action and comedy and crazy fights and senarios with all the costumed nutballs, and you never really knew who anyone was. That is how an origin story should be! First show the audience how cool the character is and then reward them with a little bit of history later. characters who dwell on the past come off way too emotional. also by season 2 and 3, the venturebrothers already established the characters in the present so they expanded the universe to include more lore and background. Plus, what's so wrong about being in the dark? Can't we have at least one or two mysteries to solve when watching a movie and not see every twost and turn coming. I'm fine with a writer taking freedom with the story but it has to be changed for a good reason. it has to make sense. Star Trek was great because of the whole "alternate reality" story they made, even though some of the same conflicts might arise from the first movies.

Great article. I agree with a lot of it. Although as mentionned, some origin stories are necessary and the Stan Lee thing doesn't bother me too much, as long as he doesn't have lines in every movie. Just something like a bit of a "where's wally" approach would do fine.

the cameos are fine, but not when they have extended lines.
the cameo in spiderman 3 was a disaster of awkwardness.

I'm going to try not to be a douche with this:

3) Batman Returns is awesome. Venom sucks.

2) Don't give a damn about any of the side characters because I don't know any of them

1) Didn't know about Batman before Batman Begins (& I was 20? 21? when it came out). Knew vaguely about Spiderman but that's it. I guess I hate most comics so whatever, but not everyone knows origin stories. I'm not judging those who do, but that doesn't mean everyone is into the whole 'comic book'/'hollywood bullshit blockbuster' scene.

You forget Nicholas Cage playing as GhostRider. That´s the fucking worst idea anyone could have.

Origin stories are great, I mean c'mon, in order for the story to work you gotta have some build up to keep people invested in the characters, otherwise it won't have no effect. I can do without the cameos as I believe they do nothing to serve the film at all, but if you wanna get people invested and involved in the story of the character then origin stories are a must. Sequels are a whole different story.

Shut the fuck up!!! All everyone does is bitch and moan about nothing. Excessive villians, I will agree with. But give the filmakers and Stan Lee a break. I only hope to continue seeing him make cameos in ALL future Marvel films.

Gotta disagree with you on a couple of things.

1. I don't mind most of Stan Lee's cameos.

2. Sometimes you can make an origin story work really well in a comic book movie. Batman Begins is an excellent example of this, as is Iron Man (I'd argue the film loses some of its steam after Stark finally escapes his captors) and Spider-Man (the movie just gets dull after the Green Goblin appears). And, for the record, while I like the new one, I'm personally also fond of Ang Lee's Hulk, which is essentially a psychological profile of Banner masquerading as an origin story.

3. I think it's possible to have multiple villains in a movie work well, but the only ones where I thought that worked has so far been Batman Returns and Batman Begins. For all of the things that worked in The Dark Knight, it's disappointing how little the movie had of Harvey as Two-Face, before Nolan casually killed him off. And Venom's appearance in Spider-Man 3 could have worked if it wasn't as rushed; either that or they should have waited and put him in the next movie.

I really don't see what's so intrinsically terrible about Stan Lee having cameos. Alfred Hitchcock appeared in at least 3/4 of his movies, so are you going to start complaining about the Master of Suspense too?

Yeah, I disagree with 1. It's not like Batman Begins or Spider-Man where bad because they where origins. If you don't believe Thor needs an origin, then you WANT Thor to fail.

No more origin movies! In the Batman's first appearance, his entire origin was one page! I recall the old Superman TV show; his origin was recapped at the beginning of the show. I pay my 14 dollars for the hero action, don't waste my time showing the hero in civvies for 3/4th of the film. But I also agree, some characters DO need an extensive origin, such as Thor.I don't think his origin could have been handled by a five minute montage like they should have had in Batman Begins.
Yes, by the way, the newest Star Trek movie was an origin movie but you know we went 42 years without having seen that origin. We could have gone another 42 years without it too; it was quite contrived and made Star Fleet look like an idiotic organization that promotes people from cadet to Captain in one fell swoop.
As far as villain cramming goes, I think the worst was that one Batman movie. It had Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, AND Jason Woodrue (The Floronic Man)! Enough already.