The Syfy Online NetworkSCI FI WireDVICEFidgit
 

Related Sections: Columnists  Movies

Columnist Michael Cassutt explains why Batman Begins worked—and Wolverine didn't

Columnist Michael Cassutt explains why \<em\>Batman Begins\<\/em\> worked—and \<em\>Wolverine\<\/em\> didn\'t

"Endings of stories come easy. It's the beginnings, when anything is possible, that come hard."

So wrote Alexei Panshin in a 1971 novelette titled "How Can We Sink When We Can Fly?," in which a young SF writer struggles with a story about a happy future. He can visualize that setting; he just can't figure out how to get there from a depressing spring in 1970, much less where to kick off his character's journey.

Last column we examined sci-fi series and movie endings, which are tricky enough. But, let's be honest, once you've decided to slam your battlestar into the Cylon mothership or to kill Spock or to maneuver some 50-year-old nuclear bomb into the island temple, your options are limited.

They are nowhere near as great as they are when you started that script—or, for that matter, that piece for SCI FI Wire.

Columnist Michael Cassutt explains why \<em\>Batman Begins\<\/em\> worked—and \<em\>Wolverine\<\/em\> didn\'t

The beginning carries the added burden of hooking the audience—think of the narrative crawl at the opening of Star Wars, followed immediately by the starship pursuit.

There are several types you can consider. First up, appropriately enough, is the Genesis Option, where you start the story "In the beginning." The very popular novelist James Michener excelled at this in novels like The Source (1964), which, as I recall, started when the Earth was still molten. Kubrick and Clarke's 2001 kicks off far back in time, too.

A number of sci-fi works begin in laboratories, with the discovery that an object the size of a breadbox can send you through time. Some start with the realization that the new neighbor is vampire, or that there's suddenly a big alien ship taking position over the White House.

The Genesis Option doesn't have to deal with the sci-fi gizmo ... it works just as well when it focuses on people. Look at the first half of the first season of Heroes, which introduced one new and interesting character after another.

Then there's the Big Bang Option. The famed SF novelist (The Demolished Man), short story writer ("Fondly Fahrenheit") and comic-book (Green Lantern) scripter Alfred Bester used to advise writers, "Start with an earthquake, then build to a climax." In other words, hit your audience with action, the more immediately mysterious the better.

A successful example of Bester's method was the pilot for Lost—bam, a man wakes up in a jungle. He's wearing a suit, he's stunned, he's vaguely aware of noise nearby. ... Oh, it's a plane crash, and he's a survivor, and we are off.

Battlestar Galactica had its Cylon attack.

A variation on the Big Bang Option is the Big Reveal, where your setting or character seems to be mainstream or historical, then, whoops, you realize you're 500 years in the future on another planet.

The opposite of the Big Bang, to borrow further from astrophysics, is the Steady State Option. Think of E.T., which starts with a strange little creature lost in the big woods. Or Panshin's long-ago story, which starts with a struggling sci-fi writer meeting two colleagues at a rural bus depot.

Beginnings are doubly difficult when you write a television pilot. There is an eternal battle—on the scale of the battling gods of Asgard—between the writer's desire to tell a story as a novelist would and the network's need for stand-alone episodes that are accessible to any new viewer. Between the Big Bang or Genesis on the one hand, and some version of the Steady State on the other.

To take this week's unavoidable subject, the original Star Trek television series didn't begin with Kirk, Spock and McCoy meeting in the shuttle up to the Enterprise. ... it started with what execs call a "center cut" episode, an adventure that took place well into the crew's "five year mission". Only now, 40-odd years later, are we getting the origin, or some version of same? (Is it too late to say spoiler alert? Have any of you not seen the movie? Go now. I'll be here when you get back.)

The motivation to do a center-cut opening is reasonable, from a business standpoint. New viewers can catch up immediately. And for a mainstream concept like C.S.I., that works fine. But Lost would have been, well, lost with that approach. Even a sci-fi procedural like Fringe, set here and now, requires some kind of serialized introduction.

The reality is, if you do start your movie, your series, your comic book, with a center-cut episode, in success, your audience will demand an origin story.

And there have been some great ones. Batman Begins. The Terminator sequels.

But there is a risk, too.

I enjoyed the first two X-Men movies, but Origins: Wolverine—for all its undeniable film-making skill on display, not to mention the presence of Hugh Jackman—left me cold. It skimped over what would have been an equally interesting "origin" story—Logan and Victor as young orphan mutants struggling to survive in 19th-century Canada—in favor of the more predictable exploration of how Wolverine got so powerful, yet so memory-challenged that he became the character we met in the movie. There weren't enough surprises to justify the journey.

These options, of course, are merely tools, methods you consider as you face the blank screen. It is still the material—the idea—the character that ultimately guides the choice.

It's just so difficult. You're creating a whole world that your characters inhabit. You have to fight the urge to toss a steaming hunk of exposition onto the page ("This takes place a hundred years from now. A giant solar storm has scorched the face of the earth. Surviving humans live in caves") and find just the right moment or image to bring your hero or heroine onstage.

In this example, the solar storm is years in the past. So scratch the Genesis Option.

Your audience doesn't come to the theater or turn on the TV without some sort of preparation, so you're not going to get much impact from a Big Reveal, where you might see your hero dressed like a historical aboriginal hunter for several moments, only going wide at the right instant to see the shattered skyline of Dallas-Fort Worth behind him.

You choose Steady State ... following your hero into an ordinary day, possibly on a hunt—

Until something changes in his world. He's attacked by a beast that should not exist. .... He discovers a crashed alien spaceship. ... He is almost knocked over by the arrival of a time traveler from 1971.

The only real, unbreakable rule is to begin a sci-fi story when a new element is introduced to the character's world.

A challenge? Of course. Sci-fi beginnings are more challenging than those of other genres. It's what makes writing them fun. It's why we're in line for Wolverine and Star Trek.

Michael Cassutt has written novels and short stories as well as teleplays for such sci-fi or fantasy series as The Twilight Zone, Max Headroom, Eerie, Indiana and The Dead Zone. He also teaches TV writing at USC's School of Cinematic Arts.
Columnist Michael Cassutt explains why \<em\>Batman Begins\<\/em\> worked—and \<em\>Wolverine\<\/em\> didn\'t
Send-A-Friend
(10) COMMENTS

kryche:
The issue isn't really the article, it's more the title of the article. Why even include Batman Begins in the titl...More »


Comments

By gxknight at 10:39 AM ON 05/14/09

Great insight and all true.

For me, Wolverine glazed over the important emotional parts. It started off good, but went down hill as it progresssed, so by the time it was over, you left the theater wanting more even when the beginning had real potential of setting up something amazing.

All worth it though if they can do a better job with the Deadpool movies.

The movie wasn't bad... but it wasn't as great as I'd hoped it would be.

By rkf at 12:01 PM ON 05/14/09

Well, I enjoyed both Batman and Wolverine. But, while I know it's nitpicking, I didn't enjoy this article. It was ponderous, pompous and barely mentioned one of the two movies in the title, and featured a single paragraph about the other.

Next.

By Julian at 12:47 PM ON 05/14/09

The writer of a story has to hook his audience from its beginning. What is it that will make a reader or viewer want to stay and follow it through its to its ending? I have watched some films with interesting beginnings that made want to see more such as The Day The Earth Stood Still, THEM, Star Wars and the Superman movies by Richard Donner and Bryan Singer, to name a few. There are those tv shows as well such as the original Twilight Zone. IIt was not always necessary to start with a BANG but sometimes a whisper was just as effective. The appeal for me was always in the groundwork being laid to demonstrate that something fantastic and out of the ordinary was about to happen. Just you wait and see.

By suprememango at 12:50 PM ON 05/14/09

I enjoyed Wolverine but it left me wanting. After the opening and the war scenes through the ages I was very excited. But what could have been very interesting - the effect of fighting wars for decades and the rivalry between the two brothers - was skimped over in favour of eye candy action.

We saw the negative effects of war on Blob and how he coped with his demons, but - other than an unseen bad dream and one line - the main character does not go through this. Missed opportunities people!

So instead of a fine wine you get a nice soda. Sure, the taste is pleasant, but it doesn't touch your soul and makes no impact. The Samurai storyline which they are thinking of for the next movie sounds interesting, and I hope the story has more depth.

At least it was better than the original X-Men and waaaaay better than X Men The Last Stand (X2 rocks). dang Ratner.

and yes, the headline is misleading

By Artifex at 2:59 PM ON 05/14/09

What is it about this site and commenters bitching about the writing? As usual, this article was an enjoyable read and kept me, and YOU, reading until the end. The part about the decisions writers make when crafting a beginning was compelling enough to make me bookmark the page for future reference.

Go troll somewhere else.

By a different tim at 4:25 PM ON 05/14/09

The movie wasn't handled right because of fox. They make entertaining movies but that's it. They like to make a buck. This could have been their Batman I believe but they had different priorities. No blame on Hugh though

By Rob at 5:21 PM ON 05/14/09

I thought the Wolverine movie was much better than Batman Begins. It was much truer to the title character, had better acting & was a film anyone could enjoy.

By drop at 12:12 AM ON 05/15/09

truer to the title character? really? wow a 6'2" wolverine true to character? jackman has pissed me off since he first showed as wolverine in xmen. too much of a puss not enough animal

By simply scott at 10:39 AM ON 06/11/09

I'm with rkf. I enjoyed the article as a whole, but based on the title, I was expecting to see some comparison and contrast btwn doing it right (Batman) and doing it wrong (Wolverine). Where is that part?

That said, I did like a lot of the other things you said. I started my sci-fi novel, not film, with a bang!

By kryche at 2:00 PM ON 07/06/09

The issue isn't really the article, it's more the title of the article. Why even include Batman Begins in the title when the article barely even mentions it?


Leave a Comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

(Please be patient, it may take a moment for your comment to appear.)

Text WIRE to 72434

Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
SCI FI Wire on your iPhone
Follow SCI FI Wire on Twitter
Editors
Patrick Lee
News Editor
patrick@scifiwire.com
Scott Edelman
Features Editor
scott@scifiwire.com
©2010, Syfy. All rights reserved.