Your post jogged my childhood memories, and I can also recall the Archie gang as superheroes. But I thought there may have been more than just Archie and Jughead. A little searching, and I found this blog. Looks like Betty and Reggie had super alter-egos too: Betty was Superteen, and Reggie was Evilheart.
My family was discussing some kid who is allergic to yellow dye. I said, “What, is she a Green Lantern?”
-chirp-
So yes.
Fans, by definition, have more detailed knowledge of their fandom than a lay person. It is only an issue if the fan button-holes some poor mundane and erects an “unwarranted superiority field” around them.
Most people do not care if you know the origin story of The Dazzler. Really, it does not impact their lives at all. By the same token, most people do not care who the pitcher for the Mets in the 1978 season was, who was the drummer for Paul Revere and the Raiders, what was the name of Blackbeard’s ship, or any number of other things that fans know.
Which is why anyone trying to create a mainstream film (novel, TV series, comic strip) cannot listen to fans.
An interesting point. Fan reality does not necessarily make for a good or filmable story, by the same token though you have to wonder what goes so wrong in some movies like the last Silver Surfer - FF movie. How do terrible steamers like that get made?
There were no dweebs in my father’s generation? I seem to recall comics being quite popular among WW2 soldiers, for one.
Now that I’ve heard of Bolan, it looks obvious to me.
Queen Anne’s Revenge. WHOOHOO! I am the King of the Geeks!
However, I’m pretty sure Dazzler was bitten by a radioactive John Travolta.
AFAIK, she didn’t have an “origin story” per se. She was born a mutant, discovered her ability to convert sound into light, and used it as special effects in her night club act. She ended up getting drawn into various adventures she never asked for, when all she wanted was to be a hot successful entertainer.
Jerry Labrum was the original drummer. What do I win?
I can’t remember the original acronym either, but the one from Mad Magazine (Superduperman vs Captain Marbles) sticks with me to this very day:
SHAZOOM!
Strength
Health
Aptitude
Zeal
Ox, Power of
Ox, Power of another
Money
So, is it like a double negative to be insulted by a comic book person that your comics aren’t good enough:p
Seriously… I only read comic books until I was about 8 and these were the only ones my Mom would buy. I then moved on to Mad and Cracked. I still liked the cartoons like Johny Quest and the Fantastic Four but I don’t think they went into the details like the comic books did. I still preferred the “funny” super heros like Underdog, Super Chicken, Hong Kong Fuey, Atom Ant and the such… I also loved the Batmat TV show… so I guess I just didn’t take super heros as seriously as others.
This is insulting and jerkish; I’m issuing a warning for threadshitting.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Yes, I think fans overestimate the public knowledge of superhero origin. This is a particularly nerdy sample here, so most everybody will know batman and superman. I didn’t know Batman until the 1989 film though, and I only knew Superman from the Christopher Reeve movies. I knew Spiderman somehow, but beyond that I don’t think I know any of them.
I would also be happy to see the new Superman revisit the origin. It is fun to watch how a different director will take it and interpret it. The more the director makes it his own, the better. Unfortunately, the effect of doing this is either a truncated plot or a overly long movie. I think they would be best off just shooting two movies at once and releasing them a month apart from each other.
I’m not a fan of comics myself, but I am familiar with the basics of the origins of at least the most well known characters. I’d guess that most of it comes from either TV cartoons or movies. More the former than the latter in my case.
Nothing to add really, but perusing the thread for the last couple of days has been really interesting for me.
As a comic fan for most of my life I can’t really speak to the OP’s question, but I do know that I’m fairly familiar with most of the major superheroes origin stories and have picked up a lot of the others through osmosis. For example I’m a huge fan of Captain America but not really of the Marvel Universe as a whole. Nevertheless I’ve managed to pick up the origin stories of Iron Man, Thor and the like through his affiliations.
If someone had asked me if most people were familiar with Superman or Batman’s origins I would have said “yes” because of how they’ve permeated culture through movies, tv shows, cartoons and such, but I’m beginning to think that may not be the case. Knowing that Batman is a rich guy who dresses up in a costume to fight criminals is one thing, but not knowing that the impetus for his decision was witnessing the death of his parents seems like a strange knowledge gap to me.
Possibly from the newspaper comics. The Sunday strip usually started with a one-sentence summary in the title panel, alternating between “Bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter Parker gained that insect’s [sic] proportional strength” and “After seeing his uncle murdered by a criminal he failed to stop, Peter Parker devoted his powers to fighting crime”. Or something like that; I might have the wording a bit off, but that was the gist of it. Even folks who didn’t follow the strip itself probably saw it often enough for it to sink in.
Is it really that hard to believe that many people just have no interest in comics at all? I haven’t seen any of the Batman movies, hence I don’t know his origin.
Logically, it’s not hard to believe at all that many people have no interests in comics. Hell, I have no interest in 99% of the comic books out there as most of them are complete rubbish. (And I own a fair percentage of the rubbish.) 
My point really, (and I didn’t elaborate on this at all, that’s my fault), was that the OP presents an interesting question that I’ve never seen addressed by fellow comic fans. Anytime a new series is getting worked on the first thing I always hear is, “why are they retelling the origin again? It’s a waste of time to do so because everyone knows the origin story.” The latest example of this is with Spider-Man as the rumor mill is reporting that there’s talk about a reboot and the general consensus seems to be, “why are they rebooting this series when we had a perfectly serviceable origin movie back in 2002?” That’s not an invalid argument, but this thread, (due to posts like yours suranyi), has got me to realize that maybe revisiting the origin again isn’t without merit when they have to drag in non fans just to make the movie profitable.
A more interesting question might be, do we even need an origin story for new franchises? The X-Men don’t really have an origin to speak of and the original Burton Batman movie from '89 only lightly touched on his origin, but both films did fine at the box office. If this is indeed the case my contention might be that origin stories are completely superfluous to a movie’s success.
That’s it. I don’t remember the uncle part though.
This is true. In fact, for the most part, the origin story was about The Joker. In The Dark Night, we didn’t get any origin for The Joker, he just was.
Frankly, I think an origin story for Spiderman would be silly. They really aren’t going to get that many different viewers from the movie in 2002. It’s only been 8 years. OTOH, I’d love to see a new origin story for Superman. We haven’t seen that since 1980. I’d love to see a new take on it.