Funny, I kept stumbling across interesting things throughout the article; the insistence that we don't want to see a portracted "origin" story wherein Bruce trains to be Batman, the assertion that a "40-minute origin scene" for James Bond would've been ridiculous in Dr No...
I did like how THE INCREDIBLES didn't bother with origins, nor did the equally charming SKY HIGH. I would argue that origins are not effective on screen, because you have a limited amount of time to tell your story, and origins are something that generally has nothing to do with the main conflict or mystery of the story.
The origin tends to break superhero movies into two parts: a slower moving first half, and a totally unrelated second act where the villain and central conflict is introduced. The origin is treated like vegetables that have to be eaten before dessert. Eating your greens before we get to the Green Goblin.
I would argue that BATMAN BEGINS is the one origin movie that has actually worked not only because it didn't take anything about the character for granted (it even explains why he has those spikes on his gloves and the Bat-ears: to hold listening devices) but also because Batman is the one superhero that is entirely plausible. It's possible to believe Batman can exist without a really, really big "magic wand."
Because of how he was built up element by element, when Batman finally shows up in BEGINS, we can believe in him. This is why I am leery about Joss Whedon's proposed plan to do his Wonder Woman movie in the BEGINS style: the thing is, even if he explains where the bracelets and jet comes from, ultimately you either believe a woman can fly, or you don't.