Visitant Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I didn't want to clutter up the S.H.I.E.L.D thread with what could be an interesting debate on the current state of superhero (or comic, if you like) movies. In the previously stated thread, a point was brought up how certain characters in that show have now been thrown into it without any background as to who they are and how they got their powers. Recently, Marvel (or people working there on the current run of movies) has stated that origin stories will start to be less and less prevalent in their films. In fact, they are talking about Doctor Strange not even having an origin story. Basically we are expected to expect the fantastic without any prior knowledge of who this person is. So. Is this good or bad? +It gets away from the atypical "first" hero movie where everything is a very specific formula. -People are comfortable with origin stories, no matter how cliche. It gets us settled into that characters universe. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 i kinda echo what Junkerseed used to say here: i get the point of origin stories, but if it's the 3rd relaunch of the spidey franchise, we get it. wrap that shit up in 20 minutes, we don't need an entire first flick of him sewing the costume unless the script is written by David Mamet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) It really is a split with what kind of story you're trying to tell. Luke Skywalker totally would not work as a character if he just started out wearing black and slicing up Jabba's barge or wearing orange and blowing up the deathstar. We had to see him start as the whiny kid and get introduced to the concept of the force and lose his mentor etc so that when he's finally doing that heroic thing it clicks. It feels like a triumph. On the other hand, I've read one attempt to tell a Han Solo origin story and it sucked. Han doesn't need explaining. Where did he learn to shoot? Don't care. Where did he get his ship? Explained in three lines of movie dialogue and we never hear about it again. We don't need to know more. Why is Chewbacca loyal to Han? Don't care. In the movies at least, they never explain it and simply give us a few throwaway lines to show that they have a long history ("It's not wise to upset a wookiee", "That time doesn't count. I was drunk." "Man Chewie, these guys must really be stuck. This could really save my skin with Jabba.") The worst news of the Disney buyout of starwars is that they're thinking of a Han Solo origin movie. We're all going to hate it because it will only work by taking the glamour and swagger out of Solo. We'd have to see him as a slave boy getting rescued by wookiees and going to live on Kashyyyk etc and losing his innocence and getting betrayed by his first love etc. Fuck that. So, what's the character like? Is he traditionally heroic? Give him the origin. Is he a cool anti-hero like Wolverine, Solo, Blade? Skim the origin. Punisher is the only one I can think of who's character is so tied up in his origin that you cannot possibly get the payoff in the action without showing that origin. Even Batman, the big daddy of cool anti-hero gets away with not having his origin done. Batman 1989 didn't show his parents murder until the middle of the story as a flashback and even then, it just gave us enough impressionistic images to see Jack Napier as the gunman before cutting away. Edited September 26, 2014 by Jumbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I agree that characters that the public are overly familiar with do not need origins. Batman and Spider-Man for example, a quick flash back where needed would be more than enough. But for characters like Doctor Strange, that only nerds would have heard of I think we'd still need an origin. Though that said, we don't have start the movie with it. Jumbie's formula for anti heroes not needing and regular heroes needing is also interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 The thing is we don't need an origin story for Dr. Strange. He's a guy that does magic. If they want to give his origin story. "I was a surgeon, best in the world probably. I got in a car accent and had nerve damage that ended my career for good. I went searching for a cure and found magic.". Boom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visitant Posted September 26, 2014 Author Share Posted September 26, 2014 Well we've already seen marvel dipping their toes in the not full length feature origin story with GotG. While you could argue that it is an origin story because it it is the origin of the team, most peoples backgrounds take between 1-5 minutes max on screen. Avengers took us X movies to get to and yes, while their circumstances are different - people were willing to buy into GotGs brief origins because they were enjoying the ride. If that's the way most of us feel, then Baytors option isn't far off. ...but Dr. Strange actually has to use the phrase "boom, magic!" at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 The Ed Norton Hulk covered the origin in less than five minutes. That was mostly because they hadn't decided if they were counting Ang Lee's movie yet but it works in either context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I could totally see a magical Indiana Jones/James Bond -style movie where Strange is established as a magical guardian/adventurer who constantly fights off mystical threats to Earth and this is simply adventure #4928. It runs the risk of making him a static character like Bond or Indy and thus Strange never changes the way Tony Stark evolved from a selfish prick to a um slightly less selfish prick. But you could probably drop in an 'old flame returns' or 'new threat makes him vulnerable in a new way' etc plot that makes him change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 But both Indy and Bomd did grow as characters. Just because this isn't his first adventure doesn't mean he can't change or evolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Didn't they admit that Bond was a different guy each time or is that still just a fan theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 It's still just a fan theory and the character did evolve a fair amount up until the Roger Moore era, and then they had their own sort of insular continuity based on the actor playing each one, which is probably what inspired the theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 You could watch all of the Connery Bonds in random order and not know which movie comes first going by character traits. The development we've seen in recent years is more of a deconstructed Bond so they're not in the conversation of static characters. Static characters can work in a series, just like the Sherlock Holmes books or the Seinfeld gang, but Marvel's claim to fame is characters who change, so if you drop the origin story you probably should have some kind of character conflict to replace it and that is perfectly doable. I think Riggs in Lethal Weapon managed to have no real origin story and play a character who was recognisably the same person from movie to movie, but who had a personal tale to follow during each movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 The thing is we don't need an origin story for Dr. Strange. He's a guy that does magic. If they want to give his origin story. "I was a surgeon, best in the world probably. I got in a car accent and had nerve damage that ended my career for good. I went searching for a cure and found magic.". Boom. sure, unless you've legit got a better take on it - like, say, we just got saying known characters don't need it, but the ninja stuff in Batman Begins is awesome. if you can give some good character moments across an interesting setting, i don't know if i'd be outright against it...but then, Strange hasn't had his origin told to death. Spidey for example has, so unless you've got some new take (or new spidey like say Miles) i have a hard time buying it as a good use of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) Counterpoint: The ninja stuff in Batman Begins is mostly unnecessary and takes up a shitload of time that could be otherwise used to feature Batman. His parents died, he's super bummed, he has a PHD in detectivery and kicking. Bat flies through the window. OOOh. Batman. One of the key complaints everyone has about the Thomas Jane Punisher is "He doesn't behave like The Punisher" cause it's an origin story and as much as I love that movie in its near-perfect form, I admit a take akin to the other two Punisher movies would've worked better. Save your long-winded origin stories for people who care, Ridley Scott. Edited September 27, 2014 by Iambaytor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 counter-counterpoint: there was no joker yet, and the ninja stuff was more interesting than some of what we got past it. i would watch a bat-ninja movie. ...gonna go watch ninja movies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 As, sort of, an outsider here who isn't as well versed in the comics as y'all, I really enjoy the origins. Like you guys already said, Hulk, Spidey, heroes EVERYONE knows, god no I don't want the origin. But whenever Strange's movie comes out, just as an example, even if he already is established in the MCU (which according to the small nod in Winter Soldier he is) I still wanna know who he is, how he came to be and especially concerning how science'd up the MCU is, give some background on his "magic". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) counter-counterpoint: there was no joker yet, and the ninja stuff was more interesting than some of what we got past it. i would watch a bat-ninja movie. ...gonna go watch ninja movies Counter-counter-counterpoint: There was no joker yet and the most interesting part of the movie featured Batman stick-fighting ninjas and Liam Neeson in the snow. Batman Begins is the problem with origin stories writ large. It's not even a movie, it's a promise, "Stick with me and you'll see a good movie." It's why I really don't care for Captain America: The First Avenger even though it's a pretty solid movie because as great as everything was they were just spinning their wheels when they could've done a 15-minute intro and then just hopped right into The Winter Soldier. Same thing with Thor, though there were more examples of things that needed to be set up in that one. As, sort of, an outsider here who isn't as well versed in the comics as y'all, I really enjoy the origins. Like you guys already said, Hulk, Spidey, heroes EVERYONE knows, god no I don't want the origin. But whenever Strange's movie comes out, just as an example, even if he already is established in the MCU (which according to the small nod in Winter Soldier he is) I still wanna know who he is, how he came to be and especially concerning how science'd up the MCU is, give some background on his "magic". Fair point but do you want 45 minutes of a surgeon acting like a dickhead, and then breaking his hands and moping about it and then walking to Tibet, and then studying with monks, and maybe if there's a few mintues left he fights Dormammu or something? Or would you just prefer a truncated version of that and get to the jazz fingers? Edited September 27, 2014 by Iambaytor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I kinda want a surgeon acting like a dickhead. It could work if they did like arrow, with small flashbacks that didn't more than like 2 minutes. I know tv different than movie, but narrative wise it would make things less boring I think. Plus it would add some variety than the linear storytelling all of these marvel movies seem to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Yeah, that was pretty much what The Incredible Hulk did too. They show us Banner, the show us Hulk, we get a quick flash of backstory, oh look now we're seeing Hulk smash stuff instead of have existential staring contests with Nick Nolte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 sure, unless you've legit got a better take on it - like, say, we just got saying known characters don't need it, but the ninja stuff in Batman Begins is awesome. if you can give some good character moments across an interesting setting, i don't know if i'd be outright against it...but then, Strange hasn't had his origin told to death. Spidey for example has, so unless you've got some new take (or new spidey like say Miles) i have a hard time buying it as a good use of time. Agreed. Nolan and Goyer didn't just re-hash what had been covered on film before in regards to Batman's origin. Fans of B:TAS and the ocmics knew about Ra's al Ghul and Bruce Wayne's training w/ him, but it was all new to the film audience. I think this is where the Amazing Spidey re-boot made a bit of a stumble. They covered a lot of stuff Raimi did, and did quite memorably, not 10 years prior. Granted, Dwen Stacey and Dr. Connors are relatively new tot he Spidey film-verse, but it just didn't have that right balance that I thought Batman Begins and the Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy did. The thing is we don't need an origin story for Dr. Strange. He's a guy that does magic. If they want to give his origin story. "I was a surgeon, best in the world probably. I got in a car accent and had nerve damage that ended my career for good. I went searching for a cure and found magic.". Boom. Agreed, part of Dr. Strange's character is that he's mysterious. So not having a traditional origin story for him makes a lot of sense. Maybe a flashback or two to drop hints at his life prior to becoming Sorcerer Supreme could serve to build and shape his character (kind of like what was done in LOST) but I don't think anyone is looking for 35 minutes of "Stephen Strange: Arrogant Dickhead Super Surgeon" followed by a montage of him learning spells and shit. Just jump right in to demon fighting and spell casting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Side note: Will there be demons? Besides this being the 'sciency fiction' marvel universe where Asgardians are just aliens, there's the whole issue of the issue of kids/christians/general discomfort. The Marvel video games went out of there way to say that Mephisto wasn't a demon and his realm was not really Hell because of being hesitant to portray real demons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Jesus I hope not, but they probably will. I really sincerely hope they just throw caution to the wind and say "Fuck the fundies" because the whole "demons but not demons" thing pissed me the hell off in Doom. Cause let's be honest, if a viewer can't enjoy a movie where demons are beaten by anything other than the power of Christ's love, they weren't really your target audience to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Ghost Rider was a straight up demon battling demons in his movies, right? Not sure why Marvel couldn't do demon battles for Dr. Strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 You have point. Constantine is too so maybe Doom was a one-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visitant Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 I think everyone is trying trying to forget ghost rider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.