[Movies] MCU: Phase 3 And Beyond

[ThatNickGuy]

I've always felt two key elements comprise the Fantastic Four: they're explorers, and they're a dysfunctional family. One of the few comic book runs I've read or own is Mark Waid's. I wasn't a big fan of the Fantastic Four before that, but his run made me love them. He wrote the characters so well that I didn't even think of them as The Thing, The Human Torch, Mr. Fantastic, or the Invisible Woman. They were Ben, Johnny, Reed, and Sue. That's good writing, in my eyes. And I think that's a big part of the characters: unlike other characters in the Marvel Universe, they don't really identify themselves as their codenames. Their identities are public and even when, say, teaming up with Spider-Man, they refer to him as Spider-Man, but he refers to them by their regular names. Heck, in the original Kirby & Lee comics, they didn't even get their iconic costumes until a few issues later. They just dressed in regular clothing.

With the movies we've had so far, I didn't really get a sense of the family or explorer aspect. Snippets of either here and there, maybe. I haven't seen Fan4stic, but just from what I've seen or read about, I didn't get a single sense of warmth or optimism that I feel the Fantastic Four should have. The first two before that, I actually liked. I don't think they're great by any means and certainly wouldn't rush to defend them, but I don't think they're that bad. Those films had some family dynamics, especially the second one when they quarantine themselves. But they were snippets, like I said. In all cases, the most exploring we get is their first mission. After that, it's a bit of drama and discovering their powers.

Of course, in all three, Doctor Doom is HORRIBLY mistreated and does a massive disservice to the character.

(By the way, it's almost 5:00 AM here, so some of this rant might not make sense. I'll probably edit it some in the morning.)

 

[Null]

Fantastic Four and FF: The Silver Surfer weren't so much "bad" as they were "not nearly as good as they should have been".

Fan4stic was so awful it's kind of baffling that it was even released. The casting was weak (Miles Teller has one of the most punchable faces around and gives off an aura of "smug little shit" instead of "genius explorer and scientist", and I'm pretty sure Kate Mara was clinically dead for 90% of the movie), the writing was awful - "hey, let's spend half the movie in a featureless concrete bunker! Let's make Ben Grimm, the dour but compassionate heart of the team, a white trash abuse victim who gets turned into a living weapon that kills dozens of people." The effects were underwhelming, the plot absent, it was made entirely of brown and grey, and I'm pretty sure watching it gave my dad prostate cancer.

 

[fade]

My favorite FF run is the original. I still think the first stories did it best.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

My favorite FF run is the original. I still think the first stories did it best.

True. Same as Lee & Ditko's Spider-Man (and later, with Lee & Romita) I doubt even the people involved in the great runs after them like Byrne, Said, or Hickman would disagree that the original 100-issue run is the best. A bit dated, but still the best.

 

[evilmike]

First look at Captain Marvel:

The general assumption is that this is the first version of her suit that it is based off of the Cree color scheme and she will ultimately have her traditional color scheme. The internet being the the internet, some folks have already started panicking.

Some other folks have tried to be voices of reason:


And others have taken to photoshop:

 

[Tress]

Awwww yes. I’ve always liked Captain Marvel and I’m stoked about this.

 

[evilmike]

The Black Panther premiere was last night and the social media embargo has already lifted.

 

[figmentPez]

I honestly believe that a large portion of the audience for every MCU movie is not familiar with the source material, and they usually need an origin story. Some of them are kids, some of them are people who never read a comic in their life, and they need some exposition for the story to make sense.

Kids who have never read a comic book, never watched an animated series, never played a video game, never bought action figures, never read a novel that's speculative fiction... Tell me again why they're in the theater watching a Marvel movie and not at a barn raising?

Why do superheroes need an origin story when super-spies don't? Do we need a James Bond origin story telling us why he decided to become a secret agent and show us all the training he had? Nope. We don't expect every movie about a doctor to show them going to medical school, either.


Legal thrillers often happen when the main character is already a lawyer. Won't the audiences get confused and wonder how that character started practicing law?

I guess you'll be telling me that people walked out of Tin Cup in confusion because not only did it not show how Kevin Costner became a golfer, but it started when he was already a washed-up has-been golfer. I mean, how could audiences possibly understand that without being shown his origin story?

Super heroes are a part of pop culture now. They exist. People are familiar with the concept of characters with amazing powers putting on costumes and fighting evil. We can start a movie with characters already working in their profession and have it understood that at one point in their lives they chose that profession for a reason, and it may not even be a reason directly relevant to the plot of the current story.

 

[bhamv3]

Kids who have never read a comic book, never watched an animated series, never played a video game, never bought action figures, never read a novel that's speculative fiction... Tell me again why they're in the theater watching a Marvel movie and not at a barn raising?

Why do superheroes need an origin story when super-spies don't? Do we need a James Bond origin story telling us why he decided to become a secret agent and show us all the training he had? Nope. We don't expect every movie about a doctor to show them going to medical school, either.


Legal thrillers often happen when the main character is already a lawyer. Won't the audiences get confused and wonder how that character started practicing law?

I guess you'll be telling me that people walked out of Tin Cup in confusion because not only did it not show how Kevin Costner became a golfer, but it started when he was already a washed-up has-been golfer. I mean, how could audiences possibly understand that without being shown his origin story?

Super heroes are a part of pop culture now. They exist. People are familiar with the concept of characters with amazing powers putting on costumes and fighting evil. We can start a movie with characters already working in their profession and have it understood that at one point in their lives they chose that profession for a reason, and it may not even be a reason directly relevant to the plot of the current story.

I don't think those are quite fair comparisons, because everyone's familiar with what a doctor does, what a lawyer does, what a golfer does, etc. Fewer people are familiar with what Black Panther does, what Ant-Man does, and what Captain Marvel does. Furthermore, the movie versions of these characters can be different from their comic incarnations, for example someone who is familiar with Helmut Zemo from the comics would probably be rather confused at his portrayal in Civil War. Therefore, spending some time to establish what these superheroes can do and how they came to be doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Of course, there are some superheroes who really are household names, the way James Bond is, and you can get away with no origin story there. Spider-Man and Batman being two examples in recent cinematic history.

 

[Sparhawk]

I think you also have to take into account that many today are very insular about what they see as far as any type of media goes. Netflix the stuff you like, only see stuff from people that agree with your views or tastes on facebook/snapchat/twitter. It's very easy to exist in a world that only reflects what you think that you like and you don't have to search for (or try) anything that may expand your boundaries.

From my experience with working with younger people, I'm not sure that people in general are being encouraged to think and extrapolate information from various clues. It really depresses me on some days.

 

[figmentPez]

Fewer people are familiar with what Black Panther does, what Ant-Man does, and what Captain Marvel does.

They put on costumes and fight evil. That's what they do. That's what Superman does. That's what Batman does. That's what The Bravest Warriors do. That's what He-Man did. Sometimes superheroes don't even wear costumes. Michael Knight didn't when he fought crime with KITT.

If kids can watch and enjoy Adventure Time, they can appreciate a superhero movie without having everything spelled out for them.

Superheroes have been a part of pop culture for like 70 years now. Hell, even if you consider comic books to be underground and shrouded in mystery, Super Friends debuted in 1973. Superheroes have been part of Saturday Morning cartoons for 45 years now. People joining the AARP are old enough to have grown up watching superhero cartoons on TV.

household names, the way James Bond is, and you can get away with no origin story there

James Bond never had an origin story. I looked it up, the very first novel starts with him as a 00 Agent, and his backstory was only shown in bits and pieces throughout the novels until the second to last when an obituary finally gave him a family and military service. When the novels were first published, when no one know who James Bond was, or what a 00 Agent is, he still had no origin story. He was just a spy, and don't tell me that every kid out there knows what a spy is but doesn't know what a superhero is. I'd bet there are more kids who are familiar with superheros than are familiar with spies.

Explaining the powers a superhero has does not require an origin story. Bond going over gadgets with Q isn't an origin story, it's an expository scene. We can show what a hero is capable of without having to show how they became capable of it.

 

[strawman]

I think, to some degree, you're assuming an intelligent, engaged audience, who can pick up on the other clue and cues provided. But the majority of the audience aren't there to think, and this is a fantasy medium - at some point you have to introduce the fantasy world to the viewers that are unfamiliar with it. It can't as easily be a blockbuster if you have to have seen the several prior movies.

There's a difference between being a super spy when spying is something that actually exists, and James Bond is only a minor extension, versus a world where the "minor extension" involves magic (in any variety).

In the super spy the world physics are the same, the people are the same, and people have the same motivations.

In the super hero world the physics are different, some or all of the people are different, and only the motivations are the same.

If you can assume an intelligent audience then sure, you can do away with the preamble, but Hollywood cannot if they want the huge audiences they've designed their economy for.

That doesn't mean the preamble must include an origin story, but an origin story provides several key ingredients that must be present - what makes this world different than ours, what the character's motivations are, and a few key experiences the character had which establishes the foundation for the second and third acts.

An origin story is a shortcut - easy, cheap, understandable, even expected.

On top of that every director/writer has their own take, and if there already exists one or more origin stories then they either have to 1) make it clear which one applies or 2) provide enough information in the film to avoid confusion (why does spider man run out of web fluid, I thought it was biological in origin). Again, tasks made easier by simply providing the origin story again.

 

[MindDetective]

The Incredibles.

 

[strawman]

The Incredibles.

That doesn't mean the preamble must include an origin story, but an origin story provides several key ingredients that must be present - what makes this world different than ours, what the character's motivations are, and a few key experiences the character had which establishes the foundation for the second and third acts.

So the incredibles didn't use the shortcut. But Jame's Bond doesn't need to establish what's different about the world, so they only have to establish the character's motivation and provide a foundation on which to hang the rest of the story.

Super hero stories, like any other fantasy film, must also include what's different about the world, and that is easily and cheaply told via an origin story - but again, not the only way to establish the differences. And yes, some films get away without even that - but very few could be considered blockbusters, and aren't what hollywood aims for these days.

The incredibles provide that using flashback scenes, which don't really include origin stories, but I don't think they'd have fit the film well either - providing an origin story for the several main characters, plus and introduction to the world would have been too much. Instead they provide the world difference and character foundation information with several establishing scenes, provide some insight into the characters with the newsreel footage as well as fitting information into the film in an expository manner that couldn't easily be conveyed quickly or easily through actual experiential scenes, and then they started into the meat of the movie.

I don't think they could have provided origin stories without changing the focus of the film and the subsequent story.

 

[figmentPez]

In the super spy the world physics are the same,

REALLY? You're going to convince me that the physics in the world of James Bond are the same as in real life? I mean, we all pretend they are, but they're not. The gadgets James Bond has very often are impossible with real world physics. Some of the acts that James Bond performs are super-human, we just pretend they're because of amazing training instead of some glowing space rock. Same goes for Sherlock Holmes. People forget that he was super strong in those books. And yet you're going to around talking like "the people are the same". Bullshit, the stuff James Bond does isn't humanly possible, we just pretend it is, like the physics.

If your argument really applied, then Batman never needed an origin story, either. There's no difference between Batman and James Bond besides a thematic costume.

You're right that it's easier to start with an origin story. When has what's truly excellent ever been easy? I'm not saying we shouldn't expect lots of origin stories. I'm just saying that they're not necessary, and we should stop the bullshit claiming that they are the only way to go. It's a complete and total cop-out. It's like saying you can't make a musical that has rap music because audiences will never be able to understand what's being said. Or saying you can't make an animated film that appeals to adults as well as children. Or that The Lord of the Rings is unfilmable. Or that fantasy will never be a mainstream genre. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,"

I used Adventure Time as an example earlier. It starts in media res, with no explanation of the world or the characters, and builds the backstory from there. The story doesn't start with "how Finn became the last human" or "how Finn became an adventurer" but it's aimed at kids and it's wildly successful. You can't tell me that you have to have an origin story to appeal to a wide audience when Adventure Time is still filling out the backstory for it's world and characters after 8 years. There is a whole crap ton of stuff that isn't explicitly explained in that series, but it still works, and it's still popular, and it's watched by kids and adults. Granted, it's not a movie, but it's still done.

The latest Spider-Man movie skipped the origin story. It worked. Yeah, it's still set early in his superhero career, but it didn't contain the spider-bite, or the death of Uncle Ben, or his first time fighting crime. It didn't show him discovering his powers, or developing web fluid. Superhero movies that aren't origin stories can be done, they have been done.

 

[evilmike]

Teaser poster for Ant Man and the Wasp:

 

[strawman]

I don't really disagree with what you're saying, and I don't think my points are particularly at odds with your points.

 

[PatrThom]

Same goes for Sherlock Holmes. People forget that he was super strong in those books.

Well, stronger than his build would suggest, at least.

--Patrick

 

[Ravenpoe]

Teaser poster for Ant Man and the Wasp:

What is this, a poster for an-oooh

 

[Celt Z]

I used Adventure Time as an example earlier. It starts in media res, with no explanation of the world or the characters, and builds the backstory from there. The story doesn't start with "how Finn became the last human" or "how Finn became an adventurer" but it's aimed at kids and it's wildly successful. You can't tell me that you have to have an origin story to appeal to a wide audience when Adventure Time is still filling out the backstory for it's world and characters after 8 years. There is a whole crap ton of stuff that isn't explicitly explained in that series, but it still works, and it's still popular, and it's watched by kids and adults. Granted, it's not a movie, but it's still done.

You know, you keep using Adventure Time as an example, but it's apples and oranges in this case. Adventure Time is able to world-build on a daily or weekly basis, so it doesn't have to establish all it's rules right off the bat. A motion picture only has 1 1/2- 2 hours (give or take) to build world, establish characters, create conflict and resolution. If Adventure Time only ran 4 episodes, maybe this comparison would hold water.

But you're still looking at this from a fan immersed in comic culture. "Superhero" may be a genre, but the rules change for each universe and each hero. The pantheon of Greek gods exist in Wonder Woman, but they're non-existent in Iron Man's world. And no, the average movie goer doesn't necessarily know the difference. Prior to the movies (and honestly, still afterwards), when I wear some of my comic gear to the gym, most of the people in my classes don't recognize the symbols, and, as a specific example, a lot of them couldn't even properly identify Wonder Woman, by name or history. And most of those classmates are much older than me, and lived through the Wonder Woman phenomenon of the late 70's and early 80's. But these are the people theaters and studios want to sell tickets to. There are a lot more "average movie goers" than there are fandom people. Even my son, who has spent the last two years really getting into, superheroes, still has questions why certain heroes and villains have different power/ability limitations than other heroes.

Spider-Man also had 6 major motion pictures in the past 15 years, several cartoons, and near-constant media appearances so of course he doesn't need an origin story. In fact, part of his origin has already been told a year before in Civil War. He hasn't left the public consciousness since the 60's. But even Superman and Batman retell their origins, because not every adaptation is exactly like their comic one. The rules change, and a movie, with only a finite amount of time to get you invested in this character, needs some kind of "rules/universe establishment" in order to effectively so that. It may not need to take up the entire movie, but it does need to be mentioned. James Bond could tap-dance around that because even with the super-human feats he pulls off, he still operating as a human spy within the Cold War that was part of everyone's public consciousness at the time. The further you step outside day-to-day experiences, the more you need to set rules, and origins or flashbacks or prefaces help put those rules in place.

 

[strawman]

Spider-Man ... doesn't need an origin story. In fact, part of his origin has already been told a year before in Civil War.

And even then they felt they had to provide it expositorily* in this latest film:



*As long as you understand it, it's totally a real word.

 

[figmentPez]

If Adventure Time only ran 4 episodes, maybe this comparison would hold water.

You mean something like Bee and Puppy Cat? Eh, maybe that's not successful enough. Ah, "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen", not an origin story, definitely fantasy, requires world-building, tells the story of several superheroes (though not tights and a cape) but it's focus is not on how they came to be.

Vveering off a little from specifically superhero, an example of how a world very different from our own can be built without having it be an origin story: "Snowpiercer". They're already on the train when the whole thing starts. Brilliant movie that does talk about the history of it's world, but how the people on the train came to be there isn't the story.

And, lastly, what I think is my thesis statement:
"Mary Poppins". Most decidedly not an origin story. It's about the children's first encounter with her, but it's never explained how Marry Poppins does what she does. She's a superhero, though the evil she fights isn't of the same sort as usual. Who is she, where did she come from, why does she have powers? Not a single answer. Yet audiences have been fine with it for decades.

 

[strawman]

And, lastly, what I think is my thesis statement:
"Mary Poppins". Most decidedly not an origin story. It's about the children's first encounter with her, but it's never explained how Marry Poppins does what she does. She's a superhero, though the evil she fights isn't of the same sort as usual. Who is she, where did she come from, why does she have powers? Not a single answer. Yet audiences have been fine with it for decades.

You're kind of taking things to an extreme here. Are you sure the story is about Mary Poppins? Are you sure that what we see isn't the imaginations of two children trying to rekindle their relationship with their father?

Thinking about this more, though, I wonder if origin stories are only coupled to characters that change and grow during the film. Take James Bond - in the one film where he does experience some character growth, there's a fair amount of origin storytelling going on. I haven't seen snowpiercer, do the main characters grow and change in thematically significant ways during the film?

Mary Poppins certainly does not. She could have been a magic game (ie, jumanji - no origin story needed for the magical board/video game) for all it matters to the theme and other characters.

Oooh, maybe Jumanji is a version of Mary Poppins, but relating to the new world where few people have nannies, but children still need guidance.

 

[figmentPez]

I haven't seen snowpiercer, do the main characters grow and change in thematically significant ways during the film?

Well, their worldviews are challenged, they have to make hard choices that they never imagined they would, and they come out different people, so yes, I think so.

Are you sure the story is about Mary Poppins?

Mary Poppins certainly does not. She could have been a magic game (ie, jumanji - no origin story needed for the magical board/video game) for all it matters to the theme and other characters.

And how does that stop us from having a superhero movie where the hero isn't the protagonist and doesn't change in any significant way? I never said that the movie is about Mary Poppins. She's the title character, but you're right, it's not her journey. She saves the day, but it's the people around her who change.

You're kind of taking things to an extreme here.

You say I'm taking things to far, but I say I'm not taking them too far enough!

 

[Celt Z]

Vveering off a little from specifically superhero, an example of how a world very different from our own can be built without having it be an origin story: "Snowpiercer". They're already on the train when the whole thing starts. Brilliant movie that does talk about the history of it's world, but how the people on the train came to be there isn't the story.

Snowpiercer is also intended to be a stand-alone movie. They may not have started with "why are they all on the train", because trains, servitude, and class warfare AREN'T unfamiliar concepts to the audience. This doesn't break any rules of how we know human being react in situations. No one is suddenly flying around the cars or throwing "kamahemeha waves" around to break that. But they DO have to explain why they're on the train and divided once we're moving the plot along. As I mentioned above, origin needs to be established at some point in fantastical circumstances, even if not the main thrust of the plot. And yes, it would be an origin story if there was to be a sequel, because it explains how a handful of people are now (assumably) the only ones alive and in the middle of the snow.

And, lastly, what I think is my thesis statement:
"Mary Poppins". Most decidedly not an origin story. It's about the children's first encounter with her, but it's never explained how Marry Poppins does what she does. She's a superhero, though the evil she fights isn't of the same sort as usual. Who is she, where did she come from, why does she have powers? Not a single answer. Yet audiences have been fine with it for decades.

Like you said above, for one thing, the story isn't about Mary Poppins. The story is about how the Banks family went from fractured to whole again*. Mary Poppins is the catalyst, the "radio-active spider" in this scenario. Google and Youtube are failing me at the moment, but there is a line where Bert DOES explain why Mary Poppins appears, similar to the "why is a spider radio-active?". It's established that magic isn't commonplace, the world is mainly rooted in our standard Victorian world, and therefore, Mary Poppin's involvement opens up a new world for the Banks children as learn to regain their childhoods while reconnecting with their parents.



(*Dammit, South Park, it was so hard to write that part.)

 

[@Li3n]

It's established that magic isn't commonplace, the world is mainly rooted in our standard Victorian world, and therefore, Mary Poppin's involvement opens up a new world for the Banks children as learn to regain their childhoods while reconnecting with their parents.

But that's not an origin, that's just the plot.

 

[Gruebeard]

All I have to say about this is when I went to see the Amazing Spiderman, I said "Why the fuck are they wasting all this time showing us what Sam Raimi already did better?"

" . . . okay, points for Emma Stone."

 

[@Li3n]

Yeah, at this point in pop culture, a superhero origin could be done in 5 minutes, and no one would complain* .



*as long as it was done well

 

[Gruebeard]

Yeah, at this point in pop culture . . . and no one would complain* .

 

[Celt Z]

But that's not an origin, that's just the plot.

Yeah, since like Snowpiercer, it was supposed to be a stand alone, not a series. Until recently, anyway. And glancing at the synopsis for the new one, it focuses on the adult life of Jane and Michael Banks, maybe it is an origin story after all?

 

[Dave]

The fuck? Hollywoo certainly has run out of ideas.

 

[strawman]

Well, with Lin-Manuel Miranda as part of the cast and part of the songwriting team, it's bound to be distinctly different than the original. It'll be interesting to see Colin Firth in there as well - a crossing of the streams, so to speak.

What I want to know is why is Dick Van Dyke still alive? For some reason I keep thinking he's died years ago...

I'll watch it. I'm a sucker for musicals.

 

[Celt Z]

What I want to know is why is Dick Van Dyke still alive? For some reason I keep thinking he's died years ago...

Harsh! I'll have you know he's aging very well:

 

[figmentPez]

You know, somewhere along the line my not wanting the focus of the movie to be the origin story got twisted into people thinking I wanted a hero with an unknown origin. I'll cop to fault for pointing out examples with no origin to prove my point. I thought extreme examples would prove that origin stories are not as essential as so many say they are. As I've said before a character having a backstory is NOT the same as a tale being an origin story. Nor does a series being continued after the first movie make that first movie an origin story. (Ocean's Eleven is not Danny Ocean's origin story, and it didn't retroactively become his origin story when Ocean's Twelve was made.)

Which brings me back to the whole reason why I'm harping on not wanting all superhero films to be origin stories, because I think that the superhero genre can give us so much more than "character gets superpowers and a reason to use them". I mean, look at Guardians of the Galaxy. While it is the origin story for the Guaridans, it's not a typical superhero movie. It's a heist film. Yeah, it shows Quinn's backstory but that's really secondary to getting the gang together to pull off the heist. It's more of a heist film than Ant-Man is.

That's what I want to see. I missed Thor Ragnarok in theaters, but I hear it's a road film. I don't want to have to wait three movies in to break out of mold. Right off the bat I want the superhero buddy cop movie (which we kinda got in Bright). I want a superhero romantic comedy. A superhero period drama (wait, dammit, I need to see Wonder Woman).

Green Lantern: First Flight was much better than the Ryan Reynolds trash fest, because it wasn't so much a superhero origin film as it was a rookie cop/detective movie. Arguably, done right, a Green Lantern movie could just be police detective movie, not about just starting as a cop, but continuing from years on the job. It could be an established Green Lantern and build off being about a cop, instead of being about how some earthling gets superpowers.

The reality is that we're closer to what I want than we were six years ago when we were getting the second telling of Spider-Man's origin in under a dozen years. More superhero films are breaking the mold, and fewer are focusing on the same "angst, powers, training, villain, triumph" (not necessarily in that order). I just hope we can continue the current trend, by realizing that not every tale in a world of superheroes has to be primarily about how the superhero decided to fight crime.

 

[Tress]

So, while I thought we completely disagreed, I can support that idea of the origin not being the main focus. The first act (at most) is all that’s needed in most cases. And of course they can skip it all together for the big icons.