Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
The fact that plenty of films have done it is all the more reason not to do it again. We never saw MCU Spidey's origin, and the titles of The Incredible Hulk told the story with no need for later flashbacks.
A large part of what defines the FF is their high public profile, the celebrities and royal family of the superhero community. You could show that by having a lot of press coverage of them, journalists reporting on their activities and doing analysis, and you could show snippets of the reporters recapping their backstory. That way, it's not just an infodump for the sake of an infodump, but it serves the additional purpose of illustrating their cultural profile. More efficient that way.
You could also work in some backstory exposition through scenes illustrating Reed's guilt at causing the four's mutations and his drive to find a cure for Ben, although you'd have to be careful to avoid "As you know, Bob" dialogue where the characters tell each other things they all know already.
One theory is that this movie is set in a different timeline altogether and it ends with Galactus destroying their Earth and they end up in the MCU.
"Blade" just keeps getting further and further away.
https://deadline.com/2024/05/jurassic-world-mahershala-ali-to-join-latest-installment-1235944938/
On the other hand, I'm always happy to see actual facts debunking the professional leakers; especially the ones who now have the nerve to charge people for their made up scoops.
https://deadline.com/2024/05/jurassic-world-mahershala-ali-to-join-latest-installment-1235944938/
On the other hand, I'm always happy to see actual facts debunking the professional leakers; especially the ones who now have the nerve to charge people for their made up scoops.
Last edited:
Another two great examples on how to do both origin and established in one movie.
That makes sense and would tie in with the ongoing Incursions thread.
If the F.F. movie is a period piece, Marvel would make the creatively wise / interesting choice to show the origin, considering the contrast of the F.F. (and implied danger) to Cold War powers of the era. That cannot be glossed over in a narrated prologue like a "...last time on the Fantastic Four..."-styled montage. Moreover, the notion that the origin should be avoided because it was put before cameras before is quite unsound, since the MCU is establishing its own FF without relying on or believing anyone is even caring about another studio's version of the same story, hence the reason Nolan told Batman's origin in his Batman Begins (2005), despite the same, key plot had been covered in its own fashion in 1989's Batman, or similarly, Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) presented the character's origin, even after Raimi put that same story before camera in his Spider-Man (2002). Audiences are not viewing all superhero movies or their stories as some single, all-consuming world with all of its disparate parts (i.e., films) somehow connected and influencing production decisions to follow.
In this case, quite true.
Bradley--during the early 60s of the F.F.'s origin--was incarcerated, and not serving the U.S. government to any degree, according the character himself.
But the most recent Batman and Spider-Man movies have all skipped retelling their origins, so the people responsible do appear to feel that it's unnecessary to repeat them since at this point most people are familiar with them. We're at pretty much the same place Batman and Spider-Man were with their most recent movies, since we've now gotten the FF's origin twice, just like we got their origins twice before Spider-Man: Homecoming and The Batman.
Absolutely no disrespect to the FF intended but to the average person in the street Batman and Spider-man and their origins are far more well known. Ask any 100 people in the street and I suspect the number who know Bats or Spidey's origins will be way higher than those who know how the Fantastic Four came into being.
Which doesn't matter. There have been countless movie and TV characters that have been introduced in medias res rather than with origin stories, and audiences have always been able to relate to them.
I mean, let's look at Batman. Outside of comics, audiences first became aware of him as a guest star on the Superman radio series and in the 1940s movie serials -- none of which depicted his origin story. Then came the 1966 sitcom, which only twice mentioned in passing that Bruce Wayne's parents had been killed by dastardly criminals. Then came the Filmation animated series and Super Friends, again with no origin. The first depiction of Batman's origin story outside the comics didn't happen until 1985, in "The Fear," an episode of The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians written by future Batman: TAS producer Alan Burnett as a backdoor pilot for a Batman solo show. Which did not in any way impair Batman's popularity in previous decades. For that matter, even the 1989 Tim Burton film was not Batman's origin story; the origin was depicted in the film and informed its storyline, but it was still backstory rather than the story of the film. Indeed, of the ten live-action Batman films to date (I'm counting Batman v Superman but not Justice League or the other DCEU films with Batman in supporting roles), only Batman Begins has actually been an origin story per se, even though several of them have depicted his origin in flashback.
Not quite, as my examples illustrate, and it continues, since the new Blade is yet another property long-rumored to feature an origin story, despite an unrelated production--1998's Wesley Snipes vehicle--took that same approach. Creatives cannot trip up their own, original productions due to the existence of older versions having no bearing on their work, or convince themselves that the moviegoing public has had "enough" of a particular story, so it justifies avoiding a significant, foundational plot.
Ironic you call them "creatives" and then go on to say why they should be anything but while rehashing a story already told.
Blade has had his origin told once in one movie, the FF have had their origins covered in two movies, and at least one or two TV series, so it's been pretty well covered at this point. And really it's not that complicate and doesn't really have that much of an impact on their overall story, so it's really not necessary to devote a whole movie. All they'd really need is one quick line about being exposed to some kind of mysterious energy while on a space mission
While the whole movies don't have to (and shouldn't be) origin stories, not everyone who sees the new movies will have seen the old ones, so the origins need to be re-capped somewhere in there.
Giancarlo Esposito involved with reshoots for CA Brave New World. my first thought was he's playing Henry Peter Gyrich.
Well, I've already suggested ways that could be done quite simply and briefly, or worked organically into the story without distracting from it. But I wonder, do their origins really need to be recapped at all? How much explanation was there for MCU Spider-Man's origin? Hardly any. He was just there. And I don't think it was ever explained how Hank Pym discovered Pym particles or how he and Janet decided to become superheroes; it was just established that they had done so at some point in the past. By now, the MCU has enough superpowered beings that it's not like audiences will be confused by the existence of a few more.
They honestly don't, though. It's totally reasonable if they are if that's important to the story they want to tell.
But heroes can and often have existed for a long time before anyone bothers to tell the audience their origin. There's nothing wrong with them just already existing before the audience meets them.
There's no "reshashing" to a new production and its creators, who do not have any connection with / obligation to assume their work has already been experienced by some of the moviegoing public, as seen in the Nolan Batman and Webb Spider-Man origin films. It is the very reason why those behind Captain America: The First Avenger did not care about the Salinger 1990 Cap film--both dealing with his origin, introduction to / battle with the Red Skull, and his eventual reemergence in the modern day after being frozen for decades. Origin films will continue, and as noted yesterday, if the rumors are true, the MCU Blade production will also cover his origin, not caring a whit about the 1998 film where his origin was explored.