Super Hero Movies: Do We Still Need Origin Stories?

The past several years have seen a huge increase in super hero films. Every summer is dominated by two or three such movies. Most of these films are sequels but many of them are reboots. Now while the reboots have all knocked it out of the park in my opinion, there is one thing about them that bothers me. So many of them feel the need to retell the origin story.

The origin story is an important part of any super heroes identity. So much of who the character is was first established in their origin. Many heroes have not had their origins told in any medium outside of the comics in which they originally appeared. Those films I have no problem with an origin story film. But looking at the recent stable of super hero films, The Amazing Spider-Man, Batman, and the upcoming Superman: Man of Steel, none of these characters need a retelling of their origins.

I guarantee you if you pulled any random ten people off of the street, nine out of ten of them could tell you the origin story for Superman (and I’m sure the tenth probably has a vague idea of what you’re talking about). Same if you asked them about Spider-Man or Batman. Alien baby rocket to earth. Nerd bitten by radioactive spider. Billionaire playboy orphaned as a child trains and swears vengeance. These stories have been told and retold and reimagined multiple times in multiple incarnations.

If one has not read the comics, they probably saw the previous film incarnations, or one of the many TV interpretations of the character. Or maybe not even any of those. Even if you had never seen a Superman comic, movie or TV show you still probably know his origin as it has simply become a part of the pop cultural lexicon. So much about the character has slipped into popular usage. Someone who is plotting something is referred to as “Lex Luthor.” If you have a weakness for something that may be referred to as your “Kryptonite.” The origin is the least of what we as a culture collectively know about Superman.

But there is an argument to be made that the only reason Superman enjoys such familiarity is because he was the first of what is referred to as “Super Heroes.” He is the archetype by which all the characters are judged (see here). But certainly Batman is just as popular. While Superman may have birthed the idea of the comic book super hero, many credit Batman with that ideas popularity. With the broadcast of the Batman TV show in the 1960s, comic book Super Heroes were thrust into a prime pop culture position. Though if any of you were like me you had no idea Bruce Wayne’s parents were dead from watching that show. I didn’t know his parents were dead until I saw the 1989 Tim Burton film.

Likewise, Spider-Man has been soaked in our cultural landscape. Yet when the franchise was rebooted a year ago (see my thoughts on that here) the filmmakers felt the need to retell the origin story.  True they were trying to distance themselves from the previously established franchise by Sam Raimi, but they could have easily done that without a complete retelling of the origin. The very fact that the character had mechanical webshooters and was set in High School already separates it from the previous films. Not to mention making the love interest Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane Watson (though they have cast Mary Jane for the sequel).

Spider-Man I consider to be particularly offensive since so much of the marketing was focused around it being an origin story. Spider-Man’s origin may be the most retold comic book story of all time. Even the much maligned stage performance of Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark includes the origin story of Spider-Man. Personally I believe all Super hero films should handle the origin story the way Sam Raimi did in the opening of Spider-Man 2. Quick little snippets of artwork that show how the character came to be.

The very fact that Spider-Man 2 is a better film than Spider-Man shows how useless the origin story is. Same with Batman Begins. While both of the first films in these franchises are entertaining they are both far overshadowed by their sequels. Since all of the necessary exposition is taken care of, the filmmakers are free to delve into the true appeal of these characters and that is their struggle with their respective villains. Once the origin is out of the way, there is plenty of room for adventure and excitement in the script. Batman Begins allows the filmmakers to make The Dark Knight, but The Dark Knight could have easily been made without the requirement of a previous origin film.

Comic books occupy a strange place in the pop culture realm. Very few other mediums are adapted to film with only a cursory reference to the original source material. Books and TV shows are usually adapted to films by taking the original story presented within and reimagining it for the big screen. However most comic book characters that are adapted to the screen have long histories embodying multiple storylines. This means the filmmaker has to pick and choose what elements best capture the essence of the characters and will work on the big screen. But I believe you can still have all what makes a super hero great in a film without necessarily including the origin story.

Godzilla: The Devil You Know

If you’re a sci-fi and/or fantasy fan, chances are you’ve seen at least one Godzilla film at some point in your life. And I’m talking about classic Japanese produced Godzilla. Not that CGI remake starring Matthew Broderick. I am talking classic man in a suit Godzilla. That is the Godzilla that people know and love. But for as much as people love Godzilla we must not forget that he is the bad guy.

The first Godzilla film (titled “Gojira” which is actually the correct pronunciation of the creature’s name) depicted the giant reptilian monster awaking from centuries of sleep and demolishing the city of Tokyo. This set the standard for which the character would always be judged. Later films would depict Godzilla taking time away from his destruction of Japan to fight other gigantic terrifying monsters that were evenly matched with Godzilla. But in those films it is always Godzilla who comes out victorious as “The King of All Monsters.”

Now while Godzilla is the main event of these movies, there are human characters in these films as well. Usually these human characters are a mixture of soldiers, scientists and civilians, all gathered together to try and find a way to defeat the threat to them, aka Godzilla and the monster du jour. But while Godzilla is a threat, the human characters seem to end up routing for him to win since the monster he is fighting always seem to be a much more dangerous threat. Godzilla is the lesser of the two evils.

But even with Godzilla’s heroic actions, he is still a monster. No matter how many monsters he defeats, the humans of Japan still consider him to be a threat. They will develop giant robots, laser satellites and any manner of other devices in order to defeat him. It becomes a bit of a hypocritical moment in every film because even though the humans want to get rid of Godzilla they still need him to defeat whatever other giant monster is attacking them at the same time.

Rather than treating Godzilla like a threat, the people of Japan should look at him like the world’s biggest guard dog. While a guard dog might dig up your yard on occasion, it also keeps unwanted elements out of your yard and defends you from intruders. Godzilla just happens to be a sixty thousand ton guard dog and instead of digging up the yard knocks over buildings. A small price to pay if you ask me.

It makes far more sense for Japan to embrace Godzilla than to fight him. He’s more than proven a benefit to the country. Also the amount of money to control Godzilla is probably exceedingly less than the amount of money the country invests in trying to kill him. Giant robots, tanks, missiles, satellites, all these things cost huge amounts of money and have done nothing to remove the problem. All you would need to get Godzilla on your side is a really good animal trainer and lots of gigantic treats.

"No, really, I'M GODZILLA!"

When it comes down to it, Godzilla may be a monster but he’s a better monster than the other monsters out there. While I dislike the 1998 remake it did establish one important fact; Godzilla is an animal and a lot of what he does is instinctual. Japan is his turf and he will territorially defend it.  That’s what animals do. They defend their turf. The people of Japan should embrace that fact and use Godzilla’s territoriality to keep their island nation safe from threats.

The Exploitation of the Nerds

As anyone who has spent any amount of time with me, they can verify I am quite definitely a nerd. Usually I identify myself more as a geek, but “nerd” seems to be the preferred term that dominates the culture. If you’ve read any of my blog entries (particularly this one) that should be easy to see. I know my nerd stuff. So when I see such horrible exploitations of people who share my loves and interests, I have to respond.

There is a show on TBS entitled King of the Nerds. It’s fairly typical of most reality programs. A group of people living together in a house and each episode they perform various tasks and competitions around whatever the show’s particular theme is. A few years ago it seemed like TV was dominated by such shows. This show’s theme is Nerds. Each contestant has an expertise in nerd-culture, such as comic books, video games, math, physics, role playing games, cosplaying and a whole slew of others. To add the show a bit more “nerd cred” the hosts are Robert Carradine and Curtis Armstrong, two of the stars of the classic film Revenge of the Nerds. Just based on this description it would seem that this show should be tailor made for me. And in a way it is.

But while this show is trying to be a celebration of nerds, it shines a light on a darker side of nerdom. There is a reason why many nerds are considered social outcasts. Because most of us are. That’s not to say all nerds are a bunch of friendless losers. Many of us are quite sociable. But when you look at a particular nerd’s group of friends you’ll see that they usually tend to be other nerds. Even more specific they tend to be the same type of nerds. Nerds are not good at socializing with people who do not share their particular interests. It’s a horrible stereotype but too many nerds are a perfect example of it.

Since so many nerds have trouble being sociable we tend to be extra focused on our passions (aka obsessions). This leads to super competitiveness. Spend a few hours in a comic book shop (as I have) and you will hear some Congressional style debates about the characters contained in the four-color pages of the store’s wares (also guilty of doing). These leads to nerds being super competitive. That’s right. Nerds are competitive. While the stereotype is that nerds are not good at sports, they still have the need to win, probably even more than the jocks who supposedly ridicule them. You can see a perfect example of this on the show. Within the first fifteen minutes of episode 1 of King of the Nerds, alliances and schemes are already coming into play. People are already deciding who they want to eliminate right off the bat.

Also, the problem with this show is that it seems to have a very broad definition of the word “nerd”. I hate to sound like some sort of possessive jerk, but I grew up just on the cusp before nerd became something cool. I read comics and watched sci-fi a lot as a kid and was picked on for it. Being a nerd was part of my identity. Now it’s become something chic and fashionable. Many actors and actresses feel it necessary to claim they were nerds as children and to be fair I’m sure some of them were. But some of them were cool and popular and are just trying to cash in on a trend. And the show King of the Nerds has one or two same such people, though I will not say who for not wanting to spoil the show.

"What have we done?"

Don’t get me wrong. I am happy nerds are getting the attention they deserve. I’m glad that Hollywood feels the need to aim its entertainment at me and people like me. But don’t think for a second I don’t realize as soon as “nerd culture” ceases to be profitable that the entertainment industry will move on to greener pastures. And I will be left to read my comics and watch my sci-fi in peace.

Die Hard: John McClane is a pretty bad cop

For years, Die Hard was considered the bar by which most action films were judged. Any film that can spawn four sequels and become the go to reference for writers when pitching (“This film is Die Hard on a…”) has got to be an impressive piece of filmmaking. But how impressive is John McClane, the character around whom all these films revolve? Certainly the definitive action film would have the definitive action star? After five films, not so much.

First of all, John McClane is just a cop. A cop who gets caught up in impossible situations. Nothing he does shows that he is the man to handle these types of situations. This is not the case of Rambo who is a trained killing machine that the government needs to go into a bad situation and clean up. John McClane literally stumbles into these massive criminal/terrorist plots. Now one such scenario where someone is dragged into an elaborate crime caper is believeable. Crazy shit happens in life. But for the same cop to get roped into these situations FIVE times, it gets to be a little tough to swallow.

Though you can forgive one sequel of this type happening, because in the second film they at least joke about what the odds are of the same thing happening to the same guy twice. But in reality it just seems like a case of really bad luck. And luck is an important factor in the Die Hard films because it seems the only thing that helps John McClane survive these situations is luck. Bad luck gets him into these situations and good luck helps him survive as Bruce Willis is bounced around like a pinball on the screen in front of us. In reality, John McClane is the action star equivalent of Kenny from South Park except he doesn't die. He just bounces back even though he almost died. Hence the title “Die Hard”.

But what makes John McClane different from the plethora of other action stars out there. While Stallone and Schwarzenegger are still out there making flicks, they have moved on from the franchises that made them action stars. Stallone is no longer Rambo or Rocky (though both film franchises tried to make one final go of it, failing) and Arnold is no longer a Terminator (though they did digitally insert him into the last film). But Bruce Willis still is John McClane. Why?

Well as I already stated, John McClane is just a cop. He’s not some super hero, he’s very much an everyman. And that is a lot of the appeal of the character. An ordinary guy who gets swept up into an extraordinary situation. It’s the simplest version of the Hero’s Journey. And that is the problem with the franchise. John McClane cannot continue to be considered an “everyman” if his entire life is a series of amazing events. And based on the number of sequels that is a very easy thing to believe. John McClane is a crazy magnet and every moment of his life from when he wakes up to when he goes to bed is spent in some bizarre and crazy caper. He’s not just some beat cop. He’s the beat-to-shit cop.

Rumor has it that a sixth Die Hard movie is in the works. At this point short of resurrecting himself from the dead, there is not an injury that could be inflicted on Bruce Willis’s character. John McClane has officially entered the realm of super human. And as a super human he has lost all that originally made the character appealing. There is no sense of suspense. No “will he survive?” worrying from the audience. John McClane winning the day is a forgone conclusion. Of course the hero is traditionally supposed to win but if there is no doubt the story just isn’t interesting. Bruce Willis has taken the role that made him famous and jumped the proverbial shark.