Ryan Reynolds Talks Green Lantern

King Thor on 11-30-2009 06:32 PM

I don't know anything really about the Green Lantern, but I could not be happier that this movie 'won't be a labored origin story.' I've always thought that origin movies are boring and all around just hard to watch.

As I've said before, The Incredible Hulk has done the most perfect job of quickly incorporating the main character's origins, and then jumping right into the exciting present day stuff they're doing. I wish every comic book movie could do it like that. That's what most people actually care about.

When Reynolds talks about those types of boring origins movies not actually 'starting' until the third act, I just thought to myself, wow, I could not agree more man.

Also think it's a good sign to see studios trying to make comic book movies with more substance. Iron Man was a good start with giving the character (and supporting characters) depth and substance outside of the suits, and it seems like GL is following that path. Good for them.

Matanuki on 12-1-2009 05:52 AM

If every comicbook movie did that, we wouldn't have Iron Man and Batman Begins. (Were they "boring"?) So I have to disagree strongly. Also, if every comic book movie did that, the even worse result would be a bunch of trite photo copies of photo copies of photo copies. My vote goes to variety. And even better, my vote goes to doing what the story itself calls for. Sometimes the "labored origin story" is as important to the mythology as the proverbial spider bite. Sometimes even more.

ColinTheCimmerian on 11-30-2009 09:11 PM

I agree on the origin issue for the most part. Other than a couple exceptions, I think the best first movies in superhero franchises are the ones that get right into the main confict in the first act, and gradually explain the hero's origin as they go along, rather than spending a significant amount of time at the beginning (sometimes the entire first act and even the second too) going over the origin then cramming in another story in the last 40-60 minutes.

Batman Begins is an exception, because the whole point was to tell the origin story, and it all flowed together nicely rather than feeling like a two part movie (the origin and 'first adventure'). Iron Man is extremely guilty of exactly what I don't like to see, but the origin part was so d amn good that I didn't mind too much. I actually liked the first two acts of the movie more than the last one, because quite frankly Iron Monger was an uninteresting villain and what fight scenes there were with him were uninspired and brief. Still, though it worked out in the end, it definitely wasn't the model I like to see.

But those two aside, origin stories generally are a drag. Fantastic Four's took way too long and there's wasn't enough runtime left to do anything interesting. I thought Daredevil was going to skip the origin story because it started off in the present, but then he goes through an extended flashback telling his life story, which really slowed things down. Superman took a long time to get moving, so did Spawn (relative to overall runtime). And as much as I like Tom Jane's version of The Punisher, Frank Castle definitely took his sweet time becoming the Punisher in that one.

Spider-man is debatable I guess; like Batman Begins, his origin seemed to flow directly into his first major conflict pretty smoothly; it didn't feel like a movie in two parts. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have minded if he'd become Spider-man a little sooner. I still wish James Cameron could have filmed his Spider-man script. As I understand it, his started with Peter Parker already being an adult Spider-man, rather then beginning with Peter in high school. The origin was told briefly via a flashback or Peter telling the story to another character at some point in the story.

Anyway, I think some of the best 'first movies' (at least in the way they reveal the origin) are Blade, X-men and Tim Burton's Batman, because the viewer learns the origin bit by bit as the movie plays out, as characters in the movie do. Blade's origin is hinted at in the opening credits, and is explained to the female doctor character (and, effectively, to the audience) by Whistler. There's no time wasted showing how Blade learned to be a vampire slayer, he just is and he starts kicking *** from the get-go. In X-men, Wolverine is thrown right into the main conflict, totally unaware of what's going on. The X-men already exist and make their first appearance via a fight scene; there's no time wasted establishing each of their origins or how they came to be before the main plot gets rolling, and the audience learns about their history as Wolverine does; it all flows nicely. In Burton's Batman it's the same thing. He's already Batman when the movie starts and his origin is explained bit by bit through Bruce Wayne's memory flashbacks and Vicky Vale's investigation. It's not disruptive and it ties into the main plot very effectively.

Bigbrother on 11-30-2009 10:03 PM

Agree in this case Thor since Green Lanterns origin is fairly straight forward and shouldn't require a great deal of time. That said I do hope they don't skip over Carol Farris or Sinestro which are part of early Lantern lore if not specifically his origin. I feel the movie will need some background work though since as you point out Green lantern isn't necessarily as well know and I think the general audience is going to need a bit of explanation to avoid the interminable "his weakness is yellow" crowd. Green Lantern is actually one of the more complex characters in the DC universe. For my money he and The Flash shouldn't take a backseat to anyone Superman and Batman included.

Also agree with both of you that only certain characters origins are really intrinsic to their characters Batman, The Punisher and Capt. America come most readily to mind.

King Thor on 11-30-2009 10:36 PM

Yeah Colin, getting into the action in the first act, or introducing the character in present day when he is already an established superhero right form the start of the movie is how most superhero movies (the first of the franchise) should be done. Need to put an end to boring origins movies...such wastes.

Bigbrother, GL seems like a cool superhero, And yeah, Ryan Reynolds is my man-crush, so I'm actually looking forward to this movie even though i don't know much about GL at all. I'd like to see how they handle the origins if GL is as complex as you say. But then again, I wouldn't care too much about it as long as I get a general idea at first, and then fed more info as we go along.

I think where many studios go wrong...is that we don't need every single piece of detail about the characters' pasts!! Sometimes mystery is what makes a character so compelling! (uhhh Wolverine, anyone??)

I don't really think Thor is a character where we would need much of an origins story or background info on either. All you basically need to know is that he is the God of Thunder, who his family/friends are, and relationships like Loki can be explained as the story moves along.

Bigbrother on 12-1-2009 06:05 AM

Yeah, GL's origin isn't really that complex. in a snapshot dead alien gives him a power ring because he's worthy. Obviously a bit more complex than that, but where GL really begins is when he begins his training and meets Sinestro.

Matanuki on 12-1-2009 08:02 AM

The dead alien's name is too cool to just call him "dead alien". lol.

Matanuki on 12-1-2009 08:04 AM

But wait a minute, I just remembered. You're a, what did you call it, "Lanternite" or something? Well. Of course you know, Bbro, we're eventually gonna have to get the Yellow Element jokes started up again. ;-)

Bigbrother on 12-1-2009 03:30 PM

But even you've gotta admit Geoff Johns is a genius. He took one of the most ludicrus elements in comicdom and made it into a cool story element. I welcome the jokes, any excuse to mock Superman...he wears his underwear on the outside of his pants!!! Who does that? :)

BLaCKWoLF on 11-30-2009 11:40 PM

This is a very good discussion. I guess your arguments for the requirement of the the back story, history or 'origins' can go either way, and like some of you have already pointed out is heavily dependent on the particular character being adapted to film.

The perfect example of this is X Men Origins: Wolverine. A hugely popular character with a long established history, they could have made a movie that was just a 'snapshot' or brief moment in his life and it might have been great. Instead they tried to fit everything in using flashbacks, brief cameos, alterations of other characters and their histories and turned his adamantium transformation into something that was far less than what it should have been.

On the flip side you have movie like Superman Returns which had no where near enough action sequences and simply too much of its run time dedicated to unnecessary character development.

So I guess I half agree with you King Thor, sometimes a little bit of elaboration of the character is necessary to make the movie that much better when done well.

Matanuki on 12-1-2009 05:58 AM

Yikes. Note to self: read the entire thread before commenting. lol. Seems I've restated some points above. What's interesting is we all, to an extent, agree on this issue. With exceptions. My biggest complaint however is against the notion that 'action first with origin peppered throughout' should be standard. Sooner than later they'll all become the same movie. None of us want that. And these characters, many of them anyway, deserve better.

King Thor on 12-1-2009 08:37 AM

Matanuki, I can see your argument for variety and obviously I don't think every superhero movie should be a carbon copy of another (or else they would end up like every single sports movie with the same predictable formula and we wouldn't want that) but I just can't stand boring drawn out origins stories. There's no need for them and they are a waste of a movie compared to what could be shown. I much prefer the idea of quick intros and background info to explain origins rather than delving deep into it in their own origins movie. Obviously there are a couple exceptions like iron man and batman begins, but thosevery well made movies. I'm up for variety as well as long as it doesn't mean long drawn out origins story.

Matanuki on 12-1-2009 08:48 AM

We're on the same page, King. I remember having a talk with a friend several years ago about the Batman issue. Personally, I don't endorse any Batman film that came before Begins because they all ignored his existential angst and the development of his martial philosophy and training. For me, that's like ignoring Clark's fall from Krypton or Spidey's famous bite. You just can't leave out the stuff that makes the hero what he is.

I think the more the filmmakers and writers delve into the mythology from a developmental standpoint, the better they'll be at deciding what direction to take in the execution.

CFM on 12-1-2009 09:02 AM

It's the unpopular vote here today, but I tend to prefer the first origin-story movies (when, of course, they are done well). Blade, Harry Potter, X-Men, Batman, Spiderman, Superman, Iron Man... the only origin story I didn't like better than the sequels, that I can think of off the top of my head, is Mad Max.

I think that, generally speaking, a character that goes from Pre-hero to Hero is just too dramatic of a story and character arc to not warrant a majority of a movie. Generally speaking, of course.

I agree 100% with Matanuki's previous post.