Tom Jolliffe looks at the fascination with origin stories…
Film and TV have long had a burning desire to milk popular characters or franchises for all they’re worth. If it works and audiences respond to it, then logic dictates that more adventures must follow. It could be sequels, spinoffs, reboots (with iconic character played by different actors). Occasionally you get a prequel. For the most part, prequels have a particular fascination with origin stories. Francis Ford Coppola’s infamous first sequel, The Godfather Part II was a brilliant parallel tale that both continued from the first film but simultaneously told the story of how Vito Corleone (as played by Brando in the first, and in younger form by De Niro in the second) went from Italian immigrant to becoming the Don.
Perhaps the most iconic origin story came from George Lucas. Over 20 years out of the directors chair, he came back to helm the first of a new prequel trilogy to his iconic Star Wars trilogy. This was a three film arc (starting with Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace) showing us how Anakin Skywalker would eventually become Darth Vader. Of course, the Star Wars prequel have gathered plenty of ire over the years for a number of regrettable characters, lumbering storylines, poor casting (notably for Anakin himself) and flat performances. Still, audiences forked over their cold hard cash making the exercise worthwhile. That shift into the new century would see a very definitive shift toward franchise material. By the 2010’s, Hollywood’s predilection for IP was in full force. A few years on and Marvel and Disney had essentially monopolised cinemas and additionally further reinforced executives lust for franchise.
When it comes to origin stories, it’s not merely prequels which offer these moments, but occasionally reboots too. Perpetual reboots have seen us go through the origin of Batman, Superman and Spider-Man repeatedly. Occasionally reboots actively avoid doing the ‘origin’ thing again, almost in acknowledgement that certainly, we all are now very well aware of what got Batman started in the revenge business and Spider-Man in web slinging. For the most part though, many studio franchises appear to have a definite leaning toward showing origin stories. We’ve seen that in the world of Harry Potter with Fantastic Beasts (which of course was adapted from Rowling’s own prequel series). Additionally, Star Wars has recently given us Rogue One, the origin story of the capturing of the death star plans that kicked off the very original film. We also had Han Solo’s origin story too. So why this constant fascination for it? Why the need?
In relation to Solo, did an entire movie to show us how Han Solo gained the Millennium Falcon and even his name (among an array of other mini-easter eggs) really need to happen? Lacklustre reviews and box office suggested the audience wasn’t quite as enamoured as Disney might have hoped. In The Empire Strikes Back the entire history of Solo, The Falcon and Lando is pretty succinctly told in a few lines. In A New Hope we just take the idea of the plans being in Rebel hands as our starting point, which triggers the story. A film in excess of 2 hours to do less effectively what the opening five minutes in A New Hope does was also somewhat pointless, although at least Rogue One has a group of fans who consider it in the upper echelons of Star Wars’ filmography. In truth, like everything in cinema, there are good examples and bad examples. Dumb and Dumber To is the much maligned and now thoroughly forgotten sequel to the Farrelly Brothers’ original cult favourite, that showed us the young lives of Harry and Lloyd. In fact the film was excruciatingly bad, with the smell of cynical cash grab infecting the cinemas (at least for the three people dumb enough to go). The only real saving grace for that film is the fact that the Farrellys’ own sequel, which saw Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels return, was even worse.
Perhaps the most ridiculous (though rather enjoyably so) origin story I’ve ever witnessed comes courtesy of Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile. As the iconic moustachioed sleuth, Poirot, Branagh has crafted a couple of light but thoroughly well made whoddunits. Those familiar with the original stories will not find too many surprise, although one of the creative liberties taken involves a prologue in Death of the Nile which tells the origin story of Poirot’s moustache. Yes…a moustache gets a 10 minute opening origin story. Sensibly this is just limited to that opening rather than spending an entire movie to tell us why Poirot chose his face fuzz (in fairness it also gives an indication to the birth of several character traits). I did joke that Disney+ could happily stretch a moustache origin story to an 8 episode series (where I’d wager Grogu and Mando might pop up to commandeer a few episodes).
My only gripe with the over abundance with origin fascination is the fact that mystique can often be a strength within a character. Darth Vader was at his most interesting as a dark, almost mythical villain, with a vague back story. Compare the original The Hitcher with Rutger Hauer’s enigmatic and unreadable villain, to the dour remake which opted to pad the titular villain with more back story (and rob him of all mystique). Increasingly the film and TV landscape is an arena where vagueness isn’t as appreciated as clarity. Where everything needs reasoning and spelling out. Maybe an audience really wants to know why a character has a scar, or wears a particularly piece of jewellery, or maybe these points are never given much thought when an immediate storyline is taking your attention.
Do we sit at the beginning of A New Hope wondering what kind of barnstorming adventure it took to capture the Death Star schematics? I didn’t. One particularly frustrating trend, which isn’t entirely new, is segues into the past, or origins within films, which disrupt the pacing and flow. There are certainly good examples, but likewise there are so many films that spend way too much run time diving back into a characters past to show the early encounters that form the reasoning for their actions. Reacher recently for example had a perpetual need to continually dive back into the past of Jack and Joe Reacher, where the point being put across could have been done with half as money diversions back to them as kids.
Occasionally these asides can be an enjoyable indulgence. If finding out the origins of a moustache was inherently goofy, in an enjoyably breezy and old fashioned murder mystery, then seeing the origin of Indiana Jones’ famous fedora was also a welcome indulgence. The opening of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade featuring River Phoenix as a pitch perfect young Indiana, has always been a great example of origin storytelling, and succinct enough not to intrude too much into the film ahead of it. There tends to be a notable difference though when diving to origin becomes a symptom of lacking progressive ideas, but then a lack of creative ideas and forward momentum is commonplace in cinema now.
Do you enjoy origin stories? Are there too many of them? What is your favourite origin story? Let us know on our social channels @flickeringmyth…
Tom Jolliffe is an award winning screenwriter and passionate cinephile. He has a number of films out on DVD/VOD around the world and several releases due out in 2021/2022, including, Renegades (Lee Majors, Danny Trejo, Michael Pare, Tiny Lister, Nick Moran, Patsy Kensit, Ian Ogilvy and Billy Murray), Crackdown, When Darkness Falls and War of The Worlds: The Attack (Vincent Regan). Find more info at the best personal site you’ll ever see here.
