GHOST RIDER: SOV: Nicholas Cage On Playing Johnny Blaze; Still Says It's Definitely NOT A Sequel

GHOST RIDER: SOV: Nicholas Cage On Playing Johnny Blaze; Still Says It's Definitely NOT A Sequel

While speaking to Total Film the incomparable actor explains why Ghost Rider is a much different type of hero to the likes of Superman etc, and maintains that this movie is not a sequel...

By MarkCassidy - Jan 19, 2012 04:01 AM EST
Filed Under: Ghost Rider
Source: Total Film

Right from the beginning everyone involved with Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance seemed adamant to distance it from the first movie by claiming that it was not a sequel. It featured the same character, played by the same actor, and took place after the events of the last movie..but not a sequel. Gotacha. While speaking to Total Film Nicholas Cage continues to perpetuate this..



"I don’t see this as a sequel at all. I see this as Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance. The other movie was Ghost Rider. This movie is Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance.”


Well, I'm sold. I mean who can argue with that logic? Cage also explains how Ghost Rider differs from other superheroes and why he is attracted to roles like this one..

“Johnny Blaze is in a much different place in this movie, It’s a much edgier, almost cynical interpretation compared to the first Ghost Rider. Because in that movie, Johnny was trying to keep everything at bay, to keep things from erupting.”

“I couldn’t get my head around how I was supposed to perceive something like that to be a hero, so I was automatically attracted to that complexity. It’s easy to love Superman, it’s easy to love Captain America, but it’s a challenge to love the Ghost Rider. As I got older that carried on into my dramatic work – I’m always looking for flawed characters who have a pathos and a kind of tragedy to them.”


I think the movie looks like it could be decent, although I am worried about those awful reviews. But if your concerns stem from how bad the last movie was, don't worry, it's not a sequel remember! The Ghost Rider sequel opens February 17th.









RUMOR: GHOST RIDER Star Nicolas Cage Now Said To Be In Final Talks To Return As The Spirit Of Vengeance
Related:

RUMOR: GHOST RIDER Star Nicolas Cage Now Said To Be In "Final Talks" To Return As The Spirit Of Vengeance

Marvel Television Executive Hopes To Bring GHOST RIDER To TV...But Not The Johnny Blaze Version!
Recommended For You:

Marvel Television Executive Hopes To Bring GHOST RIDER To TV...But Not The Johnny Blaze Version!

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

webheaded
webheaded - 1/19/2012, 5:08 AM
The early reviews kind of ruined this movie for me, but sadly I'll see it regardless.. Darn you, curiosity!
spiderneil
spiderneil - 1/19/2012, 5:10 AM
first movie was rubbish but I will watch the 'sequel' regardless if for no other reason than to see the amazing spider-man trailer on th big screen.
Jolt17
Jolt17 - 1/19/2012, 5:11 AM
Very nice logic there. Eh...
jessepostal
jessepostal - 1/19/2012, 5:20 AM
It's a challenge to love ghost rider because nic cage is playing him :)
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/19/2012, 5:56 AM
No logic can convince me that a movie about the same character played by the same ACTOR is anything but connected to the original, in thsi case since it's set after the first movie it's a sequel. End of. It's annoying when these gusy try to pass it off as anything else, as if being associated with the last movie will somehow bring it down. Hey, it might..but you know what you should have done in that case? ACTUALLY reboot it with a new actor. Morons.
SpideyQuad
SpideyQuad - 1/19/2012, 6:05 AM
Okay, I'll play along, so this is part 2 instead? Whatever, I think what he was trying to say is there is little connection between the 2 stories. I'm fine with that, I actually enjoyed the 1st one. It wasn't great to me, but it entertained. I was really looking forward to this one until it got tanked. Damn, now I have to wait until March to go to the movies. That should tie me over until avengers
Ceejay
Ceejay - 1/19/2012, 6:23 AM
They killed any chance of this film making money the minute they allowed him to return in the lead role! This film is still-born!
Denn1s
Denn1s - 1/19/2012, 6:25 AM
it is a sequel whether they like it or not. they market it that way, the use the same logo, the same actor and the phrase 'he rides AGAIN'...
13echo
13echo - 1/19/2012, 6:27 AM
Maybe it's an alternate universe movie. Like a "What If" for Hollywood. I can see the Watcher stating the title now... "What if Ghost Rider tricked the world out of money TWICE".
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 1/19/2012, 6:51 AM
I hated the other movie. But I'll still give

Ghost Rider: A Second Bite At The Cherry

a look no doubt
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 1/19/2012, 6:52 AM
*laughs and grees* @13echo and @ceejay
Hawksblueyes
Hawksblueyes - 1/19/2012, 7:02 AM
"It's not a sequel."

Maybe it's a tuma! =D
MassExecutions
MassExecutions - 1/19/2012, 7:45 AM
Tea gets an LOL.
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/19/2012, 7:46 AM
Yes because that's what defines Bane. Being taller than Batman.
MassExecutions
MassExecutions - 1/19/2012, 8:16 AM
Ah, like Stilt-Man and Daredevil. I see.
TheNameIsBetty
TheNameIsBetty - 1/19/2012, 8:20 AM
Didn't need to read the article.

Come on guys...stop telling everything in the teaser
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 1/19/2012, 8:21 AM
Actually. I agree that Hardy is too short. I think they should have gone with Tyler Mane as Bane.

Height over substance of acting ;-)
Shaman
Shaman - 1/19/2012, 8:22 AM
RorMachine- I agree with your sequel comment, but not about Bane. What defines Bane is being the most menacing human Batman's ever faced, especially shape wise. If the character's creators wanted anything but a huge menace, then Bane would simply not have been one. Period. You can be okay with whatever Nolan makes Bane to be, but it still goes against what Bane was created to be. Ra's himself is pretty much Bane without the size so why use Bane at all when all they have to do is bring Neeson back for a second round?
Shaman
Shaman - 1/19/2012, 8:44 AM
It's like Batman, yes i know there's a lot more than his physicality to define him, but it still plays a huge part in what makes Batman be Batman. Put him in pink and no matter how good of a martial artist and detective he is, he's just no longer Batman.
Hawksblueyes
Hawksblueyes - 1/19/2012, 8:49 AM
Shaman: Given the proper amount of prep time, Batman would find a way to make pink intimidating.
Codeseven
Codeseven - 1/19/2012, 9:19 AM
I agreed with the above comment!
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/19/2012, 9:48 AM
Shaman, height does not equal menacing or imposing or powerful. Ok Bane was much larger that Bats in the comic and that was fine, in the movie he won't be. Doesn't mean he won't be as smart, powerful, intimidating and physically superior to Batman as he was in the comic, which are the important things. We also have a world class actor playing him. I'll happily sacrifice a few inches for all that thank you!
Shaman
Shaman - 1/19/2012, 11:38 AM
Rormachine: Yes, imposing actually means "Grand and impressive in appearance". Bane's purpose was to outmatch Batman, including sizewise. If his size didn't matter, they wouldn't have made him huge to begin with, let alone have him get even bigger with the venom. The movie won't suffer for having changed Bane, but he definitely won't outmatch Batman sizewise. Your opinion of what his character can be does in no way negate the fact that he simply won't be what he was meant to be when he was created for the books.

Azazel1- No, Hannibal Lecter wasn't scary. What he was guilty of, was. There is a difference. He was nowhere near imposing.

I fully understand that a villain doesn't need to be a hack actor/wrestler to be a formadable foe. But Bane needs size to be the Bane he was created to be. Or else, he's just not Bane from the books. Saying Bane doesn't need to be imposing is the same as saying Riddler doesn't need to be obsessed with riddles. True, anything can be "re-created" but that just makes their entire concept change, and not be what they were created to be. The movie will still be good, but Bane will not be the Bane we know from the books. That is all.
headlopper
headlopper - 1/19/2012, 11:45 AM
I'll go see it. I'd rather spend my money on a CBM in the month of February than spend it some ungrateful whore who try's to guilt-trip me into...into...uhhh, sh**, sorry!

Chocolates and flowers it is!
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/19/2012, 12:13 PM
He won't be as tall as he was in the books. I still think a buffed up Hardy cuts a pretty imposing figure? Regardless we won't know until we see the movie, I mean saying he "isn't the bane from the comics" is obvious! He isn't, he's an interpretation of him, just as Burton's murderous Batman is an interpretation, one which you prefer to the actual comic character if I'm not mistaken?;)
Shaman
Shaman - 1/19/2012, 12:32 PM
RorMachine- Well of course Hardy is imposing to me, he just won't be to Batman. Set pics already show him to be shorter than Bale when they're next to one another. Of course he'll be a great opponent for Batman but he'll seem more like an equal than an outmatch, which is fine, just not what his character was created to be. Thing is though, as good as Hardy will be in the role, i just don't see a purpose behind simply having the league's next top ninja in line facing Batman off in the grand finale. That's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm sure i'll still love it, but it somehow makes the character lose a bit of it's luster in my eyes. It's just not as epic, you know? Even Burton's Batman, as murderous as he was, still had the physicality down cold. Keaton is way smaller than what Batman is supposed to be so they worked their movie magik and made him appear to be an imposing figure. I just wish Nolan would've done that for Bane. No CGI needed, just camera angles and wooden footblocks would have done the trick. But from the footage we've seen, he really isn't focussing much on Bane physicality.
MassExecutions
MassExecutions - 1/19/2012, 1:13 PM
@Shaman - You know what could really sell me on Bane being intimidating, despite his lack of size? If every time he hit someone you felt the skull crack, or the ribs break. If you could really tell he was a total death dealer. Lethally efficient. That would make up for the lack of size. Of course, that would require well filmed fight scenes, which we have yet to see from Nolan. Ironic?
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/19/2012, 1:46 PM
I guess I just don't put as much stock in the physicality. You want to show that Bane is intimidating and imposing, you show him kill lots of people with his bare hands, beat the shit out of Batman, and the job is done! But yeah some camera trickery might be nice, and might happen. We have only seen a few brief glimpses of the two together and most of them were set pics.
AnthonyMango
AnthonyMango - 1/20/2012, 1:18 AM
Ghost Rider pissing fire = more cynical. Sure.
View Recorder