Ten years ago, the name “Spider-Man” was synonymous with trailblazing in the superhero genre. Today, it’s barely even respectable enough to bring up in the same sentence as the numerous successes in the genre that it helped to pave the way for.
What happened? It seems like “Spider-Man” went from being on top of the world to yesterday’s news almost overnight. Sure “Spider-Man 3” was weak but in a world of franchise killers the likes of “Superman 3” and “Batman and Robin,” it wasn’t awful and that film hit at a period when superhero films were heading for a crash. Yet here we are 7 years later with an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the franchise and the genre in general and all there is to show for it is two films with increasingly less box office returns with one receiving the worst reviews of the franchise.
Although rebooting something so close to the release of its previous installment carries inherent isuues, the sad truth is that the problems of “The Amazing Spider-Man” series aren’t the result of artists attempting to carve out a unique vision for a highly exposed character but that of studio executives desperate to keep their cash cow but not passionate enough to trust the artists hired to do their job.
Kudos to Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield who seem to have a better understanding of the mythos that they’re working with than Sony, as both films have countless points that knock the concept out of the part that should have been lifted and pasted wholesale into good Spider-Man films.
Sadly, despite diminishing box office returns, Sony seems to be dedicated to staying the course, fast tracking the release of a “Sinister Six” focused film in the wake of “The Amazing Spider-Man 3’s” delay. Unless the franchise makes a miraculous bounce back, all that can be done is picking up the pieces, looking at what went wrong and how the disasters of today can hopefully build a better Spider-Man for tomorrow.
Just Make a Movie
It seems only fitting that a series that only exists for the pursuit of money should have its greatest flaw be a lack of focus in terms of what it even is.
“The Amazing Spider-Man” tells the gritty and realistic story of Peter Parker, an angsty teenager that is too obsessed with what he doesn’t have to be thankful for what he does, who is mutated by a genetically altered spider, bred to produce an organic construction material that can hold up tons of weight. Peter gains the ability to carry at least 15 times his own bodyweight, as well as the capability to clairvoyantly predict where attacks on his person are coming from and sticking to walls similarly to a spider despite the questionable level of contact that his body is making with the surface. He exercises these powers on criminals while being a wisecracking bully of bullies in a red and blue leotard while swinging from buildings in order to stop a mutant lizard-man creature bent on mutating the entire city with his mad scientist formula.
This story was chosen to be told in a gritty and grounded context. The film has officially fallen apart right out of the starting gate.
From a marketing standpoint, this tactic makes sense; when this movie went into production, the reboot craze was going into full swing and the idea of gritty trilogies was all the rage. The teenage element is also understandable when you consider the popularity of “Twilight” and the movement it’s inspired of young adult focused stories. How do any of these elements work for Spider-Man?
In an effort to bloat the film with elements of popular cinema, the source material is snubbed to a point of jarring distraction when presented onscreen through the filter of the movie.
Reinterpretation has always been key to the success of comic book films but only when they service the core story. Nolan’s Batman worked because a gritty vigilante whose origins were based in real world logic was being explored by an experienced director used to crafting cinematic neo-noirs and exploring double identity. Spider-Man isn’t Batman.
Spider-Man is a character born from the pages of an anthology comic book called “Amazing Fantasy,” during the most fantastical period of comic book storytelling, the Silver Age, while a major facet of Peter Parker’s character is his love of the people surrounding him and his drive to put himself in harm’s way to defend them. The fundamental interpretation of the movie’s source material puts it at odds with itself.
Watching a film that tries to play everything as exaggerated as Spider-Man’s presence and the Lizard’s existence straight faced becomes almost unintentionally hilarious after a while but the lack of convincing motivation from Parker makes it downright confusing. The awkward teenager obsessed with his own world is highly disconnected from the angry teenager out for vengeance, the hero that wants to fight for the city’s safety and the hero that lightheartedly taunts his opponents. Garfield struggles to portray multiple characterizations onscreen that fail to connect with one another because the film contradicts its own subject matter.
If the movie wanted to be grounded, it should have paced out character development and chosen a less flamboyant antagonist. If it wanted to embrace the fantasy, it should have spent less time trying to justify its scientifically outlandish concepts, played the titular character as more of a straight man, and for the love of all that is holy, given him a costume that evokes even the slightest bit of majesty.
“The Amazing Spider-Man” tries to have things both ways by portraying its icon in a new light while giving him a more “modern” edge, failing to realize that the juxtaposition of these ideas ultimately make the film seem like it’s making changes just for the sake of having changes at best and a Hollywood parody of a superhero movie at worst.
Nothing is inherently wrong with the ideas presented within the film alone but its cheap manner of clashing them with the unavoidable tropes of the property while leaving threads dangling for an inevitable sequel set back any good intentions that they may have had.
While the first film dropped the ball out of the gate, it did at the very least have an understanding of how and why to construct a moderately stand alone narrative. That’s more than can be said for its sequel.
“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is an odd little film that somehow manages to fix the problems of its predecessor’s approach, yet makes the same mistakes even bigger, creating a film that is worse off despite taking on a better tone.
 |
| He's been fighting that battle for 2 years. The villains is Sony and Columbia Pictures |
Certain points of extreme camp aside, the tone and visual palette of the story are much better suited to the film’s writing and source material. The production design, casting, camerawork and fight choreography are all stupendous. Unfortunately by the time of this movie’s production, the clock had turned over on gritty reboot trilogies and the new “it” thing has now become “cinematic universes.”
The success of “The Avengers” is quickly proving to be the best and worst thing to ever happen to the superhero genre. While the bar has been raised regarding what stories mainstream Hollywood can tell, a paradigm has been set for every property to chase no matter how ill conceived they may be within those contexts.
Spider-Man’s story is that of an individual’s growth and maturity into a wiser and more confident person through the journey of his personal redemption quest. As such, his supporting cast exists in positions designed to meticulously play off of his development. How anybody could conceive of the words “Spider-Man Cinematic Universe” with this knowledge is beyond me but ignoring that it again ignores the strengths of its property, the concept of producing films serving as content generators for three separate films considered for their own follow-ups is a new level of cynicism in the film industry that’s quite frankly disturbing to watch. The “Marvel Cinematic Universe” didn’t even get this greedy with “Iron Man 2.”
I won’t belittle directors and screenwriters with a simplistic call to “make better stories” but the act of half baking 3 plot threads to be addressed in individual movies speaks for itself. Whatever direction this franchise goes in for the future, the objective to be chased that will actually produce a good Spider-Man movie is to make a complete Spider-Man movie to begin with. Of course, simply getting over laziness and money-grubbing policies is only the tip of the iceberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment