I'm
going to attempt something VERY difficult with today's post. I'm going to NOT bring up comics as
much as possible. I will have to
refer to them at times, as this series is dealing with a character rooted
in comic book pop culture; Barring
necessity, however, I plan to talk about the movies based purely on their merit
as films.
So. Jumping in.
When
constructing a story it's important to decide which themes are going to take
the primary focus, what will be used for support, and which parts of your story
can be entirely removed. As an
outsider it can seem obvious at times, but a lot of
writers/directors/storytellers can become attached to their own work and lose
any sense of objectivity. While it
can happen in any entertainment medium, it is sadly film that hits this wall
the most blatantly.
Pictured: A storyteller losing his objectivity.
The
thing a lot of people forget about movies is that they are the short stories of
the film medium. Whereas with a
show like 'Breaking Bad' the episodes behave more akin to chapters from a
novel, films tend to be self contained and don't have the opportunity to delve
into the individual characters and subplots as thoroughly (like a short
story). The exception is with
'film series'. By that I don't
mean franchises like 'Indiana Jones' or 'Die Hard' which are disconnected films about one
character, but instead serials like 'Star Wars' or 'Lord of the Rings'.
Many
times arguments will break out about which format is better, and as always, the
answer depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the characters. It's not enough to say that "a
movie should be enjoyable ENTIRELY on it's own" because some films are
crafted to be a 'part of the whole'.
It's fine for 'Fellowship of the Rings' to be your favorite LOTR film,
but the fact remains that without part's II and III the first part doesn't have
much of a resolution. Does that
mean that 'Fellowship' is a bad movie if part II and III don't hold up? No. But it does mean that when evaluating part I you have to
consider it for what it is, part of a series and NOT an individual work.
If
I watched the first episode of 'Firefly' with the same mindset that I watched
(for example) 'E.T. The Extraterrestrial' and then decided that "it was
bad" on the grounds that it left a lot of unresolved plot threads I would
be rightly branded an idiot.
"He didn't even watch 'SHINDIG'!? I can't believe I gave him my phone
number. Quickly, Shun him!"
In
order to accurately judge the show I would have to watch AT LEAST several more
episodes to see how the story and characters progress. The first episode doesn't
resolve the larger story because it ISN'T SUPPOSED TO. It's a series. That's the point.
Some
films operate based on the same basic principle of a serial television show,
except that in this case you can expect fewer episodes, greater distance between
them, and a considerably larger budget each time around. Not unlike a very expensive
mini-series. The Pro's are that
you have more time to develop characters, introduce a larger supporting cast,
and build to a bigger climax. The
Con is that a poorly executed climax can retroactively weaken the earlier
films.
"The first two were really good, and then that
third one ruined the entire experience!"
The
thing that needs to be considered when taking on a large character like
Spider-man is; "what type of story format most adequately befits
Spider-man?" Let's take a
comparative look Webb and Raimi's work, starting with...
SPIDER-MAN
(2002) - Directed by Sam Raimi
I
know a lot of people prefer Raimi's Spider-man films because they stood alone
more sufficiently without relying (as much) on the other films in the
series. That is a fair opinion,
but I'd be lying if I said that very same reason wasn't, in fact, my problem
with Raimi's films. That is to
say; Sam Raimi's films would have been better if they HAD relied on each other
more.
Also, it would have been better if this had just
NEVER happened at all.
A
big reason that Spider-man is such an effective character to begin with can be
linked to the fact that he is a DEVELOPING serial character. Over the course of his comic adventures
the character grew and changed, graduating from high school and then college,
getting into and out of several relationships, and getting into increasingly
more embroiled battles with his recurring villains roster. These weren't things we were just TOLD
about, but rather things that we got to actually SEE. It wasn't just that Spider-man saved lives while doing
"all the things that a Spider can", it was that we got to see him
grow and mature over the years as a character; something you can't accomplish
in the same way with a single film.
In
'Spider-man' (2002) Peter is fast-tracked into becoming the fully prepared
superhero by the end of the film.
Raimi did leave open a couple characterization points for a potential
sequel, but there was an understanding that "if, for some reason, we don't
get to make a 'part 2' then you should know that we've covered most of the
major beats in Spidey's journey as a character." Sure the sequels threw some new dilemmas, moral or
otherwise, at the character but for the MOST part the man he becomes by the end
of the first film is who he continues to be throughout the sequels. His relationship status changes, and he
goes through a couple patchy areas that test his convictions, but you could rest assured that by the end
of each film he would be back to his
crime-busting-web-slinging-super-responsible self.
RELATIONSHIPS
Naturally,
the Raimi rooters will point out all the wonderful supporting characters that
Webb "failed miserably" to include in his film. The most notable case of this would be
that of the 'Daily Bugle' staff members such as...
-
J. Jonah Jameson
-
Robbie Robertson
-
Betty Brant
Yes,
Raimi was able to include ALL of those characters (in his first film no less). Good for him. Sadly, it was also a feat that he 'Failed Miserably' to execute with any grace.
J.
Jonah Jameson was expertly cast (J.K. Simmons for the win) but he was
two-dimensional at best, and even then he barely had time to do anything but
loudly proclaim his distrust of Spider-man. Most folk will argue that he was always a 2-D character in
the first place, but that's not a good enough excuse for me. Take 'Ultimate Spider-man', for
example, where Jonah was portrayed as crusty and unpleasant, but also not
without a human edge. In that
version of the story J.J. still maintained his vendetta against Spider-man but
it also came back to bite him in the ass a few times. His actions came with REAL consequences and a satisfying
resolution (he ultimately admits his mistake). In the movie he's played off as comic relief and does
very little to further the actual story.
He's present in the film merely as a form of FAN service, but as a
result does the CHARACTER very little service.
The
same can be said for Robbie and Betty.
Robbie Robertson is supposed to be a strong willed hard-edged-but-moral
counterpoint to Jonah. He's the
diplomat that smoothes things out with everyone else while respectfully calling
Jonah on his bullshit behind closed doors. In the film he's portrayed as a good-natured-but-ineffective
sparring partner for Jonah.
Meanwhile, Betty Brant was chalked up to a glorified bit part in the
film. Obviously they couldn't
focus on her too much as MJ was the main love interest, but to declare 'victory
for Raimi' just because he crammed a character with the correct name into his
film doesn't mean that it added anything beneficial to the story whatsoever.
Not that I was complaining at the time, mind you.
That's
not to say that the bugle staff weren't memorable, or even fun to watch, but
they did take up a lot of time that could have been spent on the other
relationships. Aunt May never
really got a chance to develop into something other than a strong-yet-naive
shoulder for Peter to cry on. For
that matter I never got a really clear idea of what Peter's relationships with Uncle Ben and Aunt May were, other than that he liked/loved them, and was sad
when Uncle Ben passed away.
For
instance, when Uncle Ben gives peter 'the responsibility talk' it stems (seemingly)
from ONE skirmish that Pete had with Flash Thompson. Sure Ben makes some veiled references to "those weird
experiments" in Peter's room, but really there doesn't seem to be a major
reason to get overly concerned about Pete's behavior (at least not that Uncle
Ben would be aware of). The
performances by the actors were pretty spot on, but as for the reason given in
the script for the tension between the characters, it never felt QUITE
right. If more time had been
spent on moments such as that one instead of trying to squeeze in as many
characters/references from the comics as possible then the relationships may
have seemed less... condensed.
THE
PLOT
Another
thing I think Raimi's film suffered from (now looking back) was it handled the incorporation
of Spider-man's origin. As I stated before, Spider-man's origin in Amazing Fantasy (Issue #15, august 1962) is a singular story entirely disconnected from any
of the adventures he later went on to have with his more infamous rogues. It's a good story, certainly, but not
long enough to make an entire feature film out of, and as audience members we
would all be pretty ticked if we had to wait for the sequel before watching
Spidey go toe-to-toe with villains more challenging than the unnamed 'Burglar'. So of course the challenge becomes one
of trying to integrate two stories (the origin of Spider-man, and the Origin of
his first villain) into one film as seamlessly as possible.
In
all fairness, Sam Raimi approached this problem in the EXACT same way I would
have were I in his shoes.
And
it is the wrong way. Sadly.
He
did exactly what the comics did.
First he told the story of Peter Parker (while separately prepping the
grand entrance of the bad guy), and THEN introduced the story of Spider-man's
battle against the Green Goblin.
The first half hour+ of the film (being bitten by the Spider, Uncle
Ben's death etc.) was completely disconnected from the rest.
-
The Spider? A complete accident entirely unrelated
to anything to do with Norman becoming the Green Goblin.
-
Uncle Ben and the
lesson of Responsibility? Again,
not connected to the Green Goblin.
Okay sure, Peter quotes the 'with great power' line later on in the
film. But after discovering who
Ben's killer is, it's a lesson that he never returns to. It is established why he's Spider-man,
why he doesn't put himself first, but beyond that his origin has NOTHING to do
with his relationship with Norman Osborn (except Norman being bad=irresponsible,
and Peter being good=responsible).
'Spider-man'
is practically two films somewhat awkwardly rolled into one. It tells the story of Spider-man
accurately and even reverently, but telling the story of Spider-man in the
format of a film requires that the ENTIRE film feel connected in its accurate
reverence. It was a point many of
my friends and a number of reviewers made about why they preferred 'Spider-man
2'. With the origin out of the way
the second film gets to focus on ONE story without having to deal with the
chore of explaining who Spider-man is on top of that. But why should that be a chore?
'Batman
Begins' was able to tell one story and tie the Death of Bruce's parents to his
decision to fight crime and (by the end of the film) Liam Neeson. 'Iron Man' was also able to accomplish
the same thing by accurately depicting his origin while tying it to the larger
plot in the rest of the film. His
kidnapping wasn't a separate event that had nothing to do with the final 'boss
fight'; instead it LED (or built, if you will) to the final battle. Much in the same way a story
would. Just the one story. To go with the one film.
LEAVING
US WANTING MORE
As
I indicated a few paragraphs ago, and in my last post (about the villains),
Raimi's first film didn't really leave itself anywhere to go. By the end Peter had...
-
Graduated high school?
Check.
-
Come into his own as a
superhero with a competent handle on his powers? Check.
-
Established a clear
sense of purpose with all his priorities about responsibility in order? Check.
-
Successfully faced off
and defeated his first major villain in life or death battle? Check.
At
that point there were only two unresolved pieces of the plot that (technically)
needed to be tied up.
And contrary to what Raimi believed, "Who shot
Uncle Ben" wasn't one of them.
1.
THE ROMANTIC SUBPLOT
Keeping
the tension between the romantic leads works in theory, but the problem with
the "love story" (besides what I stated before) was that its resolution in the first film was completely unnecessary. Peter just decides for MJ that having
her in his life will put her in danger, which is true, but shouldn't he maybe
let MJ decide whether she wants to take that risk? At the very least why not tell her "I'm Spider-man, and
THAT is why I can't be with you" (exactly as he told her in the
sequel). Even that would be okay
because it distances himself from her, but the problem is that he also
indicates that he'll still be there for her, albeit as a friend, as if that'll
be safer than dating her in some way.
How does that protect her?
If Peter's enemies discover his secret, are they going to just leave MJ
alone because "she's JUST a friend"? As if Super-villains have some sort of code that allows them
to ONLY target 'significant others,' but to leave all the other close friends
and relations alone?
Suddenly, Jimmy Olsen being Superman's 'pal' has a
whole new meaning.
I
don't care if Spider-man has broken up with women in the comics for the very
same reason; it's bad writing. Period. And it shouldn't be repeated. There was no REAL justification
as to why Peter couldn't be with MJ beyond "it might not be safe... and
stuff." It was poorly delivered, arbitrary drama, thrown in at the end
just so there would be something for the sequel. Because heaven forbid a superhero movie tackles a relationship
BEYOND the stage of "will they or won't they?"
2.
HARRY OSBORN'S REVENGE BONER
The
concept behind this plot is pretty solid in theory; "Disgruntled by his
father's death the grieving son unknowingly vows vengeance upon his best
friend." Sounds good to me. The problem isn't in the concept but, again,
the execution. The ENTIRE thing
could have been avoided if Peter had just let Norman (a very dead man) take the
fall for the Green Goblin's crimes.
You may argue that Peter is being noble in honoring a dying man's last
request ("Don't tell Harry!"
*die*), but I would like to point out that No. He is not.
Peter is not being noble.
"What
are you talking about? Harry is
grieving! If Peter reveals the
truth about Norman to him it would crush him! Also, isn't that rather selfish of Peter to go against
Norman's dying wish JUST so he can clear his name? Isn't that... IRRESPONSIBLE even? Eh? Eh?"
Again. No. It isn't.
By
not telling Harry NOW he's only setting him up for even greater pain
and misery in the future.
Like, hypothetically speaking, an explosion to the
face.
Of
course learning that his father was an insane psychopath will be hard, but
Harry is also this thing called 'a grown man.' Just assuming that he's too sensitive to handle the truth is
not only insulting, but it also leads to a whole ton of needless death,
destruction, and property damage.
Remember
that time Doctor Octopus threw a car at Peters head? That only happened because
Harry told the Doc to talk to Peter about finding Spider-man, and... throwing a
car at his head was the best way to... do that. Or something. But I'm not here to question the good Doctor's
questionable interrogation tactics.
Oh good.
Now that you're dead, would you mind telling me where Spider-man is?
What
I AM trying to bring to your attention is that everything from then all the way
to the ensuing train fight with the countless property damage is all because
Harry wanted revenge. A revenge he
wanted because no one (not even that inexplicably gifted forensic analyst of a butler) bothered to sit Harry down and say; "Hey, about your father being
dead. That's because he was
murdering people while dressed up like a power rang- I mean a goblin. I really wish it could have gone down
differently." Peter is now
suddenly RESPONSIBLE for a whole shit ton of misery and property damage simply
because he didn't have the stones to tell Harry what he knew.
And
as for honoring Norman's dying wish.
Why? Why would you do
that? He's a bad man whose dying
request should have garnered zero consideration from our hero. "Don't tell Harry? Fuck you. You're EVIL!
Maybe you should have considered your sons feelings BEFORE trying to
murder a trolley full of children!"
"You have to choose between saving the woman you love or
these innocent Children!
...And
don't tell Harry."
I
don't have anything against the 'Harry hates Spider-man' story, but at least
give me a logical explanation as to why it needs to happen. As it stands Spider-man (along with
Harry's butler) is either a complete idiot, a huge dick, or both.
My
point is, of the two unresolved plot threads in the first movie, one was created
for arbitrary drama, the other was poorly executed, and neither was about
Spider-man's growth as an individual.
GRADE/S
So
if I were to rate the film? Much
like with my grading of the villains I would need to give the film two separate
ratings to fairly evaluate it's worth.
Therefore...
As
a standalone Spidey film I would rate 'Spider-man' as: 6.5 out of 10.
In
spite of my criticisms I really do really enjoy this film, but that enjoyment
doesn't change the fact that it's still light, cheesy, popcorn fun. Of course Spider-man SHOULD be fun, but
being fun doesn't NEED equate to being campy either, and this movie is VERY
campy at times. MJ and Harry's unresolved storylines were frustrating, but over
all the film tells an enjoyable little story, just not a life changing
one. Once upon a time I would have
given this a higher rating because seeing Spider-man on the big screen was a
feat I never thought possible. But
in retrospect there are many elements of the film that don't hold up. So, good job Raimi. Not a great job. But good job all the same.
As
the first film in series I would rate ' Spider-man' as: 4.5 out of 10
'Spider-man'
doesn't really leave itself any room to grow. The primary adversary is dead,
and Spider-man himself has practically reached full maturity. As a result the character is spinning
his wheels by the third film, with increasingly contrived emotional obstacles
being thrown at him the farther he goes.
It doesn't help that each subsequent villain is progressively
underwhelming.
Okay, I'll admit this was pretty cool, but
still. "The chip made him
bad?" Come on.
It
seems clear to me that Raimi really didn't go into this series with a distinct
'plan of action,' so much as a 'vague idea' that future sequels might be a
possibility. I don't think
filmmakers should necessarily have to plan out each franchise three films in
advance (some of my favorite serial television shows don't take such
considerations). But it sure would
have been nice if Raimi would've stopped to consider that he was using up all
his big ideas in the very first (and second) film. But by the time Raimi realized his mistake it was too late.
Then again, I'm assuming that Raimi even realizes
this was a mistake.
So how does all of this
compare to...
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
(2012) - Marc Webb
There
are three primary complaints that I hear about this film, often from the same
people.
- It changed too many
things about the characters and their back stories from the comics/ source
material etc.
- It left too many
loose ends. Too many plots
were introduced without enough payoff.
- The Bugle staff
weren't present and that's supposed to be a huge part of the characters
development.
I've
already covered why the first complaint is objectively wrong here, here, and here; Right now I'm going to focus
primarily on complaints 2 and 3.
THE
PLOT (LOOSE ENDS?)
As
I said, part of Spider-man's appeal is that his adventures come in a
long string or serial formatting.
From the get go 'The Amazing Spider-man' is made with building to a
sequel in mind, but that doesn't mean that the film makers have free reign to
do whatever they want. TASM is
still a single film, and seeing as it's not going to be releasing a second
installment for a couple years (as opposed to a weekly tv series) the film needs to be
at LEAST coherent and self-contained enough to deal with all of the major
themes specific to THIS film. In
regards to this consideration there is ONE point of contention for many
viewers; the mystery of Peter Parker's parents.
WHY
PEOPLE FEEL IT'S A PROBLEM:
The
film starts by introducing Peter's parents showing the circumstances that lead
to their eventual disappearance.
From there we follow Peter's investigation into the truth behind the
mystery, which of course leads to his becoming a Superhero and his
confrontation with the Lizard. The
problem is that once the plot with the Lizard gets underway the topic of
Peter's parents is effectively dropped from the film and never brought up again. How annoying is that? Clearly these guys couldn't settle on
which story they wanted the film to focus on. Idiots.
OR...
But,
in this very way, it does what a series opener is SUPPOSED to do. First It cleverly incorporates the
disappearance of Peter's parents, the origin of his powers, the death of his
uncle, and his first major battle, into ONE massive 'coming-of-age' arc about
Peter. Instead of trying to copy
the comics (like Raimi's films) and have all of these events be separate
occurrences that each happen to the same character, they coherently brought
them together into one film, and presented it as a single story. ALL the while staying true to the
characters and the spirit of source material.
As
for unresolved threads there is only really one. Many had an issue with Peter not catching Ben's killer, but
(as I pointed out in 'origin vs. adaptation')
that change is not only resolved, but actually improved (in my opinion). The only major unresolved thread is
about Peter's Parents. I never had
a problem with it because from the very beginning it had the makings of a
'larger arc story.' And for those
who complain that 'the subject was randomly dropped part way through the
movie'; Webb was very careful to leave one final after-the-credits scene to
remind us that he hadn't forgotten.
Again, this is how a series works; by leaving us with enough room to
grown into something even better.
RELATIONSHIPS
(WHERE'S THE DAILY BUGLE STAFF?)
It
seems odd to me that so many people would be able to complain that a film
doesn't spend enough time resolving it's own subplots, and then insist that the
film would have been made better by cluttering it with more supporting
characters.
"But
Raimi did it!"
Yes,
but as I pointed out before, he didn't do it very well. I preferred not having J.J. around for
this installment, leaving him to be introduced in one of the sequels. As it was we were able to spend
more time on Peter and his relationships with Aunt May and Uncle Ben.
With
Ben and May we were able to see a real relationship with a teenager and his
parental guardians; to see them get along AND argue. Now, when Ben decides to have the responsibility talk with
Peter, it actually makes sense.
Not only was Peter acting up at school, but Ben and May have also seen
him coming home at night late and acting strung out, not to mention Peter
forgetting to pick up his Aunt.
These are choices that have a genuine affect on Peter's relationship
with his uncle, and which would realistically bring about a speech of that kind. It's plausible cause and affect.
Even
the relationship between Peter and Aunt May is dramatically improved upon. I get that Aunt May is supposed to be
loving and caring, but she's lost her husband and now her (surrogate) son is
coming home with cuts and black eyes.
In the prior films there was very little conflict between the two
(Spider-man 2 being the primary exception), but here it was nice to see the
filmmakers address what happens when a teenager with super powers gets home
late looking like he was mugged several times a week. Having all this build to the touching scene at the end with
the eggs (one of my favorite character beats in the film) resulted in some
honest, engaging drama.
So what if I got a bit misty eyed? If you didn't then you're a robot.
LEAVING US WANTING MORE
I think that header speaks
for itself don't you?
-
Room for character
growth in the protagonist? Check.
-
The promise of an
ominous figure pulling the strings from the shadows? Check.
-
A mystery that connects
that same 'ominous figure' to the disappearance of Peter's parents? Check.
-
Foreshadowing that Gwen
will die as result of being in Peter's life? Check.
-
The potential for this
to all tie together as part of one big arc? Check.
Whether
the sequels will be able to meet our expectations remains to be seen, but one
can't deny that 'The Amazing Spider-man' sets the series up with a
substantially stronger foundation for the future than Raimi's 'Spider-man' ever
did.
I've
said all I've needed to on this.
Time for the...
GRADE/S
As
a standalone Spidey film I would rate 'The Amazing Spider-man' as: 8 out of 10.
As
a stand-alone flick I still found this more enjoyable than Raimi's film. It's like I said, all the elements of
Peter's origin are actually tied together with rest of the plot. As a character the writer uses
Spider-man as a tool for Peter's growth into a man, instead of just having him
achieve manhood, and THEN become a superhero, as separate character beats. Even the drama between Gwen and Peter
felt like it was derived from real conflict, and had a resolution that wasn't
as needlessly frustrating.
This
film contains a more succinct and focused story than 'Spider-man' ever did, and
all this in SPITE of the fact that it intentionally leaves certain threads
open-ended for the sequel.
BUT. If I'm being fair,
that is also why it gets two points deducted. If I were to find that the sequels were (for whatever
reason) cancelled and that I would never get a 'part two,' it would somewhat
impair (or at least frustrate) my enjoyment of THIS film, which is the
potential downside of any series.
*sob*
Therefore as a standalone
film this gets an 8.
However...
As the first film in a
series I would rate ' Spider-man' as: 10 out of 10
Without
contest, this is EASILY a better series 'pilot' than Raimi's first installment
could have ever have hoped to be.
As much as I loved this film it only fueled my excitement for the
sequels even more. Keep in mind
that when this film came out I was as skeptical as everyone else.
Beside the fact that Spider-man had recently been done, TASM initially felt
suspiciously like a desperate attempt by SONY to hold onto the film rights to
the character. "Clearly
they're creatively dying of thirst, grasping hopelessly at a Spider-man mirage that
will, doubtless, slip through their fingers within a few more years," we
all thought. The most frustrating
part was that this seemed to put the kibosh on any hope of Spider-man being a
part of the 'Avengers' films (for those of you not in the know, it's this whole
thing to do with studio conflicts).
Pictured: Hell freezing over.
All
of this negative energy had been working against this movie for so long, but
once the dust settled I found myself realizing something. I actually don't mind if Spidey
doesn't join Captain America and the gang for a little while longer, because I
actually want to see more of the character on his own first. Because this film is really good! While I had been expecting it to be
something that would 'pass the time' between 'The Avengers' and 'The Dark
Knight Rises', I ultimately found that 'The Amazing Spider-man' was my one of
my favorite summer blockbusters of the year. And it's not like it didn't have
some contenders.
The
long and short of it is, this film had more reasons to fail than succeed. It not only succeeded but also managed
to get me more excited for the character than when I first heard they were
making a Spider-man movie back in 2000.
As the first of a series, this gets a 10 for sure.
'Nuff
said.
WRAPPING
THINGS UP
Well
it's been fun, but this is the last full entry I'm going to do on the
'Spider-movies'. That said, I will
be posting one more 'epilogue' entry to fully wrap things up. There are a couple of 'honourable
mentions' I'd like to cover; things I liked about the movie, but that I don't
feel warranted an entire blog entry in and of themselves. Until then I'd just like to thank all
of you who have continued to read these over the past couple weeks. It's encouraging to know that someone
(someones? plural?) out there has been enjoying the fruits of my incredibly
nerdy labour.
To
that end, I hope to see you around in...
Cheers
