As
I stated in my last post, having a Superhero flick remain 'true' to the comics
isn't always as imperative as we claim it to be. Many elements of the comics have been altered in the films,
and we usually don't even notice.
However, with even the most flexible of adaptations there are always
certain parameters that must be, more or less, maintained. The "unchangeables." Of these 'non-exceptions' the most
common comes in the form of 'the origin story.'
For
example: In Superman's origin story we insist that Krypton goes BOOM, and baby
Kal-El escapes in a rocket destined for earth. But really, no one cares if Krypton is an Ice Planet or an
ultra cheesy shining utopia of intellectual perfection and atrocious fashion
sense. There's plenty of wiggle room when it comes to the specifics, as long as
the primary ingredients are maintained.
So
too is this the case with Spider-man.
Who Peter's first girlfriend is, whether he's almost in College or just
starting high school, is all irrelevant. For the character to stay true to his comic
counterpart the ESSENTIAL 'origin beats' that "MUST be maintained at all
costs" are the following:
1.
Peter is an
intelligent, teenaged, social outcast who struggles with life (in general)
when...
2.
He is accidentally
bitten by a Spider (that has been affected by whichever ‘science’ thing is
currently topical) and, in turn, gains Spider based Super powers.
Science!
3.
Initially he is freaked
out by this radical life change, but eventually comes to realize that having
powers kicks ass.
4.
Over time he lets his
new found abilities stroke his ego a bit more than is healthy and starts to act
negatively, thus making poor choices.
5.
The last of these poor
choices results in the escape of an armed robber who ultimately takes the life
of Peter’s Uncle, Ben Parker.
6.
When Peter finds out
that he is responsible for his uncle’s death (albeit indirectly), he turns his
life around and starts to use his great power to help those in need.
Classic. Everything you need in a good moral
tale about heroism is right there, and now it's been filmed TWICE for your
viewing pleasure. This begs the
question...
WHO
DOES IT BETTER?
SPIDER-MAN
(2002) – Directed by Sam Raimi
In
respect to the origin story, Raimi’s film does get it pretty much spot on. One could nitpick the odd thing
here or there, but no one can deny that it’s a fairly accurate adaptation of
the comic book. Indeed, almost
everything in the first 11 pages of Amazing Fantasy #15 have been brought to
life in the first 30 minutes of "Spider-man", right up to the scene
with Spidey chasing Uncle Ben's killer into an abandoned warehouse before
making the heartbreaking discovery.
WHAT
DID IT CHANGE FROM THE COMIC?
The
film excluded Peter's mechanical web shooters (a subject I'll broach in my next
post), as well as the fact that, in the comic, Spider-man actually had a major
stint on live television before things went sour for him. However, both of those are very minor
plot points in the forming of our beloved character.
GRADE
For
the origin of Spider-man I give 'SPIDER-MAN': 9 out of 10
An
accurate adaptation, both serviceable and classic.
THE
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012) - Directed by Marc Webb
I
do not envy the position that Screenwriter James Vanderbilt must have been in
when constructing the re-telling of Spider-man's origins a mere TEN YEARS after
the original film (okay I might envy him a bit). I won't beat around the bush; there are certain things
that this film changed, which I suppose they had to, lest it feel stagnant with
over-familiarity. As such, I
can't help but ask... "If Raimi's film had not existed would the changes
that occurred in THIS film have taken place at all?" Almost immediately I come to the
conclusion that, no, they wouldn't have.
Still, the changes aren't necessarily bad.
I
am a strong believer that restrictions breed creativity. Obviously the writer couldn't all out
change the origin, and yet he needed to find a way to make it interesting, to
make us care. Again. Which is
easier said than done. Simply
making another Spider-man movie is one thing, but making another Spider-man
movie about the SAME THING without causing the masses to yawn collectively is
something else entirely. For
Raimi's film the challenge was much less severe than it was here. We were so excited just to SEE
Spider-man on the big screen that short of COMPLETELY screwing up we were going
to love it no matter what.
It
would be another two films before Raimi figured out how to convince us otherwise.
But
with "The Amazing Spider-man" the writers had to come up with some
new angle to present, and (surprisingly) as a result I actually found myself
caring MORE than I did the first time around. In "Spider-man" the origin focused on Peter
Parker's journey into being Spider-man, whereas in "The Amazing
Spider-man" it focused on Peter Parker's journey into being a man, during
which he happened to get super powers.
I don't know if it was done on purpose, but we ended up getting an
origin centered on CHARACTER dressed up as fun Superhero tale, instead of the
other way around. And I liked it.
WHAT
DID IT CHANGE FROM THE COMIC?
Not
as much as you might think, but a few things still.
1.
In this version Peter
never goes into wrestling or showbiz at all.
2.
While Peter does learn
that his uncle's killer is the same man he let escape, Pete never actually does
find or catch the man in charge.
3.
The Spider bite still
remains an accident although Peter was meddling in areas he shouldn't have
been. Traditionally Peter's
accident is a 100% fluke and in no way his fault. I'm not going to bring this point up again, because due to
the way the film executed it I don't think it really matters. It was still an accident.
And
that's it. That's all that was
changed from the comics. How does
it affect the character? Not
really at all. The end result of
who the character is and what he becomes is the same. The only reason why the 'Twilight Zone reveal' mattered in
the comics is because it was a more dramatic ending to a story that wasn't
guaranteed a follow up series. The
original comic didn't have time for a 'main villain' or even a particularly
strong supporting cast (seriously, uncle Ben only has two lines, and we don't even
SEE his death), so the most interesting dramatic device the story had going for
it was 'the twist ending'.
Not
unlike M. Night Shayamalan's movies.
But
for the purpose of moving our hero forward into a larger and more involved plot
(such as a feature film requires) simply letting Peter realize his critical
error is enough. In fact, having
him NOT catch Ben's killer after discovering the truth only furthers Peter's
lesson in responsibility because now he can't even take it out on anyone. Peter is now forced to live with his
mistakes and shoulder the burden of responsibility on his own. For a character whose origin is rooted
in responsibility this change makes a lot of sense.
"What
about the lack of wrestling/showbiz in Spidey's early career?"
Again
all you have to do is look at what the purpose that particular story element
served in order to decide whether it was still necessary for
"Amazing". The showbiz
angle from the comics was put in place to allow Peter's ego to grow out of
control. "The Amazing
Spider-man" still had Peter become arrogant, as one would tend to do with
newfound Powers, but by replacing the wrestling career with, instead, an added
focus on Pete's relationships the writers were able to deliver the same effect
without having to sacrifice screen time for it. If this had been part television series there would have
been more time to focus on the wrestling gig (serial shows allow for broader
arcs). However, with a
feature film, if you can accomplish the same thing in less time, do it.
WITH
GREAT POWER...
There
is one other 'change' that bothered some people, which is not really a change
at all. Many will note that
never once does uncle Ben state the famous catchphrase "With great power
comes great Responsibility".
Fans were upset because this was Uncle Ben's big defining moment, and it
was completely stripped from him!
What an appalling injustice!
This
is worth destroying my property over!
But
I would like to bring your attention to the fact that Uncle Ben never actually said
that in the comic. For those in
disbelief, please observe the following
If
you can look at that and NOT think dirty thoughts you
are a much better person
than I am. Responsibility indeed.
Not
a rousing speech in sight. Uncle
Ben only appears in three more panels after that, and doesn't speak in any of
them. In fact the familiar
catchphrase, which we all associate with dear ol' Uncle Ben, doesn't appear at
all until the very last panel at which point Stan Lee narrates:
"And
a lean, silent figure slowly fades into the gathering darkness, aware at last
that in this world, with great power there must also come-- great
responsibility!"
Huh. It's almost like Uncle Ben wasn't
important at ALL beyond functioning as a stock character with a specific
purpose within the confines of an incredibly brief throwaway story in the last
issue of a dying comic series.
It's
almost like that because that's exactly what it is.
Uncle
Ben was only important to the development of the characters AFTER the fact in a
very hindsight fashion. Certain
later comics and television series attributed the now famous line to Uncle Ben
as an afterthought, but at the end of the day it wasn't really important who
SAID it, but rather that Peter LEARNED it.
It
should also be said that while "With Great Power Comes Great
Responsibility" Is incredibly quotable, it doesn't really sound very good
in every day conversation. Does
having Uncle Ben speak to Peter about Power and Responsibility make for a Great
character moment? Yes.
Absolutely. There's a
reason that most modern updates including "The Amazing Spider-man" do
it. The only difference here is
that the writers actually made it sound like something a father figure would
say to his unruly surrogate teenage son on the fly, instead of it sounding like
something he got from a hallmark card and set aside for future use "just
in case".
HONOURABLE
MENTIONS
Web
shooters! Peter's Parents!
This
film they also included the mechanical web shooters, and introduced the
back-story of Peter's parents. The
latter is a subject that was never touched on once in the prior Spidey trilogy
(a brief mention simply alluded to their passing)
GRADE
For
the Origin of Spider-man I give 'THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN': 10 out of 10
A
respectfully done interpretation of the character's origin. While some minor changes were made in
order to keep the story fresh, none of them altered the characters in any
relevant way, and in some cases actually made for more compelling drama.
WRAPPING
THINGS UP
Obviously
this is just one of the necessary ingredients in a good Spider-man movie, and I
understand that numerous other considerations need to be taken before I can
simply chalk up "The Amazing Spider-man" as the superior film. That's why next week I'll be comparing
how both films dealt with what (I feel) is one of the most critical elements of
the franchise, the depiction of Peter Parker. Don't miss: "Peter Parker: The Nerd Factor"
Until then
Thanks for reading,
-Fenske
No comments:
Post a Comment