SPIDER-MOVIE - PART VI: Green Goblin vs. the Lizard

I've said it before and I'll say it again; without a relationship there can be no story.  But while many people think of love and romance when they hear the 'R' word, there is one kind of relationship that we secretly thrive off as a race.  It has nothing to do with love, kindred spirits, or familial bonds.  In fact it's the exact opposite of all of those; we relish the 'relationships of adversarial conflict.'

That's right.  We love BAD GUYS.

Just to be clear I'm NOT talking about the appeal of 'radical outcasts of society,' or 'individuals with a sense of danger and nothing else to do.'

Like some sort of 'rebel without a cause', if you will.

No no no.  I'm talking about evil, pure and unadulterated.  I'm talking about bloodshed and the slaughter of innocence.  Because deep down in a dark chasm of ourselves we simply delight in macabre fantasies filled with dread and terror.  Of monsters so unthinkable that, after we've checked under our children's bed's and assured them of their safety, we ourselves will secretly hide under a blanket, trembling in fear.

It's all very deep I assure you.  And I could go on about inner darkness and our cultural need to grasp at the idea of a greater evil than ourselves-yadda yadda yadda.  But who really cares about that?  We're here to talk about movie villains who insist upon spandex and the colour green as fashion statements. Because if there's one thing we definitely care about it's fashionably challenged lunatics with buckets of charisma.  Villains are awesome.

Hate this film as vocally as you will, but deep down you still think this scene was the shit.

It would seem people don't really care too much about stories where things go easily for everyone.  The more rigorous a trial by fire is for our hero the more we will invest.   It's that whole conflict craze that all the kids seem to be into these days.  And while great story conflicts can come from many types of relationships, the most effective, potent, and visceral of all conflicting relationships, is that of the main character and his nemesis. The Protagonist and the Antagonist.  The Hero and The Villain.

Good Guys and Bad Guys.

Well that clears that up.

It may surprise you to know that Spider-man has a reputation as a hero (it's kind of obscure, I know), and as such his best adventures feature him in battle with villains who effectively disrupt his life with alarming regularity.  Naturally some of his villains hold greater emotional resonance than others, which is where you get the distinction between 'A and B list villains'.  Some are better for shorter stories, and some will have a tendency to arc over numerous chapters (or issues), taking more time to resolve.

When making a film about a comic book character the trick is to pick a villain who is worth featuring for an entire film, as apposed to a 20 minute television episode.  As villains play such a key role in a good action flick it's no surprise that when Marc Webb's first installment hit the theaters one of the FIRST things audience’s compared to Raimi's films was the villain.  In this case the Lizard. Clearly the Lizard does have his fans, but there were many who felt that The Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus were far more suitable adversaries for a feature film.

Do these naysayers have a point?  Was the Lizard too anticlimactic a choice after the previous filmic offerings?  Is it better to stick with the heavy hitter A-list villains and leave the B-listers for the comics and Saturday morning cartoons?

How could you NOT want to see this on the big screen?

Well, it depends actually.  Let's bring out the contestants shall we?

GREEN GOBLIN:

Nothing terrifies people like the garish combination of Green and Purple.

The Green Goblin has a long tradition of being one of Spidey's most notorious foes.  When he first arrived on the comic book scene he was a figure shrouded in mystery whose primary goal seemed to be to control the criminal underworld.  Spider-man was able to consistently foil the Goblin's plans, but apprehending him proved to be more difficult.  Ultimately the Green Goblin was able to deduce Spidey's true identity and, upon capturing the webhead, revealed himself to be Norman Osborn, the father of Peter's best friend.  Even though Spider-man was able to defeat every time, each of their subsequent fights continued to escalate until their final battle resulted in the death of Peter's first true love, Gwen Stacy, and in the death of Norman himself (until, in true comic form, he returned some 20 odd years later).

As a villain he was effective simply on the grounds that he posed a serious threat to Spider-man physically.  It was his knowledge of Peter's secret, however, coupled with his familial connection to Pete's friend that really affirmed the Goblin's position as a key figure in Spider-man's rogue gallery.  When you take into account Norman's considerable wealth, and public anonymity as a crime figure, it's easy to see why even heavy hitters like Doctor Octopus or Venom are amongst the few to even compare with the Goblin's reputation.

THE LIZARD

What did I tell you? Green and Purple.  Simply Bone-chilling.

The Lizard is one of those foes who comes with the complication of not TRULY being a foe, at least deep down.  In his human state, Doctor Curt Connors, is not an evil man at all, but in fact a kindly chemist and family man who accidentally transformed himself into a giant man-lizard hybrid.  In his reptilian state, however, he is hell-bent on the destruction of all mammals and seeks to create an army of giant Lizards with which to destroy all mankind (seriously).

Physically the Lizard is quite powerful, easily outmatching Spider-man, whereas his mental faculties may vary depending on the adaptation.  Emotionally his connection to Peter tends to be that of mentor or teacher, although that element of the relationship developed slowly in the comics.  Any other emotional consideration is usually tied to that of his tortured family, a wife and son, who have suffered the trauma of Curt's repeated transformations.

And that's 'the bad guys' in a nutshell.

In all honesty it shouldn't be too hard to tell which of these two adversaries provides a greater emotional and physical challenge to the fledgling Superhero.  Both are strong (lethally so) but only one has the added threat of advanced weaponry while also holding the psychological edge of having killed Spider-man's girlfriend.  Apparently that has an affect on some people.

Oh get over it.

So who is the better choice of feature film villain?  To answer that it's not actually enough just to pick based on the merit of the characters longstanding history, but to look at the context of the film they're being picked for.

First lets take a look at...

GREEN GOBLIN - 'SPIDER-MAN' (2002)

Let's say that, hypothetically, a film producer came up to me and said:

"Fenske, we need YOU to write us a Spider-man screenplay.  You may have ABSOLUTE creative control and use whichever characters you want and even pick your dream cast, BUT... there is ONE catch.  You will only get to make the one film.  Neither you or anyone else will be allowed to make a sequel to the movie you make, not even if it is a masterpiece.  That is to say, you must make a single self-contained film that competently tells the story of Spider-man, while choosing a villain and supporting cast that embody the essence of the trials and tribulations of the character's diverse 40-50 year history."

If someone gave me those restrictions and guidelines I can tell you that I would almost certainly pick the Green Goblin as my villain.  He has tons of 'gnarly aesthetic appeal', there are many opportunities to show him in aerial battle with Spidey, and of course there's his history as one of the big time A-listers.   Just the fact that Norman being Harry's father would put him in direct correlation with Peter's high-school/college gang adds enormous incentive to use him because it provides an excellent opportunity tie the Goblin's back story in with Peter's.

And you know what?  Sam Raimi did EXACTLY that.  And you know what else?  It actually worked out okay.  It didn't work out perfect, but it worked out better than some people would have you believe.  There are two main flaws, however, which I'm about to delve into.

[NOTE: I'm sure many of you are expecting me to bring up the subject of the 'Power Ranger suit'.  And no.  I am not going to.  At least not beyond right now, in this little aside.  Keep in mind I'm talking about the written aspect of the films as it pertains to the villains, and although the costume itself wasn't very good it also has little to do with the Goblin's development as a character.  In this respect it was hardly the Goblin's greatest weakness or flaw.]

1. HE WAS WATERED DOWN

This is a complaint that you've no doubt heard already.  Sam Raimi had an unfortunate tendency to shy away from making his supervillains truly villainous.  In the comics Norman Osborn went crazy because of the goblin serum, but he had already been evil (or at least greedy and 'not nice') before hand.  In the movie Norman Osborn is played off as an altruistic business man and scientist who's just put in a bad situation, and makes a poor choice.  Once he becomes the Green Goblin he sort of goes bad 'against his will' which weakens the strength his of choices as a character.

It's not like it TOTALLY destroyed the Green Goblin for me, but it's more engaging when a character gets caught in a trap of their own deliberate making.  By taking away Norman's 100% involvement in his Goblin persona it left us with a sort of 'Goblin Light' version of the character.  It wasn't totally bad, but it wasn't quite as good as it COULD have been.

2. IT LEFT THE SEQUELS NOWHERE TO GO

Well, obviously they had SOMEwhere to go, but by using the Green Goblin in the movie Same Raimi had blown his main filmic load a tad prematurely.

"I TOLD you we should have used Doctor Octopus first"

It's not that Raimi didn't have any choice villains left to use, but he didn't leave himself a great structure to build on either.  True, he did try to build upon the 'Harry as the next Goblin' angle, but Harry was always the poor man's Green Goblin, which means you're building to a second rate version of the character you started with.  It also didn't help that Raimi's resolution of Harry's story was pretty anticlimactic and brushed aside in favor putting (the lamest version of) Venom in the spotlight for the last 30 minutes.

Typically, if you want to make a film franchise with a serial arc, you Introduce your main ANTAGONIST as a character or concept in one of the earlier films, and then have your series BUILD into the final confrontation near the end.  But don't take my word for it, let's look at one of the most famous serial franchises currently in existence; STAR WARS.

You can calm down.  I'm not going to bring up the prequels.

"Oh.  I'm calm."

Star Wars actually has two main villains, and both of them follow the same rules.  First we have the 'personal' bad guy (Darth Vader; father to the hero, killer of the hero's mentor, and tormentor of the hero's friends), and then there's the 'boss' bad guy (The Emperor; the guy in charge, and the only person who can pull Darth Vader's strings).  Both of these characters build substantially until their final confrontation with Luke (the aforementioned 'hero'... in case you've never seen Star Wars... for some reason).

A NEW HOPE: In the first film we're introduced to Darth Vader right off the bat.  We even meet him before we meet Luke, the primary protagonist.  So how is that any different than Green Goblin being in the first Spidey movie?  Simple.  

Answer me this; how many times do Luke and Darth Vader interact DIRECTLY in 'A New Hope'? 

Never. Luke only BARELY sees Vader kill Obi Wan, and at that point they're separated by a massive corridor, and hoards of Stormtroopers.  Beyond that, the closest they come to a confrontation is during the very end of the dogfight right before Luke blows up the Death Star.  Even THEN neither party has any certain knowledge that the other is present.

Sure, the force may be strong with this guy, but it's not like he's my own flesh and blood or anything...

And where's the Emperor in all this?  He's merely mentioned.  As a character he's clearly important to the universe, but beyond that he's nothing more than a horrifying idea.

EMPIRE STRIKES BACK:  This is the movie where things finally get personal.  Darth Vader all out kidnaps and tortures Luke's friends, culminating in Luke's first battle with Vader himself.

It could have gone better.

 Of course we all know what happens next, and upon finding out that he's been fighting Papa Skywalker all along, the fight is cut short, and by the end of the film Luke has a whole DIFFERENT fight ahead of him.  Instead of facing Darth Vader as Obi Wan's killer he now has to face Darth Vader as his father (ie.  Somewhere to build).

And the Emperor?  FINALLY gets introduced.  In one scene.  And is still shrouded in mystery. (More TENSION!  oooooh.)

RETURN OF THE JEDI:  And of course this is where EVERYTHING comes to a head.  Luke goes into one last battle against his father, but this time it's not a matter of beating one man, but also the Emperor himself.  Now there are TWO villains, and one of them has never been seen getting his hands dirty.  Because he's never had to.  Of course we all know that Luke not only wins the day, but also in proves Obi Wan wrong;  there WAS still good in Vader.

For all of Star War's flaws (many of which have been covered exhaustively by others) the character arcs for the two Antagonists is not one of them.  With each film we are given a relationship that progresses while allowing for further development until the END of the series.

With the Spider-man movies we...

1. Begin with the Green Goblin (a major villain, with physical and emotional challenges for the hero), move on to...
2. Doc Ock (a major villain with SOME emotional challenges, but mostly physical), and end with...
3. Sandman (Not a major villain), Goblin mark 2 (a bit anticlimactic compared to Norman, not to mention grossly mishandled) and Venom (A main villain, unless he's played by Topher Grace with 30 minutes of screen time).

This just... It makes me so ANGRY!

If Raimi had started with Sandman, followed with Doc Ock, and finished with Green Goblin, all while keeping Norman as background 'puppet-master' type character for the first two films, he would have had WAY more mileage for both his series, and the character.  A character, mind you, who is supposedly one of Spider-man's most prolific enemies.  Spidey's Darth Vader, if you will.

So what's my verdict?  It wouldn't be entirely fair to judge the Green Goblin based on his role in the series, especially when you consider that Raimi DIDN'T know if he'd have a second chance.  When Spider-man came out there had only been a small handful of successful comic book movies, and there was no way to be certain those hadn't been flukes.  As far as he knew he had ONE shot to get this right, and in his position I can't say that I would waste it on a second stringer like Sandman, or even the Lizard for that matter.

For the sake of fairness I have to give the ol' Goblin two grades.  One for his effectiveness as a character in a stand-alone film, and a second for his effectiveness as a character in a larger franchise.

GRADES

As a CINEMATIC VILLAIN IN GENERAL I give the Green Goblin: 7.5 out 10

He still wasn't perfect, and the watering down of his character knocks off a couple points, which sucks because there's no reason he shouldn't have been a 10.   That said, he still gets credit as one of the more memorable superhero movie villains around, and it didn't hurt that Willem Dafoe ran with the material he had and produced a solid performance out of it.

HOWEVER...

As THE FIRST VILLAIN IN A LARGER SERIES I'd have to give him: 5 out of 10

Even when I first saw the film as a wide-eyed and awestruck teenager, there was one tiny nagging thought which occurred to me upon completing the film;

"It kinda sucks that they can never use the Green Goblin again".

At the time I let it go because I was too busy basking in the afterglow of all having seen all my fantasies coming to life right before my very eyes (disclaimer: except for sex.  That would come later in life, and would be in no way affiliated with Spider-man).  But now, looking back I realize that I had (unknowingly) recognized the inherent flaw with using a character like the Goblin right up front. 

THIS Green Goblin wasn't going to get a chance to reach the same level of notoriety that he had in the comics, because THIS Green Goblin died just as his relationship with Spider-man was being firmly cemented.  His longstanding history with the character is part what makes him deserving of being picked for a movie.  In the comics he was 'one of the BIG ones', whereas in the film series he was merely 'the first of many'.  For that matter, the Green Goblin was never mentioned once in either of the sequels.  Norman Osborn was, but the Goblin fell by the wayside.  And why wouldn't he?  The last time the public saw him he was dragging Spider-man off to god-knows-where and was never seen again.  As Spider-man obviously did survive I'm guess the citizens of New York just assumed that Spider-man killed the Goblin, and buried the body somewhere.  Which is kind of a lame way to go out.  Even if they'd used him in the first movie but ended it by leaving him alive and able to return (perhaps in the third film) it would have allowed for a considerably more climactic finish, instead of the anticlimactic thud that we got.

Oh well.

THE LIZARD - 'THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN' (2012)

I know you're thinking that I'm going to just automatically give the Lizard another 10 out of 10 and chalk it up to another automatic victory by Marc Webb, but it's not quite that simple.  Don't misunderstand, I really did like the Lizard in this movie, but there are also some things that need to be brought to light before I can just chalk it up as superior.

I implied before that the Lizard is a member of Spider-man's B-list villains roster, and it's true.  He's a high ranking B-lister for sure, and certainly one of Spidey's oldest foes (older than the Goblin himself by roughly eight months) but he belongs on the B-list all the same.  That, of course, has been my entire argument in the preceding billion paragraphs; that a character like the Lizard is perfect for an opening movie, leaving the sequels open for bigger and better villains. 

However, there's one other more practical reason beyond my aforementioned points.   Simply put, The Lizard doesn't demand the same amount explanation that the Green Goblin requires.   Remember that Spider-man also spends a good chunk of the film having an origin story, and stuff.  The fewer characters vying for attention the better.

The Lizard provides an ample threat to the hero while not demanding all that precious screen time.  To sweeten the deal they also threw in several references of the ever-elusive 'Mr. Osborn', which naturally provides the foundation for the sequels (again, fitting nicely into what I've been saying).  So far so good.  Any problems?  Weeeell, maybe.  A little one.

*sigh* HE WAS WATERED DOWN TOO...

Not as watered down as the Green Goblin, mind you, but it should be said that Webb (or the studio) pretty much put the kibosh on showing us Connors family life.  There is a deleted scene that features his son, but the fact remains that in the final cut of the film it's something that never really comes up.  It's kind of a shame because the Lizard is one of the villains that's actually SUPPOSED to be a good guy deep down inside, and although Connors isn't evil in this film, he is maybe a BIT cold.  It was his family, in the comics, that really helped anchor us to the more sensitive side of the character, which would have been nice to add here.

It also would have given Spider-man an extra emotional obstacle to consider during their battle.  It's bad enough that his Girlfriend's father is a casualty of their fight, and that the city is on the verge of becoming infested by giant Lizard men (seriously),

Yeah.  I know it sounds silly, but in the movie it's actually REALLY cool.

but when you add in Curt Connors family into the equation it really puts Spidey in a nasty position.  Now instead of just trying to save the city he would also be trying to avoid harming the man responsible for putting it in danger, lest he accidentally orphan a five-year-old boy.

It still worked out.  And thankfully Webb and Vanderbilt were able to successfully incorporate Peter's relationship with Connors.  Also, connecting him to Pete's parents was a nice touch as it did give Peter that added familial investment, firmly cementing the mentor/student relationship between them I mentioned earlier.  So yes, there was still a lot of solid character work, but it would have been nice to add the family in there to REALLY sweeten the deal. 

Maybe I'm being picky, but this is my sixth entry about the characterization and story structure in the Spider-man films.  Picky is what this is all about.

With that said lets check out the...

GRADES

As a CINEMATIC VILLAIN IN GENERAL I give the Lizard:  7 out of 10

I really enjoyed the Lizard.  Sure he may not be the most memorable villain in the world, but I had a good time watching him and Spidey kick the shit out of each other, and the relationship between Peter and Connors was solid.  Had they included Connors' family he may have received an 8, but things being what they are, 7 is where the Lizard sits for me.

However...

As THE FIRST VILLAIN IN A LARGER SERIES I'd have to give him: 8 out of 10

As the 'the first of many' I actually enjoyed the Lizard way more, and it was in this sense I found myself very impressed with the handling of the character. For starters they didn't kill him, so even if they NEVER use the Lizard again there is definitely a sense that Connors isn't going to be forgotten.  I also can't stress enough how much I loved Connors' connection to Osborn.  The implication that his work may be partly responsible for the creation of the Green Goblin later down the road is pretty sweet and establishes a nice sense of continuity.

Of course, he's no Green Goblin, and we will have to wait to see how well it all plays out in the sequels.  I think it's also fair to say that the Lizard won't be making any 'top 10 movie villain' lists any time soon, but for an establishing villain the Lizard felt just about right.

WRAPPING THINGS UP

Well folks, we're nearing the end of the SPIDER-MOVIE series.  There is still one area to cover, however.  Next time around I'll be discussing 'Spider-man' and 'The Amazing Spider-man' and how they compare as films on their own right.  Often people complain about Superhero flicks while comparing them to the comics, but all 'source material' aside... How are the movies AS movies?

I bet you can't wait to find out in:

'Serial Stand-alones'

See you then

Thanks for reading.

SPIDER-MOVIE - PART V: Gwen Stacy vs. Mary Jane (the Babe edition)

Relationships should never be taken for granted.  It may sound clichéd but it's true.  And while I'm sure all that bullshit probably applies to real life and stuff, it's never been more true for writers.  Without a relationship of some kind, be it literal, metaphorical, abstract, or otherwise, you can't have a story.  The more developed the relationship, the better your story will be.

Batman has Alfred and Commissioner Gordon.  Superman has Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen.  Harry Potter has Ron and Hermione.  Frodo has Sam.  The List goes on.  Relationships drive a story forward, provide conflict, and give characters something to struggle for or against.  No relationship, no story, and Spider-man is not an exception to the rule.

Let it NEVER be said that Spider-man shies away from a... good relationship.

Obviously then ROMANTIC relationships can be an obvious and effective way to provide conflict AND something for a character to fight for, which is why almost every Superhero in existence has had at least one major love interest.  Spider-man has had a few leading ladies over the years, giving filmmakers their pick of the litter, but in the end each of them serve the same purpose, namely, to give our hero a dilemma.  To give him someone to fight for.

He could do a lot worse

It's a perfectly valid way to tell a story, but of course women usually get the brunt of being 'the object of a someone's (usually a man) desire'.  That means if you're going to tell that kind of story one has to be careful not to write their characters as objects, and actually give them some substance.  Not the least of which because it's kind of offensive to portray women as a prize, but also because if your lead character is fighting for a fully developed person instead of a prize wrapped in the body of a pretty girl it actually makes the story, well, better.  More engaging, certainly.

So here we are.  We have two movies starring Spider-man with different characters for the leading ladies in each.  Mary Jane Watson, and Gwen Stacy.  Arguably they are the two most historically significant love interests to our beloved wall crawler.  Let's take a look at the characters according to the comics shall we?

GWEN STACY: 

Initially she was an intelligent young woman.  And she was beautiful.  Her bleach blonde hair and her kind personality were, of course, major reasons as to why she was deemed so attractive.  She lived a fairly charmed life, as the daughter of the beloved Police Captain, and she, herself, was also loved by many. Of course she and Peter hit it off (after a bit of a rocky start), but even then numerous factors kept getting in the way of their relationship, most of them involving Peter's alter ego as Spider-man.  Their relationship ended when Gwen was killed, caught in the crossfire of battle between The Green Goblin and Spider-man.  Many will argue that she was a great character, but if we're being truthful she can best be described as a pretty face with a kind demeanor whose defining attributes were that she dated Spider-man (although she never knew) and that she died.

MARY JANE WATSON: 

MJ, as she is often called, is the hot fiery red head who could have you in an instant if she wanted you.  But she doesn't.  She met Peter and found him immediately as intriguing as he found her.  However, when it became clear that she wasn't interested in being tied down to one man Peter quickly moved on.  While she gave the impression of a shallow party girl she later opened up.  It turns out she had a less than idyllic family life, with an abusive father and a battered mother.  Her whole life she lived pretending to be 'fearless and fun' to hide her uncertainties and doubts about love, relationships and herself.  Ultimately (long after the death of Gwen) her and Peter reconciled, became friends, and married.  It turns out that she pretty much always knew about Peter's secret but didn't let on, hoping that one day that he would tell her willingly himself.

And that's them in a nutshell.  The two girls.

Now, if someone asked me to write a story featuring one of those two characters, I would pick Mary Jane.  It's not that I have anything against Gwen, but that's actually the problem.  No one does.  If you actually consider the foundational ground work for both girls Mary Jane just has more to work with.  Gwen has a decent family life, and most people like her.  Conversely, Mary Jane has an awful family life, and very few people like her beyond her superficial appeal.  Mary Jane is a flawed character, and writers thrive on character flaws.

Mary Jane is easier to write.

So if that's the case, why did I leave the films hating Mary Jane?  And loving Gwen for that matter?  Possibly the actors?  Possibly, but presently I'm not interested in assigning too much blame or credit to the performers. To get a more satisfying answer we'll have to compare the characters in the comics to their cinematic counterparts.

You see, in the comics she shows off more skin.  I never felt the films properly captured that.

SPIDER-MAN 1-3 (2002-2007) - MARY JANE

The first problem I had with MJ in the film is that all throughout she's treated as THE MOST DESIRABLE WOMAN EVER, but then we're not really given a reason as to why.  It's not that I have a hard time believing that Peter would ever find Kirsten Dunst/MJ attractive, but he's been worshiping her from afar since kindergarten even though she's basically ignored him the entire time.  Why? I could MAYBE understand it if there was something that set her apart; perhaps if she were gifted in the arts, or highly intelligent like Peter.  I would even be willing to understand his infatuation if she was simply an overtly charismatic and outgoing woman, like in the comics.

She was none of those things.

The writers kept trying to convince us that she was special, and that we should love her.  They played the sympathy card; her family is dysfunctional, and she dreams of a better life, of being a star etc.  And that's fine, but what part of that makes her appealing?  Don't get me wrong, I know and love plenty of dysfunctional people, but never BECAUSE they're dysfunctional.

Every significant interaction between Mary Jane and Peter (besides the scenes where they confess their love for each other with tediously awkward monologues) involves her filling Pete in on the latest developments of her unending sob story.  Every complaint she has seems to imply that she shouldn't be beholden to the same rules as the rest of the world.  Here are some examples of her life dilemmas:

The first scene between Pete and MJ (in the back yard)

MJ: "My parents are the worst.  I just want to LEAVE here FOREVER!"

PETE: "Yeah.  You're Amazing."

WHAT PETE SHOULD HAVE SAID: "Gosh that's awful.  You should start working towards leaving here."

In the city after highschool:

MJ: "My audition SUCKED!  They told me I needed acting lessons.  A SOAP OPERA told me to get acting lessons!"

PETE: What!?  But you're amazing!

WHAT PETE SHOULD HAVE SAID: Well... have you ever considered that maybe you need acting lessons?  Maybe you should take lessons.  LIKE MOST ACTORS.

In Spider-man 2 after Pete missed her show:

[Note: the Following is Mary Jane's actual line.]

MJ:  By the way, John has seen my show 5 times, Harry has seen it twice, Aunt May has seen it, My SICK mother got out of BED to see it.  Even my Father... he came back stage to borrow cash.  But my BEST friend, who cares SO much about me, can't even make an eight o'clock curtain.  After all these years he's nothing to me but an empty seat."

PETE: (watches as she leaves). Gosh she's right.  I don't deserve someone so amazing.

WHAT PETE SHOULD HAVE SAID: ...  *ahem* ... Shut your dumbass mouth, bitch!  Did you ever consider that I had to work over time to pay the bills for my shitty apartment?  Or maybe I got caught in a car accident (which is exactly what happened)?  Maybe, instead of being a self-centered bitch, just be glad that so many of your friends are coming to your freaking show of WHICH YOU ARE A LEAD CHARACTER!  Do you realize how many artists DON'T have the constant support of their family and peers?  Have you considered that you're NOT the centre of the whole damn universe.  And. What. The. FUCK! are you doing staring into the audience looking for a friend in the middle of your show?  Do you have any idea how flagrantly unprofessional that is?  No wonder you got fired from your Broadway gig in the third movie!  SERIOUSLY, YOU'RE SUCH AN AWFUL PERSON!

I knew I'd find a way to use this picture again.

*pant* *pant*

Sorry.  I feel much better now.

Look.  Friends not showing up to your events, getting dumped from a show, being told you're a bad actor, are admittedly frustrating things.  She's totally allowed to feel disappointed, but all she does is mope and complain (even when her life isn't even that bad).  By the second film she's not only in a legitimate play with her face plastered on posters across this little place called NEW YORK, but she's also engaged to a respectable, kind, well paid man who is an astronaut and local hero (because astronauts are still considered heroes by the public at large, apparently).

And what does she do with this man who loves her very much?  She uses him as ammunition against Peter's feelings, ultimately leaving the poor guy at the altar without so much as a warning just because "NOW she's ready to be with Peter".  Get engaged or break it off all you want ladies, but getting engaged so you can hurt another man ain't nothing but a bitch move.  To BOTH men.

"You want to make him jealous?  I accept!!"

said no man, ever.

Obviously I'm not saying that we would want Peter to be rude to MJ for no reason.  We don't.  But the facts don't lie. She never adequately demonstrates an incredible talent or trait, she's a hypocritical bitch who uses other people to hurt the man she supposedly loves out of petty revenge, and in spite of all this Pete STILL seems to have a constant boner for her. The reason is, sadly, all too simple:

Mary Jane, in the movies, wasn't a character.  She was a prize.  A prize with varying degrees of difficulty one needed to surpass in order to win her.  A lady prize.

And not even a good prize.  Seriously.  THAT's her seduction face.

I could never care about her because the only thing she was good at was being useless.  She was a background character with an overabundance of screen time.  She was obstacle for Spider-man whenever the villains put her in danger, but I could never understand why Spider-man had invested in her in the first place that she would be considered SUCH an invaluable obstacle to EVERY single one of his enemies.   All of her problems, whether it was about her failing career or her being dropped off a bridge, needed to be solved by someone else or not at all, and she had no say in the outcome.  She was an object, a bartering tool for bad guys, who was put in life or death situations not by any choice of her own, but because she is a victim.  A helpless victim.  A victim who needs saving.

Remember what I said about victims last time?  The audience HATES victims.  Even if we don't know it.  We'll often be too distracted to notice, but deep down inside it just grates on us how useless victims are.  We want to see a character who fights back.  Instead she just hangs around (sometimes literally) waiting for the Superhero to do something. She's an obstacle for Spider-man, and she's a stumbling block for Peter.  Half the time she's being kidnapped, and the other half she's criticizing and judging Pete at every turn, never giving him an opportunity to defend himself.  Gosh.  She sure is amazing.

GRADE

If I were to rate Mary Jane as a character based solely on the movies I'd give give her: 2 out of 10.

She's as Infuriating as she is worthless.  Every scene featuring her character made me wish that Spider-man had just let the Green Goblin drop her. She DOES get two points for at least TRYING to knock out Doctor Octopus when she could have run instead.  Even there, however, it can be argued that she knew running would do her no good. At the end of the day, however you look at it she is still a white trash bitch who ditched her fiancé at the altar for another man, and didn't even have balls (lady balls?) to tell him herself; ALL this while passing judgment on the man who saved her life three times too many.

"If I drop you now I'll be saving everyone a lot of trouble in the future."

Moving on.

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012) - GWEN STACY

You know what my first thought was when I heard Emma Stone would be playing Gwen Stacy?  "Why are they wasting her on Gwen Stacy!?  She would be a PERFECT MJ!" [Note: In truth, I must confess that I had believed her to be a natural red head at the time].  After all, Gwen was the boring girlfriend.  Dying is what made her interesting, and I wanted a girl that would keep my interest while she was alive.

"You know, if you just pretend she's sleeping its really not that bad"

Thankfully the writers did something very unexpected.  They made me care.

Did they change anything from the comics?  A few things, but only to solidify the character.  They played down her 'popularity' a bit and focused more on her intelligence.  Externally however, she's very similar to the comics; a bright, attractive girl, with a police captain for a father.

So what made it work?  I could list off all the minor changes here and there, but it all boils down to one thing.  They didn't make Gwen a victim.

It's as simple as that.

"What are you talking about?  The Lizard ONLY didn't kill her because she was BENEATH him.  Nothing she could have done would have stopped him from ending her life on the spot!"  you say.

And you are right.  She could have died.  She probably will in one of the sequels, sadly.  But here's the kicker; she was in that situation (with the lizard) by choice.

Looks like a consenting adult to me!

Her actions may have failed to stop the lizard but she was still willing to do whatever it took to stop him or slow him down.  Had she been killed I suppose she would have been a victim in the strictest sense of the word ('cuz she'd be dead, and very few people try for that), but she wouldn't have been a victim in a literary sense.

Still don't get it?

Lets look at an example from STAR TREK (2009).

Captain Kirk's father is technically a victim.  He is dead.  End of story.  The thing that stops him from being a victim as far as story telling goes is that he is dead only as a result of his willful actions.  He could have escaped but chose to sacrifice himself and go down with the ship to buy the survivors more time.  It is the consequence of his particular choices that turn him from a victim into a hero.  If he had tried instead to escape but died anyway despite his intentions THEN he would have been a victim.

"What do you MEAN I have to die when the ship explodes?"

Keep in mind that Gwen not only stood up to the Lizard when he finally confronted her, but she actually CHOSE to stay behind in the first place to evacuate the building and finish the serum KNOWING that the Lizard was on his way. Gwen may have been powerless to stop the Lizard in the long run (that's why Spider-man is needed after all) but her choices made her heroic.

Also Emma Stone has a better seduction face.

The other nice thing was the distinct lack of cornball sappiness in the relationship.  Yes they were lovey-dovey cutesy and awkward, but they also talked to each other much in the same way people do using conversation instead of, say, boring speeches about our hopes for the future, and proclamations of love.

I'm just now a married man, and in the five years prior to our wedding date I did proclaim my love to my future wife on more than one occasion.   But I ALSO got to know her and spend time with her before spouting generic declarations of my feelings all willy nilly.  When I'm watching a movie or reading a story I have almost no interest in 'love at first sight'.  I'm okay with 'immediate attraction' or 'we had this crazy connection' but LOVE needs to be earned.  Peter and MJ never earned it, they were just inexplicably 'in love' all of a sudden.  There never seemed to be a reason for them to feel so strongly about each other beyond that they were romantic leads in a summer blockbuster.

I'm not claiming that Gwen and Peter have the deepest of romantic beginnings, because they don't.  They're silly teenagers with raging hormones and they have good chemistry.  What makes it appealing in the long run is that their relationship develops from there to him opening up about his secret and ultimately to them dealing with the complications that come with the death of her father.  The writers actually let the relationship build and grow out of the characters experiences together (much like some kind of... RELATIONSHIP, if you will), all while ending the film with room for more expansion in the sequels.

If I were to rate Gwen Stacy based solely on her appearance in 'The Amazing Spider-man I would give her: 10 out of 10

Gwen was a cool chick, likeable and spunky.  I found myself rooting for her almost as much as for the lead character.

'Nuff said.

WRAPPING THINGS UP

But enough about all these good guys and pretty women.  Next time around I'm going to talk about the stuff people actually care about.  BAD GUYS!  Specifically The Green Goblin and the Lizard.  Which one was a better cinematic choice?  Which was a better choice for a first installment?  The answer will not be as simple as you think when I talk about...

The Green Goblin vs. The Lizard

See you then

Fenske