Thoughts on Spider-Man Joining The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Well, it finally happened. Late Monday night it was announced that Spider-Man will now be part of Marvel Studios' shared universe. Marvel and Sony (who have produced the previous five Spider-Man films and retained the film rights to the character for over a decade) reached a deal in which Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film in 2016 and then get his own solo film in 2017. And as part of this deal Sony will still finance and have creative control over the films.

First off, I feel Spider-Man being in the MCU would've been better a situation if  it had been a clean break. With Sony still having a major role in making these films there's a huge chance Marvel's plans could get muddled. Still, this is a game-changer for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I've long believed it was odd that a shared universe based around Marvel characters didn't include Spider-Man- being Marvel's most iconic character. It's almost equivalent to not having Batman in a shared DC cinematic universe. I understand why Spider-Man couldn't appear in a Marvel movie- rights issues and all- but it still felt like something was missing. So I'm glad that the MCU- while already fleshed out- now feels a little more complete. That, and the prospect of Spider-Man interacting with the other established characters is pretty exciting. Sharing zingers with Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, sharing his experiences with Chris Evans' Steve Rogers- it'll be fun to see.   

I had mixed feelings on the Amazing Spider-Man films- directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield. I wanted to love those films but I think the backlash against the original Sam Raimi films starring Tobey Maguire soured me on that franchise even before the first film came out. Ideally we can finally get pass the bile spewing towards Raimi's films now that we're one more step removed from his trilogy. 

I initially liked elements of the first Amazing Spider-Man but in retrospect I don't feel the film really works. It has major  structure and thematic issues as well as too much studio manhandling. These same problems plagued its sequel as well. While I think Marc Webb is a competent director I don't believe he ever had much creative control over these films- contrary to the claims made by some fans that Webb has a distinct vision for this franchise. At the same time it's unfortunate that plot threads left hanging at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will likely never be resolved.  Also, is it possible to get Felicity Jones in the MCU as well? If you remember she played Felicia (Hardy) in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It was only a small role but the film was clearly setting her up to be Black Cat in a later film. She's a lovely actress and I was looking forward to seeing her take on that role.

It's believed that Spider-Man may show up in Captain America: Civil War, since Spider-Man was a major character in that storyline. Though I don't think Peter Parker can reveal his identity to the world in the character's first MCU appearance. Peter revealing he was Spider-Man was impactful because the character had so much history in the comics leading up to the reveal.  However, it's not a bad place to bring Spider-Man. I assume this Peter Parker will have only been Spider-Man for a short period. He's still learning the ropes- or the webs- and he'll be caught between two giant figures- Tony Stark/Iron Man and Steve Rogers/Captain America. He'll have to decide who he wants to side with- or maybe he'll choose further independence rather than any political ideology. Then again, his role in the film may only be a cameo of sorts.

I know many people want Miles Morales to be Spider-Man in the MCU. Miles became Spider-Man after Peter Parker's death in the Ultimate Marvel Universe. I haven't read any of the comics in which Miles appears but many fans love him. Personally- whether they bring in Miles Morales or someone else- I feel Peter should be always be the first Spider-Man.  I understand the need for diversity in these kind of films- something Miles would bring, being Black Hispanic. Still, there's no reason Peter couldn't be African American. That way we can have the original Spider-Man while also having a major hero be non-Caucasian.

As major a deal as this is, it's still hard for me not to feel a tad cynical. This will be the second time Spider-Man has been rebooted and the third cinematic incarnation of the character in only 15. While it's good to keep things fresh- can you imagine going on Spider-Man 6 with Maguire still in the role?- we need a Spider-Man series that can continue beyond 2 installments.  Ideally this deal between Marvel and Sony will help Spider-Man thrive on screen again.  

You Are My Path: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

Warning: Spoilers Ahead

The decision to reboot the Spider-Man film franchise has always been a controversial one- even four years after the reboot was officially announced in January 2010. For everyone happy about the re-launch of the series- 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man, directed by Marc Webb (henceforth known as TASM)- and considers it superior to Sam Raimi’s trilogy, there are still many detractors. I’ve had complicated feelings towards that film for some time. The backlash against the Raimi films has definitely soured me towards this new series, despite feeling there are things in that TASM which are stronger than the Raimi films.

Now, almost two years later, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (henceforth known TASM 2)- which sees Webb returning to the director's chair- is here and I have a similar reaction to the one I had in the days after seeing TASM for the first time- that of disappointment and depression. As with TASM there’s a potentially great film nestled deeply in TASM 2 but it suffers from the same problems of TASM. Namely, this series is more concerned with constructing a franchise and an expansive universe then just telling a solid story that can stand on its own terms. The main difference between the two films is TASM scenes cut out that would have made the film more cohesive a compelling, whereas TASM 2 has too much stuff to juggle, resulting in a unfocused film that never decides what story it wants to tell.

One of the main criticisms I and others had about TASM was its lack of exploration concerning the disappearance of Peter Parker’s (Andrew Garfield) parents and his father’s connection to the spider that gave Peter his extraordinary powers. In that this plot line was dropped mid way through and didn’t have a strong enough through line in the film. Many said it would be picked up in the sequel but that mentality towards the film was a huge problem. People were too willing to forgive the film's dependence on getting a sequel in order to tell its story. Again, franchise building took precedence over clean story-telling, both for the filmmakers and certain audience members.

Thankfully, the story about Peter’s parents does get some resolution in this film. The film opens with Richard Parker (Campbell Scott) recording a video message explaining his disappearance. We get a shortened reprise of TASM’s opening scene, with Richard and Mary Parker (Embeth Davidtz) leaving the young Peter in the care of his aunt and uncle, May and Ben (Sally Field and Martin Sheen). We cut to Richard and Mary on board a private jet with Richard uploading files from his laptop. An assassin is on board attempt to kill them. Mary is shot but Richard is eventually able to blow out the windows of the plane, sending the assassin to his demise- but also sealing Richard and Mary’s fates. It’s a solid sequence with a touching ending. Nevertheless, I feel Webb wanted to craft a James Bond/Christopher Nolan style prologue but I don’t feel it reaches those heights.

After this sequence we essentially get another prologue with Spider-Man stopping the a Russian gangster (Paul Giamatti) from stealing Oscorp’s plutonium shipment. This sequence feels the most Spider-Man-y of any in a Spider-Man film thus far. The jokey Spider-Man stuff works better here than in TASM and Garfield feels pretty much like Spider-Man, even if I still can’t fully embrace the performance. On a side note: this is the best looking live action Spider-Man suit we've gotten so far. Peter makes his high school graduation just in time but his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) becomes strained. Peter is having visions of Gwen’s deceased father Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary), who was killed by the Lizard (Rhys Ifans) at the end of TASM and made Peter promise to leave Gwen alone, lest Peter’s crime fighting life put her in danger.  

The ending of TASM was very controversial since Peter, after keeping away from Gwen, decides to continue his relationship with Gwen. Many took the ending as Peter being too flippant about keeping a promise to a dying man. I wasn’t too up in arms about the broken promise but I did feel Peter's decision negated much of his character arc and made unclear what transformation he was supposed go through. I admire that this film confronts that criticism pretty head on by showing us Peter’s conflicting emotions over desiring to be with Gwen but wanting to protect her. They essentially break up but they still try to be together in some capacity.   

During the plutonium heist Spider-Man save Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), an Oscorp employee who becomes obsessed with Spider-Man. In typical superhero movie fashion Max, after attempting some maintenance work, falls in to a batch of electric eels, turning him in to Electro, who's essentially able to control electricity. Around the same time Peter’s childhood friend Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) returns after many years absent. He takes over Oscorp after the death of his father Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper). We learn that Harry has the same disease which killed Norman. If you remember, Norman dying was established in TASM. In an odd twist of fate, Spider-Man’s blood may be the only thing that can save Harry.

Explaining the plot of this movie is pretty exhausting.  And as I mentioned earlier, there’s too much going on. I'm of two minds considering Electro's place in the film. Visually he looks great and the fight sequences between him and Spider-Man are miraculous. At the same time the film feels like it needed to focus on Harry's story and his eventual transformation in to the Green Goblin and having Electro gets in the way of this story. Electro’s subplot doesn’t have a strong enough thematic connection to Harry's story. It could be argued that the connection between the two is they both feel betrayed by Spider-Man. Spider-Man doesn’t want to give Harry his blood- afraid that it could harm him rather than heal him. And after confronting Spider-Man in Times Square Electro believes Spider-Man never cared about him. His delusion about them being friends is essentially shattered.

But the film doesn’t have enough of a thematic focus for the parallel between Harry and Electro to be sufficiently developed. Despite being built up as the lead villain, It feels like Electro is more of a plot device than a fully formed character, essentially here just so he's established for the eventual Sinister Six team up. I’m not certain anyone was truly committed to exploring his character or crafting a story around him. I wish Electro's shift from loving to hating Spider-Man was explored in more depth as well. I get that the character is delusional but his change of heart happen too quick.

If the film did focus on just Harry, the film could've paralleled Peter and Harry-both are orphans, both abandoned by their fathers. There's also the whole sins of the father theme that exists between them. Norman wanted to use RIchard's research for militarized weapons and Richard, who says in his video message that "People will call me a monster for what I've done," attempts to redeem himself before his death.   

As with the first film, Garfield and Stone have a strong onscreen rapport which adds weight to conceptually tedious material. There’s an improvisational quality to some of their scenes that makes one wonder if everything they say is scripted or if Webb allowed them to riff together. I can’t say I enjoyed watching their scenes- probably because Garfield and Stone’s deep connection on and off-screen makes me depressed about myself. But that's neither here nor there.  

Foxx is a good actor but his performance gets lost under a lot of CGI, though I really liked the scene where he takes on the name Electro. DeHaan is quite good as Harry. He has a slightly unhinged quality that emphasizes his troubled past and eventual evil transformation. The scene between him and Cooper, shot in a darkened room with Norman on his deathbed, is a great example of one scene being able to tell us a lot about the relationship between two people. It is surprising that we’re told Norman Osborn has died but it’s strange to think Norman is gone for good. He’s too important a part of the Spider-Man and Marvel mythos to be relegated to a cameo. At the same time, considering the route this film goes down with Harry suggests that maybe Norman may not come back. I’m still convinced that Norman is coming back, especially since there was a deleted post-credits scene with Norman's head in a jar, Futurama style.   

I’m not a purist but there are certain twists to the mythology that I’m not sure I like. For one, I feel Uncle Ben’s influence on Peter’s life has been somewhat marginalized. Ben had more of a presence in TASM than in Raimi’s original film but the film implied it was Stacy’s lecture about vigilantism that spurred Peter to use his powers to help others- whereas in the traditional origin story it’s Peter’s guilt over not stopping the man who would eventually kill Ben which makes him realize that “with great power must come great responsibility.”  And in TASM 2 its Stacy’s ghost that Peter sees throughout the film but Ben’s presence is hardly felt.

I’m also not fully onboard with Richard having a connection to his son’s eventual transformation in to Spider-Man. I understand the desire to deepen a superhero character’s origin story. But most of the time with these characters, the appeal of their origin stories are their simplicity. Peter Parker was a just an ordinary kid (aside from being a genius), an outcast who was bitten by a radioactive spider and inherited super powers. He made a mistake that got his uncle killed and now uses his powers to fight evil. That’s pretty much it.

What TASM suggested and the filmmakers confirm here is Peter was essentially the only one who could become Spider-Man, and that undermines Peter’s relatability as a character. Moreover, Peter is supposed to be a character with the weight of the world on his shoulders, a guy who has a lot of bad luck and who has difficultly balancing being a superhero and living an ordinary life-because essentially he can’t. This was the central dilemma of Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 and crafting a film around Spider-Man's existential crisis is why I feel it’s still the best Spider-Man film. And I know I’m not the only one who’s disappointed that J. Jonah Jameson is never seen in this film.

I don’t want to say that the filmmakers don’t understand Spider-Man at all since I’m not an expert either. And there are many moments that are very much Spider-Man. The ending, which I’ll get to later, also says something incredibly meaningful about superheroes and this character in particular.

Now, I want to get to the big part of this film, which may not be a complete surprise, especially to comic book readers. So, spoiler warning........

 

 

The death of Gwen Stacy is something many fans have wanted to see on screen. And ever since Gwen Stacy was known to be in this new franchise there was constant discussion about when and if she would die in the series. For a while it appeared she wouldn’t die in TASM 2 since Electro and Rhino were the only confirmed villains- that is, until Green Goblin was revealed to be in the film. The sequence in which she dies is not exactly like the comic story but it's still incredibly powerful. Garfield’s reaction to Gwen’s lifeless body is beautiful and has the potential to break the most hardened heart.

However, her death does seem redundant after the deaths in TASM, which occurred so Peter could learn about responsibility and the tragedy that's part of life he’s been thrust in to. I also feel, as I mentioned earlier, Harry’s transformation in to the Green Goblin needed more breathing room. For being involved in such a significant moment as Gwen’s death, Green Goblin is essentially a cameo. There’s also the whole issue of Gwen feeling like she was just in this franchise to die. I do like the cemetery montage, which shows us, without words, Peter’s grief over Gwen’s death and his numbness to anything else. It’s a haunting piece of filmmaking by Webb that shows how talented he can be.   

Coming back to the final scene, where Spider-Man returns after a significant absence to battle the Rhino,  now in a mechanized suit created by Oscorp.  What I like about this ending is shows that despite all the tragedy in his life Peter will still push forward and reminds us that “with great power...” The sequence states what’s beautiful about these heroes: they use the tragedy in their lives to do good for others.

Spoilers for ending over

I wrote an article some time ago concerning my mixed feelings about Marc Webb and this franchise: http://thenoirzone.blogspot.ca/2014/03/some-thoughts-on-my-mixed-feelings.html. I still stand my feelings but I’m not mad at Marc Webb. He does have talent. I’m more upset with Sony and how they didn’t allow this film to breathe and be a story. TASM 2 isn’t a soulless film. It has some incredibly soulful and beautiful human moments, Webb crafts some magnificent visual effects sequence and its climax is pretty much perfect. It’s just that Sony has suffocated this franchise with world building and wanting to catch up with Marvel Studios.  Ultimately, TASM 2 is too problematic in regards to its story and character development to be a completely satisfying.

 

Some Thoughts on My Mixed Feelings Towards Marc Webb and "The Amazing Spider-Man" Franchise

Just this past week it was announced that Marc Webb- the director of 2012's Spider-Man reboot The Amazing Spider-Man and this year's sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2- had signed on to direct the third installment in this new series. This wasn't a huge surprise since this series is so obsessed with universe building- Sony definitely wants to keep on the same director for at least one more film to keep things consistent. But if you remember, Webb almost didn't return to direct The Amazing Spider-Man 2 due to his contract with Fox. For me, this announcement brought my conflicting feelings towards Webb being the director of this franchise-for now- to the surface. Unlike a lot of people I am not really on board on the Webb love train.

Now- to be completely clear- I don't have anything against Webb personally or professionally. I remember really enjoying his debut feature- 2009's (500) Days of Summer- and he deserves a hearty congratulations for breaking in to Hollywood in such a big way. The reasons I'm not in love with the idea of him directing Spider-Man films are somewhat paradoxical. For one, I don't exactly like the idea of a upcoming director wasting the first stage of his film career directing sequels- particularly when they're essentially films that aren't personal works but are films essentially made for Sony. I'd like to see him take on more interesting projects and forge his own path apart from Spider-Man. Of note is that Webb- aside from signing on to The Amazing Spider-Man 3- has also been linked to the project Cold Comfort, based on the book How to Catch a Russian Spy co-written by Ellis Henican. The project sounds interesting and it'd be nice if we could see a non-Spider-Man film from Webb before the third Amazing is released.

My other problem regarding Webb directing the Spider-Man franchise- and this is where things get contradictory- is I don't find Webb that exciting or interesting a director. This isn't to say he's a bad director- he did fine work on (500) Days and there were certain directorial touches in The Amazing Spider-Man I really liked- but overall I just wasn't blown away by his direction in that film. To be fair I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man was ever going to be a director's film. Due to the circumstances regarding its inception the film was always going to be mostly a studio controlled film. That- and the fact it was Webb's first Blockbuster. He likely wasn't confident enough to really bring forth a particular vision-nor would Sony let him.

I am glad, however, that Webb got another go at this universe. With superhero franchises the first film is more of a test run while the second film emerges as a stronger effort- think Bryan Singer's X-Men United and of course Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does look more promising- more colorful, more action-packed and we're past the origin story stuff. Moreover, people have suggested Webb has more control over this film than the previous installment. Ideally Webb will bring more of his own ideas in to the mix and the film will have a more confident feel. Still, while The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will likely be a good film I get the sense from watching the trailer that'll still feel like it came off a conveyor belt and be more of a  Hollywood product than a singular vision from a great artist.  

Maybe it's superhero fatigue or that I shouldn't be watching trailers. I just can't help but wonder what someone Alfonso Cuaron or Edgar Wright (who's directing Ant-Man with Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas for Marvel) would do with this franchise. When Cuaron came on board the Harry Potter franchise for the third film- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban- he made what is- in my eyes- the most imaginatively directed and re-watchable of all the Harry Potter films.

For the sake of transparency my mixed feelings towards Webb and these films have a lot to do with the backlash against the Sam Raimi-directed Spider-Man films. I'm okay with seeing someone else's take on the character and universe but the hatred towards those films has turned me off this new franchise to a large degree. Especially when it comes to Cinemablend critic Sean O'Connell being the walking definition of "conflict of interest" as he has become practically a "cheerleader" (his words) for this franchise and acts like The Amazing Spider-Man was completely his vision. I feel O'Connell's love for The Amazing Spider-Man has to do with certain things absent from the Raimi films being present in this new franchise- mechanical web shooters, Gwen Stacy as Peter Parker's first major romance and more sarcastic jokes from Spider-Man. But I don't think these elements being present in the film makes Webb a brilliant auteur. Nevertheless, Raimi is now seen as the man who butchered Spider-Man, the man who couldn't less about fans while Webb is a man of the people who can do no wrong.The film gave what certain fans wanted and now Webb is hailed as some sort of visionary.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 could be a truly mind-blowing and great film. But it'd have to reach that level for me to get completely excited for a third Marc Webb-directed Spider-Man film. Webb is a solid director and may grow in to a great one in time. But first I think he needs to get out of the Sony/Spider-Man wheelhouse before he can truly bloom.

Trailer Talk: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

 

Rejoice true believers. As you all pretty much know, the first official trailer for Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 dropped yesterday. I had, a little shamefully, already watched the leaked Comic Con trailer from this past summer, so I was unsure if I wanted to watch anymore footage, especially since the CC trailer had already shown quite a bit of footage. Still, I was curious to watch the official trailer since it'd be better quality- and when it comes to something like Spider-Man, I just couldn't resist.

The official trailer is actually strikingly different than the CC one. The biggest difference for me is the focus on Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), childhood friend of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), than Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx). While Electro is said to be the main antagonist of the film, this trailer gives me the sense Electro may only be a pawn in a larger plan, a plan that'll lead to the Sinister Six in either the third or fourth film in this franchise. Before the trailer debuted, we pretty much got confirmation that Harry would be the Green Goblin before his father Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper), who we learned in the previous film, and see in this film, is dying. This confirmation came in the form of the close-up of the new poster for the film:

And the trailer also confirms Harry will be our first Green Goblin. DeHaan looks very good in the role, conveying a slightly sinister vibe- though I wonder if it was a little too soon in the series for Harry to go down the bad guy route, particularly when he already had a Harry as GG two movies ago. I know Harry eventually becoming GG is part of the Spider-Man mythology but he wasn't the bad guy right off the bat. Then again, maybe Harry won't be that evil but another pawn of his father Norman and the "evil empire" (as Webb calls it) known as Oscorp.

Cooper has confirmed that this is an introduction to Norman, and I'm starting to get the feeling that Cooper will only have a brief part. The only footage we've seen so far is him in the hospital bed, talking to Harry and telling him, when asked about Peter, "Not everyone has a happy ending." Will this be his only scene?

I'm also getting the feeling the film will go down a route vaguely similar to that of The Dark Knight. Remember in that film the Joker was the main antagonist but once he was out of the picture the film concluded with the confrontation between Batman and Harvey Dent/Two-Face, who was manipulated by the Joker. I think that while Electro may be the central villain, once Spider-Man defeats him, the film will conclude with the confrontation between Spider-Man and Harry/GG. However, it'll be the reverse of The Dark Knight since, as I mentioned, earlier, Electro will the pawn.

I do wish we got more of Electro's back story in the trailer since if you're not aware of the backstory we've been told by Foxx, we don't get much context for Electro's speech near the end of the trailer about a world without Spider-Man.

 

I'm still wondering how much of a threat Aleksei Sytsevich/Rhino (Paul Giamatti) will present in the film. I previously assumed he was only there at the beginning of the film but I think that after Spider-Man defeats him the first time he may come back with his mechanical Rhino suit, which will tie in to Oscorp.

In regards to Oscorp, I think the biggest take away from the trailer was this image of who I presume is the shadowy figure from The Amazing Spider-Man's mid-credits teaser walking past some familiar items:

Those do appear to be Vulture's wings and Doctor Octopus' arms, which is pretty awesome. Colm Feore was rumoured to be playing Adrian Toomes some time ago. It was never confirmed but I think it's a possibility. I don't know how I feel about all these villain being connected to Oscorp however. I understand they're trying to create an interconnected and expansive universe but somehow, and this has mentioned by others, having everything connected to Oscorp makes this world feel smaller rather than larger. It also somewhat betrays the fun and randomness of those early Spider-Man comics, when the creators would just make up random and bizarre characters without much connection to each other. Also, I hope this series isn't just about eventually making a Sinister Six film. While the concept of the Sinister Six have been around since the early Spider-Man comics, this isn't like The Avengers where they're a central part of the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man stories should never put Spider-Man in the background.

The trailer also brings back Peter's father, Richard Parker (Campbell Scott). My biggest criticism of the previous film was how the film didn't do enough with the story of Peter's parents disappearance, but rather shamefully made it a mystery to be played over the course of the series. Ideally I would hope the mystery gets closure in this film.

I wrote an article a while ago concerning why it'd be wise to keep Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) alive throughout The Amazing Spider-Man 2: http://whatculture.com/film/amazing-spider-man-2-7-reasons-makes-sense-keep-gwen-stacy-alive.php, though I assumed that without Norman as GG she'd probably live until the third film. While I still stand by my points, I have a feeling Gwen may meet her iconic fate in this film since we are getting an actual GG. There's a shot in the trailer, which I assume is from the fight between Spider-Man and GG at a clock tower, where Spider-Man shoots his webbing downwards, as if to catch something, or someone:

Could he be trying to save Gwen? I think so. While I think Norman's presence in this series may be weakened

if he's not the one to actually knock her off a great height, I could see Gwen's death actually working in this film.

We also get our first, brief, look at Felicity Jones' role unnamed role, said to be someone with a romantic relationship with Harry. I feel Jones's role will be small. Unfortunate since Jones is a splendid actress. I hope I'm wrong and she gets some significant screen time.

 

 

So, the trailer definitely has me intrigued, and that final sequence between Electro and Spider-Man does look cool. Though I wonder if the movie will just be "cool" or if it'll be something that'll be a genre classic. I sometimes wonder if the great irony of the superhero movie boom will be that not many of them live on in 50 years. Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 opens on May 2nd, 2014. See you there.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Uanswered Questions and The Problem of Serialized Storytelling in Film

Just this week, Alex Kurtzman, co-writer, along with frequent collaborator Bob Orci, of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, went on record that the film will address the questions left unresolved by last year's controversial reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man:

“It’s interesting because the first movie asks all these questions and what I loved about it in so many ways is that it didn’t answer them. Part of what we were drawn to and intrigued by was wanting to know the answers to a lot of those questions.

“The villains emerge from a lot of unanswered questions at the end of that movie and none of them are random at all, they are all tied together by a theme, an idea, and I think they come from our curiosity about what was going on in the life of Peter Parker and his parents.”

My chief criticism of The Amazing Spider-Man was it seemed about concerned with setting up plotlines for future films rather than just being a standalone, so I can't say I share the same enthusiasm for what it was doing. The film's marketing, and the film's first act, suggested the main drive of the film was to be Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) investigation in to why his parents disappeared when he was a child, how Peter's father was connected to Peter's eventual gaining of spider-like powers, as well as how Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) relationship to Peter's parents. But the film pretty much drops these plot threads halfway through the way, only to remind us, in a mid credits stinger involving Connors and a mysterious man played by Michael Masse, that "Hey, come back for the sequel if you want to get any answers."



I understand what the filmmakers, most notably director of Amazing 1 & 2, and most likely 3, Marc Webb- they want to achieve what Marvel Studios has done and continues to do among its franchises, which is bringing expansive, comic book style continuity to the big screen- expect in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man franchise, the want to create an expansive universe in a singular franchise. It's an ambitious and admittedly exciting idea. There's 50 years of Spider-Man continuity to draw from, with almost limitless possibilities, and it appears this franchise is leading up to Sinister Six film, a reverse-Avengers, if you will.

But this brings up the difficulties of telling a serialized narrative in film. When you sit down to watch a film, even a film like The Amazing Spider-Man, where you know it's going to be the first film in a franchise (the second film was announced well before the first film hit theatres), as well as mostly a retelling of the Spider-Man origin story, you still expect a mostly standalone film. But I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man was designed to be a standalone film. In many ways, it mostly serves as a 2 hour pilot. This is not a pejorative swipe at TV mind you, I'm just highlighting how I think this film doesn't work as a film. I don't feel Peter has a character arc or that the film has a firm dramatic arc regarding its stories. This would work if the film was a pilot for a TV series, or the first few issues of a new Spider-Man comic. But it's neither of those things. It's a film, but it's not thematically well rounded or satisfying on its own terms the way a film, particularly an origin story, which in most superhero's case, especially Spider-Man's, are usually dramatically very pure and straightforward.

Compare The Amazing Spider-Man to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which, as the title suggests, is about Batman becoming Batman. It's focused almost entirely on Bruce Wayne's childhood, the death of his parents, his training and establishment as a vigilante in Gotham City, fighting corruption and forming a relationship with Jim Gordon, one of the few good cops in the city. But while a film like this could feel like just a set-up, which in some ways it is, Batman Begins still works very well as a standalone film about how someone goes from a child crouching over the bodies of his dead parents, to a figure of hope and fear. When that Joker card is revealed, it works as both an organic lead in to the next film as well as a great moment by itself, even if we didn't get a sequel. And the film genuinely feels mythic, despite Nolan' goal to set the film in a more stylistically and visually realistic universe than the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series. I feel The Amazing Spider-Man lacks that kind of mythic nature, and while I think the film wants to be the Batman Begins of the Spider-Man, and while I think in some respects it is successful in that respect, I don't feel it works as a standalone film the way Batman Begins does. And going back to Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film in 2002, even that film, while leaving room open for a sequel, ends on a strong not that concludes Peter's (Tobey Maguire) character arc.

Now, I'm not saying serialized storytelling can't work in film. The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars made it work, and serialized storytelling, in whatever medium, can be rewarding. But I feel The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't as interesting a film as it could've been. The film had such rich thematic potential in regards to the mystery surrounding Peter's parents, how his father potentially gave birth to Spider-Man, and Peter's relationship to a man (Connors) who knew his parents and may have taken part in their murders (?) But the film doesn't truly explore this material, I think. To be fair, this film did suffer from post-production tinkering by Webb and/or the studio, which resulted in several scenes being cut out, one in which makes clear the fate of Dr. Ratha (Irrfan Khan).

I'm glad Kurtzman  says the villains will be tied to the themes and questions of the first film. One of the things I really liked about Nolan's Batman Trilogy was how the villains were representations of the each film's themes. Of course, we know Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper) has a connection to Peter's parents, though I assume he won't become the Green Goblin until the very end of this film. I wonder how Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx) will be connected to Peter, since he seems more thematically and emotionally connected to Spider-Man than Peter. I'm interested to see how the film juggles its multiple plot threads and relationships, including the continuing relationship between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the reappearance of Peter's childhood friend Harry Osborn, (Dan DeHaan), Norman's son, as well Felicity Jones' still mysterious role as the "Goblin's girlfriend."- Harry or Norman? I'm still a little disappointed that Shailene Woodley's minor role as Mary Jane Watson has been cut and I hope she comes back for the third film.

While it's nice that Kurtzman has implied questions will be answered, I think the film should be more than just answering questions, just as how the first film was as its best when it wasn't just asking questions. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs to explore what these questions mean for Peter and the other characters, as well what consequences the answers will have. It needs to blow us away emotionally, visually and thematically. I hope it does. The superhero genre and this franchise has a lot of potential, and it'd be great if this film fulfilled that potential

Some Thoughts on Paul Giamatti and Felicity Jones' Casting in "The Amazing Spider-Man" Sequel

 

Last week, some big casting news was announced regarding the sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man. Paul Giamatti is in talks to play one of Spider-Man's villains, the Rhino. For those who don't know the Rhino, here's a brief summary via The Hollywood Reporter:

"The Rhino first appeared in Amazing Spider-Man #41 in 1966 as a thug from a Soviet Block country who wore a superhuman suit that made him invulnerable while giving him super-strength and super-speed. It also had a deadly horn
on top. In more recent comics, he became a sympathetic figure who found himself allying with Spider-Man."

What's fascinating about the inclusion of the Rhino in the film is certainly the casting of Giamatti, not a psychically intimidating actor. With Giamatti in the role, the film will probably emphasize the suit's ability to give him super strength, providing a contrast between the ordinary man Giamatti starts out as and the unstoppable force he becomes.

Giamatti will be joining Jamie Foxx as Electro, another of Spider-Man's rogues gallery. With two villains, along with the inclusion of Dan DeHaan as Harry Osborn and Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson, as well as Felicity Jones in talks for an undisclosed role, it's starting to feel that the film may be juggling too many balls. And the idea of a Spider-Man film cramming in too many characters and subplots brings to mind Spider-Man 3, which suffered from not being able to weave its multiple plotlines together coherently. Now, I'm not trying to be an alarmist- it's just that I felt The Amazing Spider-Man script didn't quite flow narratively or click together thematically as well as it should have. I hope the script for the next film is tighter and works really well as a stand alone film.

For one thing, it's important to know how to use your villains. One needs to be the central villain, which I presume will be Electro. It's apparent that Harry's father, Norman Osborn, is the one pulling the strings in this new franchise, so it's important to keep that villain structure in mind while still having Electro be a fully developed character rather than just a henchman. Foxx has talked about Electro's origins, saying at the beginning of the film that Max Dillon, Electro's real name, will be a Spider-Man fan:

"You'll see that in his whole life, no one is talking to him. People have stolen his ideas at the big company. He's a nobody. At a certain point, Spider-Man bumps into him and says, 'You're my guy. You're my eyes and ears on the street.' And he says his name - no one has ever said [Max] Dillon's name. He goes, 'Wow' and, when Spider-Man leaves, he sort of thinks that, 'I am Spider-Man's partner!' He's cutting out Spider-Man's face and pasting it on all his boards..."

Could Rhino be an established villain at the beginning of the film, with Electro getting the main villain origin? Possibly, especially since, judging from Foxx's comments, Max will have an emotional connection to Spider-Man that will put his orgin front and centre. Then again, if Rhino has any connection to Oscorp and Curt Connor's cross species genetics work, we could definitely be seeing an origin on screen for him as well. Will there be a team up between Electro and Rhino?- if director Marc Webb is leading up his version of the Sinister Six, then a relationship between Electro and Rhino could be planting the seeds for a future installment also featuring the return of Curt Connors/the Lizard. Critic Sean O'Connell recently wrote an article about the possible universe Marc Webb is mapping out: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Opinion-Marc-Webb-Isn-t-Making-Sequel-He-Mapping-Out-Massive-Spider-Man-Universe-35385-p2.html.  While I have disagreed with O'Connell regarding certain aspects of The Amazing Spider-Man, his article is definitely worth checking out.

So, who will Felicity Jones play? People are throwing around two big names-Felicia Hardy, aka the Black Cat, the Marvel Universe's version of Catwoman and Betty Brant, who in the comics works at the Daily Bugle. While I kind of love the idea of Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man interacting with Black Cat, I wonder if Black Cat fits in with what this franchise is doing right now. It may also be a little too soon after The Dark Knight Rises and Anne Hathaway's performace as Catwoman to bring in another cat burglar character. And finally, the romantic dynamic of this new film already seems to be set up as a love triangle involving Peter Parker, Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy and Shailene Woodley's Mary Jane. Felicia/Black Cat was one of Peter' romantic interests in the comics, so the filmmakers may want to avoid putting in another possible love interest. This isn't to say that Felicia is only defined by a romantic relationship with a man.

 

I'm leaning a little towards Betty Brant. The Daily Bugle will probably feature in some compacity in the next film, which would lead to Betty having a role. Elizabeth Banks played Betty in Sam Raimi's trilogy and the character may have a larger role in this film. In the comics, Betty was actually Peter's first love, even before Gwen. It wasn't essential to Raimi's trilogy and it may not be of importance in this trilogy, since as I mentioned earlier, the romantic triangle centres around Peter, Gwen, and Mary Jane. And like Felicia, Betty doesn't need to be defined by a romantic relationship with Peter.

So, those are pretty much my thoughts as of now. Despite my issues with the first film, I'm very intrigued by what direction this sequel, and franchise, is going.

Some Thoughts on "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

With The Amazing Spider-Man being a solid hit, both critically and commercially, it's inevitable that nothing's going to stop a sequel from going forward. I want to talk a little about what plot points and characters will probably be in the film and how I'd like to see them developed.

Mary Jane and Harry Osborn

Both Mary Jane Watson and Harry Osborn were absent from The Amazing Spider-Man, making it the first Spider-Man film the characters didn't appear in. No doubt they'll be in the sequel since Harry's father Norman Osborn will most likely also make an appearance. Harry is Peter Parker's best friend and that adds some dimension to the fact Harry's father transforms in to Peter and Spider-Man's arch nemesis the Green Goblin. Peter also didn't seem to have any real friends in The Amazing Spider-Man aside from Gwen Stacy so it'll be nice to see Peter establish a relationship with another guy. I would have Harry feel a little weird being a wealthy kid at a regular high school. He wouldn't know if people liked him just because he was rich or because he was a decent guy. Peter would be the only one who wouldn't care either way if Harry was rich or not.

If I was introducing Mary Jane in to the mix I wouldn't want it to be an automatic love triangle. I don't want Gwen being "Get away from my man bitch" right off the bat. I would have Gwen and Mary Jane be friends at first, only for things to be complicated when she becomes attracted to Peter. That way, what's at stake isn't merely Gwen and Peter's relationship but her and Mary Jane's as well. Peter would ultimately feel Mary Jane was a little too superfical for his tastes and would eventually reaffirm his love to Gwen. This would be the start of Mary Jane's arc from a carefree and flightly teenager to a mature young woman. Gwen's death in the comics is what brings her and Peter closer together and eventually leads to their romance. Mary Jane needs to be developed really well in order for us to believe Peter could fall in love with her after Gwen's death. The first film established a really strong bond between Peter and Gwen, thanks to strong performances from Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Whoever is cast as Mary Jane will have to have a similar chemistry with Garfiled as well as with Stone. Stone was a fan favourite for the role and was even thought to be playing Mary Jane before it was confirmed she'd be playing Gwen. I'd still give anything to hear Stone purr the line "Face it Tiger, you've just hit the jackpot." It'd actually be funny to have Stone play both roles, with the running joke being that no one notices Gwen and Mary Jane look alike. It'd also be very Vertigo-ish. Hey, Peter already has a Rear Window poster in his room, so it'd be another Hitchcock reference. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also a big fan favourite and I'd be all for that casting.

Villains

A superhero film is only as strong as its villain, particularly for a sequel. After the using a major villain like the Lizard,
who'd be strong enough to carry the movie? I don't think Doc Ock should be used in another second movie. We don't want to rush the black suit/Venom plot line again. Mysterio would be a fascinating choice because he attacks Spider-Man mentally with illusions. Two villains could work, especially if you use the Lizard, who's already been established and has a special connection to Peter.

It's almost inevitable and unavoidable that the Green Goblin will be the villain. Norman Osborn is mentioned but never seen in The Amazing Spider-Man but he'll definitely make an appearance in the sequel. What's already interesting about this interpretation of Norman is he's dying. Curt Connor's research was being used to cure Norman. What cured Connors turned him in to the Lizard and will probably warp Norman's mind and create the Green Goblin personality. In the Ultimate continuity of the Marvel Universe, Norman actually turns in to a Goblin creature rather it just being a mental transformation. It'd be hard to do this since we've already have a creature villain. That is unless they wait until the third movie to have Green Goblin as the villain.

The Death of Gwen Stacy

The moment the Green Goblin shows up in this series, we know that Gwen will have to die. It's not something to look forward to but it feels necessary for the development of Peter's character. Even Stone feels it needs to happen. At the end of The Amazing Spider-Man Peter goes back on his promise to Gwen's father to stay away from Gwen in order to protect her. While Peter's turnaround has received criticism, it's a good foreshadowing of what Peter's recklessness will bring upon Gwen and the guilt he'll feel. Garfield and Stone have already made us love Peter and Gwen as a couple and I feel if done right, Gwen's death will have an emotional impact as powerful as it was in the comics.

The question is, will Gwen die in this film or will her death occur in the third film of what is reportedly going to be a trilogy. I feel her and Peter's relationship will have to be developed a little more before she dies. If that can happen in the second film without being rushed, I think her death in this film could work. You also don't want the series to get bogged down by the same romance. Shifting focus from Gwen to Mary Jane will keep things fresh.

J. Jonah Jameson

Old J.J.J is a very important supporting character in the Spider-Man mythology. He's constantly trying to turn the city against Spider-Man while unknowingly employing the very man he despises. Back when Jameson was going to appear in this film, John Slattery from Mad Men was rumoured for the part. I think if anyone could take the reigns from J.K. Simmons and do Jameson justice it'd be Slattery. Slattery can be the arrogant blowhard who you find yourself loving anyway.

The Untold Story

The Amazing Spider-Man was heavily promoted as "The Untold Story," referring to the mystery behind Peter's parents disappearing when he was a child. While that angle is still in the film, much of that subplot has also been cut out. From my understanding, we were going to get a twist similar to Ang Lee's Hulk film regarding Peter's genetic background. I would love to see a Director's Cut of this film but I have a feeling the cut material will be retconned for the sequel.

But Those Are The Best Kind: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

I think it was always a controversial decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise. I remember how anti-climatic it felt in early 2010 when the reboot was announced. It did feel a little soon to be hitting the reset button but now 2 and half years later, there's more of a distance between the previous trilogy and the new film, The Amazing Spider-Man. I also said to myself that I would judge this movie only when I finally saw it. Now that it's out, what do I think? Well, I'm a little divided. It's a pretty solid reboot of the series with a wonderful and sexy romance at the center but I felt there were elements that could have been fleshed out and once it reaches its last act, the action and spectacle is not as thrilling as it could have been.

Essentially, the film is a retelling of Spider-Man's origin story. This film doesn't have the advantage of reboots like Batman Begins or Casino Royale, both of which had a lot of leg room to flesh out their protagonists' origin stories. In Tim Burton's Batman, Bruce Wayne had already established himself as Batman. We got flashbacks to the night his parents was murdered but we didn't see the process of him becoming Batman. I think Batman Begins did a great job of showing us what Bruce Wayne had to go through, mentally and physically, in order to become Batman. Casino Royale, based on the first James Bond novel by Ian Fleming, showed us Bond's first mission, how he earned his 00-status and how he was betrayed by the woman he loved, cementing his cavlier attitude towards women. Both films went behind the mystique of these characters, giving us greater insight than what had come before. I don't think Spider-Man has that same kind of mystique, and since Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film already gave us pretty much all we needed to know about Spider-Man's origin, The Amazing Spider-Man can't have first dibs on the origin story. I was weary going in to this film of having to see the origin story once again. Surprisingly, despite re-telling this story, the film makes it enjoyable.

 This has to do with how the film's overall atmosphere. While Raimi's first 2 Spider-Man films allowed for plenty of humane and grounded moments, this film takes this one step further. It essentially does for Spider-Man what Christopher Nolan did for Batman- but in its own way that suits the character. While Nolan's Batman films are stripped down and gritty, they're not really grounded. "Grounded" is a word Andrew Garfield, who plays Peter Parker/Spider-Man, used when discussing the tone of the film. He said if him and the filmmakers tried to be too much like Batman, they'd fail. Fortunately the movie understands you can be grounded wtithout being overly serious and gritty.

The film is at its strongest when it's just about Peter Parker and his relationships to the people around him. The relationship that comes through strongest is probably the one between him and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Garfield and Stone are really wonderful together, really making you believe these two kids are falling in love- one of hardest things to do in film. What I liked most about their chemistry was how sexy their romance was, which sometimes is lacking in super-hero romances. As everyone probably already knows, Gwen Stacy dies in the comics. The Green Goblin throws her from a bridge and Spider-Man catches her, breaking her neck. If played pitch perfectly in the next film, it'll truly be one of the most heartbreaking and powerful moments in a superhero film. Garfield does a fine job of not overdoing the brooding young teenage rebel. He brings a lightness of touch to the role that lifts him out any possible stereotype. Stone is a lovely actress and always makes it believable that a man could fall in love with her. But Gwen's not just a delicate flower but a confident young woman who knows what she wants. Denis Leary plays her father Captain George Stacy, who feels that Spider-Man is a dangerous vigilante. Leary is convincing as a strightlaced authorial father figure and he has a nice bit with Stone in the middle. It seems

The main marketing ploy of this film involved telling audiences this was "the untold story," meaning that it would explore the mystery behind why Peter's parents left him. Early in the film Peter discovers a briefcase that belonged to his father Richard (Campbell Scott). He discovers a connection between his father and Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans), who works at Oscorp (and we all know what Oscorp is!). Conners was his father's partner, and both him and Richard were working on cross genetics within species- experiments that would have allowed Connors to grow back his rght arm. Essentially, Peter helps Connors continue he and his father's work, creating the formula that helps Connors grow back his arm. Of course, Connors is the ultimate "Side effects may include" cautionary tale. Connors, aside from growing back an arm, also grows a tale and becomes a giant lizard.

I would have liked for the film to've played up the relationship between Peter and Connors. This is a man who may have the key to Peter growing up without parents and I wish there were more scenes, even a scene, where Peter really tries to find the truth behind their disappearance. Connors being a mentor figure to Peter would've also been an a good angle to play up. In the comics and animated series Connor also has a wife and son. It would added something to Connors' arc if we saw how his transformation affected his family.

One element of Spider-Man's origin that I think should have been emphasized more is how Peter uses his powers for selfish reasons before he indirectly causes his Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) death. While Peter is still responsible for Ben's death, his decision to become Spider-Man seems based more revenge than on knowing "With great power comes great responsibility." I'm okay with Peter wanting revenge but I feel there should have been a moment where he acknowledges the responsibility he has to help people. Okay...to be fair, he does say it's his job to stop the Lizard. Speaking of Uncle Ben, Sheen brings a good balance of warmth and sterness to the role. Sally Field is underused as Aunt May and I hope she's developed more in the next film.

This film uses more practical effects than the previous trilogy, allowing a more realistic sense of Spider-Man swinging  through the air. I have to say though, while the action sequences are well staged, I don't feel any of them actually blew my mind. That, and all the Spider-Man action seemed jammed in to the final act. The whole final act isn't as well paced as the rest of the film.

Some of the "untold story" aspect of the film seems to have been cut out of the film. I understand this mystery surrounding Peter's parents will probably be an overarching story in a supposed trilogy but I kind of wish the mystery would have been resolved. I think it would have made for a more fully rounded film. So, as I said, I'm divided. Garfield and Stone are so good and the beginnings of Peter becoming Spider-Man started to convince this was probably the best Spider-Man movie yet. And I think that's still a possibility if we get a director's cut of the film. Maybe we have to wait until The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to get that film. Ultimately, this is a solid and enjoyable film that shows potential for the return of the Spider-Man franchise.

P.S- For all the gushing about how "witty" Spider-Man was going to be in this film, he doesn't make that make any more jokes than in the original trilogy.    

James Bondifying the Superhero

                                                         

In a recent interview, Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios, discussed the future of the Iron Man franchise once its star Robert Downey Jr. decides to bow out. In the interview he references the character who has gone through the most plastic surgery in 50 years, James Bond:

"I think Bond is a good example. Let’s put it this way: I hope Downey makes a lot of movies for us as Stark. If and when he doesn’t, and I’m still here making these movies, we don’t take him to Afghanistan and have him wounded again. I think we James Bond it."

Now, the whole idea of superhero franchies going down the James Bond route has been brought up before on the internet and thinking about it, I really like this idea of superhero franchises having a long running continuity like the James Bond franchise has, or had pre Daniel Craig. In fact, the James Bond film franchise has been like a comic book in that James Bond doesn't really age, and if he does, he gets a little younger once a new actor comes in.

A James Bond continuity would also benefit these franchises by allowing characters to develop over a long period of time and, unlike superhero trilogies like Spider-Man and X-Men, not feel like they're only scratching the surface of these characters' universes condensing every villain in to three movies.

 I wouldn't nessecarily want this approach taken with the Iron Man franchise though. I'm not familar enough witity h the Iron Man comics to be attached to that particular part of the Marvel Universe. That, and I think it'd be really hard to recast Tony Stark when the time comes. I don't know how close Downey is to the Tony Stark of the comics but for me, he is Tony Stark. There's also the problem of the continuity set us as a lead in to The Avengers- if there's more Avengers movies after the inevitable sequel, it'll be a jarring casting change, particularly for one of the lead actors.

For me, I'd most like to see a James Bond like continuty with the post Christopher Nolan Batman series and the new Spider-Man series. Those two universes I think deserve to develop over time. I want to see Peter Parker move past being a teenager and a college student. I want to see him fall in love with Mary Jane after the death of Gwen Stacy and eventually marry her. Now, to be fair, I'm not ready for a Batman reboot quite yet, and may not even be ready by 2015. I do really wish Warner Bros. would just let the Nolan Batman films be the Batman films for another ten years or so. But when the new franchise comes, I think the James Bond route would be ideal.

Of course, theres's a problem with re-casting Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne. The pre-Craig Bond films, despite a loose continuty, are self contained adventures, with Bond always sort of being Bond. If Peter were to lose Gwen in a third Spider-Man film and then Andrew Garfield leaves the role, only to have a new actor mourn her in a fourth film, it'd be jarring. If  we're to really grow to love these characters, an actor has to be committed to the role for a while.

It's a little exhausting thinking about the future of superhero franchises but also fascinating. With a long form continuity within films, which we've already begun to see in the years leading up to The Avengers, comic book movies genuinely seem to becoming more like the comics that spawned them.

Auteurship and the Super-Hero Film

Over Christmas I discovered an interview with David Fincher where he talked about how he would have approached the Spider-Man reboot. Fincher's name was thrown around as a possibility for this film as well as the 2002 film. In the interview, Fincher says:

My impression what Spider-Man could be is very different from what Sam [Raimi] did or what Sam wanted to do. I think the reason he directed that movie was because he wanted to do the Marvel comic superhero. I was never interested in the genesis story. I couldn't get past a guy getting bit by a red and blue spider. It was just a problem… It was not something that I felt I could do straight-faced. I wanted to start with Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin, and I wanted to kill Gwen Stacy.

The title sequence of the movie that I was going to do was going to be a ten minute -- basically a music video, an opera, which was going to be the one shot that took you through the entire Peter Parker [backstory]. Bit by a radioactive spider, the death of Uncle Ben, the loss of Mary Jane, and [then the movie] was going to begin with Peter meeting Gwen Stacy. It was a very different thing, it wasn't the teenager story. It was much more of the guy who's settled into being a freak.

Fincher's vision for a Spider-Man film sounds incredibly intriguing, particularly since it zips through the origin story in an economic and unique way. After reading this interview I started to think about the role the director plays in regards to the Super-hero genre. While Batman and Spider-Man are certainly the stars of their own films, I feel that audiences and critics do focus on the director behind the film. Moreover, praise or blame of the film is sometimes laid at the feet of these directors.

When we think of 1989's Batman, we probably think of Jack Nicholson as the Joker or Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman but we also think of the film's director, Tim Burton. While this film isn't as Burtonesque as Batman Returns, Batman, with it's expressionistic visual style and gothic tone, fits in to Burton's rather nicely. From my knowledge, it was Burton's decision to have the Joker, back when he was just Jack Napier, to be the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. This is one the biggest departures a superhero film has taken from its source material, one that doesn't please many fans of Batman. Personally, I think it's a interesting decision but one that's not that well thought out. Batman tells the Joker that he killed his parents near the end of the film but it never becomes an essential part of the film's climax.   

Before returning to direct Batman Returns, Burton reportedly was uninterested in returning to the character of Batman. bu Warner Bros. supposely convnced him to direct when they told him that instead of directing a Batman film, he could direct a Tim Burton film. Batman Returns is very much a Tim Burton film playing up the german expressionism influence from the first, and havng bizarre characters making up the supporting cast.


Burton's films have often dealt with what it means to be an outsider, something that Burton relates to:

If you've ever had that feeling of loneliness, of being an outsider, it never quite leaves you. You can be happy or successful or whatever, but that thing still stays within you.

The Penguin (Danny DeVito) is the quintiessential Burton outsider like Edward Scissorhands- Burton's Penguin is deformed and left in a sewer by his parents. He's a very freakish looking character. This is definitely not the more distinguished Penguin we know from the comics.

But while Burton imposes a personal visual style and mood on the film, as well as creating a Penguin more in line with his feeling a being an  outsiders, is Batman Returns a really personal film for Burton? Or is the personal aspect of the film or to do with Burton's visual style and sense of mood. Does it penetrate beyond the surface to make a personal statement about outsiders in society and in comic books? I'm not quite sure.

I think the same kind of questions can be asked of other directors' visions in regards to super-hero films. Sam Raimi directed the Spider-Man trilogy and is known for being a Spider-Man fan. While his love of the character definitely shows in the spirit of the films and they're also very humane films, beyond this, what is personal to Raimi in these films? What issues in the film are truly important to him?

Now, I'm not out to bash Burton or Raimi. I like the Spider-Man trilogy, particularly the first two, and I like Burton's Batman films, yes even the bizarro Batman Returns. I just feel that in the directors' visions somehow aren't complete.

I think this incompleteness of vision, among super-hero films can best be applied to Ang Lee's 2003 film Hulk. Hulk is a film that I like but I think it has the problem of being stuck between 2 worlds in regards to its style. On one hand, it's trying to ground the Hulk character in a psychological drama, exploring Bruce Banner's Jekyll/Hyde personality and his twisted relationship with his father. On the other hand, it embraces certain comic book elements- it has Hulk dogs, Nick Nolte as Bruce Banner's father turns in to an electroid monster- and Lee's use of split screens, which suggest comic book panels. I think Lee couldn't quite blend them in way where everything clicked. The film should have completely committed to it's psychological elements. Lee was probably attracted to what the script was doing with exploring the psychological aspects of Bruce Banner/the Hulk. If Lee was able to have more creative control, I think he could have had more influence on the script and made it less of blockbuster-style film. Unfortunately, a film like Hulk still has to have those blockbuster element to it. While these elements are compatiable with deeper themes and issues, in this case, it lead to a compromised vision. 

An example of a director being noted as directing the best of films of a series is Bryan Singer, who directed the first two X-Men films.  Singer is an openly gay man and the X-Men films can be read as allegories for homophobia in modern society, as well as other forms of discrimination. The X-Men are essentially outsiders and I think Singer, being a gay man, knew what it was like to be an outsider and brought that personal knowledge to the films.

On a side note, Matt Vaughn, who directed the latest X-Men film, X-Men: First Class, brought his love of the Bond series to the film, making Michael Fassbender's Erik Lensherr/Magneto in to mutant version of James Bond.

Coming back to Batman, let's look at the Christopher Nolan Batman saga. Nolan has received much praise from critics and Batman fans for his two Batman films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Nolan is arguably seen as the auteur of this series. Nolan (and his creative team) have done a fine job of balancing this comtemporary and stripped down and stylistically realistic take on Batman while still crafting something which feels quintiessentially Batman . Nolan's vision for the series, as I said, is a stylistic rather than literal realism. Nolan and his cinematographer Wally Pfister go for a photorealistic look for Gotham rather than Burton' expressionistic look or Joel Schumacher's neon Gotham.

The Dark Knight dealt with issues of heroism, terrorism, morality, sacrifice, all that junk. These themes certainly fascinate Nolan but they don't give me the sense of Nolan as a person, which could also be said of his other films. The Dark Knight  almost seems too large to be truly personal. That may be the difficulty in having a personal vision in a super-hero film. The large scale can overshadow a director's personal vision.

Coming back to the new Spider-Man, I hope Marc Webb, who helped give (500) Days of Summer  it's aching poignancy, will bring a human touch to The Amazing Spider-Man.  What I really want is this film to take the Spider-Man character in a bold new direction. I think Webb has it in him to go there. If not...there's always David Fincher.