Welcome to the show folks...
As you probably noticed, right after I talked about how John Malkovich was confirmed as The Vulture for Spider-Man 4, word came out that the whole thing had been scrubbed in favor of a reboot with a new cast and crew in 2012.
I can understand Sony's position.
Sure Spider-Man 3 made the most money of the three, but it also cost the most, and it's non-stop parade of villains and completely fustigated plot left a nasty taste in the collective mouths of fanboys who spat their internet vitriol on the film with a vengeance. Spider-Man 4 could have easily looked to them like it was going to be #3 redux, and have scenes like this...
at a cost that could crush their profit margin even if it made as much money as Spider-Man 3.
Now the talk is that the reboot is going to be all "dark and gritty" like Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, and I'd like to offer my opinion of that decision.
If you're going to do that, you might as well cancel the whole thing outright, and bury it in a vacant lot where stray dogs can defecate on the site at their leisure.
Because going in that direction will kill the franchise deader than a dozen lame-ass dance scenes.
I've written about this before, but I have to explain it again, because some folks never learn. Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 1&2, Iron Man, and all the other uber-successful comic book adaptations have one thing in common. They matched the themes of their source material. Let me break it down.
Batman- Dark gritty and gothic in theme and tone. The successful movies that people view as classics matched this tone, the ones people hate were bubblegum fantasias better known for nipples on bat-suits than stories.
Spider-Man- Contemporary, urban, but not gritty. It's all about Peter Parker and Spider-Man having not only to face villains, but the problems of being a crime fighter that doesn't have a few billion in the bank would have to face.
Iron Man- Sun-lit, lighter in tone, and built around a wealthy, decadent, and ultimately irresponsible man taking responsibility and using his resources to make the world better by punching bad guys in the face.
Trying to make Spider-Man "gritty" can only make Spider-Man shitty. It's not his milieu.
So all I can tell Sony, is that they made a bold and risky move, don't screw it up.
Seriously, if Joe Schumacher takes over, I swear, I will kick serious ass.
As you probably noticed, right after I talked about how John Malkovich was confirmed as The Vulture for Spider-Man 4, word came out that the whole thing had been scrubbed in favor of a reboot with a new cast and crew in 2012.
I can understand Sony's position.
Sure Spider-Man 3 made the most money of the three, but it also cost the most, and it's non-stop parade of villains and completely fustigated plot left a nasty taste in the collective mouths of fanboys who spat their internet vitriol on the film with a vengeance. Spider-Man 4 could have easily looked to them like it was going to be #3 redux, and have scenes like this...
at a cost that could crush their profit margin even if it made as much money as Spider-Man 3.
Now the talk is that the reboot is going to be all "dark and gritty" like Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, and I'd like to offer my opinion of that decision.
If you're going to do that, you might as well cancel the whole thing outright, and bury it in a vacant lot where stray dogs can defecate on the site at their leisure.
Because going in that direction will kill the franchise deader than a dozen lame-ass dance scenes.
I've written about this before, but I have to explain it again, because some folks never learn. Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 1&2, Iron Man, and all the other uber-successful comic book adaptations have one thing in common. They matched the themes of their source material. Let me break it down.
Batman- Dark gritty and gothic in theme and tone. The successful movies that people view as classics matched this tone, the ones people hate were bubblegum fantasias better known for nipples on bat-suits than stories.
Spider-Man- Contemporary, urban, but not gritty. It's all about Peter Parker and Spider-Man having not only to face villains, but the problems of being a crime fighter that doesn't have a few billion in the bank would have to face.
Iron Man- Sun-lit, lighter in tone, and built around a wealthy, decadent, and ultimately irresponsible man taking responsibility and using his resources to make the world better by punching bad guys in the face.
Trying to make Spider-Man "gritty" can only make Spider-Man shitty. It's not his milieu.
So all I can tell Sony, is that they made a bold and risky move, don't screw it up.
Seriously, if Joe Schumacher takes over, I swear, I will kick serious ass.
If I had to sum up Spider-Man in one word, it would be smart-ass. And that's the one aspect of the character that I never felt that Raimi cracked.
ReplyDeleteThere can be angsty stuff about having to deal w/ everyday problems, but having the humor is what makes the character.
Smartass....
ReplyDeleteyeah, I have to agree. That's spidey in a nutshell. Going all dark and gothy on him will kill the franchise.
He needs to be young, a smart-ass, and intelligent enough to overcome the smart-ass part when it matters.
That is Spiderman.
I don't think Tobey, and his "blank look mistaken for depth" acting style can do smart-ass.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, I don't think many of Hollywood's current crop of young'uns can do smart ass without coming across as just dorks.
The film doesn't teem; it just seems cluttered - a collection of scenes, and occasionally great visuals or gags, strung together by an inadequate plot.
ReplyDelete