Spider-Man No More

[mechanixis]

Tobey Maguire's voice sounds like all his lines are being slowly smooshed by a rolling pin, Spiderman's on-screen quips are more representations of humor than actually funny, the Goblin's armor was designed by the military to look like a halloween costume, Doc Ock ripped open a giant safe to steal literal bags of gold coins, Harry paints still lifes of fruitbowls in his spare time, Eddie Brock prayed to Jesus to have Peter Parker killed because he lost his job, Venom looked like an Argonian from Oblivion and sounded like Dave from Accounting, Spiderman's makeout with Gwen Stacy when he knew MJ was watching was just random, contrived, out-of-character romantic tension, Sandman shooting Uncle Ben was a ridiculously unnecessary and ineffectual retcon, and the third movie, in addition to being so overbudgeted and bloated with cgi that the action scenes all looked like prerendered videogame cinematics, had a succession of schizophrenic emo/badboy/dance-number scenes.

Honestly, if you're defending this franchise as the best Spiderman can be, you must be looking back on it with rose-tinted spectacles, because they are not all that great. I loved them too when I first saw them - 1 and 2 were the best comicbook movies around in their day - but the fact is, they're saturated with camp.

That was fine back then. That was the standard. But nowadays we've got Iron Man, Dark Knight, and Watchmen setting the bar for comicbook adaptations. Superhero stories need to take themselves seriously. And this Spiderman franchise is only getting goofier and goofier. It's being goofy for goofiness' sake.

I was overjoyed to hear about the reboot. Venom and Goblin get a second shot at a worthy portrayal. No more of Tobey Maguire's listless wheezing. Maybe the storylines will make a goddamn bit of sense from now. It's a fresh clean slate, which is good, because there was mostly gunk on the old one.

 

[MovieBob]

Eddie Brock prayed to Jesus to have Peter Parker killed because he lost his job,

Just a point of order here: That's more-or-less "canonical" as to how Venom was created in his actual comic origin-story, except that the circumstances were even "goofier": Instead of hoping for Peter's death, Brock is asking God to forgive him for becoming an obsessive weightlifter (really) after his journalism career was ruined because Spider-Man caught a serial-killer who Brock had wrongly-identified in what was supposed to be his career-making story. He also had cancer, though that might've been a retcon. OH! And instead of a meteor, Spider-Man got the black costume after being abducted by a godlike alien with jeri-curls named Beyonder who put all the superheroes and supervillains together into a big war for fun.

Mind you, I'm not "defending" either version of this - just consider it "Exhibit A" in the "Venom has always been pretty lame" presentation Or, if you like, a longform rebuttal to THIS contention:

And this Spiderman franchise is only getting goofier and goofier.

Spider-Man can stick to walls because an irradiated spider bit him on the hand once when he was a kid. He wears a brightly-colored spandex costume and runs around New York fighting a consortium of gangsters, thieves and mad-scientists - many of whom are either named-for or dress-as various animals. His most significant enemy throws exploding pumpkins at people. another major foe wears a lion's face for a vest. He has, on several occasions, traveled through time, encountered aliens and traversed dimensions. For a period of his life, he had four extra arms growing out of his torso - which at one point came in handy for fighting a vampire.

He's goofy. You can't take the goofy out of Spider-Man, he's goofy the minute he decides to call himself Spider-Man.

Superheroes, generally, are goofy. They wear outlandish costumes for tenuous reasons (at best) and engage in exploits that are patently ridiculous. They do so as part of stories that are/were primarily designed as escapist wish-fulfillment fantasies for young boys. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it as high praise. And please don't but-but-but me about "The Dark Knight," I love TDK but that approach ONLY works for Batman and ONLY in the narrow confines of a few potential stories. Remember how things turned out when someone tried to make a "not goofy" Daredevil movie? It didn't work.

That was the standard. But nowadays we've got Iron Man, Dark Knight, and Watchmen setting the bar for comicbook adaptations. Superhero stories need to take themselves seriously.

Disagree on three points. Firstly: Watchmen doesn't belong in this conversation, it's a satire. In fact, it's making fun of the tragic absurdity of the genre taking itself too "seriously." One of the big overriding "points" of Watchmen is that 'realistic'/real-world superheroes ultimately leads to a blighted real-world and sad, compromised superheroes.

Secondly, "Iron Man" doesn't take itself seriously - at least not the one I saw. It treats the CONCEPT respectfully, but that's not the same thing. It's having a lot of fun with it's premise and world, embracing the gee-whiz absurd fun of a guy dressing up in a robot-suit to fight evil. If Iron Man had moped around being all gritty and "serious' like Batman, that would've been a lousy movie. And heck, you wanna talk goofy, "Iron Man" is technically leading-in to a mega-sequel wherein it's hero will team up with (among others) an unfrozen WWII-era supersoldier who dresses like a flag, a guy who turns into a giant ogre when he gets mad and the Viking God of Thunder. If there's a version of that that isn't "goofy," I don't want to see it.

Thirdly... yes, as mentioned before, you CAN pull this off with Batman movies since batman is really just a pulp-noir detective who happens to wear a costume. Personally, I don't necessarily think that Dark Knight "avoids" being goofy so much as it intentionally refuses to acknowledge it's own goofiness - since, at the end of the day, it's still a guy dressed as a bat fighting a terrorist dressed as a clown. But either way, what works for Batman isn't going to work with Spider-Man or most other superhero characters.... hell, it's not even going to work for BATMAN much longer - I reckon that series is maybe one more movie away from having exhausted all of the potential places Batman can go within the confines of an ultra-realistic universe.

 

[RJ Dalton]

You know, I've honestly been trying very hard to work myself into a foamy-mouthed, berserk rage over this (you know, on principle), but I'm just so dumbfounded by Sony's grotesque incompetence that I can't manage it. I think I've gone over the hill on this. I can no longer be angry at Sony for doing this for the same reason I can't really be angry at the cold virus. Sure, it periodically makes me sick and miserable, but you know what? That's about all Hollywood executive committees are capable of in the grand scheme of things because of their lack of brains and complex DNA, and since there's no way you can really change them, it's just pointless to get worked up over it. All we can do is simply not waste our time and money on seeing the movie.

 

[The Bandit]

Maybe it's the comic book snob in me, but everytime I see someone say Venom is their favorite spider-man villain I can't help but roll my eyes ;p... he's not even one of his interesting bad guys.

I don't get why a lot of people seem to dislike Venom. Is it backlash over the child-like impulse to think he's cool, and you want to distance yourself from that? Whatever, Venom isn't really my favorite villain, he's my favorite character, because after combining with Venom, Brock moved from cardboard cut-out to someone with depth (speaking of the animated series, here).

Anyway, glad to see someone else doesn't like the Ultimate series. They're hit and miss, but for me, they miss far too often. And any series where canon is thrown out the window because the new author felt it wasn't interesting, yeah...

: /

You'd rather have a universe with 60+ years of canon, endless contradictions, endless deaths, rebirths, etc. over trying to start from scratch and make things good? I think your fanboy is showing.

DC and Marvel should scrap both of their current universes and start over. DC does the same story line every ten years. Marvel is a little bit better, but not by much.

I'm referring to the part in bold letters here:

I'm no fanboy, but I prefer to keep the original story as much as possible, for one very simple reason: If you want to start from scratch and create something good, then really do it; create your own world, your own characters, your own story. It's very easy to take someone else's work, get the "good" parts from it and just discard the rest, and receive the praise for "saving" the story. This "reboot" trend just shows me that we live in very "dry" times, as far as creativity goes.

As a writer myself, I think this is very worrying. So I'm going to burn my muffin creating a whole universe just for someone to come later and twist it to their own vision? That is definitely NOT what I expected when I wrote my first shor story, and I hope none of my future works gets so popular as to deserve that kind of treatment...

If I had wanted to be laughed at instead of taken seriously, I would have suggested that DC throw out cash cows like Batman and Superman and start fresh.

Since that's in no way realistic, the next best solution: throw out all the shit you've been building up on, and start fresh.

I agree with EVERYTHING you've said, actually: when it concerns the novel. Or the film. Or any other closed story. But, comics books are open stories. They span decades. I've got news for you: most modern day comic book characters DON'T apply to their original creators' visions. They've changed and adapted to go along with the readers of those times. If they did as you suggested, Superman, Batman, or Spiderman would not be NEARLY as popular as they are today.

All I'm suggesting is that DC and Marvel do what they've done in the past: flush the toilet and start over in order to adapt to a new audience. Be different. Push the envelope. Kill off characters for Christ sake. And maybe people will begin to take them seriously.

Is it right? Maybe not. But, if we're going to have to live with these idiots, you could at least have them entertain me instead of doing a massive "we're going to kill off a major character!" story every few years, but then not follow through on the promise. Or do it and bring them back six months later. Or whatever other retarded thing comic books are doing these days.

(Actually, I'm not sure if Marvel has done this outside of the Ultimate universe, but I know DC has.)

 

[Snowman909]

I'm referring to the part in bold letters here:

I'm no fanboy, but I prefer to keep the original story as much as possible, for one very simple reason: If you want to start from scratch and create something good, then really do it; create your own world, your own characters, your own story. It's very easy to take someone else's work, get the "good" parts from it and just discard the rest, and receive the praise for "saving" the story. This "reboot" trend just shows me that we live in very "dry" times, as far as creativity goes.

As a writer myself, I think this is very worrying. So I'm going to burn my muffin creating a whole universe just for someone to come later and twist it to their own vision? That is definitely NOT what I expected when I wrote my first shor story, and I hope none of my future works gets so popular as to deserve that kind of treatment...

I can understand not liking the Ultimate Universe because you don't like the stories it tells (even if that is stupid too, Ultimate Spidey is the best Spidey around at the moment, even despite Loeb's Ultimatum), but disliking it because it strays away from the main universe is ridiculous.

Some of the best stories told by Marvel or DC have come from alternate universes. Red Son or All-Star Superman anyone?

 

[Zeromaeus]

Meh. After 3, I really don't care one way or another. I did, then 3 came on on FX and I was reminded how bad it was.

On the Ultimate series, I only had three real gripes about it.
1. Galactus (Gah Lak Tus) wasn't a giant dude in a pink outfit with a silly helmet who was so ridiculous it was kind of awesome.

2. Ultimatum. Yeah, great idea. Just kill off everybody. The fans will love that.

3. Deadpool. They butchered him.

 

[magnuslion]

Fuck that noise! Boycott!!

 

[Cliffie]

Reading this makes me really sad. I loved the (first two) Spider-Man movies and I was actually psyched for the 4th movie... I mean, it's not like it could be worse then the 3rd one, right? I wish.

After reading this school thing I immediately (just as many other, I'm sure) started to get Twilight vibes... and that's never a good thing.

Oh well, at least Iron Man looks great.

 

[BlueK0]

It would be poetic justice if this so called Spider-twilight reboot monstrosity burned up in flames upon its (if ever)release. I would love to see that day when Sony gets on there over weight, fat ass, belly's and crawl up to sam and say PLEEEEEASE! SAVE US! And like Rorschach have Sam say NO! and go and do comic book movies for other studios.

 

[Jaebird]

I'd hate to use the word "boycott," but I really do think people within Hollywood should find a way to halt Sony's biggest middle finger to, not only fans, but movie-goers in general. And, if successful, make them give their rights of Spider-Man to the people who know the damn character: Marvel-fucking-Studios. And maybe then we can see Raimi get back on the Web-head Express.

I know I had said before that I was all for the reboot, but that was my reaction to Spider-Man 3 talking.

 

[Truehare]

I agree with EVERYTHING you've said, actually: when it concerns the novel. Or the film. Or any other closed story. But, comics books are open stories. They span decades. I've got news for you: most modern day comic book characters DON'T apply to their original creators' visions. They've changed and adapted to go along with the readers of those times. If they did as you suggested, Superman, Batman, or Spiderman would not be NEARLY as popular as they are today.

I know exactly what you mean. American comics are just like that. And that is the reason why I only read Bonelli comics and re-read the occasional Preacher or Alan Moore nowadays. Dylan Dog, for example, is way beyond #200 and it's still true to Sclavi's vision...

I can understand not liking the Ultimate Universe because you don't like the stories it tells (even if that is stupid too, Ultimate Spidey is the best Spidey around at the moment, even despite Loeb's Ultimatum), but disliking it because it strays away from the main universe is ridiculous.

Some of the best stories told by Marvel or DC have come from alternate universes. Red Son or All-Star Superman anyone?

I'm not discussing the quality of some of the stories; in fact, I read some good sh*t on Ultimate, when I got an issue in my hands by some accident. All I'm saying is that it's very easy to take someone else's work and "improve" it, taking all the so-called "bad" parts and keeping the good ones. I'm not against doing that to centuries-old stories (I loved the movie Hoodwinked, for example), or when you're making fun of the original. But when you're trying to be serious and the original author is still around to see their hard work being butchered, I think it's in bad taste. Luckily, that kind of thing only happens in the US (as I stated above), so we still have the rest of the world to go to for some original fun.

Oh, well. All for money, I guess...

 

[arieo]

farewell good Spidey, you're web slinging and wall crawling in Movie Heaven now.

 

[Raesvelg]

To be honest, I fail to see why an enormous outcry of indignation is necessary for this particular issue.

Raimi wanted more control than Sony was going to give him, and after the shenanigans he pulled on the last (frankly awful) Spider-Man film, I don't blame them. You can say "Oh, Raimi did what he did because the studio forced him to include Venom against his will", but the fact of the matter is that he, by all appearances, deliberately made the film BAD. Not "campy", not "funny", just plain BAD.

The series has always suffered from serious casting problems. Tobey Maguire was never able to sell the wisecracks, Kirsten Dunst was frankly awful, Defoe tried quite hard but never really pulled it off, James Franco displayed all the acting chops of the average department store mannequin, Thomas Haden Church was about as emotive as the average James Franco, and Topher Grace's casting as Venom is roughly analogous to casting Ron Jeremy as Gandalf.

Hell, when you get right down to it, the only actor whose performance I ever particularly enjoyed in the series was Alfred Molina as Doc Ock, and that was only accomplished through a near-total rewrite of the character.

And let's not kid ourselves: It's impossible to complain about "continuity" without acknowledging that Raimi's Spider-Man films threw it out the window from day 1. This was a re-imagining of the Spider-Man origin as much as anything else, and if you try to tell yourself otherwise, you need to sit down and stop drinking the fanboy Koolaid.

 

[ExileNZ]

While I may be revolted by the studio's money-grabbing or band-wagon-boarding approach, and while I may likewise hold little to no hope that the next Spiderman movie be any good, I will admit unashamedly that Ultimate Spiderman was my favourite take on the franchise.

I liked the Raimi movies (at least the first two) because they reminded me of Ultimate. It had a far more interesting take on Goblin (you'll forgive me if spandex, a halloween mask and a tendency to go "Nye he he! I'm a villain!" failed to impress me) and when Peter finally brings the big guns to bear, it's just plain awesome.
"I've found them, sir, they're on the roof."
"What's happening up there?"
"He's... he's beating the hell out of him!"

Ultimate is the only reason I got interested in Spiderman. Highschool it may be, but Ultimate isn't the problem here.