Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

This isn't an attempt a blogging; I'm mostly just procrastinating, and my thoughts were getting too long for a status update.  There's a sermon that I keep meaning to transcribe, and I've got some work to do for my classes and whatnot, but on Saturday mornings, my inner child kicks into high gear, and my attention goes to superhero-related stuff.  Apparently, my junkmail is aware of this, because my automatic movie news update sent me a link to the first publicity still from the upcoming Spider-Man reboot starring Andrew Garfield (from "The Social Network").

Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man

Here's the link: http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/look-its-andrew-garfield-as-spiderman-655517.html

On a whim, I decided to read people's responses, and what I saw was not surprising: frustration over a changed actor, anger that the film would focus on Peter Parker's high school years, and the constant accusation that the publicity still "looks emo."  Additionally, there was quite a bit of confusion as to what happened to Sam Raimi and that decade of established continuity from the Spider-Man films he directed in the 00s.  Why would we get a reboot when the last of Raimi's movies came out only three years ago?  Why indeed . . .

Why Do We Need a New Spider-Man Movie?

Actually, we really don't.  Marvel doesn't need a new Spider-Man movie either.  Comic fans don't need a new Spider-Man movie.  The world doesn't need a new Spider-Man movie.  Sony Pictures, however, does need a new Spider-Man movie.  Before the production of Iron Man (which was made exclusively by Marvel), Marvel Studios would co-produce movies with other production companies.  That's the reason that 20th Century Fox still owns the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, New Line owns Blade, and Lionsgate owns the Punisher.  Incidentally, that's probably the reason that none of those characters will appear in the 2012 Avengers movie, and I think Marvel's casting choice of Chris Evans (formerly the Human Torch) as Captain America shows that they don't plan to reacquire those Fantastic Four rights any time soon.  Anyway, Spider-Man and Ghost Rider are the only Marvel superheroes to which Sony still holds the rights.  Sony really wants to get in on the whole Avengers hysteria, so their response is to give us new Spider-Man and Ghost Rider movies in 2012.  It's a purely corporate money-making move.

What Happened to Sam Raimi?

The clash between Sam Raimi and Sony Pictures is a really interesting example of studio and director clashing over art.  Unlike the Batman franchise, Raimi tried to keep things simple with the Spider-Man movies, limiting each film to one villain and focusing primarily on the development of Peter Parker and the Osborn family.  The first film just had the Green Goblin.  The second film just had Dr. Octopus.  The third film was on track to have Harry Osborn and Flint Marko (The Sandman) as it's primary antagonists with the main focus being on Peter and Harry's final showdown and reconciliation, but then it happened: Sony stepped in.  The character of Venom has long been a fan-favorite, and Sony predicted that the character's inclusion would result in higher profits (which, sadly, proved correct).  It also meant that a third unnecessary villain (portrayed by the horribly-cast Topher Grace) was shoved into the mix, and while Raimi struggled to have the character serve as a sort of anti-Spider-Man, this never really came across in the film.  As a result, despite performing pretty well at the box office, the film was a tangled mess of plot and pacing that was agonizing to sit through.

Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man

Raimi was still on board to do a fourth Spider-Man movie though, and he was hoping to use the character of The Vulture or possibly have Dr. Curt Connors finally transform into The Lizard (after hinting at it for three films in a row).  Sony, however, figured they could repeat the Spider-Man 3 Venom trick, so they pushed for the inclusion of Carnage, who, as best as I've ever been able to tell, is just a much crazier Venom introduced in 1991 when David Michelinie was feeling lazy.  I've never liked Carnage, but he's apparently a "fan favorite" as well, which leads me to the conclusion that fans are stupid and should be largely ignored.  I wouldn't call Dr. Octopus a "fan favorite," and yet Spider-Man 2 might have had the strongest plot of the franchise.  Sorry, that was a serious digression.  Where was I?  Oh, right, Raimi and Sony bickered for a while over this before Raimi finally left the project, at which point Sony unveiled that [SURPRISE!] they had been planning to scrap his continuity and go with a reboot for some time.

Why Is Peter Parker Back in High School?

There were many reasons to go this route:

1) Using a younger Peter establishes a decisive break from the Raimi continuity and gives Sony an excuse to hire a completely new cast, which means a pretty substantial amount of money saved since I'm sure Tobey Maguire was starting to get a little pricey, while Andrew Garfield is still looking for his big break.  I was amazed at the Tobey Maguire loyalty in the comments under the picture, and frankly, I don't see the big deal.  We might as well give another actor a chance to make a little cash and get some publicity so that he can go on to do more interesting projects.  Who knows?  He might even prove to be a more sympathetic Spidey.  Give the kid a chance.

Spider-Man from the Ultimate Spider-Man series

2) This may be the more obvious reason: with the popularity of Twilight and Harry Potter, Sony is hoping to cash in on the teen demographic.  Their plan is to cast a young and pretty Spider-Man to try and steal some of Edward/Jacob's thunder.  Again, from a marketing standpoint, this is pretty sound logic.  Plus, I'm betting whipped boyfriends everywhere would much rather watch this than Breaking Dawn.

3) Diehard comic fans will recognize the high school Peter Parker as an adaptation of Marvel's "Ultimate Spider-Man" series, which set up a young Spider-Man in a new universe as a means of overlooking several messy decades of continuity (such as Green Goblin murdering Gwen Stacy, Peter and Mary Jane getting married, Peter's deal with the devil, etc.).  Ultimate Spider-Man was intended to pull in new comic readers with its simpler plot, but for the most part, it really just gave existing fans another alternate universe to obsess over, and since comic writers aren't known for their ability to keep plots simple, these stories actually got really complicated really quickly, making them just as inaccessible as the stuff already on the shelves.  For a successful attempt at this writing style, check out a TV show called "The Spectacular Spider-Man," but I'm getting on a serious tangent now.  Sony might be hoping that a film adaptation of Ultimate Spider-Man will entice both new and old comic readers like those comics were originally intended.  Attracting new fans will mean more money, and adapting an existing series will keep the preexisting fanboy gravy train on track.  Again, this is Sony we're talking about, so everything will eventually come back to money.

Why Does Spider-Man Look Emo?

Spider-Man in Spider-Man: the Animated Series

First off, last time I checked, swinging around New York City in bright red and blue spandex is not something typically thought of as emo, but yes, the suit and appearance are a little darker than in the Raimi films, and Spider-Man certainly doesn't look too happy.  This actually makes sense when you think about it because, although Spider-Man is a hero known for his wit and charm, he's actually got a pretty dark story.  As a for-instance, here's what a conversation between Batman and Spider-Man might look like:

Batman: My parents were gunned down in front of me as a child, so I devoted my life to fighting crime.

Spider-Man: Yeah, my uncle was murdered by a gunman who I could have easily stopped if I had just been a little more responsible.  My best friend's dad then went crazy and killed my first wife, after which I had to kill him, then my best friend went crazy too and tried to kill me, so I had to kill him as well, but then both of them somehow came back from the dead and are still trying to kill me, and I recently had to make a deal with the devil to keep my dying aunt alive, but as a result, I might be forever separated from the one girl in all the world who seems to really understand me.  So yeah, pretty much everyone I come in contact with winds up either dead or miserable.

Batman: Dude, that's messed up.  At least you're a rich playboy though, right?

Spider-Man: Um . . . I'm a freelance photographer and a research assistant for a one-armed guy who sometimes turns into a giant lizard and tries to kill me.

Batman: [groan]

In other words, if you were Spider-Man, you'd have plenty to be emo about, so taking the character in a slightly darker direction makes total sense, and I wouldn't exactly call Raimi's Spider-Man sunny by any standards.  Of course, since it's Spider-Man, I'm sure there will still be plenty of lighthearted quipping.  That's just what makes him Spider-Man.  On a more cynical note, the "emo" look (in quotes because it's still bright spandex) might also be yet another attempt to steal Twilight fans, and it could also be an effort to attract fans of Chris Nolan's grittier Batman films.  Again, look for the money, and that will explain the choices being made.

Why Is the New Spider-Man so Skinny?

Spider-Man in The Spectacular Spider-Man

Seriously, this was one of the main questions I saw under the picture, and it kind of annoyed me.  I will admit that I'm pretty much just ranting at this point because I don't feel like putting on pants and doing real work, but this is actually something that has bugged me for a while and is something that I think the studio is doing right (especially since I can't see any financial motivator in this choice).  A lot of comics portray a very muscular Spider-Man.  The cartoons I watched growing up portrayed a very muscular Spider-Man.  Even in the Raimi movies, after Peter gets his powers, he magically bulks up overnight.  This never fully made sense to me.  Spider-Man does have superhuman strength, but his everyday identity as "Puny Parker" would be easily betrayed if he were walking around looking like he does in the comics.  People would see him coming down the street and be like, "Hey, why did Thor get a haircut?"  Even though I suspect it might cater to America's weight fixation, the recent trend of portraying Spider-Man as a skinny twerp is a very good artistic choice.  Spider-Man is best known for his agility and speed, which the streamlined physique emphasizes.  Furthermore, having his limbs be long and slender actually gives the character a more spindly spider-like look, thus being more in keeping with the source of his powers (something that I feel the Ultimate Spider-Man books did right).  Lastly and most importantly, a skinny and unimposing Spider-Man is more fitting with the character's personality.  Spider-Man is consistently the underdog in comics, television, and film.  His foes regularly overwhelm and intimidate him with their size and strength, forcing him to rely on other skills and making him a far more interesting and sympathetic character.  A bulked-up Spider-Man undercuts this and makes the character boring, and I can't believe I just argued this minor point for an entire paragraph, but visually, it is surprisingly important.  Everyone loves an underdog, and the anorexic-looking Spider-Man fits more easily into that role.

Is This Reboot a Good Thing?

I'm conflicted.  I hate seeing Sam Raimi and the continuity he established kicked to the curb, but I also acknowledge that comics have a long history of continuously reinventing themselves, and this reboot might actually fit pretty well with that.  I worry that enough of this rebooting may lead to as much confusion in comic films as there is in comic books, but on a small scale, I guess it doesn't really hurt.  This will also be the first time I actually care about a reboot (since I've always been pretty apathetic about the Hulk), so we'll see what I say afterward.  Basically, this is a movie, and it's a movie designed primarily to make money, so I intend to view it as such.

Okay, it's seriously time to put on pants.  I'm into the early afternoon.  This is getting creepy.