Recently I did a review on "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" in which I said that the movie was god awful. I stand by that review, even through the massive amounts of disagreements I have received in regards to my opinion. I am not here to say that you liking the movie is wrong, I am here to say that the old movies were better. Better in almost every conceivable manner. I am going to breakdown a few points as to why I think the old movie series is better and you can feel free to post your disagreements in the comments on Facebook as usual.
Reason # 1 Actors
I don't know why Tobey Maguire has received such hatred from people on his portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, he was perfect for the role. What you have to understand is that Peter Parker is a nerd, a nerd from a time when being a nerd wasn't considered "cool." He had no self confidence, he had very little appeal at all. He was a smart, social awkward science major. Tobey Maguire played Peter Parker better than any person before or since. When the mask went on he grew a back bone, and acted like a suave, crass, trash talker we all know Spider-Man to be; but with his own nerdy flair thrown in. So he was also the perfect Spider-Man. Why does the character change when no one knows who he is? In a podcast "The Arkham Sessions" Dr. Andrea Letamendi (psychologist, mostly known for discussing the psychology surrounding comic books) discusses anonymity changing peoples usual views and character (she related it to cos-play and an episode of "Batman: The Animated Series" called "See No Evil"). When no one knows who you actually are most people's personalities take a drastic change, and Tobey Maguire shows that better in his movies than Andrew Garfield ever does in the two movies he has done. I am not saying Andrew Garfield is a bad actor (in fact I actually like most of his other movies), I am saying he doesn't know how to play this role. When Andrew Garfield plays the role he is the same, regardless of if the mask is on or not.
Let's take a look at the rest of the cast. J. Jonah Jameson in the original movies is beyond perfect, literally bringing to life the character I read in the comics. He was so perfectly cast in the original movies that the new movies haven't even tried to recast him. The love interests in the movies are on par with each other. Emma Stone is the filler we need in the series until her eventual demise, Kirsten Dunst is the right amount of annoying for the character Mary Jane. Trying to recast the Green Goblin was a fatal mistake since Willem Dafoe will always be the end all be all to that character in my eyes. Even taking James Franco against Dane Dehann ends up with Franco on top. I respect that DeHann is an up-and-comer, but he was out of his depth here completely. The rest of the actors I can mention would further solidify my point (all except for Topher Grace as Venom), but instead of going down the list I will go on to my next point.
Reason # 2 Story telling
The original story was trying to bring Spider-Man to the big screen in the "big comic book boom" agt the time (where "Blade," "X-Men," and "Spider-Man" all came out around the same time, and introduced Hollywood to a new market ripe with potential for exploitation). The new Spider-Man is trying to save a film company with an already big movie character. The original movie had to be good, or it would have spelled death for the character ever making it big in the industry, the new movies can be as bad as they want sense the ground work was already laid out for them. The original movie appealed to all audiences, knowing that most people who knew Spider-Man at the time were readers of the original comic, or people who watched the cartoon. They had to appeal to the everyone, make it cool for kids, make it relevant for adults, and try not to piss off the comic readers. The new movie (probably) only had two thoughts in mind "we need kids to like it, and we heard complaints about the web powers being organic." With that shallow idea structure being the only thing I can think they were trying to advertise, it is no wonder why I didn't like this movie. I am not an adolescent who is easily entertained by striking visuals, and I didn't care to much that the web powers were organic. What people fail to realize is that making the character more closely related to the comic book doesn't automatically make the movie better. It still needs to sell us on being an actual movie. "The Amazing Spider-Man" series may fix one problem, but it also creates ten more. I don't care about Peter's angst as a story driving device, I don't care about Gwen Stacy as a character (since her main goal in existing is to cease existing, so Spider-Man has a new Uncle Ben for his adult years), and I don't care if you have three villains since two of them only have five minutes of screen time. So many issues that people choose to over look because the movie is "pretty" (or they actually think everything about the movie is good, in which case more power to you). Sam Raimi chose to look at the over all picture, where Marc Webb decided to sit on the movie as a money printer. The funniest thing about that is, these movies aren't printing nearly as much money as any other superhero movie is.
Reason # 3 I'm tired
Not the literal tired, just mentally strained at having to deal with this character over and over again. I don't want Spider-Man to end up being the superhero version of James Bond. I don't want to have to look at this character coming out with a new movie every year or two. I am done with him. Their are a seemingly infinite supply of superheros out there with better story driven character arcs, why am I forced in to watching the fifth movie of a character who is as deep as a puddle? Spider-Man is just bland and uninteresting after watching him played by two different actors in five different movies, even if Marvel gained the rights to Spider-Man back I don't know if I would be horribly interested in watching it because Sony burned the character out. We are already looking at a new movie to come out in 2016, and apparently that movie is going to try to form even more super villains, with probably just as much uneven screen time as the second movie gave us. I shouldn't feel like this, Marvel is making me hopeful while Sony has killed my hope. Marvel is taking all avenues of approach with their new characters. We probably won't see recurring characters in more than three of there own movies, and we will be introduced to new comic movies as time goes on (I.E. "Doctor Strange," and "The Guardians of the Galaxy"). They aren't trying to burn characters out, they are trying new things; and this makes me give them the utmost respect. In an age where I am looking at sequels and prequels to movies from the eighties, movies spanning well past three in a series, and old television shows being re-imagined into film, I can at least count on Marvel to make comic book movies interesting. It may not be original story telling, but at least they are trying things out.
In closing
I could go on for days giving fifty thousands different reasons as to why the old movies were better, but in the end I must find a time to stop ranting. Three reasons is sufficient enough for me to get my point across, just like three movies is sufficient for any series to get their point across. I know I didn't change anyone's mind here, but I had to give you some reasoning as to why you all need to stop bad mouthing the old movies and acting like the new movies are "the end all, be all Spider-Man movies." If you really do like these movies I am glad you can derive pleasure from something I very clearly cannot; but, don't sit on your high horse of pleasure, and expect me to change my views to appease you. Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" (and "Spider-Man 2") is still the best Spider-Man out there. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment