So here’s the news part: Supehero Hype is reporting that The Amazing Spider-Man trailer will hit on select prints of Captain America: The First Avenger. The trailer will be a full 2 minutes and 30 seconds long. The article also shows a new Entertainment Weekly pic of a maskless Spidey. The suit still looks dopey, and Andrew Garfield’s giraffe-like neck and poofy hair do little to remedy the effect.
But that’s cool, I’ll roll with it. Garfield is a great actor despite his bouffant hair. And we all know that in the end, the superhero suit is really the last thing you should care about. As predicted, this reboot sounds like it’s going to more closely resemble Nolan’s Batman films that Raimi’s Spider-films, a theory further supported by this quote:
Four years after Spider-Man 3, starring Tobey Maguire, The Amazing Spider-Man promises to be a “more contemporary,” “more gritty,” and “more character-driven” look at the comic book hero. He’s a hero the 27-year-old Garfield knows well. Growing up, “I related to Peter Parker [Spidey’s alter ego] so much because I felt like someone else inside,” he says. “I loved the comic books and the animated TV series and I even dressed up as Spider-Man as a kid.”
So here’s where my anger begins. “More character driven?!” Are we just going to pretend now that Raimi’s original trilogy wasn’t character driven? Raimi always had his eye on character first; even the action sequences were character driven. Take the elevated train sequence in Spider-Man 2 for example; arguably the most character driven action set piece in the last decade. I’m fine with rebooting the series, but let’s not start revising history and labeling the Raimi films as big, stupid pieces of shit. Sure there were some missteps, but on the whole the films were enormously successful in balancing action and heart. More successful than the Nolan Batfilms in that regard, that’s for shit-sure. I guess you think you can do better Marc Webb, but you better damn well prove it first. Which leads me to this angering quote from the director:
Adds Webb: “Ultimately what this movie is about is a kid who grows up looking for his father and finds himself. And that’s a Spider-Man story we haven’t seen before.”
Except for in a film commonly known as Spider-Man. Or Spider-Man 2 for that matter. Peter’s search for a surrogate father figure was subtext in both of those films, but I guess Marc Webb didn’t see them. True, they were background themes, but they were there. I get the need on the part of the filmmakers and the studio to make this seem like something fresh and new, but I don’t like it being done at the expense of the franchise that proceeded it. These aren’t the Burton/Schumacher Batfilms. The Raimi Spider-films respected the character, respected the comics, and by and large were done well. They don’t deserve to be thrown under the bus just to sell your movie.
Best of luck with The Amazing Spider-Man, Marc Webb. I like the character and Andrew Garfield (and Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans) too much to resist seeing it, so you have my money. But quit it with the passive aggressive digs at Raimi’s films. Have some respect for the shoulders you stand on.