Batman. Spiderman. Superman.
These three names alone are known world wide as the most iconic superheroes ever created. We know their origins, we know their stories, we know their powers and their villains. But why is it that Hollywood always seems to feel the need to remind us of these stories? We all know Bruce Wayne's parents were killed and Clark Kent was born on Krypton and Peter Parker was bitten by a spider and Uncle Ben died.
"We know!" the audience cries with unending exasperation.
Having gone to see The Amazing Spiderman when it came into cinemas I entered with trepidation because I knew from the trailer that it was going to be some sort of origin story. I was hoping maybe they'd show the spider bite scene in a flashback and the film would show Spiderman kicking ass and beating bad guys in typical Spiderman fashion, but no. We were sold another origin story which took half the film to set up, half the film showing us something we've already seen but repackaged. It seems like making a Spiderman movie would be so much more efficient without the laborious set up.
It begs the question, was this reboot even necessary? Why can't we have films based on lesser known superheroes/comic books? There is so much untouched material out there. The only thing I liked about the most recent Spiderman reboot was Andrew Garfield's sassy attitude and Emma Stone because Emma Stone. Parker had some great lines in the comic books so I like seeing him with more attitude. But the Spiderman comics have come such a long way from that first origin story. Come on guys, Peter Parker is dead. Sorry for the spoilers but it happened some time ago - Peter Parker may be dead, but Spiderman lives on. (Curious? Read the comics)
Imagine how good Spiderman would be if he were part of The Avengers and how well Joss Whedon could play with a sassy new Spiderman.... Yeah, it'd be awesome and I'd rather see that than Peter perpetually being bitten by a spider.
I think the main problem with making a superhero movie is a character arc problem. When you're going to tell a story, you'll generally want to deal with the most significant thing that happened to that character, and you'll want to deal with the most significant change for that character. The most significant change for Peter Parker is when he becomes spiderman. The most significant change for Tony Stark is when he becomes Iron Man. I think it's the reason why the best bit in Captain America is the first half, because it's dealing with the character arc. This makes you care about the character. I think the Batman movies did very well in tackling different aspects of the protagonist in each movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you though. I haven't even seen the new(ish) Spiderman, and lost all interest in the Hulk when they re-imagined/rebooted/rehashed it a thousand times.
I'd prefer to see more high quality superhero live action tv shows. Take a look at Arrow. I'm just getting into it and it's very good. A tv show like that has mileage because it can episodically deal with the character just like the comics can. The problem with a movie is that it MUST work as a standalone product. TV shows can deal with a larger story arc and don't necessarily have to worry about a single protagonist.
I know but it seemed laborious and agitating watching an origin story so well known that we all know what's coming. Instead of spending half the movie setting up a story we already know why not tell it in flashbacks or do something a little different from the usual "boy is nerdy, boy gets bitten by spider, boy watches uncle die" story.
Delete