Taking away the needlessness of a new Spidey originI've had a look at some of your article, but I've mainly skimmed it to avoid forming too many preconceptions of the film. (I know you were only giving very mild spoilers, but I'm actually quite excited about this film so I want to go in reasonably fresh.) However, I have to say I personally DESPERATELY needed a new Spidey origin because the Raimi version was, to me, an ASSAULT on the Spider-Man character
( ... )
The issue with your ideal Spider-Man arc you've described is that it has to end with him coming to the realization that vengeance, revenge, bloodshed is inappropriate and a moral dead end. They try the same thing in the new film, but he comes across as kind of a dick at the beginning, simply becomes more of a dick, and then slips into rootable action hero. That's not an arc - those are checkpoints. It's really not about darkness or light, it's about consistent writing and characterizations.
I think Tobey is just fine in The Ice Storm and Pleasantville, but I also like him in Wonder Boys. He's not a guy I would rush out to see, certainly not one of our great actors, but it doesn't strike me that there were many actor beats in the Spider-Man films he failed to hit. This Garfield guy is too mannered, too many tics and affectations for me to accept him as this character, though the script does him no favors.
Maybe if this film had the novelty of being the first big budget Spider-Man film, we could accept waiting about an hour to put him in the suit.
1) It's called character development. If you shove him into the suit straight away then we don't get to see the effect gaining his powers has on him. 2) Stop judging it based on the previous movie. Don't let nostalgia guide your review.
Even Uncle Ben's death comes with a side of Old Man Hubris that legit separates Peter from the blame.That's an odd interpretation. Peter Parker thinks he can make up for his mistakes through revenge, but eventually he realises that he was only letting his Uncle down and that's when he goes back to listen to the voicemail message again. Your problem here isn't that it doesn't do the job properly, but that it does it differently from Raimi's movie. Here the lesson isn't learnt straight after Uncle Ben's death. It takes a while to sink in. Peter Parker's first reaction is to be in denial of his guilt and to try to use vengeance
( ... )
1) You still don’t really get this from the film. It relies on montages to do the heavy lifting here. Once he puts on the costume, there’s little clarification as to what he wants, or is trying to do. He abandons the search for Uncle Ben, which makes sense if it were in favor of a greater cause, instead, it’s to save the city. Not a whole lot of choice implicit in that decision, nor is character development seriously explored
( ... )
He abandons the search for Uncle Ben, which makes sense if it were in favor of a greater cause, instead, it’s to save the city.
Saving the city isn't a greater cause?
Not a whole lot of choice implicit in that decision
Captain Stacey has long been telling him to stay out of the vigilante game. He DOES have the choice to walk away. Gwen even tells him to stay out of it. But he recognises that what has happened to Dr. Connors is his responsibility. At this stage, he's finally understanding the message Uncle Ben gave him before he walked out in a tantrum. - So yeah, no character development there at all. :P
re: lessons learned post-Ben’s death. I agree that he recognizes the folly of his behavior. But he adjusts it based on what? Anyone who writes this film can acknowledge the problem with his behavior. What’s the solution, and how does he find it?He doesn't win the argument with Captain Stacey. That whole discussion was a big eye-opener, since it's the first time anyone's been in a position to call him out. Then when he goes after
( ... )
None of what you say is supported by the text AT ALL. The moment where he saves the child feels isolated from the narrative, because afterwards, nothing changes. His attitude, his approach, his demeanor, his beliefs - the film does not pay lip service to what you simply assume because you know how these movies are SUPPOSED to work. The problem with him being a jerk is that the film WANTS you to believe he changes, without actually showing a turning point, and fortifying it afterwards.
As for the "saving the city" bit - are you thinking about this in all perspectives? He takes the responsibility to save the city... and what kind of person would he be if he DIDN'T? These superhero movies always ask the question, why do we need x or y hero? And the answer always seems to be because some stupid supervillain thinks up a preposterous plot that of course only a superhero can save. It's awfully trivial, and it makes the character a slave to the narrative rather than the other way around.
Comments 8
Reply
I think Tobey is just fine in The Ice Storm and Pleasantville, but I also like him in Wonder Boys. He's not a guy I would rush out to see, certainly not one of our great actors, but it doesn't strike me that there were many actor beats in the Spider-Man films he failed to hit. This Garfield guy is too mannered, too many tics and affectations for me to accept him as this character, though the script does him no favors.
Reply
Reply
Maybe if this film had the novelty of being the first big budget Spider-Man film, we could accept waiting about an hour to put him in the suit.
1) It's called character development. If you shove him into the suit straight away then we don't get to see the effect gaining his powers has on him.
2) Stop judging it based on the previous movie. Don't let nostalgia guide your review.
Even Uncle Ben's death comes with a side of Old Man Hubris that legit separates Peter from the blame.That's an odd interpretation. Peter Parker thinks he can make up for his mistakes through revenge, but eventually he realises that he was only letting his Uncle down and that's when he goes back to listen to the voicemail message again. Your problem here isn't that it doesn't do the job properly, but that it does it differently from Raimi's movie. Here the lesson isn't learnt straight after Uncle Ben's death. It takes a while to sink in. Peter Parker's first reaction is to be in denial of his guilt and to try to use vengeance ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Saving the city isn't a greater cause?
Not a whole lot of choice implicit in that decision
Captain Stacey has long been telling him to stay out of the vigilante game. He DOES have the choice to walk away. Gwen even tells him to stay out of it. But he recognises that what has happened to Dr. Connors is his responsibility. At this stage, he's finally understanding the message Uncle Ben gave him before he walked out in a tantrum. - So yeah, no character development there at all. :P
re: lessons learned post-Ben’s death. I agree that he recognizes the folly of his behavior. But he adjusts it based on what? Anyone who writes this film can acknowledge the problem with his behavior. What’s the solution, and how does he find it?He doesn't win the argument with Captain Stacey. That whole discussion was a big eye-opener, since it's the first time anyone's been in a position to call him out. Then when he goes after ( ... )
Reply
The moment where he saves the child feels isolated from the narrative, because afterwards, nothing changes. His attitude, his approach, his demeanor, his beliefs - the film does not pay lip service to what you simply assume because you know how these movies are SUPPOSED to work. The problem with him being a jerk is that the film WANTS you to believe he changes, without actually showing a turning point, and fortifying it afterwards.
As for the "saving the city" bit - are you thinking about this in all perspectives? He takes the responsibility to save the city... and what kind of person would he be if he DIDN'T? These superhero movies always ask the question, why do we need x or y hero? And the answer always seems to be because some stupid supervillain thinks up a preposterous plot that of course only a superhero can save. It's awfully trivial, and it makes the character a slave to the narrative rather than the other way around.
Reply
Leave a comment