Could The Amazing Spider-Man legitimize reboots? The real question we should be asking- even if we liked the trailer, is what exactly this movie will bring that Raimi’s haven’t already. For better or worse, Sam did a pretty damn good job adapting your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Say what you will about someone not being “hot” enough, or “funny enough” or whatever enough, The core essence of the character- the dilemma of boy vs. responsibility, in all aspects (home, friends, the public) was well explored. Especially in arguably, the best superhero movie ever made, Spider-Man 2 (or as I like to call it, “The Good One”).
So that leaves Mark Webb and co. to go between the lines- and maybe even concoct some new stuff of their own. The new trailer emphasizes a mysterious past for Parker’s parents, and hints that becoming Spider-Man might have been his destiny. This might not sit well with the theme that Peter truly was an everyman, who had greatness thrust upon him. The power/responsibility mantra isn’t just a catchphrase- it is rooted in that meaning. Not sure how this will play out, but it’s understandable for any reboot to try and establish its own origins and mythology- even if the backstory was basically nailed in previous outings.
The best thing 'Amazing' has going for it, is the star-powered cast, especially rising favorite Emma Stone. A proper take on Peter’s relationship with Gwen, and more of a highlight on Parker’s scientific mind will be much welcomed.
Mechanical web shooters > organic web shooters. Always.
But I also think the ‘Batman’ approach is appealing. Yes, I am one of those idiots who thinks more movies need to be like Batman. Know why? Because Batman is good. CBM’s that aren’t Batman? Not so much.
Instantly this feels like Batman because many of the scenes take place at night. It is easy to equate night-time with dark and rough, since most movies of that ilk share this setting. For my money, that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Again, this is about not being the same as the other movies and offering a different take. For my money it makes sense anyway because the Lizard is likely going to want to stay hidden from people when he’s outside.
Another Batman-esque aspect is the new vigilante element. Raimi’s films played this for laughs through J. Jonah Jameson and some of the Daily Bugle newspaper headlines. Amazing Spider-Man seems to go edgier, with Captain Stacy in a very active role, going so far as to issue a police manhunt for the wall-crawler. Seeing a tangible, negative effect Spider-Man has on the outside world, will be refreshing. No more happy parades- we’re getting something closer to Watchmen or Kick-Ass here.
I always thought Spider-Man 1 felt like two movies. The first half, the origin was excellent. The second half, when it actually becomes an action-adventure movie is mostly cheesy. Willem DeFoe was great Norman Osborne, but I hated, hated, hated the Green Goblin Power Ranger costume, and thus never could get behind this movie. There were also silly moments like kids not moving when giant things are going to fall on them, and by standers pointing and literally exclaiming cartoonishly “Look! It’s Spider-Man!”
But that’s the fun of the comics, and to be fair Raimi captured this.
Confession time:
I never had a problem with Venom. In fact, for me the last act was when Spider-Man 3 finally picked up. Was Topher Grace miscast? Sure. Was Venom under-written? Absolutely. But this is the fault of Sam Raimi, who never liked or understood the character, not the Sony studios. Yes, Sony forced Venom into the movie, but you know why? Because they know that’s who fans wanted to see. Not the effing Sandman. (are you kidding me? Sandman? Really?) if you are going to fault Spidey 3 for anything, fault it for the unnecessary retconning of making Flint Marko Uncle Ben’s killer. This is a Joker-killing-batman’s-parents type of crime against fans, and basically, a poor excuse to SQUEEZE HIM into the movie, not Venom, who really, had been set up the entire film with the alien symbiote. Even Goblin II paid-off what had been set up for 2 movies. (I won’t get into the costume and surfboard, but still)
But that is what its’ going to all come down to. The villain. Can Amazing Spider Man’s Lizard, a character that Raimi teased but never truly wanted to use (or he would have done it already- no he wanted Vulture for Spiderman 4) actually work onscreen? Fighting a giant CG monster is a tough sell, and it’s a reason why flicks like Van Helsing failed. But so far so good. I like what I’m seeing, but remember- its Doctor Octopus that every Spidey rogue now has to live up to.
In summation, I’m not just jumping on a bandwagon and suddenly crapping all over the old movies just because a new take has arrived. I hated when people did that to Burton for Nolan, and its bad that people are doing that to Singer’s X-Men for Matthew Vaughn. I’m medium on Spiderman 1 and 3, but LOVE Spidey 2. And as a vocal naysayer of this reboot’s very existence, I may have to eat crow, I liked the trailer so much. But I’m keeping an open mind, and measuring my expectations.
I hope other fans can do the same.