James Bond vs. Spider-Man: The Reboot Double Standard

James Bond vs. Spider-Man: The Reboot Double Standard

What's the difference between years of adventures and years of adventures? Exactly.

Editorial Opinion
By BattlinMurdock - Apr 03, 2012 08:04 AM EST
Filed Under: Spider-Man



When Daniel Craig was announced as the newest James Bond back in 2005, there was an uproar. It went a little like this:

"Blond hair?! A blond-haired Bond?! What, are we just going to settle for expired milk with our cereal and tape as a substitute for nails? Some things just don't work, dammit! Boycott! Protest!"

Needless to say, the argument wasn't about James Bond coming back. He's a well-known literary figure on par with Sherlock Holmes, and because he is, we welcome him with open arms to stick around for decades. In fact, numerous fans find excitement in trying to find the newest James Bond once the current one ends his run. It's a tradition not unlike that of the current Dr. Who, Sherlock Holmes, or even in recent years, Batman.

So, why is The Amazing Spider-Man being thrown out by many fans before it hits theaters? In fact, since his debut in the 60s, Spider-Man is just as well-known (if not more) than Mr. Bond and has invaluable worth as a character of the cinematic type. Spider-Man has become a pop culture staple within the confines of the United States. To see what Spider-Man has done to international audiences, look no further than to what Pikachu has done for us.

Like Bond and Holmes, our friendly neighborhood spider isn't confined to a series of linear books or stories. Because of his longstanding legacy, Spidey can easily be the next franchise that can keep being "rebooted," and yet continue to be respected. If American audiences would give the respect given to a certain suave British spy to the wall-crawler, we could finally come to terms with enjoying the series as it is: a perpetual exploration of a comic-lore hero with new dangers, real relationships, and exhilarating special effects.

Long live Parker.

...Peter Parker.
SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY - J.K. Simmons Reportedly Set To Return As J. Jonah Jameson
Related:

SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY - J.K. Simmons Reportedly Set To Return As J. Jonah Jameson
Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige Officially Announces When AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY Begins Shooting
Recommended For You:

Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige Officially Announces When AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY Begins Shooting

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
thelastamigo
thelastamigo - 4/3/2012, 9:56 AM
It's not a double standard. Nobody cares about the "reboot" or anything. It's that we're getting an origin story that is basically a re-hash of what we saw in 2002. If they'd just make a Spider-Man movie with a new cast, filmmaking crew, and more updated story, then fine. But I don't care to see Peter Parker get bitten by a radioactive spider, have Uncle Ben get shot, and get his powers all over again. Everyone knows the origin, so just jump into the action. The one good thing they're doing is using a villain that hasn't been used before in any of the movies.

That said, I'll still give this movie a chance instead of bitching and moaning about it. I never really cared for the original trilogy all that much in the first place (except for Spider-Man 2, which I can admit was awesome).
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 4/3/2012, 9:57 AM
Its just the fact that its too soon for a reboot. Don't get me wrong, I will see it. BUT...I'm not thrilled about going through the whole damn origin again. They could have easily rebooted, shown Parker to already be Spidey, and shown the origin in a flashback...or better yet, during the opening credits, sort of like Incredible Hulk.

Look at Batman '89. That was the first live action show or movie to come out for the character in over 20 years and they didn't show his origin until three quarters of the way into the movie. It was about a 5 minute scene, and it worked great.

I just don't see the need to spend the first hour of the movie on him becoming Spidey again and then learning how to use his powers.

As for Bond...its a little different because as you mentioned, fans were also mad when they rebooted Bond. You said it yourself right in the article. So its kind of hard to change gears right at the end and say everyone accepted it, because, like you said, they didn't at first. But it turned out to be a good movie, and people wanted more. Hopefully ASM can do the same. :)
thelastamigo
thelastamigo - 4/3/2012, 10:04 AM
Also, one of the things with the Bond reboot is that it was very subtle and didn't feel so much like a reboot. We still have all the things that we expect from a Bond movie: the Monty Norman theme, the gun barrel sequence, the cool opening credit sequence, the line "The name's Bond... James Bond," Bond still drinking martinis shaken, not stirred, Aston Martins, hot Bond girls, etc. Even M was played by the same actress. I thought that establishing "Casino Royale" as Bond's first outing was a little unnecessary, but I was fine with it because it was still everything I wanted from a Bond movie and a major improvement over the increasingly ridiculous gadget-centric and cheesy Bond movies of recent years.
OdinsBeard
OdinsBeard - 4/3/2012, 10:32 AM
Thank you!! this is always my reboot defense.
OdinsBeard
OdinsBeard - 4/3/2012, 10:37 AM
as for the spider-man origin story. it seems much different this time around. it seems like this new way actually holds a little bit more weight and will have a longer lasting effect in TASM universe. Genetic experiments under Oscorp could lead to more villains and an overall tighter story. much the The Spectacular Spider-Man.

I'm really excited to see this new origin.
BIGBMH
BIGBMH - 4/3/2012, 11:51 AM
Like others have mentioned, the main issues are
A) That the origin was done on film pretty recently
B) People were still interested in Spider-man 4 so they kind of feel like the rug was pulled out from under them when all of a sudden Sony decided to scrap it and reboot.

Doing the origin again isn't the best decision. That said, I'm looking forward to the movie and seeing a new interpretation of Spider-man.
thelastamigo
thelastamigo - 4/3/2012, 12:02 PM
Another thing that I always point out when I talk about how unnecessary this reboot feels is that the previous trilogy felt incomplete and like there was still a lot of unresolved issues. Not least of which is the state of Peter Parker's and MJ's relationship at the end of "Spider-Man 3". The conclusion was not at all satisfying. And while "Spider-Man 3" wasn't very good, it wasn't as bad as... say... "Batman & Robin" and didn't need to be abandoned so quickly. Hopefully TASM will be better realized.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 4/3/2012, 12:16 PM
Errrrrr
Most Bond films aren't connected to each other. They may feature SOME minor characters who have been in their predecessors' movies, but as far as story goes, there's little to zero continuity.

Bond is a poor comparison - nearly every film is a standalone story. Considering his origins were never explored on film, Casino Royale was oh so very welcome.

I think it takes about a minute or less once the movies actually get started to get past any aesthetic difference such as dirty blonde hair.
golden123
golden123 - 4/3/2012, 2:47 PM
I'm not going to retread over the opinions that everybody else has already brought up, but you can't compare the two situations.
TheMyth
TheMyth - 4/3/2012, 3:37 PM
golden123, and why can't you? I just find it silly to hear people say that 2 things can't be compared. Yes they can. You can compare a brick wall to a Mercedes if you want to, and Spidey and Bond have far more in common than a wall does with a car. Comparison is to establish similarity and difference. Anything can be compared to anything else.
SUPERSP00NS
SUPERSP00NS - 4/4/2012, 4:35 AM
@BattlinMurdock FINALLY someone with their head screwed on! Great article!

Die Another Day (last Brosnan appearance...) - 2002
Casino Royale (first Craig appearance...) - 2006

That's 4 years difference!
Spidey on the other hand has been idle for 5 years now... It's time for change!

I'll admit, the origin aspect of it all seems to be a little unecessary, however, a Spider-Man film WITHOUT the origin, would seem disjointed! The majority go, "BLAH! Everyone and their Mum's know Spidey's origins!!" Fine... valid point. HOWEVER! Years down the line from now, if there WAS no origin, I keep on picturing this scenario...

"Hey there son! Y'know... Many years ago I watched a film back in 2012 called The Amazing Spider-Man. Let's watch the film together, more than anything, as a chronicle of my youth! Let's get depressed at how I wish I was your age again!"

"Gee-whizz pops that sounds swell!"

*film starts up*
*2-minute sizzle reel of Spidey's origins*
*instantly gets into the action without ANY real intro to who this guy is and how he does what he does*

"Errm... Dad? Why can he do that stuff?"

"Errm... Well..."

*pauses the film and wastes half an hour explaining the Spidey's ENTIRE background*
*Whips out entire comic collection to show him how it all DIDN'T transpire on-screen*
*Has nerdgasm*
*Gets carried away explaining everything*
*Son falls asleep*
*Never watches The Amazing Spider-Man again*

...

ORIGINS ARE NECESSARY!
THE REBOOT IS NECESSARY!
ANDREW IS WAY MORE PETER PARKER/SPIDEY THAN TOBEY EVER WAS! (Finally, I can whole-heartedly say that after the 3 clips that were released this week! In a collective time of about 2 minutes, he single-handedly whizzed all over Tobey's portrayal...)

All of the above being said, I did/still do love Tobey in those films and Spider-Man 2 is by FAR my favourite comicbook film of all time, but as said earlier it's time for a change.

This article needs to be on main.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 4/4/2012, 9:46 AM
It honestly wouldn't matter if you knew he was bitten by some altered spider - he's Spider-man. Any further explanation that really isn't needed, can be found on the internet or in comics... or on television. This is the most popular character in Marvel Comics, arguably more than Batman (although that is subjective).

Origins really aren't necessary here. I have no problem with a different actor, on the contrary, Andrew Garfield is welcomed. A different actor does not constitute a reboot, only adds to that atmosphere.

Here's my argument.
"Let the Right One In", a Swedish novel, was adapted into a Swedish vampire film in 2008 with some changes, but it was overall, quite faithful. In 2010, the Americanized "Let Me In" made its way to theaters, adapted from the movie with some slight aesthetic changes and character differences.

Disregarding a lengthy shpeal about remakes, the point here is that after only two years, a studio and it's appointed director chose to remake one of the few successful modern Swedish films out there, and didn't actually add anything that the original left out.

The quality was not improved. The material was not strengthened. The characters (disregarding the obvious name change) were not portrayed as accurately as the original. It was completely unnecessary.

After Spider-man 3, the Spider-man franchise seemed like it could only get better, but the leaked stories on the cancelled 4th film prove otherwise. A reboot may have been the only route to take. Strangely, or not so strangely, I'm ok with a reboot.

My only problem is that we're seeing his origins again.
IISuperSlothII
IISuperSlothII - 4/4/2012, 1:59 PM
I think what a lot of you guys are forgetting is that a origin isn't just about how he get's his powers, it explain why he does what he does and why he acts how he acts; not just for this film, but for all films in the series to come after this.

The origins sets up the character and does it's best to allow you to understand his plight, and his stance on the world, without it your average laimen viewer will be constantly questioning the characters motives.

The one arguement to this point would be tv shows and comics, where an origin is not needed so bluntly, because they are built as short pieces of story which revolve more around the action and comical side with a bit of story when its needed, this formula allows the viewer/reader to begin to understand the character as the series goes on, this is also a clever trick to entice the viewer to come back week after week, as they are constantly being introduced to this character.

A film does not have the time to follow this formula, nor can it get away with attempting it without a serious hole in the story. blockbusters will always be character driven, films themselves are generally character driven, cartoons and comics arent tied down to this aspect which is why they usually portray comic book characters better, but its also why you cant just rip a story line from a comic and make it a film.

rant over.
golden123
golden123 - 4/4/2012, 2:53 PM
@BattlinMurdock: The only problem with your logic is that "The Amazing Spider-Man" isn't a different studio than the Spider-Man films that came before.

@EsseXFactor: Surely, it wasn't a hyperbole *sarcasm*.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 4/4/2012, 7:40 PM
@IISuperSlothII
Did you catch an origins flashback in Spider-man 2?

Did Iron Man 2 show how Tony escaped the cave in Afghanistan?

The motivation that comes from a character's origins can be made by an off-the-wall reference to a particular event. Peter could just tell someone that he misses his Uncle Ben, then in the next scene put on his mask. Audiences REALLY don't need to be treated like goldfish - it's not healthy.
RobGrizzly
RobGrizzly - 4/5/2012, 10:18 PM
I think there is a double standard when it comes to reboots, and James Bond is the quintessential example.
In fact, whenever ANYONE wants to make yet ANOTHER movie, mining the same character, they always site 007 as an excuse to get away with it.
This actually gets on my nerves.

Batman would probably be the closest thing to compare: Like Bond, many actors have now played the role, and he's gone on many adventures in all sorts of different styles. I guess for fans this is great. Why not continue making these forever and ever. If Batman can do, I see no reason why Spidey, or any other hero can't. Right?

But unlike others, I don't really want 20+ Batman movies floating around. Who can keep up? Can anyone off the top of their head even name all the Bond movies and recall each of their plots? It all becomes mashed potatoes after a while. If you want to tell this many stories, just make a TV show.
For me there's something more special about a movie or a small set of movies existing as their own thing.

Now as for this article, I don't even think it has to do with time. The Bond movies never were too far apart from each other. With Amazing Spider-Man, its the difference between continuing something, and straight up saying you're starting over. Its that we all know money is the #1 motivating factor here. Its how people watch and make movies today compared to the way things were done in the past. Believe me. When the next Bond is cast, we'll be back where we started
AUSSYACE
AUSSYACE - 4/11/2012, 9:46 PM
Daniel Craig is just not Bond in my eyes...

Never was and never will be...
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder