Spider-Man: A Look at the Two Movie Franchises

My experience with comic books came later in life. Instead, I grew up in the 90s glued to my TV every Saturday morning , watching the cartoon version of Spider-Man (and if I was lucky, and my mom was too busy to notice I wasn't doing my chores, I'd get to sneak X-Men in there, too). It wasn't until I was 18, perusing through a flea market stash of old comics that I realized I could actually read about the character I loved so much, instead of watching reruns I'd seen a dozen times. Who knows why it never occurred to me? Maybe I didn't know they were making new material? I really have no idea.

So forgive this late bloomer.



My love for Spider-Man is real, bordering on obsession.

So when I first heard they were making a movie about my favorite web-slinging hero, I was ecstatic. I donned my appropriate apparel, made sure all my friends, family, and acquaintances knew just how many days were left until the premiere.

Why?

Because that guy up there helped get me through my teens. A no-nothing, invisible guy gifted with special abilities he didn't ask for, just trying to do what's right. Not because of glory, or even appreciation (because he hardly ever gets it), but because it's the right thing to do and because that's who he is. When all the world, it seems, is turning to evil (I mean, seriously, practically every other scientific disaster turns into a villain), Spidey stays strong.

And without a support system. Not even his aunt knew who he really was. And isn't that what it's like to be a teen? You feel like no one, not even (maybe especially not even) your parents, get who you are anymore. And you trudge on, just trying to do what's right. And you feel invisible and unappreciated.

So how did the two movie franchises rank? Did they "get it?"



2002 saw the first installment of Spider-Man, practically riding on the heals of X-Men. It was cheesy, it was visually spectacular, it was hilarious and heartbreaking, it felt like opening a comic book. I was thrilled. Peter Parker stayed true to his no-nothing self. He waged war with his conscience and eventually broke through to become the hero millions have fallen in love with.

That's what 2002's installment did right, and I'd even include the first sequel in that. Sam Raimi "got" Peter Parker.

And then we have the third movie...and everything Sam Raimi got about Peter Parker, he totally missed on his alter-ego. Or maybe Tobey Maguire did. Somebody didn't know what was going on.

Peter Parker's alter-ego was never just a lascivious bastard who wore eyeliner and messed up his hair (while giving creepy, seriously cringe-worthy looks onscreen). He was a direct assault on everything Spider-Man had strove to become. While all the world turned evil, he fought it and continuously saved the people who refused to love him. The alter-ego was, I'd argue, Spider-Man's greatest enemy. It was the only thing that every really came close to destroying him.

For that, I give movie #3 a huge fail, which is disappointing since the first two really seemed to understand what fans were looking for.

Now let's take a look at the second franchise:



I chose these two images from the two franchises for a reason. I think both are indicative of where the stories went. The image from the 2002 movie shows Spider-Man looking off into the distance at a light shining just past his city. His arms are spread out just a little bit, open, and his body is angled toward NY, almost like he's ready to step toward it. He's the watchman, and he's alone.

Now look at the 2012 poster. Spider-Man's back is rigid, his hands and arms tense. He's not even facing his city. He's looking away and angled away from it. He's alone, but his whole stance is rebellious. He's bad-ass, not unappreciated. Or if he is unappreciated, that's not his main worry.

And I'm sorry, that's not Spider-Man.

I'm not going to pretend I liked the 2012 movie. The whole thing ticked me off. The fact that they were re-doing the series at all so close to the last one ticked me off. I'd already expended a huge amount of emotion and time to the first franchise (and I'd loved it). So I may be biassed.

I will say that though they got Peter Parker completely wrong in this movie, what with his bad boy persona that seemed more Batman than Spider-Man, they got some technicalities right. Gwen Stacy, for one. It was nice to see Parker's first love on the big screen. And I liked the angle they went with Pete's parents, which had been totally ignored in the first franchise. And Dr. Connor (another character that had been previously brushed aside) was nice to see. But that's all I can say for it. The whole movie seemed to take on the same feel as all the other superhero movies coming out now. Too much "ooh, look at our special effects" and not enough "here's what a comic feels like on the big screen in all it's glory."

Thoughts? How did you like the two franchises?