I’ve had a precarious relationship with the Spider-Man franchise. I didn’t enjoy the first film, though I seem to be one of the few. I couldn’t get past the cheesy dialoged and campy directing by Sam Raimi. That said I found myself completely thrown off by the sequel. To me Spider-Man 2 seemed the perfect comic-book film (before The Dark Knight that is). Though there existed some cheese for the kids there was deeper character development and a more believable and sympathetic villain in Doctor Octopus.
Enter Spider-Man 3 and the whole thing fell apart. First of many complaints, if you introduce Venom as an adversary don’t waste our time with Sandman, or any other nemesis, there’s no need. But I won’t get into a heavy laden critique of these films, for that is not the purpose of this post.
Pulitzer winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire has been hired to pen Spider-Man 4 according to The Hollywood Reporter. Lindsay-Abaire, who follows James Vanderbilts attempt at scripting the fourth installment of the lucrative franchise, won the Pulitzer for his 2007 play Rabbit Hole.
The decision to hire Lindsay-Abaire signals that Avi Arad and crew may be leaning towards a heavily character driven story rather than the spectacle and camp that disappointed many with the third installment.
With most of the key cast and crew signed on or rumored to return for the film, I can only hope Mr. Lindsay-Abaire is allowed to add depth and pathos to a franchise which seems to teeter on the edge of overly cheesy and deeply compelling.
And finally, can we please come up with a better name for the film this time? How about The Amazing Spider-Man or The Spectacular Spider-Man? Please Mr. Raimi, learn from The Dark Knight we don’t need numbers in our sequel titles.
Y’know, although it’s encouraging that Spidey 4 might have more depth, keep in mind that Avi Arad has had a VERY heavy hand in dictating how these movies turn out. HE was the one who burdened Raimi with Venom, after the director admitted from the start that he couldn’t understand either the character or its fan appeal (and who could blame him?). Arad forced the issue because Spidey 3 was allegedly the final pic and he wanted to cram as many characters into the movie (no doubt for licensing purposes); he did the same thing with the multitude of characters in X-Men 3. So, when it comes to characterization and a smarter title than “Spider-Man 4,” Raimi may push for a better film, but it will ultimately come down to how far they can keep Arad from the set.
Sroman, I completely understand your stance on Mr. Arad, and I agree whole heartedly. However, I think you give Sam Raimi a bit too much credit. We’ll see what happens, but either way my hopes aren’t high. Thanks for the comment.
Well, Dominic, I don’t know about giving Raimi too much credit, but he *had* said in a number of interviews I read (pre-Spidey 3) that he didn’t want to use Venom for the reasons I stated. I look at it this way: without Arad’s ham-handed technique, Spidey 1 was a great comic movie (even in spite of that god-awful Goblin costume) and Spidey 2 built upon the franchise. Spidey 3, if anything, was Raimi caving in to studio/Arad pressure (certainly not “Venom-fan” pressure) and winding up with a case of the ol’ 10 pounds of crap in a 5-pound bag analogy. At this point, though, I wouldn’t have minded a change of directors, if only to get a fresh outlook, but hopefully things will work out.