With Spider-Man 4 stalled over at Sony for the last month, it seemed obvious that one of two things was going to happen: either Raimi was going to compromise and work with whatever villain Sony mandated, or, he was going to walk and Sony would find someone new.
Of course, this being Hollywood, there was a third – more unnecessary – option. Chuck the whole thing out!
Personally, I’m not offended by the idea of rebooting Spider-Man, not in theory anyway. There’s so many eras, so many stories, so many characters in the comics, and so many creative, talented filmmakers who would no doubt be attracted to the franchise, that I can see many voices giving Spidey a makeover that’s both inventive and true to the spirit of the piece.
What offends here is the timing. Why do we need a reboot now?
There’s little way to defend this, it’s Hollywood reactionaries at their worst. The Spider-Man films really ushered in the modern Golden Age of comic book movies that we’re currently enjoying; the first film is a solid, perfectly cast and rather touching origin story, the second is an improvement on every front, some of the best popcorn entertainment of the previous decade, and Spider-Man 3, while seriously flawed, is not so far removed from the first two to indicate that a reboot would be necessary. If anyone wants to make the case that 3 has created some sort of Batman and Robin situation, they’re seriously mistaken, both in terms of film quality and in terms of monetary success. (Batman and Robin‘s domestic gross was almost $60 million less than the previous entry in its franchise, while Spider-Man 3 dropped only about $30 domestically, not to mention its international was on par with the previous two and its opening the largest of the trilogy).
We’re so inundated with sequels, prequels, spin-offs, remakes and reboots by this point, that we’re almost enured to them. But there are problems here, ones that try to ignore out of fear. The problems are originality and longevity. It’s almost trite to bemoan the lack of originality in Hollywood these days, but how can we not lament – loudly and actively – that we live in a town full of creative, richly diverse people, who are inevitably relegated to serving the visions (re: business needs) of studio heads who don’t even like movies, let alone care about their power? It is unfair and untrue to suggest this is all studio execs; some of whom are brilliant, some of whom are well-versed in cinema, some of whom genuinely care about art at least as much as they care about commerce. But it would be similarly (and dangerously) naive to suggest that these execs are the majority.
Why is this a big deal? “I just want another Spider-Man movie,” “I just want another cool flick to see,” you say. Well, the big deal is longevity.
Remember when there was a sort of grace period in between when Hollywood felt it had made a mistake – let’s take Batman and Robin as a prime example of a Mistake with a capital M – and when it felt comfortable rectifying it? Batman and Robin was released in 1997. The studio mulled over the reaction to it for about a year, entertained sequel ideas, prequel ideas, etc. and eventually just dropped it. Then, two things happened. Firstly, comic book movies came into their own, ushered in tentatively by the sleeper success of Blade, then strongly by X-Men, and then finally defined by Spider-Man‘s blockbusting. That film was an event, on par with the 1978 Superman or the 1989 Batman. People talked about it. It was everywhere. It was the perfect film for that time. And so, every comic property was thrown into warp drive, and by the next year you had Daredevil, X2 and Hulk. Warner Bros. decided it was time to explore bringing Batman back, and to do it they hired a creative team headed by people with a genuine passion for, fascination with, and understanding for the character, who decided to redefine him on screen by telling a story we had never seen and presenting him in a fundamentally different way from how we’d previously known him. Batman Begins, thus, is released in 2005, eight years after Batman and Robin.
How has this changed? Hulk was released in 2003 to mixed reactions. The film was by no means a bomb, but it was no Spider-Man. Marvel wanted to rectify this and quick, so by 2008 we’ve got The Incredible Hulk, starring a different cast, made by different people and taking the franchise in a very different reaction, tonally and conceptually. The result? The Incredible Hulk bested Hulk‘s gross by… $2 millon dollars. I won’t bother with inflation here.
Established franchises are now rebooting ad nauseum, as horror fans know all too well. Friday the 13th. A Nightmare on Elm Street. James Bond has done it, and very, very well – as has Star Trek. Now Fox wants an origin movie for their X-Men franchise, a well director Brian Singer is happy to dip back into.
Again, why is this a problem?
The Empire Strikes Back didn’t make as much money as Star Wars. What if Fox (let’s forget Lucas owned the rights to the franchise) decided, “Oops, won’t do that again – let’s start over.” What if Warner Bros. has gone through with recasting the Harry Potter kids? What if the next Star Trek film doesn’t make as much as the last, but is wonderful? Will that cast and those filmmakers not be allowed to move forward?
To successfully reboot a character, there has to be a need. And that Sony is unwilling to let Sam Raimi tell the story he wants to tell – a man whose made them, what, three billion dollars? – and would rather just begin again because it’s easier, well, that’s not a need. That’s… a mistake.
Can Jim Henson’s Spider-Babies be good? Hell, it could be great. And I’m hoping it is, because who wouldn’t love a great Spidey movie? No one, that’s who. But this is a disturbing idea, not just from the standpoint of someone willing and ready to watch the franchise overcome a stumble, to continue to watch these characters (hopefully) grow, but from someone who desperately wants to see filmmakers allowed to explore their creative instincts. And for anyone who says that that isn’t a commercial idea in regards to a Spider-Man film, well, you know, a quick perusal of Box Office Mojo should make that complaint moot.
You know what’s great about this though? Sam Raimi is free. I know he wasn’t in bondage or anything, but Drag Me To Hell was fantastic, and it was great to see him cut loose in the genre he loves and made his name in. I seriously hope that he won’t let the film’s rather middling box office stand in the way of doing what he loves to do, whatever that is. If Sam Raimi wants to make a rom-com, I’m there, because if nothing else, it’ll be special – his is a voice so unique and so enjoyed, how could you not want to follow him wherever he goes?
And that is such a big reason that I love going to the movies. To see artists do what they do better than anyone else.
And that is, exactly, what I’m afraid is going away, bit by bit, reboot by reboot.
Sony’s next Spider-Man is set for release Summer, 2012.
The original press release is as follows:
Culver City, CA (January 11, 2010) — Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.
Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.
The new chapter in the Spider-Man franchise produced by Columbia, Marvel Studios and Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will have a new cast and filmmaking team. Spider-Man 4 was to have been released in 2011, but had not yet gone into production.
“A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three Spider-Man films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We’re very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter’s roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning,” said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
“Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me. While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job,” said Sam Raimi.
“We have had a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration and friendship with Sam and Tobey and they have given us their best for the better part of the last decade. This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone else’s hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable,” said Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures, who has served as the studio’s chief production executive since the beginning of the franchise. “Now everything begins anew, and that’s got us all tremendously excited about what comes next. Under the continuing supervision of Avi and Laura, we have a clear vision for the future of Spider-Man and can’t wait to share this exciting new direction with audiences in 2012.”
“Spider-Man will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously,” said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures. “We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films and as we move onto the next chapter, we will stay true to that principle and will do so with the highest respect for the source material and the fans and moviegoers who deserve nothing but the best when it comes to bringing these stories and characters to life on the big screen.”
Recent Comments