want to carry that responsibility. He wanted to
dedicate time to the love of his life, concentrate
on his studies, and be a normal person. Most
who love these types of movies would think it’s
a crazy concept, but Maguire makes you believe
it. It’s what makes his revelation that the world
needs this hero at the expense of his own personal
happiness that much more gratifying.
It’s a great film because of its juggling of action
and emotion that you may find in an independent
film. Bravo. It received even better reviews than
the first, made tons of money and it also set up the
third film wonderfully. This would be, up to date,
Spidey’s finest moment.
2007
The hype train was in full force. All the originals
had returned perhaps to conclude a very solid
trilogy with “Spider-Man 3.” The budget increased
as Sony had top confidence in its most important
franchise. They decided once again to go for bigger
and better. However, according to most fans and
critics, the strategy failed them this time around.
They added three villains, which doesn’t allow
enough character development for the hero or the
new additions. It was a valiant effort which did
have touching moments, but some felt forced as
they changed elements from the already emotional
original story, a sign that you are running out of
ideas.
Sandman, played by Thomas Hayden Church,
was visually stunning, but the plotline felt too
similar to the Doc Ock story in that you feel
sympathy for the villain. It didn’t work as well.
Turning Peter’s best friend Harry into a super
villain paid off at points emotionally but dragged
on throughout the film. Adding short-term memory
loss to any script rarely works. The action is fun,
but never reaches the peaks of the first sequel.
Perhaps the biggest problem was the lack of
utilization of Venom, a fan favorite character that
appears very little in the film. Raimi admits the
studios persuaded him to introduce the villain, but
it was clear that his heart wasn’t in that particular
storyline.
It’s not as bad a movie as some say and it
made nearly $900 million worldwide. It was just
surprisingly uneven and fell victim to doing too
much. Less is more and given how well “Spider-
Man 2” was received, it was a surprise that the
quality wasn’t up to snuff. This movie would
change the webhead forever.
2009-2010
After rumors and negotiations, Maguire and
Raimi decide to sign on for one last Spider-Man
film. In interviews, Raimi has said he didn’t like
how the last one ended and wanted to leave on a
high note. It was easier said than done.
The studio had a firm date that the movie had
to be released, but after several screenwriters
attempted to write a script that met the director’s
standards, it wasn’t to be. Raimi informed the
studio that he couldn’t make the deadline due to
poor scripts. He didn’t make the same mistake
twice. Rather than giving the cast and crew
another crack at it, the studio decided to go
in a different direction. They decided to send
Peter back to high school and start over.
2012
It was well known by
producers that they wanted a
fresher or more contemporary
Spider-Man film. This brings
us to “Amazing Spider-Man,”
a reboot just five years after
Maguire said goodbye to the
role. Many thought it was far
too soon for such a move.
However, Sony was adamant
about keeping their property
going strong.
They hired director Marc
Webb, who made his name
with a surprisingly fresh and
quite good romantic comedy,
” 500 Days of Summer.” It was
an inspired choice. But the two
leads would be key, and boy
did they strike gold. Rather
newcomer at the time Andrew
Garfield was chosen to don
the costume with Emma Stone
selected as his love interest,
Gwen Stacy. Both have since
been nominated for Academy
Awards, with Stone winning
Best Actress for “La La Land.”
The plan was to make the
film darker, grounded, and a
bit moody. Darker colors were
used to resemble “Batman
Begins.” Darker comic movies
were the rage.
Overall, the film itself was
pretty good. Garfield and Stone
had great chemistry, and the
technology caught up to make
Spidey look more realistic
swinging through buildings.
The difference is Parker. He is much more
rebellious than Maguire’s portrayal. And his love
for Gwen is evident.
The problem was that most people thought
it was far too similar to the original. Other than
tone, beat for beat, it’s almost the same story.
That may be fine 30 years later, but only 10 years
after? Audiences didn’t appreciate it. They didn’t
want to see how Spider-Man gets his powers, how
his uncle dies. It had that been-there, done-that
attitude. All valid points.
The other was the villain. Rhys Ifans who plays
Curt Conners who becomes the Lizard wasn’t the
strongest. People didn’t enjoy the look of the
monster nor the confusing or cliché motive.
Nonetheless, the film had heartwarming
moments and good action, and despite its flaws,
laid a decent foundation for this new take on
Spidey. The problem was that he wasn’t the most
popular kid on the block. It was overshadowed
by “The Avengers” a team-up of Marvel’s other
popular heroes (although Spider-Man is a Marvel
property, the movie rights belonged to Sony).
QNS.COM
26 SUMMER 2017