Creative Differences: Edgar Wright, Ant-Man, and the Marvel Machine

On Friday, May 23rd, The Hollywood Reporter reported that director Edgar Wright has left the “Ant Man” film set to be released next year in 2015.   According to the statement, the split was due to “…differences in their visions of the film,” so for all intents and purposes, the reason is “creative differences”.  Now “creative differences” is a reason that a lot of directors use to leave a given film project.  What makes this split more significant are the two things that give it context–the director, and how much time he spent on the project.

Edgar Wright is one of the most creative directors in film today.  His “Cornetto” trilogy films are gleeful and original parodies of well-trodden and cliche genres such as the zombie apocalypse, the buddy cop film, and the alien invasion.  They were incredibly self-aware about how bad their concepts were but at the same time they were fresh, funny, and full of heart.  Wright was also involved in the “Ant-Man” project since its inception back in 2006.  Wright has previous comic book film experience as he directed the “Scott Pilgrim” adaptation which was released back in 2010.  So you have a director with a distict style and artistic vision, who has previous experience adapting comic books to film and put in almost ten years of time and effort into a film based on a B-list member of The Avengers.  “Creative differences” here means “studio interference” which, in comic books, is known as “editorial interference”.

And if that wasn’t enough, Wright’s recent response to the separation seals it.  Via io9, Edgar Wright tweeted the following image  on Monday May 26th:

For those of you who don’t recognize him, that’s legendary silent film comedian Buster Keaton holding a Cornetto cone.  Quote io9:

“Keaton was head of his own independent production company in the 1920s, and made some of the most acclaimed comedy movies of all time as writer, director and actor. He famously signed away his independence to MGM in 1928, which took control of his scripts, wouldn’t let him do his own stunts, and more. The deal not only affected the quality of Keaton’s films, but his happiness as well — he famously called his decision the worst mistake he’d ever made.”

Because Keaton is holding a Cornetto cone, Wright is clearly expressing solidarity with the late director.  Like Keaton, Wright sees himself as an independent director who singed up with a major studio and regrets it because they wanted to put his original idea through the wringer to make it more homogenized and appealing to a wider audience.

So why was Wright kicked out of Marvel Studios? Well, it’s because of this.

Click for larger view

In an interview with IndieWire, Wright had this to say about how his film would fit into the established Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity:

 “I think it’s just doing its own thing in the accepted history but it’s still part of the other movies and always was. In the time I’ve been working on it other things have happened in the other movies that could be affected in this. It is pretty standalone in the way we’re linking it to the others. I like to make it standalone because I think the premise of it needs time. I want to put the crazy premise of it into a real world, which is why I think “Iron Man” really works because it’s a relatively simple universe; it’s relatable. I definitely want to go into finding a streamlined format where you use the origin format to introduce the main character and further adventures can bring other people into it. I’m a big believer in keeping it relatively simple and Marvel agrees on that front.”

There.  See that?  That’s the exact reason why Disney/Marvel gave him the boot.  He wanted his film to be independent of the continuity established in the other films.  Why?  Money, that’s why.

Comic book continuity is more than just a string of events tied together through a unified narrative.  It’s one of the main forms of monetization.  If everything is linked together, then a reader is more or less forced to have to buy another issue if he or she wants to figure out what’s happening.  In the films of the MCU since “The Avengers” collectively known as “Phase Two”, the characters talk about New York in reference to the aforementioned film.  Granted, “The Avengers” made an obscene amount of money and millions upon millions have seen it.  And yes, it would make sense for the characters of these films to make mention of the film since every one of them are set in the aftermath of the events of that film.  However, if Marvel had it their way, each of the films would be so dependent on the rest of them that the viewer would be forced to watch (read: buy) the previous other film.  It hasn’t gotten to that point yet, but trust me, they’ll do it.  Fish swim, birds fly, and corporations will do anything they can to make more money.

Of course, that might not be Marvel’s plan.  At least not yet.  But Wright’s intentions are clear.  He wants his film to be completely independent of whatever continuity Marvel may or may not impose.  That’s his style.  If you’ve watched any of his films, each of them are largely independent of each other in terms of plot, but they share consistent themes and his absurdist sense of humor.  Wright obviously objects to to the prospect of conforming to a larger, and corporate mandated, continuity.  Such would infringe on his artistic vision.  Not only that, but who knows what other mandates and compromises the powers that be at Disney/Marvel were demanding from Wright.  So instead of kowtowing to corporate pressure and compromising his artistic integrity, he decided to leave.  Sure, he now won’t have any piece of the generous MCU pie, but Wright is obviously a man who won’t put any price on his artistic integrity.  Unlike certain other directors.

On Saturday, May 24, “The Avengers” director Joss Whedon tweeted this image:

Joss is clearly showing solidarity with Wright’s plight.  But here’s the thing, it’s a hollow gesture.  If Joss Whedon really cared, he would’ve stood up for Wright.  He would’ve said directly to the powers that be at Disney and Marvel Studios and said “If he goes, I go.”  If he really cared.  But he didn’t.  Why?  Self-preservation, plain and simple.  Now granted, it’s not an inherently selfish thing.  Whedon’s decision could have been out of simple pragmatism.  Pragmatism in the fact that he, along with Wright, would’ve been thrown out of Marvel Studios at the same time.  Make no mistake.  As much money Whedon has made for Disney/Marvel, he’s not an employee, he’s an asset.  And the moment he isn’t useful to them, he’s considered persona non grata.  You have to understand, Joss Whedon is a lot like Zack Snyder.  That comparison might seem inappropriate, but it’s in the context that he, like Snyder, was in the exact same position.  “Serentiy” wasn’t a big success and neither was “Sucker Punch”.  Quality notwithstanding, both directors were desperate for the opportunity to direct a surefire success of a film.  For Snyder, it was “Man of Steel”.  For Whedon, it was “The Avengers”.  How do you keep someone under control? By giving them something to lose.  Both “Man of Steel” and “The Avengers” were mediocre-to-bad films that were created not so much by a singular creative vision, as they were by the demands of the studio executives in order to maximize profit.  Whatever creativity these two might of had was squashed underneath the heels and boots of their respective corporate bosses and they’ve been kowtowing to them because they know, or at least believe, that they’ll never have another opportunity like this again.

Again, I’m not so naive to think that filmmaking isn’t a business or that it’s purpose isn’t to make money.  But there needs to be something said about artistic integrity.  It’s important for artists and their producers to be on the same page when creating a project because the producer is the one who keeps the artist from creating something so self-indulgent that it alienates the audience.  George Lucas is the poster boy of a creative type who didn’t have anybody there to say “no”.  But in Wright’s case, it certainly isn’t a case of keeping him from alienating anybody.  Not when he’s had so much success, financial and critical, for the films he’s made so far.  Especially the ones where the studios were willing to allow his artistic vision.  I’m talking about “Shawn of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” and “The World’s End”.  I’m talking about films that take concepts as cliche and wrote as the zombie apocalypse, the buddy cop film, and the alien invasion with a kind of snark and wit that doesn’t come from any kind of disdain or contempt, but out of genuine love.  Mel Brooks said it best, “You have to love the genre you’re parodying.”  Most likely, Wright’s film was also a general parody of superhero films as a concept.  Sure, the MCU has always had humor present in their films, but none of them are an out-and-out comedy.  Wright’s Ant-Man film could have possibly then the world’s first successful superhero comedy.  But there’s nobody more humorless than a bunch of corporate suits.

Not only that, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Wright wanted to address the elephant in the room in regards to Hank Pym, AKA Ant-Man.  What is it, you may ask?

 

Yep.

No David S Goyer, you are wrong about She-Hulk and Martian Manhunter

In “It’s a Wonderful Life”, George Bailey is told by his guardian angel Clarence that “Every time a bell rings, an angel gets it’s wings.”  Well thanks to Goyer’s recent comments, a demon has grown it’s horns.

Recently, the podcast Scriptnotes hosted a Q&A with a panel of superhero film scriptwriters entitled “144-The Summer Superhero Spectacular.”  The podcast seems to have been taken down from their main website, but it is still available via iTunes and a transcript of the episode is still available via both the Scriptnotes site and The Mary Sue .  Amongst the panel was David S Goyer, writer of “The Dark Knight” and “Blade” trilogies.  Goyer made some decidedly pointed comments on the subject of female superheroes, particularly She-Hulk.  The following quotes contains explicit language.

Craig: No, the She-Hulk, the whole point of She-Hulk was just to appeal sexistly to 10-year-old boys. It worked on me.

Andrea: As opposed to the other superhero comic books through all eternity.

Christopher: Boys were already sort of aroused by The Hulk but they were feeling weird about it.

David: Well, that’s where I’m going.

Christopher: Let’s give them a female one. It will take some of the pressure off this adolescent.

David: I have a theory about She-Hulk, which was created by a man, right? And at the time in particular I think 95% of comic book readers were men and certainly almost all of the comic book writers were men. So, The Hulk was this classic male power fantasy. It’s like most of the people reading comic books were these people like me who were just these little kids who were getting the shit beaten out of them every day, and they’re like what if I became a giant and could clap my hands and create a sonic boom? And so then they created She-Hulk, right, who was still smart. So it was like I think She-Hulk is the chick that you could fuck if you were Hulk. You know what I’m saying?

Craig: Right. No.

David: No, I’m just saying She-Hulk was the extension of the male power fantasy. So, it’s like if I’m going to be this geek that becomes The Hulk, then let’s create a giant green porn star that only The Hulk could fuck.

Craig: Yeah…or me.

David: If you were pretending you were The Hulk. Do you see what I’m saying?

Craig: What if I’m not The Hulk? Can I still?

John: No. No.

David: Then you would get destroyed. Your hips would break when you had sex.

Goyer then doubled-down by making comments on Justice League member the Martian Manhunter:

David: Well, he can’t be fucking called the Martian Manhunter because that’s goofy. He can be called Manhunter.

Craig: Yeah.

John: They have those.

Stephen: I rented that movie.

David: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the whole thing, the whole deal with Martian Manhunter is he’s an alien living amongst us.

John: Is there another one of those in the DC universe?

David: Well, he came out in the ’50s and he had basically all the powers of Superman.

Craig: Overpowered.

David: Except he didn’t like fire.

Craig: Right. Oh god.

David: And he could read your mind. So, here’s the best part: he comes down to earth and decides, unlike Super man who already exists in the world now, that he’s just going to be a homicide detective and pretend to be a human homicide guy.

Stephen: But he’s green.

David: Yeah. But, no, he can change his shape. Instead of using super powers and mind-reading and like, oh, I could figure out if the president is lying or whatever, he just decides to disguise himself as a human homicide detective. Dare to dream.

Where do we begin?

Let’s start with the most offending comments.  She-Hulk, AKA Jennifer Walters, is a successful lawyer and superheroine in the Marvel Universe.  She became She-Hulk when she got a blood transplant from the only person whose blood type matched hers–her cousin Bruce Banner.  That’s right, the Hulk and She-Hulk are cousins.  Right off the bat, Goyer’s implication that She-Hulk was developed as a sex object for the Hulk is just plain wrong given that the two are related.  Furthermore, She-Hulk was not, in any way, developed to be anybody’s object of sexual desire.  Via the Washington Post, perennial geek grandpa Stan Lee discusses why he created She-Hulk.  Quote: ““I know I was looking for a new female superhero, and the idea of an intelligent Hulk-type grabbed me.”  In regards to Goyer’s theory, quote, “Only a nut would even think of that.”

Goyer’s words are symptomatic of the original sin of geek culture: the pervading belief and practice that women, both real and fictional, are supposed to be the objects of sexual desire for the heterosexual male audience which still to this day makes up the majority of geek culture.  I really shouldn’t have to explain this, not when the insidious concept of  the“fake geek girl” or the Hawkeye Initiative exists.  Jennifer Walters, unlike her cousin, can switch between forms at will while maintaining her intelligence in both.  In spite of that, she’s maintained herself as a successful lawyer who answers to no man and owns her sexuality.  She’s nobody’s sex object.  Goyer’s gross misconception is obviously based on ignorance of the character, as he cites Chyna as his point of reference who starred as She-Hulk in the Avengers porn parody.  That still doesn’t excuse him for anything.  Goyer has made himself into a manchild who can’t fathom the very idea of a female character, let alone a real-life woman, who isn’t a sexual object and who is in control of her own sexuality and nobody else.  What makes this whole thing a bigger issue is that Goyer is the man who’s writing the upcoming “Batman V Superman” film which will mark the film debut of the First Lady of female comic book characters, Wonder Woman.  Not only that, but he’s co-writing the Wonder Woman solo film.  The last person who should be so much as involved in a Wonder Woman project is a person who has the outdated belief that female characters are sexual objects, first and foremost.

Now with that out of the way, let’s address his comments on the Martian Manhunter.  The Martian Manhunter is a secondary member of the Justice League and was based off the Superman template–he possesses the powers of flight, super strength, and indestructibility.  Unlike Superman, he’s also a shape-shifter, telepathic, and telekinetic.  Goyer’s assertion that he’s a “silly” character is clearly based off disdain for the sort of concept.  Goyer is “that guy”.  You know what I’m talking about.  The type of manchild who’s so insecure in his maturity and/or masculinity that he has to asert himself as an adult male by demanding that everything should contain exploitative sex and violence.  This pervading attitude is what dictated comics in the 90s, which became known as the “Dark Age” of comics.  The Dark Age started after “Watchmen” and “The Dark Knight Returns” were wildly successful in how they shattered the paradigm of comics as primarily for children.  The two graphic novels proved that the medium was capable of  transcending past children’s entertainment and could address more mature, sophisticated themes like the fragile psyches of superheros or the real-world implications of masked vigilantes.  Fans and publishers, unfortunately, learned the wrong lesson and instead went the other way.  The comics of the 90s were mostly full of crass T&A, ultra-violence, and were “grim and gritty” because they weren’t for kids anymore.  The comic industry would eventually collapse in on itself by the end of the decade, but the spirit of the decade pervades to this day in the “New 52″ of DC Comics.  The current DC event comic, “Future’s End“, contains dismemberment and slaughter.  In this day and age, comics and comic media are still catering to the manchild audience who will scream to the top of their lungs that comics are “not for kids” and they are “adults”, yet they fail to realize that such insistence makes them immature.

But the most sobering fact is that Goyer is, for all intents and purposes, the main writer for the Justice League films.  His disdainful attitude towards silliness in comic books is why “Man of Steel” contained so much violence and was sorely missing the sort of joy, wonder, and optimism that has defined the character ever since his inception.  Not only that, but this is the guy who collaborated with Nolan to write “The Dark Knight” trilogy–out of all people, he should be aware that Batman is inherently very, very silly.  The Adam West TV show of the 60s should be evidence enough that even the most “serious” and “badass” of all superhero characters is still susceptible to out-and-out camp.  Goyer’s comments make it clear that he needs someone else to keep him in check during the writing process, as Christopher Nolan was an active partner in writing the current Batman films.  Of course, Nolan’s involvement in writing “Man of Steel” didn’t stop it from turning the film the giant disaster that it is, but at that point he wanted nothing more to do with DC Entertainment and in his neglect, the film suffered for it.  If Goyer is going to write the Justice League films, he should embrace the inherent silliness of comic books.  How Superman is the big blue boy scout, or how Wonder Woman uses a golden lasso that makes people tell the truth, or even how there’s a character who dresses up as a bat in the first place.  But in Goyer’s opinion, female characters are sex objects and silliness is disdainful.  He’s a DC writer, alright.  And as long as he continues to make Warner Bros. millions of dollars, they don’t care at all that he’s not the right guy for the project.  It’s appropriate then, that the “Batman vs Superman” film seems to be based on “The Dark Knight Returns”.  Like Frank Miller, Goyer is a sexist who is obsessed with writing grim and gritty stories because of the immature and spiteful notion that comic books are “adult” and “not for kids”.

One of the few things that gives me hope that “Batman vs Superman” and the rest of the Justice League films will be good is because of Ben Affleck.  Because of his influence, he’s gotten his buddy and “Argo” screenwriter to re-write Goyer’s script.  “Argo” was the best film of 2012 and had smart, snappy dialogue and a story that kept you at the edge of your seat.  As long as Affleck and Terrio are involved, maybe, just maybe, the Justice League films won’t be so bad after all.  Maybe.

PS: I’m not done with Goyer yet.  Coming up is a “Man of Steel” postmortem!

 

The Sort-Of-Amazing Spider-Man (SPOILER REVIEW)

Hi everybody. Before I get into my review of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”, I’d like to make an announcement. I am dropping the whole pretense of being a proper film critic. I didn’t study film in college, I studied literature and as such, I’m not fit to write out a standard review with a rating at the end. Instead, I’m taking a different approach. Inspired by online reviewers such as Oancitizen and Red Letter Media, my review style will be an in-depth discussion of the film and plot details. So outside the title, this is your one and only warning–spoilers ahead.

Currently, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” holds a 55% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with 229total reviews at an average of 5.9/10. And according to one particular internet reviewer, it’s the worst Spider-Man film and the worst film of the year so far. If you haven’t realized it yet, there’s a lot of hyperbole going on out there about how objectively bad this film is, particularly from internet reviewers. After watching it, my opinion of the film is that it’s schizophrenic–there’s a lot going on and not a whole lot works, but it has enough charm and personality to where it becomes a fun film.

Let’s get what this film does wrong out of the way. First are the two new characters–Max “Electro” Dillon played by Jamie Foxx, and Harry “Green Goblin” Osborne played by Dane DeHaan. Both characters are played so broadly and given so little development that they’re not proper characters at all. Especially Foxx’s character Max Dillion, who’s introduced as a stereotypical nerd, down to his cokebottle glasses, his bad haircut, and the noticeable gap in his teeth. Max’s character is a timid and under-appreciated electrical engineer at Oscorp who has an obsession with Spider-Man. So much so, that he actually has a small shrine dedicated to him in his apartment, complete with a creepy little voodoo-doll made out of what I’m guessing is blue and red tape. In his apartment scene, he brushes his teeth in his mirror with a big picture of Spidey next to him and talks to the picture not only as if he were talking to the real Spider-Man, but he’s also his best friend. This character is clearly enamored with the wall-crawler and especially so since Spidey rescues him in the film. This would be really creepy if it wasn’t pathetic. I can see what they were going for–Max’s origin as Electro mirrors the Silver Age origin of Spider-Man as a meek nerd who gets bitten by a radioactive creature and gains powers appropriated from the creature. It would of been a really nice contrast to Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker, who is informed more of modern sensibilities than of established cannon. What’s more, his obsession with Spider-Man turns into jealousy and hatred in the scene where he snaps and causes a giant electrical storm in the middle of Times Square. This would’ve been an original turn on the old Spider-Man origin and had the added benefit of introducing an old trope used in comics, particularly Batman–who came first, the Spider-Man, or the freaks? Electro could have been an example of how Spider-Man’s influence upon New York City can be incredibly destructive for everyone involved. But they undercut all that by making him a stereotype, particularly one informed by the TV show “The Big Bang Theory”. Seriously, that show is terrible and if you’re a fan, you should feel terrible too.


Dane DeHaan’s Harry Osborne is also under-developed and it ruins whatever dramatic tension there should have been between him and Peter Parker. We’re supposed to accept that the two of them have been best friends and haven’t seen each other in ten years. But there’s not enough time spent on developing their relationship and what time is spent between the two is used to advance the plot. This Harry Osborne is devoid of any kind of charisma, especially when compared to James Franco’s performances in the Sam Rami “Spider-Man” films. DeHann’s Harry is supposed to be a disturbed and mercurial youth whose strained relationship with his father is the key motivating factor of his descent into madness. But without any sort of charisma or proper development, he’s a stereotype of a whinny, emo teen. There’s a conflict that arises where, to cure himself of the same degenerative disease that his father died from, he needs Spider-Man’s blood to synthesize an antidote. Peter doesn’t want to give him his blood because he’s worried what effects his mutated blood would have on him. But this conflict is undercut from the lack of development in Harry’s character and his relationship with Peter. So his steady descent into becoming the Green Goblin is practically pointless and a bad soap opera to boot. The Green Goblin is Spider-Man’s archenemy because there’s a history between the two of them and the film can’t be bothered to flesh it out. This film would’ve been better serviced if it was focused on Harry Osborne/Green Goblin as the key and only antagonist of this film but evidently there’s too much money to be made on more characters and crossovers to afford a single-villain film, nowadays.

Second is the plot. There are way too many things going on and worst of all, there’s no focus or a single narrative through line to unite all these disparate parts. Christopher Nolan’s Batman films had the same problem, sure, but each individual film had a focused narrative that unified all those separate plot points. What’s more, Nolan is a better and more experienced director than Marc Webb. Nolan’s juggling act in The Dark Knight films was a sight to behold because he had a steady hand and good hand-eye coordination. Webb’s juggling act in this film, by comparison, is a mess because he’s jugging too many balls than he can handle and ends up doping several of them while the stage manager is tossing him more balls offstage, but more on that later. During the film, we cut from Peter and Gwen Stacy’s strained relationship to Harry trying his best to prevent a coup from his board of directors at Ozcorp to Electro being experimented on by a caricature of a mad German doctor named Kafka (really, movie?) to Peter investigating his father’s disappearance and now I’ve gone cross-eyed. The sudden change in plot points and tones is so quick that it causes whiplash. This film is incredibly attention deficit because it’s trying to do too many things at the same time but won’t devote enough focus on one element to tie the rest together. There’s no tonal or narrative consistency and the film almost implodes upon itself because of it.

And third is the main reason why this film doesn’t work–too much interference from the studio. Ever since “The Avengers”, the superhero movie scene has been drastically changed. Now it’s not about making films focusing on one specific character or team but instead a huge inter-continuity project where all the separate solo films lead up to and stay constant with the great, big crossover film. In effect, superhero films are copying their model off of superhero comics where each individual title serves primarily to advance and give hype to the big crossover event. I’ve said plenty on why it’s a bad idea and this is exactly what I’m talking about. When there’s too much emphasis on the big money-making crossover event, the individual parts can and will suffer for it. Sony is the one forcing too many story elements on director Marc Webb and Webb just isn’t that experienced of a director to handle all of them. To be fair, even Sam Rami, who’s directed everything from horror to western to fantasy, had a hard time dealing with the studio and that conflict became the trainwreck that was “Spider-Man 3”. But Webb has it worse because it’s one thing to have to introduce so many characters, it’s another thing to have to introduce them not just to sell more merchandise but to lead up to the blockbuster crossover and sell even more merchandise. Sony wants their own “Avengers” to compete against Disney/Marvel and they’re working on a Sinister Six film. This is all done out of necessity to maintain profits and I’m not so naive to believe that film making isn’t a business in of itself. But there needs to be a balance between both corporate interests and the artistic vision of the creator(s). This is exactly why I’m so opposed to crossover superhero films because the same kind of editorial dictatorship that created the ongoing debacle known as the New 52 is clear and present in most, if not all, superhero films since “Iron Man” kicked off this mad arms race. It’s clear that Sony doesn’t know what it’s doing and the writing is on the wall that the new “Amazing Spider-Man” franchise is doomed to collapse again in an even bigger trainwreck. This film is symptomatic of the disease that plagues the superhero genre. Right now, it’s gone terminal and “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is patient zero. As an aside, this film has three writers and two of them, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, came from “Star Trek: Into Darkness”. If that doesn’t explain what’s wrong about this film, I don’t know what will.

So now that we’ve got that out of the way, what works about this film? First are the setpieces and effects. This film has some of the most inventive and creative action scenes I’ve seen in a Spider-Man film to date. The film’s action is very distinct from the Rami films because there’s a greater emphasis on web-based moves. Spider-Man here uses his webbing to net up his enemies, swing items around like fire hydrants, and build momentum for more dynamic attacks. The Rami films had a focused emphasis on conventional close quarters combat and martial arts which, while serviceable, was, again, conventional. The action scenes in this film series, particularly in this film, are a breath of fresh air by comparison. And it’s perfect for this film because this Peter Parker isn’t a martial artist; he’s a smart and inventive kid who works around the fact that he doesn’t know how to throw a punch. So all of the action scenes, from the car chase in the beginning to the Times Square battle with Electro to the climactic final scene, are incredibly engaging and fun. The web swinging is also the best in any of the films so far. It took them five films and now they’ve distilled it into a science. It’s fun watching Spider-Man swing from building to building while saving people and avoiding attacks. And speaking of the setpeices, they actually used Paul Giamati’s Rhino right by conserving him. He’s only here in the beginning and end of the film and not only are they the most fun scenes in this film but you feel his presence more than Electro or the Green Goblin. And as much as I disliked the under-developed Electro, I have to admit, his effects were excellent. Sure he looks like Doctor Manhattan from “Watchmen”, but he’s a being of living electricity and his scenes of disappearing and re-appearing through outlets and coils are really good. It’s certainly an improvement from the character’s original design which was a garish green plastic outfit with thunderbolts all over it. Some things from comics haven’t aged well at all and are best left there for the filmmakers to create something more appropriate and new. There’s also a lot more scenes of Spidey rescuing people in this film than in the previous one and they’re all really great like how he stops a bus from hitting a pedestrian by holding it back and digging his feet into the asphalt, or how he rescues a police officer by catching a car from crushing him. Not only are they really good scenes, but they help further develop Spider-Man as a hero of the every day guy.

Second is the humor. The one thing that was very much absent from the Rami films was one of the things central to Spider-Man’s character–his sense of humor. No matter who he’s fighting, he’s always making jokes and funny quips to frustrate his enemies and keep himself from panicking. He calls Electro “Sparky”. He wears a fireman’s helmet in-costume while spraying water on Electro to short him out. He knocks on the door of the mad getaway driver and makes small talk with him while he grabs a gun to shoot him with. There’s a particularly funny scene where he tries to experiment on his webs by running electricity through it to a battery that would hold the charge, and he ends up using bigger and bigger batteries because they all explode on him. You wouldn’t see this in the Rami films because Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker was too mopey; Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man is a jerk to his enemies and because of that he makes plenty of jokes. Plenty of people complained about Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker being a jerk but it works better here because he’s being that way to his enemies especially.

Third and last are the human elements in this film. This was another element sorely missing from the Rami films. I didn’t buy Tobey Maguire as a teenager for a second because he wasn’t a real teenager, he was a blank slate martyr for the film’s Gen-X audience to project himself onto. That’s the harsh truth about those films–Maguire’s Peter Parker was informed of his generation and because of that he’s a blameless and idealist nerd whose innocent and, most of all, passive of all the things happening around him. Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker is more relateable because he’s a real teenager. He’s selfish, he’s a punk, and he hurts the people who love him because he acts that way. But he’s also incredibly conflicted. He wants to do the right thing, but he’s not to sure how to go about it or he’s completely oblivious to what’s around him. There’s a great emotional scene with Aunt May, played by Sally Field, where she breaks down in front of Peter Parker and calls him out for being selfish in trying to find his birth parents while not acknowledging her as the one who practically raised him his whole life. She’s working shifts as a waitress and taking nursing classes to pay for his college tuition and she feels insecure, unappreciated, and unloved from Peter because he’s so consumed with finding out what happened to his parents. This was a beautiful moment and the reason why I say that Garfield’s Peter Parker was more human than Maguire’s–Maguire was a saint to his Aunt May but Garfield’s relationship with his Aunt May is complex because of the one-two punch of youthful selfishness and ingrained abandonment issues. It wasn’t out of malice, but out of carelessness, that this Peter Parker ignored his Aunt and it makes that scene more powerful than any of the scenes between Aunt May and Peter in Rami’s films. No teenage boy is a saint to the person who raised him and this film realizes that fact and is a better for it.

But he beating heart of this film was the same from the previous film–the relationship between Peter and Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone. Garfield and Stone are a real-life couple who met during the production of the previous film so when you see the scenes of the two of them together, breaking each other’s hearts and making up with each other, you believe it because it’s a real love between the two of them. Sure, Spider-Man writing “I love you” in web on the bridge was corny but it’s exactly the kind of thing a teenage boy in love would do if he had that kind of power. He wants to be together with Gwen but he doesn’t want to hurt her and he’s hurting her anyway because he’s staying away from her. The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane in the Rami films was never believable because, not only was there no real chemistry, but Mary Jane was always just a damsel in distress throughout all three films for the villain to capture and Spider-Man to rescue. Gwen Stacy in this film, by comparison, is an active character. She’s not a damsel for Peter to rescue; she’s smarter than him and an active partner in the climax of the film where she over-rides the power grid to stop Electro. And when she dies at the end, it’s emotional and tragic because they genuinely loved each other. When Peter morns over her grave as the days pass by, you feel his pain. Marc Webb isn’t a strong enough director to keep the corporate interests form imposing their ideas on him, but he was a good choice to direct this film series because he excels at what lies at the very center of a good Spider-Man story–the relationship between a boy and the girl he loves. It’s too bad that she dies in this film because we won’t see that kind of chemistry between him and whoever plays Mary Jane in the next film. But it’s that relationship that really saved the movie for me from being a mediocre and disappointing film. This film should have ended right at Gwen Stacy’s death to really cement that feeling and leave us as the audience emotionally invested in seeing the next film, but it doesn’t. To be fair, how it ends, with Peter donning the costume to fight The Rhino, left the film on a really high note. So don’t listen to the critics–go out, watch it yourself, and make your own opinion. If you didn’t like it, that’s fine, but you just might have as much fun as I did.

Tangled Web: Why Sony’s Idea to Turn Spider-Man into the Avengers is not a Good Idea

http://i.imgur.com/nlI6EQ1.jpg

Earlier this year, Sony announced their plan to release a Spider-Man film every year. And in the post-Avengers world, this means an inter-continuity crossover film with standalone films serving as spin-offs. In fact, a film based the Sinister Six, a team of supervillains in the Spider-Man universe, was announced and has a director. It’s clear that the Sinister Six film is meant to be their counter to “The Avengers” and the upcoming “Justice League” film as comic book films have turned into a four-way arms race between Disney, Warner Bros, Sony, and Fox. I think Sony’s approach is a bad idea. This isn’t so much because I’m adverse to an Avergers-style crossover, although I’ve made myself perfectly clear how I believe that the structure is inherently flawed. My reason for thinking it’s not that good of an idea is because the Spider-Man property on its own isn’t capable of supporting such a giant undertaking.

Now before I go into specifics, I’d just like to put this out of the way: I’m not that big of a fan of Spider-Man and I’m not that familiar with his universe. My familiarity with Spider-Man is based on the overwrought 90s animated series, the Rami films, and Marc Webb’s current film. And I won’t hear any of it: “Spider-Man: The Animated Series” was a bad soap opera which stretched out each and every episode and had lousy action because Fox wouldn’t let Spider-Man so much as land a punch. I’m much more familiar with Batman, as I’ve seen most of the films, the superior animated series, and read the comics. In fact, Batman is Spider-Man’s closest analogue in the DC universe. Both are extremely popular, very ubiquitous in their respective companies, and feature the strongest rouges galleries in all of comic books. But unlike Spider-Man, you could spin off Batman with his own crossover film because he has the stronger and bigger cast of characters.

To prove this point, let’s try a thought experiment. Name as many allies to Batman who are affiliated primarily to him (that means Superman, et all are out of the picture). For those of you playing at home, you should come up with at least five, maybe six. Part of Batman’s shtick is to actively recruit young wards to become members of the ever-increasing band of vigilantes known as the “Bat Family”. To wit, we’ve had four Robins and three Batgirls, most of who’ve graduated to become proper superheroes. Say it with me now: Nightwing, Red Robin, Oracle, Spoiler, and Black Bat. Red Hood doesn’t count as he’s a mercenary. Outside of the Bat Family, Batman has plenty of other allies. Most notably Catwoman, Batwoman, and the female-centric group known as the Birds of Prey led by Black Canary and Huntress.

Now do the same thing for Spider-Man: this should prove much more difficult. There’s Black Cat and maybe his Amazing Friends: that cheesy 70s animated team of Firestar and Iceman. I’m pretty sure Fox has a lock on Iceman as a member of the X-Men, though. Sure, Spider-Man has other allies, but most are outside members of the Marvel Universe, such as the Avengers or Wolverine who are locked up by other companies, or they’re really obscure. To put it simply, Spider-Man’s universe isn’t as independent from the rest of Marvel as Batman’s is from DC. Even the X-Men are more independent from Marvel. Within the X-Men, you have dozens, if not hundreds, of heroes, antagonists, and allies amongst disparate factions with diverse motivations and affiliations. Fox is planning to make spinoff films for Deadpool, Mystique, and Gambit. They can do that because not only are they well-defined characters, but they can also draw others from the X-Men well. It’s not as easy to do so with Spider-Man because his separate universe doesn’t have that same kind of potential for spinoffs.

The only potential Sony has is doing spinoffs on Spider-Man’s villains but not even that would work. If it’s one thing that Hollywood doesn’t do very well, it’s moral ambiguity. There are very, very, few films that have outright villains as the protagonist and maintain them as evil throughout the film. Most either supplant someone even more evil, have them form an uneasy partnership with the hero, and they “redeem” themselves by the end. It’s all a cheap trick to make the villainous protagonist “not that evil” because studios and filmmakers aren’t confident that audiences will accept the protagonist as malicious the whole way through the film. Heck, the upcoming “Maleficent” film is a prequel where she teams up with Princess Aurora to defeat a bigger evil. Sony’s most likely going to try to make heroes out of the villains and in turn, render them mediocre.

So what’s Sony’s best option, then? Honestly, I’d say either teaming up with Fox or selling them the rights to Spider-Man. Fox has been mostly good to the X-Men: out of the seven films, only two were duds while the rest were decent to great. And the great ones were overseen or directed by Bryan Singer, who’s a natural when it comes to ensemble casts. Any kind of crossover needs someone leading the project who’s good at directing multiple characters as a team in a single narrative. Even in comics, it doesn’t work most of the time. But Singer has a real talent for this kind of thing. I’m confident that “Days of Future Past” will finally redeem the X-Men film franchise after what Brett Ratner did with “X-Men: The Last Stand”. And I’m also confident that he’d be an excellent collaborator with Marc Webb to create a giant crossover with Spider-Man and the X-Men. I feel there’s more dramatic potential between the two properties because of the over-arching theme of being an outsider. Whereas if Spider-Man was sold off to Disney, he’d be just another cog in the giant Avengers machine. Besides, I have no confidence in Joss Whedon at all like I do with Bryan Singer. Whatever happens with the Spider-Man property and whatever Sony does to it is all a matter of time. But from where I stand, it does not look good at all.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug review

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Staring: Martin Freeman, Richard Armatige, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch
Studio: New Line Cinema
Distributed by: Warner Bros. Studios

The main problem of adaptation is determining what from the source material should be adapted and what can be left out. With “The Lord of the Rings” films, director Peter Jackson has been smart in judging what from the massive books would work best in film and what’s best left out to keep the tuning time manageable. “The Hobbit” films have been a whole different beast because of how short and straightforward the original book is. So to make up for that fact, he’s been padding the film out with supplementary materials that JRR Tolkien wrote to further flesh out Middle-Earth. The second film further success in maintaining the balancing act by bringing greater focus to a secondary character more interesting than its protagonist.

“The Desolation of Smaug” spends most of its time focusing on heir to the Under-Mountain throne Thorin played by Richard Armitage. Jackson wisely devotes the film to him because his character has a more dramatic character arc than Bilbo does. Thorin’s obsession with retrieving the Arkenstone and rallying the Dwarven tribes under his leadership mirrors Gollum’s obsession with possessing the one ring. This shift in focus is welcome since, truth be told, Bilbo is a less interesting character. He’s meant to be an audience surrogate, so throughout both the book and the film he plays straight man to the more colorful secondary characters. Orlando Bloom returns again as Legolas steals the show as his fight scenes are the most kinetic and visceral in the film. The addition of Tauriel played by Evangeline Lilly brings a much needed female presence to this film as so far, “The Hobbit” films have been rather male-centric.

The effects in the film are some of the best I’ve seen in film. What separates Jackson’s films from another FX heavy film is his sense of aesthetics. From the mechanized lairs of the under-mountain to the sprawling structures of the wood elves, Jackson has visually captured the very essence of Tolkien’s writing. Very few directors can do that. The best scenes of this film are the interactions between the Dragon Smaug voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman’s Bilbo Bagins. The novelty of having Sherlock and Watson in a battle of wits doesn’t overshadow the scenes because the two actors have a genuine chemistry between them; making their interactions as fun as watching Bilbo and Gollum in “An Unexpected Journey”.

Final Grade: A. Peter Jackson does it again. What elements he brings in outside of the original story help supplement the story instead of distract. Middle-Earth is alive and well so come visit.

So I guess nobody learned anything from “Spider-Man 3”…

So the Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailer is out and the biggest reveal is how the film will feature not one, not two, but three villains. Three villains. So has Mark Webb actually seen “Spider-Man 2”?

The villains featured in the new film will be Electro, Rhino, and the Green Goblin. All three are hallmark members of Spider-Man’s rouges gallery and feature prominently in the comics and adaptatiions. This doesn’t bode well for the obvious reason that “Spider-Man 3” featured three villains as well (Green Goblin, Venom, and the Sandman) and was the weakest film of Rami’s trilogy. So based on precedent, there’s not much hope for Marc Webb’s sequel to be anything better than mediocre.

The rule of thumb for superhero films is that two, not three, is the magic number. Two villains maximum per film and any more unbalances the film. This is due to the inherent constraints of the medium of film: we only have two hours and not every character and plot thread is going to get equal time to develop. Only one superhero movie managed to juggle three villains at the same time and that was “The Dark Knight”. And yes, I’m counting the mob as a member of Batman’s rouges gallery. That’s because Christopher Nolan is a much more capable director than Marc Webb. It works perfectly fine in comic books to have Spider-Man face off against three, four, up to six villains at a time (look ‘em up: the Sinister Six) because we have five or six issues to spread them out over. But this is the inherit problem of adaptation: trying to force a round peg into a square hole.

What’s more troubling is how many plot threads I can count in this trailer. We have one thread apiece for the villains, one for Peter and Gwen’s relationship, one for the father-son dynamic between Norman and Harry Osborne, and the ongoing mystery surrounding Richard Parker’s involvement in Oscorp. So for those of you playing at home, that makes six plot threads. Six. Back to comparisons, “The Dark Knight” had five: Joker’s campaign of anarchy, Harvey Dent’s descent into madness, Bruce Wayne’s decaying relationship with Rachel Dawes, the mob escalation, and Batman considering his retirement. Of course, Nolan and screenwriter David S. Goyer planed this all in advance seemingly without much intervention from the studio. The decision to cram three villains in “Amazing Spider-Man 2” smells suspiciously like a studio decision to milk as much profit as they can off merchandise.

I still contend to this day that “The Amazing Spider-Man” was one of the best superhero films I’ve seen. The best part was the relationship between Peter and Gwen and how natural it progressed as the film went along. Now it looks like the relationship dynamic is going to be downplayed in order to give more time to the big setpieces. Eh, diminishing returns, I guess.

Afterthoughts: Thor: The Dark World

I’m not a fan of The Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not to say I’m not a fan of Marvel films: /I enjoy the other films made by 20th Century Fox and Sony (X-Men and Spider-Man). I’m in the minority because most people like the Avengers films and view “The Avengers” as the best comic book movie ever made. My reason why I dislike the Marvel Cinematic Universe is because of what the production represents: corporate micromanagement and homogenization of all projects in order to gain the highest profits possible.

 

“Thor: The Dark World” was a mediocre movie. The whole film felt like an over-calculated effort to please the widest audience possible. We have all the characters returning from the last film. The majority of the film is set in Asgard in response to the major complaint of the last film that there were too many scenes on earth. Tom Hiddleston resumes his fan-favorite role of Loki and antagonizes Thor to no end. But in their effort to please as many people as possible, they neglected to include any characterization or dramatic tension. Nobody in this film has an arc and most of the main characters have a passive role. The main villain was so one-dimensional that the motivation for his actions was generic villainy. Dr. Jane Foster was a damsel in distress for Thor to rescue. Thor’s motivations are reduced to save the princess and punch out the villain. And the aether was just a macguffiin to move the plot along like the tesseract was in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”. It wasn’t the characters who were leading the plot, it was the plot leading the characters.

 

 

Director Alan Taylor has an impressive resume. His work includes several episodes of critically acclaimed series such as “Mad Men” and “Game of Thrones”. This is a director who has creative vision and original ideas so why was this film in the end so inconsequential? The answer is editorial interference. The powers that be at Marvel Studios imposed upon Taylor so many restrictions that it ruined any spark the original project might of had. Plot points were rushed in order to get to the climactic final battle. Character development was reduced to make more room for the comic relief. And the plot was reduced to a game of keep-away with the macguffin. Anything that would’ve provided emotional investment into the film was cut to focus on what the producers thought that audiences wanted exclusively: pretty visuals, hijinks, and Chris Hemsworth smashing things with his hammer. Comics have a long and proud history of editorial micromanagement. I only need to point you towards the recent Batwoman marriage controversy and the resulting damage control to show you that the majority of comics are dictated not by the decisions of the creators but by the decisions of their corporate superiors. By micromanaging ever facet of the production phase in order to gain as much profit from their key demographics, the big two (especially DC now) have ruined both great stories and beloved characters. The same thing is happening over at Marvel with cinematic universe. The genre of superhero movies is capable of more than just spectacle but by chasing the dollar the studios have squandered that potential.