Editorial: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and Its Potential Success

Editorial: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and Its Potential Success

Hey, this is my first ever editorial on ComicBookMovie that presents an insight on why The Amazing Spider-Man will be a great movie. I hope you enjoy it!

Success is an equivocal word. Its definition is not clear as it will be interpreted differently among different people. Some people define success as relevance, impact, or even one's revenue. But, whatever your definition of the word may be, I think that the Sam Raimi Spider-man films have met enough of this criteria to be generally considered in some manner or form, as "successful". I mean the series has brought in nearly $2.5 billion in revenue and with the exception of a disappointing 3rd film, it was critically praised. These are impressive feats, not only for Spider-Man but any movie in general. With these facts, it is hard to say the the movies (including the 3rd one) were not a success, otherwise you'd be lying. However,due to the mistakes made in the 3rd movie and a horrible sequel idea, a reboot has been introduced to rectify these problems. Through this editorial, you will see in a clever mix of opinions and facts; what leads me to believe how not only might The Amazing Spider-Man be "successful" in many forms, but also how it can possibly be the biggest movie of 2012.

First of all, Marc Webb's specialty in relationships is highly evident. The movie contains a lot of spidey's most popular characters but uses them in a different way. Rather than have Curt Connors just be Peter's science teacher, he has a close relation to his dad, Richard Parker. Instead of having George Stacy be a supporter of Spider-Man, he is now hunting him down.The relationships are noticeably more personal, even from the beginning. Due to the more connected character nexus, there are deeper repercussions for the characters and a larger area of effect. This also eliminates the a lot of the coincidence of the villains seeming to gain their powers only after they meet Peter, that force us to suspend our disbelief.

The approach to the story is also really interesting and in my opinion sets the stage for a connected deeper and bigger sequel. The movie is marketed as "The Untold Story" and it involves Peter's parents and their possible relation to Oscorp. Again, while we may not see Norman Osborn, the characters' connection with each other (and Norman Osborn!!!) give Peter a longer history with him and also a bigger score to settle if there is a conspiracy involved or if Gwen is killed.

Another thing interesting that the story does, is make it seem that it was Peter's destiny to be a hero. Peter's father's has a knack for involving himself with all of these people who will someday become his foes. There are also many hints in the trailer which lead us to believe that spiders were a big part of the Parkers even when Peter was a kid.

Peter Parker's character shines out and seems to be very faithful to the comics. Marc Webb seems to capture the nerdy aspect of Peter, but rather than stereotyping it, he modernizes it to make it more realistic. Instead of making Peter the captain of the chess club with his shirt tucked in, he makes Peter a smart and socially awkward teenager who can skate and who's life pretty much sucks. This seems to fit the modern world properly without overdoing it.

The humor is one element that was noticeably lacking in the Sam Raimi movies. In this movie, though it grittier, there seems to be a good amount of humor that somehow blend with darker tone. When you think about it, adding humor to the Spider-Man persona adds a deeper layer to the character. Peter Parker's life sucks but he feels a sense of escape and "completeness" when he's Spider-Man. It somehow acts his outlet for his feelings and undiscovered wit.

The last thing that may make the film more successful is the casting. On a purely cosmetic level, I'd say that Andrew Garfield fits the bill for the role of Peter Parker. What's even better is that based on the trailer, he seems to portray Peter perfectly as the modern day awkward teenager with a New York Accent. I also think that if they decide to age Peter a bit like what they did in the comics, Andrew Garfield will still fit the part. Also, it seems as if Garfield may have widened the demographic for the movie. I mean look at him and his hair. He is an actor who appeals to many pubescent girls. His presence means a higher amount of female attendance, and I say that without trying to sound gay (which is not bad by the way). Oh and let's not forget about Emma Stone and her probably great performance as Gwen Stacy. I guarantee many guys too will be watching the movie just for her.

So that is my insight on how The Amazing Spider-Man will be successful. I hope that I have not let my lifelong fanboy state of mind cloud my judgement and say all of this out of pure bias. Please comment on what you think and feedback would be really nice since this is my first article ever. Thanks for reading guys!
Posted By:
Member Since 2/16/2012
Filed Under "Spider-Man" 2/16/2012
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
AlexRival - 2/16/2012, 9:42 PM
Pretty good write up, enjoyed reading it. I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think that the connections with the villains are a little bit overdone. Every villain from the last series had a connection to Peter and it was kind of annoying that we were supposed to believe that the only villains that were out there had a personal connection to the hero. I'd like it if in the next movie a random person was the villain, no connections; that's how it originally was in the comics.
GoodGuy - 2/16/2012, 9:49 PM
Hey, Thanks for the feedback! I kind of agree that having villains with no connections is more realistic. It's just kinda cool how Marc Webb kinda set up these connections so that it would make more sense in the future. But thanks anyway!
HulkbusterNYC - 2/16/2012, 11:22 PM
I dunno, Raimis films were good but there are definitely things that can be improved to make a better Spider Man movie. I hope Webb pulls it off, however from what I've seen so far I'm really not that impressed or interested to be honest. I HATE that Peter has a connection to all the villains and for the reboot to come along and do the same thing just really turned me off of this film. Also the Lizard as a villain just seems like a weak one if you wanna draw fans to theaters for a reboot. I wanna see Spider Man take down someone actually evil. All his movie villains have been good guys turned bad somehow but they're inherently good people just like Dr. Connors. What's his plot? To turn humans into lizards? That seems corny to me. That said I'm still going to see TASM but I'm not expecting it to be better than The Avengers or TDKR. Just an honest opinion friends.
batfan175 - 2/17/2012, 1:07 AM
transformers 3 made a lot of money and many people would call that a success. i wouldn't. It's easy to get lots of people to pay for the ticket on the way in. if you asked people to see the film and to pay on the way out ONLY if they're satisfied with the experience most superhero films would be a flop. This means that critical acclaim currently does not influence the box office because then films like Transformers could never have made that much money in the first place. It also shows that box office figures are no sign for success because money does not represent critical acclaim. it just shows that many people went to se it, even if 95% of the audience hated the film they saw.

As for the villains, I always found it quite annoying how almost every villain had a connection to peter parker before he became a "villain" (why are we still thinking in good vs bad by the way when we know how complex human beings are, there are no moral absolutes if you're not a follower of Kant and he's representing just one moral outlook on the world). The film also makes peter's life look like a whole conspiracy story (the parents' secret work, etc.) and even though that is in the comics it does not mean that it's good. if you want one thing out of Spiderman it's that he should be a relatable guy, a teenager with average problems. My parents aren't spies or handle chemicals that could transform you into a superhero or a giant Lizard and I also feel that the actors, except Rhys Ifans, are not at the top of their game (at least from what I've seen in teh trailer). i also don't want to see another ameo at the end of this film because I come to the movie to watch a film about one superhero and I don't need nods to other multimillion dollar franchises that make enough money already so it's just a promotion and it can be done in a clever way but unfortunately Marvel has not done this well yet.

As with everything: there's no point in predicting success because it can go either way. wait for the movie because a) trailers lie and b)there is something called editing, which makes the success depend on the vision and professionalism of the director and they don't seem to be finished with post-production yet.
ShadowOfTheWeb - 2/17/2012, 5:32 AM
nice use of the word 'nexus' @SpiderJerk :)
Well written, I agree with all of your points. I like that Webb seems to be focusing on character. Although it is annoying to have every villain related to Parker somehow, it does make for a greater emotional investment and payoff in the space of a film as opposed to comics. It would be refreshing if in the second film he has to go toe to toe with a villain who is a complete stranger and enigma to him.

I'm really glad too that we'll see more humour from Spider-man himself. I love the Raimi films but after seeing the second TASM trailer I think think we might see an even more true to form Spidey...
golden123 - 2/17/2012, 5:44 AM
This is alot better than most articles about this subject. Then again, I thought that same thing about an article, talking about how great GL was going to be, last year.

Also, sticking with the comics and being a close adaption doesn't neccessarily mean we are going to get a quality movie. Look at 2011. "X-Men: First Class" was up there with "Deathly Hallows part 2" and "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" as one of the best action movies of the year; however XMFC is almost definitly considered the worst comic adaption of the year. Then you look at "Green Lantern", it's plot was obviously heavily based on "Emerald Dawn" and "Secret Origin", and it stayed pretty close to the soure material. Don't get me wrong, I could list off many adaption changes (Parallax's look, Abin Sur's killer, Dr. Hammond's backstory, The Green Lantern Corp uniforms, and Hal's personality), but the amout changed really wasn't that bad. Green Lantern ended up with only 18 million dollars more than it's production budget (which I don't think icludes advertisng), and Green Lantern was critically panned (its rotten tomatoe score is one percent above the original Ghost Rider film).

Not to mention, you emphasize on Spider-Man being humourous although we only saw him saying one funny line during a fight scene. The Spider-Man from the Raimi trilogy had one funny line, in a fight scene, in the first movie, as well. I'm referring to the wrestling scene. That one funny line doesn't mean a whole lot.

Finally, the real reason Spider-Man 4 was canceled was because Raimi was booked and wasn't able to work on a Spider-Man film, for a while. Tobey, then, said he wouldn't do a film unless Raimi directed it. Colombian Pictures and the producers (Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin notably) wanted another film, and at that point, making a sequel in the same continuity seemed to be illogical.
golden123 - 2/17/2012, 5:51 AM
@batfan175: Don't mix critical success with financial success. Movie making is a business, after all. Money does count. Money gets us sequels. You are right, though, financial sucess doesn't mean the film is good, but if you were to tell people that they had the option of paying for the movie based on whether they liked it, then most people wouldn't pay even if they did like it. People are evil like that.
Dox - 2/17/2012, 6:09 AM
Nicely done. I think the first two Spider-Man films are among the best CBM's, and I'm looking forward to the reboot. However, there's too much speculation on this topic already. Next time pick a more unique topic to editorialize.
HulkbusterNYC - 2/18/2012, 2:02 AM
@batfan175 why would there be a cameo at the end of this film? This movie has nothing to do with Marvel Studios.
CaptainAmerica31 - 2/18/2012, 10:46 AM
I don't think TASM is completely accurate to the comics, the story is actually very different if you think about, yet it is still somewhat relevant. CBMers think this movie and other movies that have different character designs and off rail to the comic stories are gonna be failures.. This is why XMFC was such a surprise people on this site thought " oh it dosent have the original FC.. FAIL!" " movie is gonna be shit" and when a trailer or clip comes out they all scurry and try to defend their statements by constantly complaining about the character designs. Like I said I think this movie will be great but it's not gonna stay completely true to the comics I think Webb is doing what Nolan has done with batman he is gonnna mix in a lot of comics together (EG: Ultimate spiderman + amazing spiderman is the mixture they are going for) this is a good thing Becuase they are stayig some what close to the source material yet leaving room for creativity for a great story and movie.
EddieOsborn - 2/20/2012, 8:20 AM
Nice editorial SpiderJerk

Pretty much the entire cast of Spiderman is near perfect i'd have to say. You've got acting talent/experience everywhere from Andrew, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans etc.

I'm eager to se how Irfan Khan's role in the movie is played out. He's stated that he's playing a pivitol role so i'm looking forward to that

And to everyone who think there's going to be a cameo of Avengers at the end...NO AVENGERS CAMEO!

There's a good chance though that Sony will lose the movie rights (already have lost merchandising/advertising rights) and Spiderman will return to Marvel. But if this movie makes a killing in the box office (i'm hoping it will) Sony will probably own the sequel. Not sure about it but it's a possibility
PeterParker1991 - 2/20/2012, 12:07 PM
Good article. There's really nothing wrong with having the villains have a connection to the hero. If anything it makes for a more interesting story. In Iron Man, Tony Stark and Obediah Stane were good friends turned enemies. Same thing, except Connors has more of a history with Peter's past as well as the present. In Batman Begins, Ra's Al Ghul trained Bruce Wayne and years later they became enemies because of their differences. Again, it's the same thing. Nothing wrong with adding depth to characters or the story of a movie. I applaud it and hope that characters in this new series are developed better than the other ones. Don't get me wrong, the other movies were okay but I feel like Mr. Webb really nailed the character this time. Web Shooters. Gwen. Connors. Wise Cracks. A mysterious past with Richard and Mary Parker. Yeah, I'm sold.
IDKwhatToChoose - 2/21/2012, 10:06 AM
Good first article bro. Keep up the good work. I agree that the humor was sorely lacking in Raimi's films. Hopefully AG will own the role and they can make a bunch of movies. I don't want another reboot until Spidey is back in the MCU

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.