http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/11/26/how-sony-can-easily-save-spider-man/
How Sony Can (Easily) Save 'Spider-Man'
Spider-Man is still one of the most popular and recognizable pop culture icons on the planet, so salvaging the property is merely a matter of not over-thinking it.
I used to watch quite a bit of
Family Feud as a kid, and there was always something that intrigued me about a specific question that would get asked from time to time. The question was simply Who is your favorite superhero? Now if we had a Batman movie on the horizon or just having debuted, the top choice of the poll would be the Caped Crusader. If there was something big going on regarding Superman, be it the media-friendly Death of Superman comic book arc or the debut of
Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, the top choice would be the Man of Steel. But absent any major events regarding any other comic book superheroes, the top choice would be Spider-Man. As
Sony (allegedly) runs in circles with various would-be Spider-Man spin-off (a
Sinister Six caper, an all-female team super-heroine movie, a young Aunt May spy film, etc.), they would do well to remember that the character is not broken and the property is still beloved by kids and adults around the world. As Spider-Man is set to make yet another appearance at the
Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, it is worth bringing up the notion that perhaps the easiest way to save the
Spider-Man franchise is to just make another Spider-Man movie.
Spider-Man 3 is considered one of the very worst major comic book superhero sequels in modern times by the vast majority of so-called fan boys. That allegedly terrible Spider-Man film (its not great, but I admire its kitchen-sink excess),marred by campy dialogue, a shoe-horned Venom subplot, and a Gwen Stacey arc that goes nowhere, still earned $890 million worldwide in 2D in 2007. It is still the biggest grossing comic book superhero movie not involving Chris Nolans Batman or
Robert Downey Jr.s Iron Man.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is considered a critical miss and a financial whiff. And while the film was a disappointment in America ($202m off a $91m debut weekend), it still made $709m worldwide, a touch less than
Captain America: The Winter Soldier ($714m worldwide for
Walt Disney ) and a bit more than would-be mega smash
Godzilla ($525m worldwide for
Time Warner Inc.). Even with brutal worldwide competition, mixed reviews, an anticipation of would-be failure, controversy over its climactic plot twist and alleged attempts to act as a prologue to an expanded universe, there was still a pretty huge audience for a
Spider-Man movie.
When you listen to the filmmakers commentary on the blu ray you realize that the core narrative flaw of the second
Amazing Spider-Man film (
a picture I mostly enjoyed) was the choice to kill Emma Stones Gwen Stacey. They made that call at the beginning and then basically wrote the film backwards to justify that sequence both narratively (bringing in the Green Goblin in the name of source fidelity, offering a secondary villain in the form of Electro in order to have action sequences prior to Osbournes transformation) and thematically (going hilariously out of its way to absolve Peter of any responsibility in his girlfriends violent murder). The idea that the film was a backdoor pilot to a
Sinister Six type film, or that it suffered from villain overload, was more about the marketing than the actual final product.
But now Gwen Stacey is dead, for better or worse, and the franchise is left without its theoretical trump card (the relationship between Stone and Andrew Garfield). I was not a fan of the choice to reboot, but whats done is done. With the perception that the brand is damaged, Sony basically has two choices at this point. They can basically reboot again or they can just stay the course and trust in the inherent popularity of the character.
The more challenging option is a true reboot. The last thing Sony wants to do is make audiences see Peter Parker get bitten by a spider for a third time in fifteen or so years. So the option there is to craft a new
Spider-Man franchise from the world of one Miles Morales. For those who dont follow the
Ultimate Spider-Man line, Miles Morales is a young teenager who himself got bitten by a radioactive spider and who was gifted with similar powers and took up the mantle after Peter Parker was died in the line of duty. On a surface level, the most notable thing about Mr. Morales is that he is half black/half-Latino. In an age when Ridley Scott bluntly admitted that he
had to whitewash/race bend Exodus to get international funding, where the one of the writers of
Noah stated
that they made all of the characters white for the sake of representing the every man, having a black/Hispanic Spider-Man would automatically make the next
Spider-Man movie more of a big deal than it otherwise would be.
We can debate whether or not the fact that the person under the Spidey mask is a person of color, played by an actor of color, makes him different enough to justify a redo, but one cannot deny that the switch-out wont attract copious attention from the media and curiosity from the masses, including many general moviegoers who otherwise might not be that keen on watching Uncle Ben die yet again. The introduction of a Spider-Man played by a minority actor would (sadly) still be a pretty big deal in 2017 or whenever the film comes out. A
Spider-Man film featuring (random example) Tyler James Williams as the web-slinging hero would darn-well make a new
Spider-Man film more noteworthy than another round with Peter Parker.
Sony seems willing to swap gender (the
Ghostbusters reboot) or race (next months
Annie) in terms of their major properties, so its not inconceivable. And yes I would darn sure root for a Miles Morales
Spider-Man film on principle, even as I would be saddened that it came a few years too late for Elijah Kelley. If Sony is worried that a minority lead would lessen the films overall worldwide box office, and I wouldnt begrudge them that concern, then they can just do what they were originally planning back in 2010. As you may recall, the original idea for the reboot was a buttoned-down, under $100 million, teen romance-centric high school drama, something akin to
Spider-Man meets
Twilight. That approach, minority lead or not, would at least make the film stand out among the mega-budget superhero tent poles.
The easier option, and an equally valid one, is simply, to quote my favorite underrated Walt Disney animated feature, to keep moving forward. Make an
Amazing Spider-Man 3 with Peter Parker doing his thing across the New York City skyline and doing battle with nefarious scientifically-enhanced villains. Keep Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, or merely cast someone else (Adam G. Sevani from the
Step Up films
comes to mind) in the role akin to
Batman Forever. Dont worry about tying the film into an expanded universe. Dont worry about drowning in continuity. Free from the burden of Marvel-style synergy and free from the requirement of justifying a fan-favorite plot twist, director Marc Webb and his amazing friends can just tell a ripping stand-alone Spider-Man adventure, one no more tied to rigid continuity than a
The Spy Who Loved Me or
Transformers: Age of Extinction. And for goodness sake keep the budget under $200 million if at all possible, so even if you still end up at $700m worldwide no one has to panic.
Well see if Sony actually ends up making any of their frankly interesting spin-off ideas into actual movies, and if they can get them into theaters in time they will at least earn credit for doing something different (a female-centric superhero film, a super villain ensemble picture, etc.) before their competitors followed suit. But in terms of the core character of Spider-Man, he is still hugely popular, as evidenced by the countless kids who watch
Ultimate Spider-Man on Disney Channel XD and dress up as Spidey for Halloween. The core idea behind Spider-Man, that he is a down-on-his-luck regular guy who could literally be anyone behind the mask, is still relevant and still iconic even in the era of
Hunger Games and
Iron Man.
The worst thing Sony could do is panic and over think it. An exciting and funny and fantastical Spider-Man adventure movie still has blockbuster potential because the character himself is eternally popular.
Amazing Spider-Man 3, in whatever form that might take,can still be a solid smash hit under the right variables. As long as the price is right, the
Spider-Man movie franchise is far from dead.
