The GeeksverseAvenging Spider-Man: The Movie?

Avenging Spider-Man: The Movie?
Published on Friday, July 13, 2012 by

The movie I’d rather watch this week is Avenging Spider-Man.

Initially I thought that it was too soon to reboot the Spider-Franchise. Then I realized how much time has passed since the Sam Raimi trilogy ended and began to come around. Watching Mark Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man, that debuted on July 3rd, left me comparing the movie to the Sam Raimi film.  Many scenes left me thinking “I liked how they did that in the first movie better.”  That comparison is perhaps unavoidable. It is compounded by Lizard being the villain. Raimi’s movies were setting up Conners as a villain for the Toby Parker. It will be interesting to hear about script development on a DVD commentary track or special feature. In my mind the script felt like what Raimi could have used for a fourth movie with an hour of origin story tacked on the front end. That is not necessarily the case, but it was the feel that my compare and contrast was building as I watched the film.

In the end, The Amazing Spider-Man was a fun film with improved web swinging that didn’t completely leave me satisfied.

My biggest complaint: it was Amazing and not Avenging.

The title was great for the Webb film. Instead I think the content should have been related to the Avengers universe. I respect that the X-Franchise and the earlier Raimi Spider-trilogy should not be shoe-horned forcibly into the larger Marvel Avengers universe. However, a reboot offers a perfect point to tie in. Over and over again in the comics Peter Parker says how he looks up to the Avengers and found them inspirational. Now would be a nice time to include that into the film mythos. Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker only needed one line to discuss how he looked up to the Avengers to make that work.

An even easier way to tie this movie to the next Avengers movie-verse would be in an after the credits scene. As with Hulk and Iron Man the after scene could have tied Spider-Man to S.H.I.E.L.D.  Remember in Iron Man 2 when Nick Fury and Tony Stark are discussing the Avengers project over the dossiers and ultimately Iron Man is recommended to the program but Tony Stark isn’t?  That could provide the foundation of a simple end of credits scene. Nick Fury and any other S.H.I.E.L.D. agent discussing how this new Spider-guy needs to be investigated. Simple. Done. End scene. Print. That’s a wrap.

It isn’t that I think the new Spider-movie can’t stand on its own. Instead I just don’t know why it should. I want the future of Marvel movies to continue building on the Avengers universe and Spider-Man would have been a great candidate. Why keep it separate? Spidey may not be my favorite Avenger, but this could have been a nice tie in.

7 Responses
    • Different studios own the rights. I think Sony owns the Spidey films, right? They’d likely have had to drop $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to Disney to make that happen. Politics suck, and Marvel was dumb for farming out all the films to so many different places in the first place.

      •  Adding a Nick Fury after credit scene would be much cheaper than putting the full Avengers in or working Spidey into the Avengers continuity early. The deal must expire sometime so they should start laying the ground work. Heck, a few generic S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and a few file  folders in a doughnut shop would work.

        •  I don’t disagree, but I think the deal stays in place as long as Sony is pumping out movies. Which is why they rebooted, and why that 1 million dollar Fantastic Four direct-to-trash-can-and-bootleg abomination got made, back when.

          •  Rumor has it that they were going to try and work with Avengers and have the Oscorp building added to the NY skyline…but I take it that didn’t happen.

            These studios need to partner up and share this cash pile. They can rake it in. Partnerships aren’t unheard of.

      • The film rights to Spider-Man went through some of the most tortuous entertainment litigation back in the 1980s and 1990s. Stuff that would make an entertainment lawyer’s head spin (and wallet fat)… by 1998 or thereabouts, MGM/UA and Columbia/Sony were the last two studios standing in the 20+ year-long legal tourney to land the rights. Anyway, what it all boiled down to is in late 1999, MGM/UA gave up its claim to Spider-Man in exchange for Columbia/Sony dropping its claims to the James Bond film franchise (another property they were fighting over).

        Given all the trouble and money they spent on the legal complications they had to go through just to establish ownership, I can see how Columbia/Sony would be hesitant to “share” the character with other studios, even though it makes all the sense in the world to do so from a continuity/brand-building standpoint. It really is sort of ironic (not to mention disappointing) that Marvel’s two biggest properties (Spidey and the X-folks) outside of the Avengers (whose headlining status is a fairly recent phenomenon when you think about it) are tied up indefinitely with two rival film studios (Columbia/Sony for the former, 20th Century Fox for the latter), so a true shared Marvel movie universe is probably something we’ll never see barring some sort of cataclysmic corporate upheaval or a landscape-changing merger/acquisition. 

        •  It’s settled. Someone call Mickey Mouse and tell him to buy up Columbia/Sony & 20th Century Fox and get these properties in the same mouse house.

    •  Amazing Spider-Man had a good opening weekend.It opened with more than two weeks of Ted had earned. That’s good, but it isn’t quite Avengers numbers. I think it would have been worth the money to “rent back” a few Marvel characters from the other franchise to pepper into the movie to make them related.
      The Amazing Spider-Man
      Sony Pictures Releasing
      $62,004,688 Week 1 total $137.0M1

Advertisements

Connect With Us!
The Geeksverse on Instagram
Recent Comments