My connection to a total of eight films (and counting) regarding a single superhero began as a Christmas gift in 2005. The Christmas of 2005 was when I received my first superhero action figure, Spider-Man. Since then, I have managed to watch all eight Spider-Man films. However, it is important to note that there are not eight Spider-Man films that revolve around the same cinematic universe. The Spider-Man films have been managed to be rebooted twice, each time with a different actor, a different set of villains, and different storylines. While there are different arguments as to why the original Spider-Man series was rebooted and as to why the Amazing Spider-Man series was also rebooted; the films this paper focuses on are the original Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire and the reboot, The Amazing Spider-man, with Andrew Garfield.
Regarding the original Spider-man and The Amazing Spider-man, both films manage to have differences and similarities in their plot, but it is the acting, the plot, and the characters that make each film stand out. As I reflect on the original Spider-Man film nearly 20 years after its original release, it should be noted as an all-time classic superhero movie. The original Spider-Man was the modern and live-action introduction to the superhero that everyone knows and loves from Marvel Comics. The movie includes the casting of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Kirsten Dust as Mary Jane, and William Dafoe as the Green Goblin. The first original Spider-Man was the modern and live-action introduction to the superhero that everyone knows and loves from Marvel Comics. Even though in 2002 technology was not as advanced as it is today, the effects of seeing the Green Goblin fly through New York City on a glider and seeing Spider-Man swing through the streets of New York City must have been very impressive for audiences at the time. The original Spider-Man had great directing, great acting, great effects, and had a great plot/storyline that introduced the modern live-action Spider-Man to the world. The Spider-Man film series with Tobey Maguire managed to continue for two more films after the success of the original 2002 release before it was rebooted. In a way, there was a sense of confusion that I felt, and I am sure that many fans around the world felt too as to why they would reboot the Spider-Man films. When The Amazing Spider-Man was announced, I was not satisfied. I was looking forward to a fourth Spider-Man film with Tobey Maguire, but not a reboot with Andrew Garfield. The Amazing Spiderman stars Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as the Lizard. Both films manage to have similarities since one of them was a reboot of the other. Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire portray Peter Parker as the nerdy kid that is seen in the comics, but Tobey does a better job of portraying the nerdier side than Andrew Garfield because Garfield’s interpretation of Peter Parker is more socially awkward. In both films, the audience sees how Peter Parker gains his superhero abilities as he is bit by a Spider, how Peter manages to discover his powers, and how the death of Uncle Ben, Peter’s uncle, is what makes Peter Parker become the Spider-Man that fights crime and protects. In both films, the villain has a connection to Peter Parker, and Spider-Man's true identity is known by the villains. Regarding Peter Parker and his crush, audiences are introduced to Mary Jane, who is Spider-Man's wife in the comics, in the Tobey Maguire films. However, Gwen Stacy in the Andrew Garfield films is Peter Parker’s crush. The main difference between the original Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man is the villains. There could not have been a more appropriate villain to introduce than the Green Goblin in the original Spider-Man as other villains may seem too powerful too weak to face off against Spider-Man in the first film. Using Green Goblin also allowed for the incorporation of other villains to be used in future films. With The Amazing Spider-Man, the introduction of the Lizard was not necessarily the strongest villain, but the CGI and technology incorporated made the Lizard look bigger and stronger than Spider-Man. While The Amazing Spider-Man may have felt repetitive and unoriginal, there is more incorporation with technology (Peter Parker developing web-shooters and Oscorp laboratories being technologically futuristic) and visual effects regarding CGI, the Spider-Man suit manages to satisfy the audience, the plot manages to expand on the background of Peter Parker more, the movie manages to be good, but not amazing as there is still an attachment of Tobey Maguire of being the ideal Spider-Man because he was the person that introduced the world to who Spider-Man was. However, as years have passed since both films have been released; I can reflect on the fact that while there is an attachment to Tobey Maguire being the ideal Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield plays the role of Spider-Man better, but Tobey Maguire is the better Peter Parker.
Theorists such as Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno can explain the significance behind Spider-Man and the massive audience the franchise has attracted over the years.
Walter Benjamin. Benjamin (1969) states:
The plot, villains, and concepts that were implemented in the Toney Maguire films and Andrew Garfield films are those that were originally written in Marvel Comics by Stan Lee. The illustration of Spider-Man from the comics to the screen is what allowed for a global audience to be introduced and attracted to the most popular Marvel superhero, Spider-Man. Regarding the views on the Spider-Man reboots, Horkheimer and Adorno argue:
Considering that there are three different Spider-Man franchises - the original franchise with Tobey Maguire, the amazing franchise with Andrew Garfield, and now the homecoming franchise with Tom Holland - Adorno and Horkheimer would argue that these reboots are happening for the sole purpose of business and generating a profit and that rebooting Spider-Man will lead to profit in the long run as Spider-Man has a global audience.
References:
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. pp. 1-12
Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Regarding the original Spider-man and The Amazing Spider-man, both films manage to have differences and similarities in their plot, but it is the acting, the plot, and the characters that make each film stand out. As I reflect on the original Spider-Man film nearly 20 years after its original release, it should be noted as an all-time classic superhero movie. The original Spider-Man was the modern and live-action introduction to the superhero that everyone knows and loves from Marvel Comics. The movie includes the casting of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Kirsten Dust as Mary Jane, and William Dafoe as the Green Goblin. The first original Spider-Man was the modern and live-action introduction to the superhero that everyone knows and loves from Marvel Comics. Even though in 2002 technology was not as advanced as it is today, the effects of seeing the Green Goblin fly through New York City on a glider and seeing Spider-Man swing through the streets of New York City must have been very impressive for audiences at the time. The original Spider-Man had great directing, great acting, great effects, and had a great plot/storyline that introduced the modern live-action Spider-Man to the world. The Spider-Man film series with Tobey Maguire managed to continue for two more films after the success of the original 2002 release before it was rebooted. In a way, there was a sense of confusion that I felt, and I am sure that many fans around the world felt too as to why they would reboot the Spider-Man films. When The Amazing Spider-Man was announced, I was not satisfied. I was looking forward to a fourth Spider-Man film with Tobey Maguire, but not a reboot with Andrew Garfield. The Amazing Spiderman stars Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as the Lizard. Both films manage to have similarities since one of them was a reboot of the other. Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire portray Peter Parker as the nerdy kid that is seen in the comics, but Tobey does a better job of portraying the nerdier side than Andrew Garfield because Garfield’s interpretation of Peter Parker is more socially awkward. In both films, the audience sees how Peter Parker gains his superhero abilities as he is bit by a Spider, how Peter manages to discover his powers, and how the death of Uncle Ben, Peter’s uncle, is what makes Peter Parker become the Spider-Man that fights crime and protects. In both films, the villain has a connection to Peter Parker, and Spider-Man's true identity is known by the villains. Regarding Peter Parker and his crush, audiences are introduced to Mary Jane, who is Spider-Man's wife in the comics, in the Tobey Maguire films. However, Gwen Stacy in the Andrew Garfield films is Peter Parker’s crush. The main difference between the original Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man is the villains. There could not have been a more appropriate villain to introduce than the Green Goblin in the original Spider-Man as other villains may seem too powerful too weak to face off against Spider-Man in the first film. Using Green Goblin also allowed for the incorporation of other villains to be used in future films. With The Amazing Spider-Man, the introduction of the Lizard was not necessarily the strongest villain, but the CGI and technology incorporated made the Lizard look bigger and stronger than Spider-Man. While The Amazing Spider-Man may have felt repetitive and unoriginal, there is more incorporation with technology (Peter Parker developing web-shooters and Oscorp laboratories being technologically futuristic) and visual effects regarding CGI, the Spider-Man suit manages to satisfy the audience, the plot manages to expand on the background of Peter Parker more, the movie manages to be good, but not amazing as there is still an attachment of Tobey Maguire of being the ideal Spider-Man because he was the person that introduced the world to who Spider-Man was. However, as years have passed since both films have been released; I can reflect on the fact that while there is an attachment to Tobey Maguire being the ideal Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield plays the role of Spider-Man better, but Tobey Maguire is the better Peter Parker.
Theorists such as Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno can explain the significance behind Spider-Man and the massive audience the franchise has attracted over the years.
Walter Benjamin. Benjamin (1969) states:
Thus, for contemporary man, the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art (p. 59).
The plot, villains, and concepts that were implemented in the Toney Maguire films and Andrew Garfield films are those that were originally written in Marvel Comics by Stan Lee. The illustration of Spider-Man from the comics to the screen is what allowed for a global audience to be introduced and attracted to the most popular Marvel superhero, Spider-Man. Regarding the views on the Spider-Man reboots, Horkheimer and Adorno argue:
Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when the directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished product is removed. (p. 1)
References:
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. pp. 1-12
Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Hi Michael! I enjoyed reading your commentary on the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies and the Andrew Garfield remake. I have to agree that Maguire is my preferred Spider-Man of the two portrayals for the exact reason you mentioned—he stuck to the quintessential Peter Parker nerdiness found in the original comics. I think a lot of people, including many Marvel enthusiasts, prefer Maguire for the same reason. I think that his specific interpretation and portrayal of the character also helped develop a cult of personality surrounding him in this role. This idea of cult of personality is discussed by Benjamin regarding film’s deteriorating aura and its subsequent reliance on an artificial personality. This ties to the commodification of Marvel’s characters and overall franchise that you mentioned when referencing Adorno and Horkheimer. Without a unique aura or existence of films in a particular place, creators must develop a spell of personality and commodity that captivates audiences—just as the Spider-Man franchise has done for Maguire’s Peter Parker. I think the newer franchises try to encapsulate this cult of personality with new actors as a part of their business model, with continuing, reaffirming demand from fans.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I thought it was interesting that you referenced the quote by Benjamin on film’s unique ability as art to portray reality, since the Marvel world builds off of reality while incorporating science fiction and fantastical storylines. I think that’s exactly why so many people love Marvel and superheroes—their ability to immerse us in these worlds and the fact that these superhumans are really just like us, with their own flaws and trauma but an ultimate motivation to do good.
-Juliana Yu
DeleteHi Michael,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your personal take on the Spider-Man movie franchise and its significance. We grew up with these movies and saw first-hand the induction of a significant fictional character into mainstream pop culture. While these movies have obviously been a result of unparalleled passion and effort on the part of the writers, actors, and directors involved, I would agree that Adorno and Horkheimer would most likely detract these films from our common societal perception of “art,” and see them as pure manifestations of a capitalist dominated society. Personally, I remember being extremely confused when I was younger as to why there were different actors and versions of the same fictional superhero, whether it was Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, etc. I simply assumed it was because the original actor grew tired and personally chose to dissassociate from the film’s franchise. Regardless of what actor plays the role, it’s clear that production of these films will not cease to exist, especially with a character as popular as Spider-Man, which as you mentioned has managed to garner a global audience following. In terms of the newest Spider-Man adaption with Tom Holland, my mind immediately thinks of not only the Adorno & Horkheimer reading, but Hall’s regime of representation article as well. As we’ve seen not only in the Spider-Man franchise, the love interest of the superhero tends to typically be a cis white woman. Spider-Man Homecoming’s casting choice of Zendaya, a young black woman, as the primary love interest is certainly unconventional and more applicable in a modern setting. However, one has to wonder if the choice to do so was merely to garner even more public attention and in turn further increase profits by appealing to younger audiences, as opposed to an authentic intentional effort to broaden the diversity of representation on screen. Overall, I found your notes on the Spider-Man franchise fascinating and it gives me much to think about as I continue to watch future superhero movies.
-Oscar Vasquez