A number of recent things--including the
rumor of
The Amazing Spider-Man 3 being shuffled to 2017 following
Sinister Six, and RextheKing’s thought-provoking
editorial about the theoretical concept of what a negotiated sharing-and-timeframe deal between Marvel Studios and Sony/Fox—has me thinking about the current Spider-Man film franchise, where it is headed and what its long-term fortunes may be.
In considering what may have
allegedly motivated Sony to postpone
TASM3 and to focus on a villain-based spinoff first instead, I found myself asking the question, “Can a continuous series of Spider-Man films, sufficiently close together in release dates to keep the character’s rights with Sony, last in the long-term? Can such a pattern continue to remain interesting and profitable?” And I found myself feeling doubtful.
Unlike Marvel Studios, Fox and Warner Bros., Sony’s mainstream comic/superhero property is heavily centralized around a solitary, solo character. Of course there are plenty of supporting characters, villains and anti-heroes in the spider-sphere, but whether any of them can be successfully spun out as significant personae in and of themselves is not clear. I believe that Venom can work on its/his own terms, but that is just speculation at this point. So far, we have had five films, all centralized around Peter Parker, and while they have been great entertainment, they are increasingly slipping from the event-status that the first Sam Raimi film commanded in 2002 when it made massive box office money and stole thunder from Star Wars.
A survey of other comic book characters naturally pulls up Batman as a parallel. Since 1989, there have been seven Batman films, utilizing four different lead actors and aside from the 1997-2005 post-Schumacher dark ages, never more than three years apart until WB decided to take a different, non-solo strategy following
The Dark Knight Rises. If that sort of constant content stream can work for Batman, can’t it work for Spider-Man, too? I am not so sure.
While Spider-Man is unquestionably the face of Marvel Comics and an extremely popular character, I do not believe that he directly compares to Batman or Superman, both of whom have a certain mythical cultural-icon standing that I feel is better suited to constant sequelizing and re-interpretation. It’s difficult to explain the way that I see the comparison, but Batman’s gothic social commentary and Superman’s biblical science fiction are different from Spider-Man’s relatively grounded (thematically, not literally) everyman-character basis.
Long story short, I do not believe that it is a good long-term plan to treat Spider-Man like Batman. Rather, I think that the other decades-long-running touchstone, James Bond, provides a better template. Taking a look at what has worked for the 007 franchise seems as though it might be helpful to Sony…
1. Develop and Sell Films as Standalone Stories First and Foremost
With a few exceptions (
Dr. No into
From Russia With Love,
Casino Royale into
Quantum of Solace, etc) the 007 franchise has not relied on direct story continuations. Rather, a core group of MI6 characters—Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny—return each time for what is essentially a very elaborate new procedural episode. The strength of this approach is that it encourages each film to function as a complete, self-contained story. In theory, that bodes well for each screenplay on its own terms.
I know that universe-building and serialization are all the rage these days—and they’re great things, make no mistake—but when your greatest asset is a single, iconic character, there is less of a need to, and less of a benefit in, developing other things as the connective tissue that ties films together. Granted, because Peter Parker has personal (as opposed to professional in the case of Bond) relationships with other people such as Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane Watson, Aunt May and Harry Osborn, it does make sense for those relationships to develop in a serialized manner across films, at least until the next reboot results in casting changes.
Goodness knows that Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films (at least the first two) got a great deal of mileage out of ongoing character development, and that very thing was arguably a success in its execution. So, I would not suggest that future films disregard ongoing relationships between characters. Rather, I would suggest that there is some benefit in developing stronger standalone stories for each film. In particular, now that we have covered both Gwen and MJ once each, as well as Peter’s origin twice, there is an opportunity to treat whichever characters happen to be in the mix as essentially “narrative adults” and place them in a new situation, with a new story. They characters can still be shown to have accumulated history together, but otherwise each it does not have to be full of lines leading to other films past and future.
2. Finely Hone and Focus in on What Makes the Character Great
James Bond’s particular appeal is rooted in a combination of impossible sophistication with casual dismissiveness. It’s what makes him and his world irresistibly sexy, and the 007 films have it down to a science. Bond’s style is the blood the runs through the films’ veins.
What is the Spider-Man equivalent? It’s Peter Parker’s status as a normal guy, usually a teenager or young adult, who has to deal with ‘everyday life’ at the same time as being a superhero. The key is not actually the webslinging heroics, but the relatable frustrations behind the mask. It’s about being relatable. Spider-Man films need to be centered on that, both from a production standpoint, and in-story/on-screen. A well-written screenplay should be just as important as the visual effects, because Spider-Man can only maximize its franchise potential by telling deeply compelling human stories.
Spider-Man 2 got that right, and as a result it works well on levels that have little to do with action or spectacle.
Certainly, the Spider-Man films have at times done a good job of looking at Peter Parker’s personal life, and the current iteration can boast that as arguably its strongest suite, in terms of the chemistry and charisma of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. But even when those characters are written well, problems can still arise when the high-concept superhero plot elements around them do not fit in complimentarily. The plot as a whole should be cohesive, so that the wild stuff enhances the root story instead of taking away from it. Again,
Spider-Man 2 is an example of how that can work.
To illustrate the angle here, I like to think of some of the more interesting teen-based film and television as sources of possible inspiration. Spider-Man could be treated as a less-weird
Donnie Darko, or take some cues (if not exactly the tone) from a show like
My So-Called Life. The basic point that I’m trying to make is that Spider-Man should be a good teen/young-adult drama first, and a superhero fantasy second. There is no reason why humor and action cannot coexist with grounded complexity. It simply requires careful, focused story development.
3. Brand the Story (Not Just the Character)
Skyfall was sold as
Skyfall, not ‘
James Bond 23’. Each 007 has its own unique title, usually some sort of intriguing compound word or catchy phrase. Of course, the fact that they are James Bond films is never left to confusion, but nonetheless they each have their own identity as more than mere subtext to the title character. This approach helps sell a ‘something new’ idea about every 007 film.
I am certainly not suggesting that the name ‘Spider-Man’ be taken out of the title. That might work once or twice, if there is any equivalent to what Warner Bros. recently did with Batman and Superman, i.e. ‘
The Dark Knight’ and ‘
Man of Steel.’ Maybe some play on 'Webslinger' although that is an odd word on its own.
Anyway, what Sony can do is develop a greater sense of differentiating identity for each Spider-Man film. And no, using ‘
Rise of Electro’ as the subtitle is not good enough, especially concerning how overused the word ‘rise’ is getting to be in the world of cinema.
As far as specific ideas, how about trying out different-but-similar title like ‘
To Catch A Spider’? Or something very 007-y like ‘Spider-Man will return in
Kiss of the Black Cat.’ Those sorts of titles could help break the monotony without losing the central character-based branding. Just for fun, here’s one last idea: ‘
Eight Arms To Hold You,’ a Doctor Octopus-based story with music by Veruca Salt. Several layers of synergy at work, there.
4. Vary the Location
Now, this point is a bit sticky, no pun intended. It occurs to me that one of the hallmarks of the 007 series is the rotating arsenal of often-exotic settings. That attribute is an attractive selling point.
However, Spider-Man is very closely and obviously identified with New York City. The NYC setting is part of the character, and it would be a radical notion if not borderline heretical to suggest moving the story elsewhere. On the other hand, though, if
Batman Begins could heavily feature settings outside of Gotham City and still not only work as a film, but keep its center, then I think that it’s worth considering the possibilities of a Spider-Man film trying something similar. It would be very cool to see Spider-Man someplace like Tokyo, and I would also like to see Peter Parker in a non-urban setting, be it mountains, forest, etc. Such an approach could certainly help give each Spider-Man film a unique feeling and identity, which could help keep the franchise fresh.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that Spider-Man is a character of great storytelling potential. He is Marvel Comics’ most iconic single entity. Content based on him is by nature suited for reaching not just the geeky fringe or the action-movie demographic, but specifically the valuable ‘Young Adult’ audience. I imagine that the executives at Sony are having some soul-searching moments right about now, wondering how they are going to keep their Spider-Man film franchise exciting enough to keep attracting the big money. While it is a tricky proposition in some ways, I do believe that with the right perspective, Spider-Man can continue to be profitable and worthwhile in the long run.
Thoughts, comments, ideas?