OPINION: Pick your Parker
Pick your Parker
Old-school or new-school Spider-man: who spins the best web?
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Well, what is the point of trying again if you succeeded the first time? Such is the case when it comes the recent Spider-Man reboot.
I first saw the 2002 “Spider-Man” at Logan’s very own Utah Theater on Center Street. At the tender age of 12 I walked into the the movie a boy: As I walked out, I felt I had become a man.
“That was the greatest movie I have ever seen,” I said to myself, awed by the majesty of the film. My life was changed.
It has been more than a decade since that day, and as I sat down to watch “Spider-Man” last weekend, my spidey sense tingled and the memories came flooding back to me.
“Spider-Man” was one of the greatest movies of its time, paving the way and essentially opening a window of popularity for the rest of the Marvel universe to make its way to the big screen. We now have excellent movies such as “The Avengers,” “Thor,” and “Captain America” lighting up our Blu-ray players and generating an awesome college-cuddling atmosphere for our generation.
After Peter Parker made his box-office debut, filmmakers had a lightbulb of sorts, realizing that the superhero beat was one that could generate some major cash flow if done correctly. In the nearly 11 years since “Spider-Man,” some of the most popular and successful movies have been about superheroes. Why are they so popular? Because Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent are living our dream. As normal, down-to-earth people, we identify with the characters initially, and as they develop into the heroes they are, we can feel like heroes too.
I obviously enjoy a good superhero movie as much – or more – than the next guy, but when it comes to identifying with a character, it doesn’t get much easier than it is with Peter Parker in the original “Spider-Man.”
He is common. He is shy. He is awkward. He is normal, just like the rest of us. Life keeps beating the crap out of him, and guess what? Life is hard for normal people. Yet, in spite of all that, he goes from zero to hero. From bony to buff, nearsighted to near perfect, lonely to loved – Peter Parker is the people’s hero, and in “Spider-Man,” emotions run much higher than in the remake.
So what is the point of doing it over again? Where is the originality? Take a look at the background and character development given in both “Spider-Man” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” and you will find only minor differences – some of the lines are even the same.
“Spider-Man” had a budget of about $139 million and grossed about $822 million at box office, whereas “The Amazing Spider-Man” had a budget nearly $100 million more, yet didn’t even gross $700 million. Ten years of technological advances and a $100 million more – the odds are stacked in favor of “The Amazing Spider-Man,” yet it still can’t top its predecessor.
Moral of this story: If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
Which would you pick? $821 million versus $696 million. Anyone in their right mind would choose the first figure, right?
Wrong.
The original 2002 “Spider-Man” movie grossed $821 million in the box office compared to its very recent counterpart, “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which grossed $696 million. The new version is still much better than the original. By the end of this article, if I haven’t convinced you of this, I’ve failed.
Andrew Garfield plays a better geek-turned-superhero than Tobey Maguire. The new movie followed the original story in the comics better than the old movie. Gwen Stacy was a more fundamental character in the comics than Mary Jane Watson. These are all valid points contributing to and supporting my winning case as follows: The new Spider-Man movie trumps the old version and stomps it into the dirt.
The old Spider-Man was the first origin story made into a movie. Though some might argue it’s redundant to remake the origin of Spider-Man, I will argue you to the grave. This origin story was 10 times better than the first one: Therefore, it’s highly encouraged to accept the latter movie as the origin story.
I first want to point out that Andrew Garfield makes a much better Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire – and not just because he’s ten times more attractive. Maguire was awkward before and after his transformation. He never made a good Spider-Man compared to Garfield’s depiction of the character. Garfield was skinny, nerdy and awkward. He slowly made the transformation from human to spider-human. That’s actually a very nice transition into my next arguing point. In the first Spider-Man movie, our superhero is able to use his web materials the minute he makes his transformation. Though this doesn’t follow the story in the comics, it’s in the movie anyway. In the new movie, Spider-Man has to create his own web from spider silk. They got it right. The closer the story follows the comic, the better. This is a key point of why the second story of origin should be favored more than the first.
And then we have the battle of the beauties – Kirsten Dunst versus Emma Stone. This is a tough one, but I’m choosing Emma Stone. I’m not talking about actresses here either. Let me rephrase the question. Mary Jane Watson versus Gwen Stacy, which character is more important?
At first glance most would argue Mary Jane is a more important character in the story. Let’s look back again to the comics. Peter Parker does end up marrying Mary Jane, but Gwen Stacy has such a figurative role in comic book history. When the Green Goblin drops her off the George Washington bridge, Spider-Man quickly webs her foot in an attempt to save her life. Unfortunately the quick web catch snaps her neck and Gwen Stacy ends her beautiful blonde-haired life. From here on in the comic book industry, stories were given an open door to become darker and more realistic. Gwen Stacy’s death is known as the end of the Silver Age of comics.
Three broad-as-daylight pieces of evidence stand before you. Take them or leave them, but at least leave with a new thought in your brain. The new Spider-Man dominates over that old, forgotten thing produced in 2002.
– daniellekmanley@gmail.com