I recently had the misfortune of being caught in quite a dilemma today. You see, I wanted to talk about how the Spider-Man movies went from the first magical, live-action blockbuster re-telling of a Marvel character's story, to a complete and utter crap-a-thon.
To do this, I had to refresh my memories of the movies in question. I should say I had to freshen them up, as my memories of the last one are not fresh by any means.
The first movie was very good except for the fact that Spider-Man wasn't funny and Peter Parker had such a meek voice that it was laughable. He'd always been the perpetual geek, but so am I, and I don't speak like I'm in a fucking library 24/7!
The second was action packed, much more so than the first one, and was generally an excellent flick. The problems from the first one carried over to this one, however, and the entire film was ruined by the pathetic mask-removal scene and the mushy ending that followed.
Combined, they could both be a LOT worse. The third installment could honestly not do much to be any worse; it really couldn't.
Sam Raimi has had people, fans mostly, on his ass about including Venom ever since this franchise was announced. Understandably so, though; he's a big player in the Spider-Man mythos. He didn't include Venom in the first or second movies, not so much as a peek of Eddie Brock either. This would have been fine except for the fact that he committed the cardinal sin; he caved to fan pressure when it made the least sense.
Spider-Man 3 introduces Eddie Brock, Peter Parker's rival and general douchebag (Both in the sense that he's a general douche and if he was in an army of douchebags he would be ranked as General Douchebag). He's not a douchebag in the comics, he's a sly and menacing tank with slightly unhinged tendancies. The douchebaggery comes courtesy of Topher Grace, who essentially just plays Brock as a blonde-haired version of Eric from That '70s Show.
It ends up that Brock becomes Venom in one movie; he's never given a name and the feud between him and Parker is never given time to fully gestate. At least not in a way that would warrant such a vicious grudge on Brock's part. To cap it all off, he gets killed at the end.
What a way to introduce one of the greatest foes in Marvel history, Mr. Raimi. Do I blame him? For caving, yes. For including Venom, no. Who do I blame? Strap yourselves in because this is gonna come right out of leftfield. Here it comes...! OH MY GOD!
THE FANS! I blame the fans. Those over-delusional idiots with such a gross sense of entitlement that it makes me utterly nauseous.
They spent ALL this time bitching that Sam Raimi didn't include Venom, then when he does they want to spend time ripping the dude for it. If you are ANY kind of Spidey fan, you would know that the only logical bitching to be done would have been at the beginning: "Raimi, you idiot! Why haven't you set up a feud between Brock and Parker in the FIRST movie?". By the second movie, when he wasn't included, you should have known that it was way past time to include that character.
Here's how I would have done it.
Introduce Brock in the first movie when Parker starts work at the Bugle. This would allow you to build up a rivalry and somewhat of a competitive edge between the two. The second movie would allow for an expansion on this as a sub-plot. Perhaps even have Peter Parker expose Brock as a fake near the middle of the movie, then let Brock disappear with rage after getting fired.
At the very END of Spider-Man 2, you see Spider-Man listening to the radio. It's revealed that there has been a tragic space shuttle crash landing in the Hudson River and he webswings off to help. Do ya see where I'ma goin' yet, folks?
Spider-Man 3 rolls around and you have set up a perfect scenario! Through Peter's flashback narrative we see him save those on the shuttle as a mysterious organism escapes through the cracked hull or something, having hitch-hiked a ride back. It attaches itself to his suit and that sets up the story.
This would lead into the whole story about how he eventually gets the black suit, it changes him for the worst and he sheds it in the bell tower.
Soon after this, you would see Parker getting threatening letters and phonecalls from an unidentifiable culprit. To cap it off, a bank robbery occurs at the hands of someone the police and news stations are reporting as Spider-Man.
Perturbed, Peter goes to check this out and comes face to face with Venom. They fight and Venom reveals himself as Eddie Brock. He tells the story of how he became Venom through a flashback narrative; he was in the church praying for the death of Parker as the symbiote dripped through the cracks and down onto him.
There, you've successfully got yourself a great villain that causes no need for any additional villains; you've managed to include Venom AND you've done it in a way that has been built up and makes perfect sense.
That is the only way Venom would have worked. Maybe not to my EXACT ideas, but the two movie build-up for sure.
What's the point I'm getting at? Any fan should have known that Venom was a bad idea.
Spider-Man 4 (Oh yes, the cash-spider has more milk webs to spin yet) has a release date of Summer 2011. Rumour has it, and it has been circulating for a while now, that Carnage is to be a villain in the next one. Not just Carnage, but The Lizard and Black Cat will also be a character that's included.
The Lizard makes more sense, especially when you consider that Kurt Connors has been in two, maybe even three of the movies.
Black Cat would work because she's not necessarily a villain. Even though they run the risk of over-crowding, this might work.
Carnage? No. Just no. You fucked up ONE symbiote story, Raimi. Please do not try to include another. You will have to explain how the symbiote replicated despite being on Earth for about a week and then getting destroyed, even though you didn't do a good job of explaining what the FIRST one was.
Carnage is badass and loved by a great many fans. Trust me when I tell you that the real fans would rather dream about how great Carnage could be in a movie, than have you put him in and ruin it.
It's precisely why I hated Surfer in Fantastic Four's sequel; I wanted to see him in a movie, but my desire to see him in a movie was over-rode by my desire for him to be left as is. Why? Because there's always a greater chance of it being shit than good. A Deadpool movie has the potential to be Marvel's best movie, but will it? See my point.
Sam Raimi will never read this, so ultimately I'm just ranting onto the net with my herd (You lot).
If you're reading this and you're a fan, will you do me a favour? Do not push for Carnage. Do not be one of those people. Only fans of the cartoon and noobs think he would work, and we'd all have to suffer for it.
That's my rant out and over with.
Thursday's a while away; in all likelihood I may squeeze an album review in between now and then. Chances are it'll be on The Resistance by Muse. That's one that a lot of folks have asked me about, so keep your eyes peeled.
Also, coming near the end of December is my epic Best of 2009 post. On the agenda for that banquet will be:
- My Top 10 Albums of the Year list.
- Best Comic/Comic Series of the Year award.
- Worst Comic/Comic Series of the Year award.
- Best Comic Writer of the Year award.
- Best Comic Artist of the Year award.
- Various Character awards (Best/Worst/Most Improved/Most Neglected etc).
With all that said, that's all I have for now. Thanks again for reading, I hope you enjoyed it.
Until next time, peace.
-The Mast
