comment #1

Thrudvangar says ...

I agree, and I long for the old Tobey. Wonder Boys, The Ice Storm, and The Cider House Rules are classics.

comment #2

houmas says ...

Please. Maguire was possibly the most passive, hazy actor in Hollywood, before Spiderman. His presence in "serious" movies, where he's usually competent, but still boring, had done nothing to advance him as an actor. There's nothing he does in The Cider House Rules that a dozen young actors couldn't have done much better, and with more personality.

You can be as snobbish as you like about Spider-Man, but I think this franchise has done more for Maguire's development as an actor (not just as a star)than a dozen The Ice Storms or Ride With The Devils ever managed. Spider Man seems to have freed Maguire up. Gave him a personality and a liveliness onscreen that's invisible in just about all his other work. Yeah, he still occassinaly drifts into that bored monotone of his, even as Peter Parker, but he's never given a better performance than Spider Man.

Make of that what you will. If Maguire actually shows signs of life in The Good German, then you probably have Sam Raimi and Spider-Man to thank for that development.

comment #3

Alan Cerny says ...

houmas nailed it better than I could.

comment #4

EDouglas says ...

Hate to be a fanboy, but it's a BLACK suit, Jeffrey. Grey... please.

I don't think Tobey has improved much. All I could think while watching that trailer is why Raimi keeps trying ot make such dramatic movies when he has such weak actors as Maguire and Dunst. Heck, at least he had Liam Neeson for Darkman and he pulled that off. Even after two movies, I still don't like them as the characters... my money's on Robert Downey Jr. to finally create a convincing Marvel character (well, Hugh Jackman is maybe the only one as Wolverine)

comment #5

jesse says ...

I agree with houmas -- Maguire is wonderful as Peter Parker (though I also found him hilarious in Wonder Boys), and the part has allowed him to shake off some of the sleepier aspects of his past performances. I actually really like Dunst's perfromances in those movies, too -- her reading of the line "whatever THAT means!" in Spiderman 2 cracks me up everytime (and I do think it's intentionally funny).

comment #6

Rich S. says ...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jeff's hostility to tentpole flicks has reached the point where he can't be even remotely objective. He needs to create an "Elsewhere Light" section, solely so he can dump on these films and the majority of the readers can ignore it. He can even create sections entitled "Peter Jackson," "Pirate Movies," "Computer Animation," "James Bond," "Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell" and "Super Heroes."

Of course, I would also put in another section entitled "Random Political Musings," so we can get that out of the way, too.

Come to think of it, though, if Jeff does that, the main site will deal only with old movies not on DVD, Steven Soderbergh (if he's not doing an Ocean's movie) and Inarritu. Ick. On second thought, forget I said anything.

comment #7

The Movie Man says ...

Mr. Wells can be an elitist when it comes to tentpole flicks (I like Lord of the Rings, so sue me, doesn't mean I can't watch, and appreciate, and later congratulate myself for, a Kubrick picture or a Godard or whomever you wish to mention to imply appropriate cinephilia.) but I have to back him up a little when it comes to the breed of tentpole known as the superhero movie. Come on guys, admit it, its the same damn story over and over with different outfits and modes of swinging or flying around buildings.
First a boring "origin" story, then a sequel that mildly resets the first one so we have an excuse to watch essentially another origin story only this one has more action. That said, the Spiderman movies are a cut above the rest, with a shout out also to Batman Begins.

I agree with the posters who think Tobey Maguire is kind of a stiff, Wonder Boys is his best work and that's because the part called for that mopey, self-indulgent, two steps behind look.

comment #8

Dan Revill says ...

The Spider-Man movies are not a cut above the rest! There's nothing going on in them, beyond the surface entertainment. Oh yes, they are entertaining to watch, but they've fooled a lot of people into thinking that there's something more to it all. I saw the first two films at least twice in the theater, and thought they were fun, but when it came to watch them on DVD, I could never make it through either. Lose the big screen experience, and they're less than thrilling.
I do think SM3 will suffer a similar fate: fun to watch on a big screen; boring on the small one.

comment #9

The Movie Man says ...

Aladdin: I pretty much agree, the Spiderman movies don't hold up too well on DVD (though 2 is much better than the first) but, even if their shelf life is limited to the theatre, that still puts the Spiderman movies above alot of these superhero flicks, which are usually boring before you even finish watching them the first time. Batman Begins holds up, and is the only superhero movie that holds up, and even that has a blah, been there done that, climax and resolution.

comment #10

sardine says ...

hey, Jeff, I know this is not the appropriate place, but Check out Sofia Coppola's next project...........It's a lesbian dream with beyonce and longoria......

comment #11

slothroplt says ...

I can't get into any of these Superhero movies. I never really hate any of them, I just cannot for the life of me, get engaged in any way -- ever:

Superman? 1 was great, 2 was good, but the fact that I was a little kid, it was the first, and CGI wasn't around is probably why. It seemed MORE REAL, if any movie with a "super person" can. 3 sucked. Was there a 4? This last one (5? or 1 again?) I didn't see and won't -- until it hits my TV and even then I'll probably watch while doing something else, as has been the case with most of these.

Batman? 1 was mildy interesting. 2-4 sucked. 5 was meh.

Spider-man series? Saw 1. Sucked. Skipped 2. Won't see 3.

X-Men series? Saw 1 and 2. Both sucked. Skipped 3.

Fantastic Four? Skipped.

Daredevil? Sucked.

Hulk? Sucked.

Hellboy? Meh.

Blade? 1 was meh. 2 and 3 sucked.

Constantine? Sucked.

Aeon Flux? Skipped (even Charlize couldn't get me to go to it).

Elektra? Skipped (even Jennifer couldn't get me to go to it).

Catwoman? Skipped (even Halle couldn't get me to go to it).

Crow? Saw 1. It was meh. Skipped the rest.

Am I missing anything? Dick Tracy (it sucked)? Ninja Turtles (sucked)? And I am no snob. Not even close. For the life of me, I just can't get the fascination with these "super" characters. Even the alienated teen-metaphor X-Men. I just don't get it.

How many more before they run out?

comment #12

Burbanked says ...

slothropit, with all respect, I'd submit that you just aren't much of a superhero fan in general. I agree with a handful of your assessments, but there's no way that the entire movie genre of superhero films can be written off so casually.

Yes, they tend to be mostly popcorn experiences, but I don't agree that they've got nothing going on underneath the surface. For me, Spider-Man has always been the very relatable story of a normal guy who chances upon extraordinary powers and must figure out what to do with them.

A lot of the audience for these kinds of movies comes simply from the fact of us reading and growing up on comic books as kids, and now we get to see these childhood heroes living and breathing and flying and swinging and whatever - it's excitement, pure and simple, but it also recalls a younger part of ourselves that wanted to believe that these kinds of heroes could exist in a real world.

The films themselves are only engaging in so far as they give us compelling, well-acted characters and conflicts that we care about - which sounds a lot like the right recipe for any movie.

comment #13

austin111 says ...

Tobey's a good choice for Spidey. Boyishly convincing, I suppose, is a good way of putting it. I can't help but wonder now what James Cameron would have done with the franchise, though, and his first choice for the role back then was Leo DiCaprio.

comment #14

Breedlove says ...

i don't read comics and i'm not familiar with the spidey mythology, but i'm trying to figure out how topher grace fits in...does he have something to do with the black suit? i thought he was a villain in this but the only shots of him were of the non-supervillain variety. this movie looks fun but it will be interesting to see what else raimi is capable of now that he is a-list.

comment #15

travis b says ...

this probably should be considered a spoiler, but in answer to your question Breedlove, topher's character does eventually come into contact with the black suit (in the comics after being fired from his job because of something peter parker does) and becomes the villain known as venom, who is basically a psychotic version of spider-man.

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

Breedlove,

Topher Grace is playing a character named Eddie Brock. It's been a long time since I read these books, but I think in the movies he's a photographer rival of Peter Parker. I think in the comics he was a thief apprehended by Spider-Man. Anyway, doesn't matter. Same motivation- hatred of Spidey/Parker.

SPOILER ALERT

Parker learns that the black costume is actually some sort of alien parasite that mimics and enhances his spider powers. After Spidey/Parker manages to rid himself of the parasite - the scene in the belltower; it hates sound waves - the parasite hunts for someone that hates Spidey/Parker as much as it does. It finds Brock and attaches itself to him, giving him powers identical to Spider-Man's. The villain Venom is born. They don't show him in the trailer, and he may have a limited role in this movie, but that's where they're heading.

comment #17

Sean says ...

potential Venom spoilers...

"in the comics after being fired from his job because of something peter parker does"

That's not accurate. Brock is a reporter who pretends to interview a serial killer called "The Sin Eater". His newspaper becomes a hot seller based on the scoop. Spider-Man catches the real Sin Eater, and this inadvertantly reveals that Brock has been lying about the interviews. Brock is fired, and thus hates Spider-Man. I don't think he cares about Parker either way, except that they work at rival newspapers.

"It finds Brock and attaches itself to him, giving him powers identical to Spider-Man's."

In the comics, this isn't really true either. He doesn't have a spider-sense, but he is much stronger than Spider-Man. Also, I believe he can shoot webbing directly out of his costume, unlike comic-book Spider-Man, who requires specially built webshooters.

comment #18

christian says ...

maybe jeff does hate "tentpole" or "franchise films but then, people who use these marketing buzzwords to describe them are the problem too...

comment #19

Sean says ...

"For the life of me, I just can't get the fascination with these "super" characters."

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would make a post that long and limit your criticisms to "sucked" or "meh", neither of which actually means anything; it's funny that you expect people to tell you what you're missing, but you don't actually give anything to work with.

"Catwoman? Skipped (even Halle couldn't get me to go to it)."

You missed out; 'Catwoman' was the funniest movie to be released in theaters in the years between 'South Park' and 'Borat'. Funny in a completely different way, of course, but laughing that hard in a theater is extremely rare.

And 'Aeon Flux' is not a comic book movie; I suspect that there's just a certain type of big movie that you don't respond to. Comic book movies being a sub-group of that type.

comment #20

Rich S. says ...

Sean,

I stand corrected. Like I said, it's been a long time. But your post also reminded me of something else. As I recall, though Venom has no spider-sense, he cancels out Spidey's. So Spidey never knows when he's lurking around.

comment #21

JSantos says ...

These movies aren't made for cineasts, they're made for teenagers, families and fans. Wells, God love him, always sounds a little snobbish when he expects more out of these movies. I mean really, just don't see it. These movies have their place, and you don't like them. I get it!

comment #22

Jows says ...

Please Jeffrey!!!!!!
How's Blanchett on The Good German?????
Is the movie any good?
Tapley hated it.
ANY WORD! PLEASE!

comment #23

slothroplt says ...

Burbanked is correct, I am not a fan of Superheros. Nor am I, however, predisposed to dislike them. And I was not dismissing anyone else's love for comics with my one-word reviews, as Sean suggested. Not at all. I was simply using the device as a means of expressing my own amazement at my inability to feel any sort of emotional or instinctual connection to the superhero archetype in film -- and I am generally far from disconnected when watching movies, pop or otherwise. So, if I offended with a "meh," I apologize. The word does, however, offer the most succint expression of my disposition toward these types of films, both before and after viewing.

Peace.

comment #24

Bandersnatch says ...

Thanks for the spoiler warnings, everyone. Not having read the comic books, I didn't want to know the details on Grace's character. I appreciate the good net etiquette.

That said, could someone who does read comics please explain to me why the faceless thug from the origin story always turns out to be a super-villain after all? See Batman - where Bruce Wayne's parents are killed by a supposedly homeless guy who later turns out to be the Joker - and Spider-man, in which the random carjacker from the first movie is actually the all-powerful Sandman in part 3. This always seems like a big cop-out to me. I mean, I realize that resurrecting the parent-killer gives the hero a chance to go all dark and revengy, but it also provides him with an opponent that he can either defeat or magnanimously forgive, which is something that most victims of violent crime (and their survivors) don't have. I'd rather see Spider-man face the frustration and helplessness of never knowing who killed Uncle Ben than watch him beat up the Sandman and achieve spiritual equilibrium. Maybe I'm asking too much of the franchise (it is, after all, a "tentpole" movie), but if the big selling point for the Spider-man series is, as we're always being told, that Peter Parker is a regular guy dealing with regular guy problems, then I'd like to see him deal with the fact that the vast majority of terrible things that happen in the world are not the result of superhuman villainy, but of every day acts of unexplained and senseless violence.

Can anyone enlighten me without dropping too many spoilers?

comment #25

Titus Pullo says ...

These comic book movies are the cimematic equivalent of fast food. Its good while going down but I do not sit around craving and planning for my next Big Mac, nor do I sit around cherishing my memory of that one time I went in to McDonalds and had that Big Mac. Also, in the last Superman movie, Superman was gone for 10 years during which time Lois Lane got married and had kids, but Kate Bosworth is 23 years old and looks younger. So I guess Superman was banging a 13 year old? They should have run w/ that aspect and made Superman a registered sex offender. Now THAT would be original.

comment #26

christian says ...

some of you here have lost grip with reality.

children watch movies too. they're not excited about BORAT or THE GOOD GERMAN or CASINO ROYALE
or FUR or...you get the point.

jeff needs to read some ray bradbury, reconnect to that sense of wonder that is a gift of youth and can be held onto through your life. it doesn't mean floating in an infantile state
of ignorance about the real world.

i loved SPIDERMAN 2. it rekindled that operatic sense of pop angst, triumph, and responsibility that made the comic explode in the 1960's as it was the first time a superhero had identifiable mundane problems. that's not wish fulfillment.

ayn rand points out that nobody believes james bond books are real, but they can be a shorthand metaphor for real problems. and kids need that grammar too.

i wouldn't say "grow up" as i think some of you have grown way too old...

and don't forget that paul mcartney is a big comic book fan. check out this great piece about the time he met spiderman creator jack "king" kirby...

http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/08mcartney.html

comment #27

wda says ...

Bandersnatch: "That said, could someone who does read comics please explain to me why the faceless thug from the origin story always turns out to be a super-villain after all?"

That's easy, he doesn't. In the comic book, Batman's parents were killed by Joe Chill (a plot point that Chris Nolan used in Batman Begins)--who does not later turn out to be Joker. In Spiderman's first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15, Uncle Ben was killed by the random mugger that Peter Parker chose not to apprehend, said mugger never came back as some super villain (Flint Marko, the Sandman, is a completely separate character). These are plot points that film executives and bad filmmakers come up with because they think it gives the characters extra "motivation", apparently not realizing how idiotic they are.

comment #28

Rich S. says ...

Bandersnatch,

There's actually a simple solution. The movies change the origin story to make it more "cinematic." In the comics, the Joker didn't kill Wayne's parents. Originally, it was a faceless guy. Then they gave the guy a name, Joe Chill. But I think he may be back to being a faceless guy. In any event, he was never a supervillain.

That said, and I don't think this is a spoiler because I think the trailer highly hints at this, I don't think that the Sandman did kill Uncle Ben. I think Spidey is taking it out on the wrong guy. Spider-Man 1 had the origin story pretty much right.

Here's what I always thought would have been cool in the original Batman films. The Joker makes his "Devil in the pale moonlight" speech, and Batman flashes back to his parents dying, with Jack Napier as the killer. Then, in Batman Returns, the Penguin makes some bizarre comment, and Batman has the same flashback, only this time with the Penguin as the killer! In other words, Batman has this psychosis where he projects the death of his parents on all the villains. Not anything like the real Batman or the comic, but it would have been a nifty twist.

comment #29

Sean says ...

bandersnatch: Both of the examples you cite grew out of Hollywood storytelling economy. In the original stories, they were just random crime. (Although given that industry's need to keep the home fires burning, it's possible that they have retroactively changed those stories as well.)

comment #30

Rich S. says ...

Sorry, should have said "real" Batman "in" the comic. I may be a geek, but I'm not that far gone.

comment #31

Bandersnatch says ...

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I should have known it was a Hollywood cop-out and not the fault of the comics.

Rich S., I think you're probably right about the Sandman. That "What does it matter to you?" line in the trailer seems like a giveaway. And I love your villain-fills-in-for-the-faceless-killer idea. Since all these superheroes are basically fighting "evil" as a stand-in for the specific villain who killed their parents (part of the reason it annoys me when they end up facing the actual villain later - shouldn't that remove their motivation and end the series?), your solution would demonstrate that point in a nicely creepy way.

comment #32

Burbanked says ...

I think that the primary difference here is that these comics have existed for decades, which has given their creators the ability to twist and bend and - as Sean points out above - retroactively change characters, backstories, and more. The movies have to exist in a relatively short time frame, and therefore must build their drama with the more immediate tools at hand.

Does this cause the occasional abuse of dramatic license? Of course it does, but if the rest of the film is narratively sound I think we can allow it, right?

But I'm with Rich above; I think Sandman will NOT end up being the guy who killed Uncle Ben.

comment #33

MovieBob says ...

"That said, could someone who does read comics please explain to me why the faceless thug from the origin story always turns out to be a super-villain after all?"

In the comics, it usually doesn't. In the Spidey books, a nameless mugger does the deed, ditto for Batman. "Daredevil's" dad gets whacked by a supervillian, but one who is already established and not the Kingpin.

Fans, myself included, tend to despise the "killer turns out to be villian" bit, but here I see where they're going with it. If you watch the trailer, Sandman isn't doing the all-powerful-evil bit, he's scared and freaked out. He's just a random thug who happens into powers and doesn't seem to see why Spider-Man is so interested in HIM.

For non-fans, here's the thing to consider that the trailer is telling you but not putting a heavy mark on: The black suit, (it's usually called "The Symbiote,") wherever it comes from, makes Parker a "stronger" Spider-Man by feeding on his darker impulses (greed, revenge, etc.) so that'd probably be where "Sandman killed Uncle Ben" fits in: The Symbiote-suit driving Peter to just murder the guy for revenge, and Peter having to resist that urge and bring him to proper justice (which will be symbolized-outwardly by rejecting the Evil Black Spidey identity for Good Ol' Red/Blue Spidey.) At least, that's where the trailer seems to be leading.

comment #34

sweet_billy says ...

you guys are all gay.

comment #35

travis b says ...

this could be considered a spoiler, but i feel that peter's friend harry may be behind all of the sandman as his uncle's killer bit. in the comics, the green goblin was usually behind these elaborate schemes to make spider-man go crazy. this feels like something along that realm. still, did anyone else find the trailer underwhelming? i'm still looking forward to it, but it wasn't as kinetic as the first two trailers.

comment #36

The Movie Man says ...

"some of you here have lost grip with reality.

children watch movies too. they're not excited about BORAT or THE GOOD GERMAN or CASINO ROYALE
or FUR or...you get the point.

jeff needs to read some ray bradbury, reconnect to that sense of wonder that is a gift of youth and can be held onto through your life. it doesn't mean floating in an infantile state
of ignorance about the real world."

Well fucking said Christian, especially in the last paragraph. I didn't love Spiderman 2 myself, but the overall sentiment couldn't be more on point. Keep in mind though, its more chic and hip to bemoan the state of these movies and push things like Borat or the next Soderbergh, etc. Don't get me wrong, those are fine, but the pretension around here can sometimes be numbing.

comment #37

christian says ...

thanx tmm.

i think it's pretty easy to live under a big film tentpole. i can watch NETWORK and be in adult awe and then GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER and be in fantasy land.

like walt whitman wrote, "i am large; i contain multitudes."

at least a child or teen watching SPIDERMAN is not told the world is easy and simple, it posits loss and hearbreak but with hope. the teen watching JACKASS is told that other people's real pain and misery is funny. i'll take spidey.

and this week, the cynics in america lost.

comment #38

Rich S. says ...

TMM and christian,

I think what's going on here, as I've written Jeffrey before, is that special effects have lifted the pulp entertainments of the past into the mainstream. It started with Spielberg and Lucas and snowballed from there.

There is no critical tradition of examining this type of film because they used to be Saturday morning serials. That's where you saw Star Wars, which Lucas has admitted is basically an update of Flash Gordon, as well as Indiana Jones and all the super heroes. Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel and Captain America all had serials.

As special effects have improved, the genre is now taken more seriously, but I don't think it is really meant to have a great deal more depth. These are still basically kids' entertainments based on archetypes of good and evil. They're not destroying Hollywood, because they've always been around. They've just moved from the short subject to the main feature.

As such, you guys are absolutely right. There is no reason for the hostility. Star Wars, James Bond (Connery version) and the original War of the Worlds started my affection for film. Those led to 2001, which led to Clockwork Orange and Paths of Glory. And so on and so on.

But, and this is important, I've never lost my affection for these kids' movies. To intimate that this is necessarily the case is really silly. "Important" filmmakers feel the same way. Hell, Google Batman and Orson Welles and be prepared to be amazed.

I know Jeffrey probably feels the same way. He just likes to rag on this stuff to get a rise out of people.

comment #39

Rich S. says ...

Sorry. I just took my own advice and learned the Orson Welles Batman may have been a hoax. You get the point, though. Filmmakers such as Oscar winner Ang Lee have obviously been fascinated by the subject of super heroes.

comment #40

christian says ...

well i agree mostly, but disagree on a major point.

the spfx are important but clearly not the most important thing. otherwise, STARSHIP TROOPERS would have made gazillions. or VAN HELSING. or SKY CAPTAIN.

what made STAR WARS work was the efx combined with the mythos. SPIDERMAN is all about the characters. look at SPIDERMAN 2 there's only two real action set pieces and they both propel the narrative and the characters forward. doc ock in SPIDERMAN 2 is sympathetic and not evil. that's why i loved that film and could give a shit about most of the comic book movies.

and film history is rife with spectacle pulp from de mille to spielberg, from THE LOST WORLD in 1925 to JURASSIC PARK today.

definitely this type of movie drives hollywood now and that is a problem. but the real problem remains the flood of corporate marketing business hacks who came out here post 1977 to reduce films to "product tentpole franchise brands" status and equate filmmaking with the selling of cereal...

comment #41

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

oh fuck not again.

Fuck man, I was gonna post but I just pissed myself again.
Fuck man I'm too old for this. Will be back to post later. Got to go clean up. sorry folks

comment #42

X-Texan says ...

Rich,

I wonder if the serial nature of these movies is more a problem than the CGI. I mean at the end of every episode of a serial you know the hero is going to survive (so the series can continue). You also know that his character will basically remain the same (harder to market a changing character). That can be a drama buzz-killer for some. I recall some comments Jeff made about the fights scenes in the Lord of Rings series. They were along the lines of "You didn't feel like they were in any danger." Well of course they weren't because they had two more movies to star in...

Spider Man 3 is no exception to these rules. Do you really think there's any possibility at all that Spider Man won't win this fight and return to being good old Peter Parker? If anything the CGI might help me forget that Spiderman isn't in any real danger of changing anytime soon.

comment #43

Burbanked says ...

X-Texan,
It's a decent point you're making, but many comic books end on cliffhangers as well. If we pretty much know that Spidey will save the day, rescue Aunt Mae, get the girl and stay alive, why should we buy the next book?

We always know James Bond will win and we know Superman can't be killed. And, as savvy moviegoers, we usually know in action movies that Arnold/Sly/Mel/Bruce/Tom/Pauly Shore will survive for the sequel.

That's why that whole middle part of the movie had better be pretty kickass. That's where we want to see something happening with these characters. That's where we want to feel something that's relatable or familiar. And that's where we want to see not just their physical selves in jeopardy, but important things that they hold dear as well.

Because maybe, by that familiar, anticipated ending, they'll be changed by their triumphant struggles - and maybe that change won't always be for the best.

comment #44

Rich S. says ...

Of course, the lack of change of the character is the essence of melodrama, as opposed to drama. I think, though, at least in Spider-Man, we have seen some change and growth in the character. Same with Batman Begins.

I understand what you're saying about the character survival syndrome. Burton killed the Joker and got barbecued by the fanboys for it. Same with Raimi and Doc Ock, though to a lesser extent.

I think the problem is that in most fiction, we want the characters to survive and triumph in the end. In true drama, that would be a single story arc (or, as in the Godfather, a multi-story arc). Comic book movies, and to some extent all serialized fiction, have the problem that there is not even the chance the character will die. Or, for that matter, fail. So I definitely see your point. But I don't think it's inherently the reason that critics despise these films. It may be, however, one of the reasons that audiences eat them up.

On a tangent, I do disagree slightly with the view that Star Wars was not intended to be a marketing vanguard. I was right in the marketing crosshairs of that film in 1977 and I know exactly how much product was shoveled my way. It wasn't as bad as today, true, but I think that was because nobody knew at the time just how big it was going to get. Plus, I don't think the mythical archetype thing was considered important until Empire expanded upon it. Selling toys, sheets, t-shirts, comic books, etc. may not have been THE primary motivation behind Star Wars, but it was sure one of them.

comment #45

thatrader says ...

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jeff's hostility to tentpole flicks has reached the point where he can't be even remotely objective. He needs to create an "Elsewhere Light" section, solely so he can dump on these films and the majority of the readers can ignore it. He can even create sections entitled "Peter Jackson," "Pirate Movies," "Computer Animation," "James Bond," "Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell" and "Super Heroes."

Of course, I would also put in another section entitled "Random Political Musings," so we can get that out of the way, too."

I just thought I'd repost Rich S.'s comments one more time because they made me laugh harder than anything I saw in Borat.

comment #46

MovieBob says ...

I'm not sure that "we know that they'll survive, so what's the point?" really holds much water. What about true stories or films based on historical figures? You know the ending even MORE definatively there. Are they robbed of all drama as well, or does this only apply to the "geek genres"?

Burbanked:
"It's a decent point you're making, but many comic books end on cliffhangers as well. If we pretty much know that Spidey will save the day, rescue Aunt Mae, get the girl and stay alive, why should we buy the next book?"

Here's the thing about Spider-Man: You're right, he doesn't die or get seriously, irrevocably injured... but people AROUND Spider-Man do. In fact, almost to the letter, the more Spider-Man cares about any given member of his supporting cast, the more likely they are to have horrible things befall them entirely because they are connected to him in some way.

Plus... this is magic number 3, most of the leads' contracts are up and now thanks to this franchise they can ask for more money if they renew. So, don't be surprised if characters "no one" is expecting to get killed start dropping like flies in this installment.