Marc Webb will helm Spectacular Spider-Man after all! Thoughts and speculation on his somewhat surprising return.

It's a telling sign of behind-the-scenes tumult when it's actually surprising to hear that the director of a franchise-kick off is indeed returning to helm the sequel.  But after a summer filled with innuendo and rumors, followed by a final product that was clearly cut to ribbons at the last minute, and I am not a little surprised to see Marc Webb signing up for another go at Spider-Man 2.0.  But The Hollywood Reporter uh, reports that Webb will indeed helm The Spectacular Spider-Man, set for release on May 4th, 2014.  Andrew Garfield is back too, which is obviously less of a surprise, but at this point Emma Stone is still negotiating.  Expect Stone to get a massive raise, perhaps higher than Garfield, as her massive charisma and general attractiveness caused audiences and critics worldwide to convince themselves that the paper-thin romantic subplot was some kind of classic genre romance.  Webb is angling for a raise above the $1 million he got last time.  Purely speculating, but I imagine Sony offered him enough money to stick around under what will likely be rigorous studio control so they could save face for at least one more installment.  Losing the director after two installments is par for the course (Batman Forever, Iron Man 3, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, X-Men: The Last Stand, Shrek the Third, Chronicle of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, etc.) but losing the director after one film generally causes raised eyebrows.  In this case it would be an admission of error.

A look at the six-day opening weekend for The Amazing Spider-Man. Has Sony established a new franchise or merely temporarily dodged a bullet?

There are a number of ways to judge the six-day $137 million debut of The Amazing Spider-Man (review).  First of all, in all but the most unlikely of circumstances, a film grossing $140 million in its first six days ($62 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend) is a pretty big financial success.  For the record, the film played 44% 3D and 10% IMAX.  The film earned an A- from Cinemascore and played 75% over 12 years old and 25% families with kids under 12.  Of the over-12 audience, it played 54% were male and/or over 25 years old. Of the under-12s, 73% were under 10 years old and 65% were boys. While final figures won't drop until Monday, the six-day weekend puts in between 25 and 30 among the biggest six-day totals.  It's the fourth-biggest Fri-Sun debut of 2012 and the second-biggest of summer.  On the other hand, as far as Spider-Man films go, it's actually pretty weak sauce.  Spider-Man 2 opened on this same holiday weekend back in 2004, earning a then-record $180 million in its first six days (with $88 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend, among the top-five opening weekends ever at that time).  The first Spider-Man film (audio commentary) opened in May 2002 to a then-record $114 million Fri-Sun debut, earning $144 million over its first six days of play, three of those days falling in the middle of the school year no less.  As for Spider-Man 3, it also broke the Fri-Sun record back in May 2007 ($151 million) before earning $176 million in its first six days.  So factoring in inflation (Spider-Man - $196m, Spider-Man 2 - $229m - third best six-day of all time, Spider-Man 3 - $202m) and the 3D ticket-price bump, The Amazing Spider-Man sold far fewer tickets than its predecessors over its first six days of release.  Point being, the Sam Raimi trilogy set box office records, while The Amazing Spider-Man merely exists as another relatively large-scale blockbuster amid a sea of preordained blockbusters.

In mainstream films, dead moms don't count...

I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it.  The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty.  Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after.  But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott).  His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play.  And that's the pattern, it would seem.  Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.

Midnight box office: The Amazing Spider-Man earns $7.5m at 12:01am. Will it fall closer to $112m or $155m by Sunday?

The official numbers are in, and The Amazing Spider-Man is off to a decent if-not amazing start.  The reboot earned $7.5 million in midnight screenings.  $1.2 million of that came from IMAX alone, giving each IMAX theater a $4,000 per-screen average.  For comparison sake, Spider-Man 3 debuted with $10 million worth* of midnight showings five summers ago.  While said threequel debuted on a Friday as opposed to Tuesday, it also was in the middle of the school year and didn't have the benefit of 3D ticket prices and expanded IMAX opportunities.  To be fair, there wasn't nearly as much 'rush out and see it' factor this time around, as it wasn't a sequel to a popular series and didn't have the debut of a fan-favorite villain (Venom, natch).  As it is, $7.5 million is the same midnight number that Iron Man 2 pulled in two years ago on its way to a $128 million Fri-Sun total.  But it's difficult/unfair to compare Fri-Sun openings with extended week openings, so let's look at more relevant stats.

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) is the same, only much much worse.

The Amazing Spider-Man

2012
136 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It's no secret that I have had major issues with the very idea of quickly rebooting the Spider-Man franchise.  If the film was a smash, I have argued, then studios would basically spend the next few decades merely rebooting the same dozen franchises over and over again.  Well, the Marc Webb-helmed reboot is here, and it fails in fundamental ways despite not being an outright terrible film.  It fails by both not being different enough from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man and not being better than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.  While it is preferred to view (and review) films in a vacuum, the circumstances in this case not only prevent that but discourage it.  At its core, it is an unofficial loose remake of a prior film being sold as an 'untold story' while the studio attempts to sell used goods as a new product.  It is astonishingly cynical gambit and the idea behind its construction turn what is by-itself a moderately entertaining superhero origin story into something downright insidious.  

Newsflash: Twilight didn't invent the female-driven blockbuster and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was primarily about romance too...

As expected, the initial wave of mostly positive reviews for The Amazing Spider-Man have partially involved a form of collective amnesia. Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph called the film 'a superhero film for the Twilight generation' and states that Twilight was the first blockbuster to target women and The Amazing Spider-Man is the first superhero targeted at females, a theme that a number of critics have implicitly or explicitly stated in their critiques.  Both of these things are false of course.  Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was primarily a romantic drama stretched over three films.  The web-slinging action beats and occasional super-villain squabbles were less important than the ongoing love story between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson.  Kristen Dunst was as much of a main character as Toby Maguire, especially in the somewhat underrated Spider-Man 3, and the romantic arc was the main narrative throughout the blockbuster trilogy.  And as for the second claim, it's like Titanic, Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, and Avatar never happened.  But in an era where no one remembers a damn thing and everyone is too damn lazy to look it up, Marc Webb is now getting the credit for basically inventing a female-skewing superhero film and Twilight is now presumed to be the only reference point for blockbusters that were popular with women.

The Amazing Spider-Man gets one last trailer. In summer 2012, it clearly suffers from the 'middle-child syndrome'.

This frankly isn't nearly as impressive as the first teaser, mainly because it doesn't add much other than to reveal some pretty big third-act spoilers (including two massive hints about the film's finale).  The interplay between Garfield and Stone is still pretty solid, and it's nice that the film A) has them get together pretty early on and B) apparently has her learn his secret at least by act three (again, why spoil that?).  Dennis Leary barely gets any dialogue this time around, which is good since he seems to be giving the film's worst performance.  The focus this time around is on the official super-villain, The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), with plenty of meaty shots of the green-skinned menace.  The web-slinging action still looks pretty terrific and the film looks visually dynamic (it has a richer and crisper picture than the relatively flat The Avengers).  At its core, the problem with The Amazing Spider-Man at this point in the game is two-fold.  First of all, it still doesn't look different enough from the Sam Raimi trilogy to justify a corporate-mandated reboot.  Second of all, it is sandwiched between what is arguably the 'ultimate comic book movie' (The Avengers) and the 'ultimate comic book film' (The Dark Knight Rises).  In comparison, the Marc Webb picture just seems like a kids' flick in comparison, a young do-gooder not fit to play with the grown-ups in tights.  Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man opens on July 3rd.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

The Amazing Spider-Man gets two new posters, plus a terrible Japanese trailer.

I'm assuming these aren't the last posters, as they don't have any credits at the bottom.  Or are we past the point where full-blown theatrical one-sheets have to list any kind of credits anymore?  Anyway, the art for both of these look pretty solid.  Below the jump is the new Japanese trailer for the film.  In a word, it's awful.  The footage is fine, but it's has a painfully trite bit of voice-over monologuing in the middle and is cut together like a bad fan-edit.  Considering that the Japanese trailers for The Avengers and Brave were the best from their respective marketing campaign, we can only presume that Disney international is better at this than Sony International.  Anyway, I presume we'll get a second domestic trailer for this one attached to The Avengers in about three weeks, followed by screenings starting up after the opening weekend of geek-centric Prometheus (June 8th).  The film opens on July 3rd.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

The Amazing Spider-Man gets a stylish, but still familiar trailer.

Taken on its own merits, this is a pretty solid trailer.  The visual effects look decent, there seems to be plenty and varied web-slinging action, and Marc Webb's reboot does possess a different, more real-world look compared to Raimi's cotton-candy New York City.  But the idea that this film is 'darker' because it's visually darker and rains a bit more, for the moment, silly.  For all the bright colors and gee-whiz action, Sam Raimi's initial Spider-Man was an awfully morose and depressing affair, with pretty much every major character (Peter, Mary Jane, Harry, Norman, etc) in a state of mental duress for 90% of the picture.  How gloomy is the picture?  It ends at a funeral... for the villain!  And the idea that this film differs by creating a student/mentor relationship between Peter Parker and Dr. Conners completely ignores the father/son relationship between Peter and Norman Osbourne in Spider-Man and the student/mentor relationship (truncated as it was) between Peter and Dr. Octavius in Spider-Man 2.  

The Amazing Spider-Man gets a stylish, dark, misleading (?) poster.

One could carp about the tagline, which claims that we are getting 'the untold story' while all evidence points to us getting merely a new version of the exact same story as Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man.  Other than that, this is a pretty terrific piece of marketing, using a lack of color, or even its hero in costume, to set itself apart from prior versions.  It does seem, at a glance, like Sony is taking a page from the Marvel playbook, as it's basically selling this film as 'a Peter Parker story' rather than 'a Spider-Man story'.  Again, I could carp that all three Raimi Spider-Man films were Peter Parker dramas first and web-slinging action pictures second, but no matter.  Thanks to Superhero Hype for the 'get'.

Scott Mendelson

For the good of the industry: Why The Amazing Spider-Man must not be a smash...

What was merely presumed is now official, as IMAX announced that The Amazing Spider-Man would be debuting in IMAX 3D along with its 2D and Digital 3D counterparts on July 3, 2012.  This is no surprise, as Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 both played in IMAX (the latter opened day-and-date), while the lost Raimi-helmed Spider-Man 4 was announced as an IMAX launch when it was scheduled to open on May 5th of this year.  Of course, the Marc Webb Spider-Man reboot will only have 2.5 weeks in IMAX before Chris Nolan debuts The Dark Knight Rises on July 20th.  I have nothing against anyone involved with the making of The Amazing Spider-Man.  I liked Marc Webb's (500) Days of Summer, I think Emma Stone deserved an Oscar nomination for Easy A, and Andrew Garfield has shined in (among his more mainstream films) Never Let Me Go and The Social Network.  And while the teaser trailer failed to make any real impression beyond autopilot 'dark and gritty' brooding, I've been told the footage at Comic Con was more impressive.  But for the good of the industry as a whole, for the sake of the countless untapped sources of big-budget cinematic experiences, The Amazing Spider-Man must bomb.

Amazing Spider-Man gets a teaser, which looks... familiar (in more ways that one).

At first glance, this teaser seems to be selling something akin to the Teen Wolf television show.  Take something that was first presented as light, peppy, and colorful, then redo it as an uber-grim and glum and oh-so-serious variation.  Still, Spider-Man, like Batman, has been done 10,000 different ways, so there is no harm in seeing another interpretation, even if it was a naked cash grab that spawned reboot-fever (if this hits, no franchise will ever make it to part IV again).  The piece looks moody, well-acted, and atmospheric, although the sense of deja vu permeates the whole thing.  Having said that, three things spring to mind. A) The climactic running sequence (arguably designed to show off the potential for 3D in this new Spidey flick) looks like something out of a first-person video game.  B) The score during the finale sounds an awful lot like Danny Elfman's score for the original Spider-Man.  I know it's probably not (not the main theme anyway), but you'd think Sony would want to distance themselves a bit more from the Sam Raimi trilogy.  C) It would appear that Marc Webb and company have spent a bit of time watching the terrific Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon that aired from 2008-2009.  It also told of a high-school-age Peter Parker, who's best pal Gwen Stacy worked in Doc Conners's lab.  It's not bad material to borrow from (the cartoon was stunningly well-written), I just hope if the final film is as similar that the proper people get acknowledgment.  And at least said cartoon didn't make us rehash the origin yet again (and it also didn't try to be pointlessly 'dark and gritty').  Anyway, this one comes out July 3rd, 2012.  As always, we'll see...  If you have thoughts, feel free to share them below.

Scott Mendelson  

Yes, Marc Webb's reboot will indeed be titled The Amazing Spider-Man.

I guess this means that the inevitable sequel in summer 2014 will be titled The Spectacular Spider-Man. Sony made official what had been reasonable speculation since the reboot project was announced last year. They also released a nice new photo of Peter Parker in full Spidey gear. Nothing to stop the presses over, but it's a nice photo (yes, those do appear to be mechanical web-shooters). Now only the Star Trek sequel remains untitled amongst the mega-pictures of summer 2012 (Star Trek 2, Amazing Spider-Man, The Avengers, and The Dark Knight Rises).

Scott Mendelson

Oh, so THAT'S why Sony released the first Spider-Man image yesterday...

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sony released the first image from their Spider-Man reboot right before this New Yorker cover hit the stands. I wrote this elsewhere last night, but Sony must be a little pissed at all the horrible press that Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark is getting. So no, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they released the official still this week, since they don’t want people exclusively talking about Spider-Man in the same breath as Springtime For Hitler.

Scott Mendelson

First look at Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man reveals that... Peter Parker is indeed Spider-Man!

The net has been buzzing with all kinds of speculative silliness regarding 'clues' that can be deduced from this first official image from Marc Webb's Spider-Man reboot. Here's what we know: Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker. Peter Parker is secretly Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man wears a costume that's pretty similar to the comics and/or Tobey Maguire's suit from the Ram Raimi trilogy, but with a darker red/blue color scheme. Peter Parker apparently carries his backpack around with him at one point in the film, or perhaps only in this photo. Other than that, stop the speculation, people. It's a terrifically moody photo, and the blood on his face is a nice touch.

As the search narrows down to just five actresses, just how 'token' will Spider-Man's girlfriend be in the new reboot?

Melissa Silverstein over at Women and Hollywood took understandable umbrage at the flurry of articles discussing just which young actress would be playing Peter Parker's girlfriend (who apparently might not be Mary Jane) in the upcoming Spider-Man reboot. The finalists are apparently Emma Roberts, Teresa Palmer, Lilly Collins, and Imogen Poots, and Ophelia Lovibond. Her annoyance stems from the phrasing of these articles, which basically amounts to 'which promising young actress gets to play the quasi jail-bait piece of meat that Spidey rescues and then makes out with?' I wrote about this back in March. It’s the dilemma of most working actresses, forced to choose either no mainstream work or be stuck playing the ‘token female character/love interest’. I’m less offended in this case because we’re talking about Spider-Man here. If we knew which one of Parker’s comic book girlfriends was in the reboot, the articles simply would have read ‘who’s playing Mary Jane Watson/Gwen Stacey/Betty Brant/etc', and they would likely contain a token amount of comic book backstory. But the obstacle that actresses face, being cast only in relation to the male lead, is a fair charge and one worth repeating.