Spider-Man’s Arc Has Come Full Circle—and Also Back to Square One

One of the biggest unwritten rules in Hollywood is that the best way for a sequel to live up to its predecessor is to do more of everything. But while there have been some noteworthy sequels to this mold, bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better – likes Aliens And Terminator 2: Judgment Day It is the exception, not the rule. (And frankly, James “Ocean Master” Cameron has proven to be in a huge league of his own.) However, this approach to defining the superhero movies of this century has come about, practically by design – you can’t get to Avengers without laying foundations Iron ManAnd bull, And Captain America: The First Avenger.

However, when it comes to the Spider-Man movies, the biggest development has historically reduced the character – not in the style of a “radioactive spider that satiates a teen with fantastic power”. Before Tom Holland’s Peter Parker came under the wing of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as part of an ongoing partnership with Sony Pictures – which still has rights to the character – Sony had two stab wounds in the Spider-Man franchise, both of which collapsed in a similar fashion.

The Sam Raimi trilogy led by Tobey Maguire got off to a promising start: 2002 Spider Man It was a poignant origin story for Peter which also provided a worthy antagonist as the landscape-chewing Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin. sequel 2004 spider man 2It can be even appreciated – one of the rare big budget supplements Do It lived up to the hype — thanks in large part to Alfred Molina’s influential work as an Octopus doctor. (The horrific scene where Doc Ock kills a group of surgeons was also a good reminder that Raimi cut his teeth to make Kickass horror movies.) Unfortunately, the Raimi trilogy collapsed with 2007 spider man 3, which packed the film with far too many villains – Green Goblin 2.0, Sandman, Venom – and is often remembered for Peter’s infamous attempts to be “cool” while under the (symbiote) influence.

Al-Rimi has been outspoken about how the attempt to raise the stakes is “doomed to fail.” spider man 3He was not helped by Sony’s reported push to include Venom in the film against the director’s wishes. However, the studio didn’t learn its lesson: after rebooting the Spidey IP with Andrew Garfield taking on the role of Peter, the franchise once again cast several villains – Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino – in 2014. The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Without the plaudits or fanfare in the Remy trilogy to begin with, the Garfield-led series was canceled before it reached a third film.

Why is this important for Tom Holland’s iteration of the character? Well, anyone with an internet connection should know the intent behind the latest MCU Spider Man Login, There is no place for home. With Doctor Strange’s help, the film unleashes the multiverse, which is another way of saying Sony will relive its greatest hits, bringing back Dafoe’s Green Goblin, Molina’s Doc Ock, and Thomas Haden Church’s Sandman from the Raimi trilogy, as well as Jamie’s Electro and Rhys Ifans’ Lizard. Foxx from The Amazing Spider-Man series. Together, these villains make up five of the Sinister Six – Venom out of the group, but the latest version of Symbiote has more pressing concerns, like falling madly in love with its human host. But There is no place for homeSpidey’s callbacks don’t end with villains from the past, like the movie—a massive spoiler alert, though. he did not do Do you see this coming? – Also revives Maguire’s and Garfield’s Spider-Men before his action-packed, star-studded heyday.

who – which There is no place for home Throwing all of these characters into one movie might sound contrived, but for both Sony and the MCU, a crossover event actually makes sense. Phase 4 of the MCU delves into all the mind-bending potential of the multiverse, and Peter’s role in the larger series is no exception. (When Peter asks Doctor Strange to cast a spell to make everyone forget that he’s Spider-Man, the trademark of a very angry teen—why a good Doctor would agree to such a stupid idea is unfathomable.) With this arrangement, the studio has essentially recreated the magic of Oscar-winning animation Spider-Man inside the spider worldOne of the best superhero movies ever made – as a live action movie.

It’s a win-win for both studios as well as die-hard Spider-Man fans. Passion for the character — the gentle underdog who learns, time and time again, that great power comes with great responsibility — translates not only to ridiculous box office numbers in the pandemic, but into a widespread critical adoration that largely ignores There is no place for homeDisadvantages. This is because, unlike Sony’s latest blockbuster, Ghostbusters: The AfterlifeThe underlying feeling of nostalgia for Spider-Man is that it feels acquired in the context of the movie.

But Must Feel so earned? There is no place for home It effectively follows the same arc that undermined Sony’s previous Spider-Man franchises. The chaotic web of Multiverse story lines only facilitates throwing other movies under the bus while also digging for nostalgia. Once it’s proven that Spidey villains from other universes have entered Peter’s world – and that by bringing them back, the characters are doomed to the fate set for them in previous films – our hero decides he’ll fix them in order to break the cycle. (Eventually, Maguire and Garfield’s Peters joined in.) It’s an interesting idea, but since then There is no place for home Part of the MCU, it doesn’t purposefully explore the tragic origins of these villains, and instead uses the characters as punch lines to illustrate their flaws – and thus, the films they were a part of. The effect is not unlike watching CinemaSins collapse.

Nature packed into trying — with five villains, three spider-men, and one Doctor Strange — helps explain why There is no place for home 148 minutes is impractical, but even this long runtime can’t serve all characters. Of the villainous quintet, Green Goblin is the clear standout: Dafoe’s Jekyll-and-Hyde kinetic routine makes a compelling case that he belongs to the group of movie super-villains. (Even the usual MCU fight scenes have a really raw and disturbing energy when Dafoe hits the shit out of Peter the Dutchman with his bare hands.) But the rest of the villains fail to shine with comparatively smaller lights; Sandman and Lizard are little more than footnotes, while Electro’s new look screams from Foxx that he doesn’t want to undergo a clumsy makeover again. (In the meantime, Molina said the quiet part out loud by jokingly explaining that coming back as Doc Ock was “only about the money.”)

These are not fatal flaws, but they confirm it There is no place for homeThe déjà vu does more than just bring back characters: in the macro, it’s a studio (or technically, two) trying to level itself up by constantly raising the stakes for Peter, thus repeating the character arc from previous franchises. There is no place for home It is undoubtedly better than spider man 3 or The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but it has outlasted its MCU predecessors—Homecoming And away from home— It feels like a step back. There is an underdog charm to Spider-Man, and Holland’s previous entries have excelled when they focused on Peter’s secondary experiences conflicting with his responsibilities as a superhero. (If something happens, Homecoming And away from home Pulled when the MCU’s big picture priorities came out.)

for better or worse, There is no place for home It’s mostly big moments: a group of crooked baddies and Peter Parkers wrapped in a snug blanket of nostalgic fan service. But as a love letter to Spider-Man, the movie strangely lacks the very things that have made audiences fall in love with the character throughout this century — and that seems intentional. Why bother creating memorable moments (or memes) when events from the past can be constantly alluded to? And why satisfy the emotional payoff when characters can trade single lines with each other in an effort to withstand an ironic distance?

if There is no place for home It works, it’s because of the core work put in by the previous Spider-Man franchises, and the adoration they had for both Maguire and Garfield’s performances in the main role. There’s definitely nothing wrong with giving in to Spidey’s nostalgia—There is no place for homeThe box office numbers and near-universal acclaim speak for themselves. But the MCU’s clever decision to ditch the character’s past passion—and the Raimi trilogy in particular—is no substitute for creativity. True to its ominous title, Dutchman Peter Parker can’t go home at the end of the movie. But when it comes to Spider-Man as an IP piece, the character’s nearly 20-year history on the big screen shows how easy it is to get back to square one.

Leave a Comment