Spider-Man's Movie Future.

Now, I'll fully admit that this is not necessarily what people want, but I think it's a good option to go with in Sony's current state. In this rant of sorts, there will be some assumptions, things that are not set in stone yet that I'm going to go with, such as Andrew Garfield being done as Peter/Spidey and the option of a "soft reboot".

Let's take one of Spider-Man's most successful media endeavors, the '90s animated series and see what we can learn.

1. Have Peter already established as Spider-Man from the get-go.

This is probably what the general audience wants the most from any kind of Spider-Man reboot/retelling or whatever you want to call it. The '90s animated series re-told his origin in a flashback, a new movie could do the same, or even cover it in the opening credits. General, non-comic book readers do not want to see another origin story, I'd even suggest that most comic book readers don't either.

2. Peter is a young adult attending college and has an established job at the Daily Bugle.

The casual audience is sick of teenage Spider-Man, so are the hardcore fans. In the main Marvel continuity (Earth 616), Peter hasn't been a teenager since the '60s! Sure there is Ultimate Spider-Man (Earth 1610), but the casual fan probably isn't even aware of the Ultimate line of books. Marvel hates this, but the audience is ready for Peter to grow.

3. The '90s animated series relied on putting their own spin on beloved stories that actually happened in the comic book source material.

There's nothing wrong with changing things up, in fact you have to, to some degree. But when it no longer resembles the source material, you're doing it wrong. Sure, casual fans have had their fill of Green Goblins, Doc Ock, The Sandman, The Lizard and probably aren't terribly excited to see Venom, Electro or The Rhino again, but there is SO much more in Spidey's universe that you can adapt. There's no need to retread familiar ground again so soon. The '90s animated series adapted iconic Spidey stories and added twists very well, there's no reason the films can't do the same.

Now I want to add here, there is a way of moving forward without completely negating the so-called "amazing" films. While I personally am not the biggest fan of either Amazing Spider-Man film, I think it'd be a waste to throw away all the hard work from the first two films. However, I don't think future films should be completely bound by them. Below are a couple of events that I'd keep as established canon.

SPOILERS ahead.















Keep the Stacys dead.

I know everyone loves Emma Stone, but Gwen is better off dead. Say what you will about ASM2, but Gwen's death was pretty well done. Don't beat us over the head with it repeatedly, but an occasional reminder of the losses Peter has suffered (Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, Gwen) could add some layers of guilt as needed. You don't even need to directly reference how, when, why or who killed her, just remind us she's dead and he feels it was his fault. Same goes for Captain Stacy.

Romance.

while romance is certainly a sizable part of Peter's life, I'd keep it very limited in the next installment. Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy has been a HUGE part of all five Spider-Man films, I think everyone is suffering from romantic burn-out. Give us a breather before introducing his next love interest (which should probably be Mary Jane).

Final Thoughts.

World build, use Spidey's excellent supporting cast and don't be afraid to bring in some cult-favorite characters (i.e. Ben Reilly) take a chance or two! But, above all else, do what Marvel themselves are not currently doing (at least when it comes to Spidey)... listen to your fans. After all, they pay your bills.

Spider-Man Vs. The Amazing Spider-Man

In 2012,  'The Amazing Spider-Man' hit theaters. It is my opinion that 'The Amazing Spider-Man' didn't do anything better than 'Spider-Man' did back in 2002. There is a vocal minority out there, that would have you believe that 'The Amazing Spider-Man' is a more faithful adaption than 'Spider-Man' was. That is simply not true. 'Spider-Man' was more recognizable as traditional "Spider-Man" storytelling than 'The Amazing Spider-Man'. Sorry, but mechanical web-shooters and asinine quips do NOT make for a more faithful adaption.

2002's 'Spider-Man' had heart, something that it's 2012 reboot lacked. That heart was provided by Sam Raimi, one of the most talented and in my opinion under-appreciated directors of today. He is a popular and well-known director, but I still feel he is under-appreciated by a substantial amount of movie fans. From 'The Evil Dead' trilogy, to 'For Love of The Game', obviously the 'Spider-Man' trilogy and even 'Oz the Great and Powerful', there isn't a director with more heart behind his pictures than Sam Raimi.

The acting was also superior in the 2002 film. Andrew Garfield may be an adequate replacement, but he fails to capture the character (The WHOLE CHARACTER, not just quipping) of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker/Spider-Man may not be the class clown a few expect, but he is a responsible character, that you believe in. Willem Dafoe is a superior villain to Rhys Ifans' Lizard, which is among the series worst portrayals. Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson easily best Sally Field and Martin Sheen as the more likable Aunt May and Uncle Ben, not to mention Cliff Robertson's death scene was far more emotional and impacting. Kirsten Dunst is inferior to Emma Stone as a love interest when you compare her performance in all three 'Spider-Man' movies versus Emma's performance in both 'Amazing' movies. I will argue that Kirsten Dunst in first 'Spider-Man' is every bit as good as Emma Stone in 'The Amazing Spider-Man'.

The Score. There isn't much to write here. Comparing Danny Elfman to James Horner is just plain not fair to Horner. Elfman is simply a genius. 'The Simpsons', 'Beetlejuice', 'Batman', 'Tales From The Crypt', 'Fable' and obviously 'Spider-Man'. He's done it all, and he's done it well. Sorry future composers of 'Spider-Man' films, you won't do any better than Mr. Elfman.

In May 2014, 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' was released and was... interesting. Discarding the atrocious Spider-Man costume from the 2012 film, upgrading the musical score with the talent of Hans Zimmer and adding fan-favorite villain Green Goblin to the mix. The film was mixed at best. Being blasted by critics, praised by fans, but ultimately failing as it is the lowest grossing 'Spider-Man' film to date.

While I regard 'The Amazing Spider-Man' as a pretty bad movie, I do consider 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' to be kinda sorta better. At the end of the day, there is no doubt in this Spider-Man fan's mind which of the franchises is more likable and more like Spider-Man as I know him. 'Spider-Man 1 & 2' are masterpieces of "Super-Hero" film and 'Spider-Man 3' is a masterpiece compared to the "amazing" reboot and it's sequel.