TALE OF THE TAPE
Title: Spider-Man Title: Superman
Tomato Meter: 89% Tomato Meter: 94%
IMDB Rating: 7.4 IMDB Rating: 7.3
Starring: Tobey Mcguire, Willem Dafoe Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman
Director: Sam Raimi Director: Richard Donner
Box Office: $403.7 million Box Office: $134.2 million
Academy: 2 nominations Academy: 3 nominations
Year: 2002 Year: 1978
Two superhero icons go head to head. One representing Warner Bros. and DC Comics. The other Sony Pictures and Marvel comics. Both are flagship characters in their respected companies, and both have been part of our culture for over 50 years. This should be an epic match-up.
Spider-Man and Superman have more in common than you'd think, both as characters, and as movies. Both films are origin stories. Both heroes are raised by fosters, Clark with his adopted parents and Peter with his Aunt and Uncle. Both discover the burden of their power. Both get a job with a newspaper company. Both companies have the word "Daily" in their title. Both fall in love with a girl they cannot be with. Both have costumes that are predominately red and blue. Both have the word "Man" in their superhero names.
Superman is the more light-hearted of the two films. Christopher Reeve, then an unknown actor, captured the essence of the character perfectly. Giving both Superman and Clark Kent noticeable and distinctive personalities, he seamlessly transitions from one aspect of the character to the other. Superman is bold yet gentle, and the very definition of noble. Clark is timid and unassuming. He is the proverbial nice guy who finishes last. Gene Hackman plays a more comical villain, especially since he's a criminal mastermind who seems to surround himself with ditzy bimbo's and blundering idiots. Still, one cannot envision a better Lex Luthor if they tried. Gene and Christopher's chemistry is pure movie gold. Both are so absorbed into their characters they give the impression they've worked with each other for years. Margot Kidder plays Louis Lane, Superman's love interest. Louis comes across as a very believable person. Attractive, but not "Hollywood Hot", tough as nails, but vulnerable, Margot Kidder brings realism to an otherwise fantasy tale. In addition, there are supporting stars adding their talents to this film like Marlon Brando, Terrance Stamp, Jackie Cooper, Ned Beatty, and Glen Ford. Despite a tv show, a few serials, and many cartoons, Superman didn't really come to life until visual effects had evolved allowing us to believe a man can fly. Adding to the ambiance of this film is its musical score, conducted and written by John Williams. John's talents are as ingrained into this film as is his work in other films, such as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Jaws. While this film has set the bar for superhero films yet to come, it isn't a flawless film. Sometimes the film takes itself seriously, other times it cheats itself with campy humor.
Spider-Man has seen his share of cartoons and made for tv movies. But Marvel has held off on production until visual effects had evolved allowing us to believe a man can swing. Tobey Mcquire puts in a powerful performance as both the hapless runt of high school, Peter Parker, and everybody's favorite friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Parker/Spider-Man is a character consumed with guilt, doubt, and vulnerability, and Tobey effortlessly conveys this through his delivery of lines, expressions, and body language. He tries to do the right thing, but understanding what is right is hard when it seems that no matter his choice, someone is getting hurt. Willem Dafoe delivers an over-the-top performance as Norman Osborne/Green Goblin. Frustrated and paranoid, Norman uses the experimental formula on himself to secure the government contract that's worth millions to the company. The serum enhances his abilities, but also his mania. Like Tobey, Willem effortlessly displays a full range of emotions and can turn them on a dime. A supporting cast including a surprise hit comes from J.K. Simmons who plays newspaper editor J.Jonah Jameson. Simmons portrayal of Jameson is spot on in the hearts and minds of Spider-Man fans. No other actor or cartoon has illustrated this character more perfectly than Simmons. Spider-Man's flaws come in the costuming. For all of Tobey and Willem's acting ability, their masks handicap their acting style. Unable to emote feelings and thoughts through facial expressions, they have to rely on body language and voice over work to try and deliver.
Both Sam Raimi and Richard Donner are seasoned directors who craft their films well. Superman is an idealistic character, and Donner serves this character justice giving him a million reasons to love him and nothing to hate him for. Raimi adopts the nature of Spider-Man, and makes him relatable to movie audiences as the comics made him relatable to readers. He is noble, but flawed, tragic yet determined. Both films have set box office records for their times. Christopher is very charming, and Tobey is a very empathetic, drawing audiences into their respective roles. Both movies broke ground in the special effects department.
In the end however, there is an interesting comparison. Spider-Man comes out as the more nobler of the two. In order to protect the woman he loves, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), he must sacrifice his happiness and feelings for her by not pursuing his interest in her. Superman, on the other hand, saves his love interest by cheating death. He does what is forbidden, altering time. He saves the day, but clearly tries to have his cake and eat it too. Although some may argue that this shows that even Superman is flawed, and thus he is somewhat human too.
This is a fight that goes the distance. Spider-Man has an advantage in the early rounds scoring a few knock downs with its brilliant acting and state of the art effects. But Superman endures, and the Man of Steel clobbers Spidey several times with its charm, scope, and universal appeal, scoring Knock Downs of his own. Spider-Man is handicapped behind its masks, while Superman's Kryptonite comes into play with a few hokey mistakes. With both films still on their feet after round 15, we go to the judges. There decision...
Winner: Superman
You're completely insane! Sure, Superman is a classic film but CLEARLY Spider-Man is the superior of the two. Superman was perhaps the first great superhero film but Spider-Man managed to launch an entire genre into box office prominence. Spider-Man strikes that perfect balance between action, humor, character, and emotion. Sure, the Green Goblin isn't a perfect looking villain but it was awesome that he at first tries to bring Spider-Man over to the dark side before trying to destroy him. Spider-Man is funnier, has more heart, has better action sequences, and a more relate-able main character. Superman's "big finale" with the turn-back-the-time thing doesn't even make sense. Plus, Superman says he never lies but as Clark Kent he's the world's biggest liar! Sorry, Retro Reviews - you got this one wrong BIG TIME. I don't care how you measure it - Spider-Man is the better film in every regard.
ReplyDeleteIn your review you said: "But Marvel has held off on production until visual effects had evolved allowing us to believe a man can swing." But that couldn't be further from the truth. Marvel WANTED a Spidey film for decades but couldn't get one! It only happened that when it was finally made the technology had developed to realistically create web swinging effects. See the wikipedia information below for details:
ReplyDeleteCannon Films development period
ReplyDeleteIn 1985, after a brief option on Spider-Man by Roger Corman expired,[citation needed] Marvel Comics optioned the property to Cannon Films. Cannon chiefs Menahem Golan and his cousin Yoram Globus agreed to pay Marvel Comics $225,000 over the five-year option period plus a percentage of the film’s revenues.[2] The rights would revert to Marvel if a film was not made by April 1990.[3]
Tobe Hooper, then preparing both Invaders From Mars and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, was mooted as director. Golan and Globus misunderstood the concept of the character ("They thought it was like The Wolf Man", said director Joseph Zito)[4] and instructed writer Leslie Stevens, creator of The Outer Limits, to write a treatment reflecting their misconception. In Stevens’ story, a corporate scientist intentionally subjects ID-badge photographer Peter Parker to radioactive bombardment, transforming him into a hairy, suicidal, eight-armed monster. The human tarantula refuses to join the scientist’s new master-race of mutants, battling a succession of mutations kept in a basement laboratory.[4][5]
Unhappy with the debasement of his comic book creation, Marvel’s Stan Lee pushed for a new story and screenplay, written for Cannon by Ted Newsom and John Brancato.[6] The variation on the origin story had Otto Octavius as a teacher and mentor to a college-age Peter Parker. The cyclotron accident which "creates" Spider-Man also deforms the scientist into Doctor Octopus and results in his mad pursuit of proof of the Fifth Force. Ock reconstructs his cyclotron and causes electromagnetic abnormalities, anti-gravity effects, and bilocation which threatens to engulf New York and the world. Joseph Zito, who had directed Cannon’s successful Chuck Norris film Invasion USA, replaced Tobe Hooper. The new director hired Barney Cohen to rewrite the script. Cohen, creator of TV's Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Forever Knight, added action scenes, a non-canonical comic for the villain, gave Doc Ock the catch phrase, "Okey-dokey", and altered his goal from the Fifth Force to a quest for anti-gravity. Producer Golan (using his pen name "Joseph Goldman") then made a minor polish to Cohen's rewrite. Zito scouted locations and studio facilities in both the U.S. and Europe, and oversaw storyboard breakdowns supervised by Harper Goff. Cannon planned to make the film on the then-substantial budget of between $15 and $20 million.[2]
While no casting was finalized, Zito expressed interest in actor/stunt man Scott Leva, who had posed for Cannon's promotional photos and ads, and made public appearances as Spider-Man for Marvel. The up-and-coming actor Tom Cruise was also discussed for the leading role. Zito considered Bob Hoskins as Doc Ock. Stan Lee expressed his desire to play Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson.[7] Lauren Bacall and Katharine Hepburn were considered for Aunt May, Peter Cushing as a sympathetic scientist, and Adolph Caesar as a police detective.[6] With Cannon finances siphoned by the expensive Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and Masters of the Universe, the company slashed the proposed Spider-Man budget to under $10 million. Director Zito opted out, unwilling to make a compromised Spider-Man. The company commissioned low-budget rewrites from writers Shepard Goldman, Don Michael Paul, and finally Ethan Wiley, and penciled in company workhorse Albert Pyun as director, who also made script alterations.[5]
ReplyDeleteScott Leva was still associated with the character through Marvel (he had appeared in photo covers of the comic), and read each draft. Leva commented, "Ted Newsom and John Brancato had written the script. It was good but it needed a little work. Unfortunately, with every subsequent rewrite by other writers, it went from good to bad to terrible."[7] Due to Cannon's assorted financial crises, the project shut down after spending about $1.5 million on the project.[4] In 1989, Pathé, owned by corrupt Italian financier Giancarlo Parretti, acquired the overextended Cannon. The filmmaking cousins parted, Globus remaining associated with Pathé, Golan leaving to create 21st Century Film Corporation, keeping a number of properties (including Spider-Man) in lieu of a cash buy-out. He also extended his Spider-Man option with Marvel up to January 1992.[3]
ReplyDeleteGolan shelved the low-budget rewrites and attempted to finance an independent production from the original big-budget script, already budgeted, storyboarded and laid out.[8] At Cannes in May 1989, 21st Century announced a September start date, with ads touting the script by "Barney Cohen, Ted Newsom & John Brancato and Joseph Goldman."[9] As standard practice, Golan pre-sold the unmade film to raise production funds, with television rights bought by Viacom and home video rights by Columbia Pictures, which wanted to establish a studio franchise. Stephen Herek was attached as director at this point.[10] Golan submitted this "new" screenplay to Columbia in late 1989 (actually the 1985 script with an adjusted "1989" date) and the studio requested yet another rewrite. Golan hired Frank LaLoggia, who turned in his draft but grew disenchanted with 21st Century. Neil Ruttenberg was hired for one more draft, which was also "covered" by script readers at Columbia.[11] Columbia’s script analysts considered all three submissions "essentially the same story." A tentative production deal was set. Said Stan Lee in 1990, "21st Century [is] supposed to do Spider-Man and now they're talking to Columbia and the way it looks now, Columbia may end up buying Spider-Man from 21st Century."[12]
[edit]Carolco Pictures
ReplyDelete21st Century’s Menahem Golan still actively immersed himself mounting "his" Spider-Man, sending the original "Doc Ock" script for production bids. In 1990, he contacted Canadian effects company Light and Motion Corporation regarding the visual effects, which in turn offered the stop-motion chores to Steven Archer (Krull, Clash of the Titans).[13]
Toward the end of shooting True Lies, Variety carried the announcement that Carolco had received a completed screenplay from James Cameron.[14] This script bore the names of James Cameron, John Brancato, Ted Newsom, Barry [sic] Cohen and "Joseph Goldmari", a typographical scrambling of Golan's pen name ("Joseph Goldman") with Marvel executive Joseph Calimari.[15] The script text was identical to the one Golan submitted to Columbia the previous year, with the addition of a new 1993 date. Cameron stalwart Arnold Schwarzenegger was frequently linked to the project as the director's choice for Dr. Octopus.[citation needed]
[edit]Cameron "scriptment"
ReplyDeleteMonths later, James Cameron submitted an undated 47-page "scriptment" with an alternate story (the copyright registration was dated 1991), part screenplay, part narrative story outline.[4] The "scriptment" told the Spider-Man origin, but used variations on the comic book characters Electro and Sandman as villains. This "Electro" (named Carlton Strand, instead of Max Dillion) was a megalomaniacal parody of corrupt capitalists. Instead of Flint Marko's character, Cameron’s "Sandman" (simply named Boyd) is mutated by an accident involving Philadelphia Experiment-style bilocation and atom-mixing, in lieu of getting caught in a nuclear blast on a beach. The story climaxes with a battle atop the World Trade Center and had Peter Parker revealing his identity to Mary Jane Watson. In addition, the treatment was also heavy on profanity, and had Spider-Man and Mary Jane having sex.[16]
This treatment reflected elements in previous scripts: from the Stevens treatment, organic web-shooters, and a villain who tempts Spider-Man to join a coming "master race" of mutants; from the original screenplay and rewrite, weird electrical storms causing blackouts, freak magnetic events and bi-location; from the Ethan Wiley draft, a villain addicted to toxic super-powers and multiple experimental spiders, one of which escapes and bites Peter, causing an hallucinatory nightmare invoking Franz Kafka’s "Metamorphosis"; from the Frank LaLoggia script, a blizzard of stolen cash fluttering down onto surprised New Yorkers; and from the Neil Ruttenberg screenplay, a criminal assault on the NYC Stock Exchange.[5] In 1991, Carolco Pictures extended Golan’s option agreement with Marvel through May 1996,[3] but in April 1992, Carolco ceased active production on Spider-Man due to continued financial and legal problems.[17]
[edit]Litigation troubles
ReplyDeleteWhen James Cameron agreed to make Spider-Man, Carolco lawyers simply used his previous Terminator 2 contract as a template. A clause in this agreement gave Cameron the right to decide on movie and advertising credits. Show business trade articles and advertisements made no mention of Golan, who was still actively assembling the elements for the film.[3] In 1993, Golan complained publicly and finally instigated legal action against Carolco for disavowing his contractual guarantee credit as producer. On the other hand, Cameron had the contractual right to decide on credits.[5] Eventually, Carolco sued Viacom and Columbia to recover broadcast and home video rights, and the two studios countersued.[2] 20th Century Fox, though not part of the litigation, contested Cameron’s participation, claiming exclusivity on his services as a director under yet another contract.[4] In 1996, Carolco, 21st Century, and Marvel went bankrupt.
Via a quitclaim from Carolco dated March 28, 1995, MGM acquired 21st Century's film library, assets, and received "...all rights in and to all drafts and versions of the screenplay(s) for Spider-Man written by James Cameron, Ted Newsom & John Brancato, Menahem Golan, Jon [sic] Michael Paul, Ethan Wiley, Leslie Stevens, Frank Laloggia, Neil Ruttenberg, Barney Cohen, Shepard Goldman and any and all other writers."[18] MGM also sued 21st Century, Viacom, and Marvel Comics, alleging fraud in the original deal between Cannon and Marvel. In 1998, Marvel emerged from bankruptcy with a new reorganization plan that merged the company with Toy Biz.[3] The courts determined that the original contract of Marvel's rights to Golan had expired, returning the rights to Marvel, but the matter was still not completely resolved. In 1999, Marvel licensed Spider-Man rights to Columbia (by then absorbed by Sony) for a reported $7 million. MGM disputed the legality, claiming it had the Spider-Man rights via Cannon, 21st Century, and Carolco, and threatened to make a competing film.[citation needed]
[edit]007 vs. Spider-Man
Further information: Spider-Man (film)#Development
In the meantime, MGM/UA chief executive John Calley moved to Columbia. Intimately familiar with the legal history of producer Kevin McClory’s claim to the rights to both Thunderball and other related James Bond characters and elements, Calley announced that Columbia would produce an alternate 007 series, based on the "McClory material", which Calley acquired for Columbia.[19] (Columbia had made the original 1967 film spoof of Casino Royale, a non-Eon production).
Both studios now faced rival projects, which could undercut their own long-term financial stability and plans. Columbia had no consistent movie franchise, and had sought Spider-Man since 1989; MGM/UA’s only reliable source of theatrical income was a new James Bond film every two or three years. An alternate 007 series could diminish or even eliminate the power of MGM/UA’s long-running Bond series. Likewise, an MGM/UA Spider-Man film could negate Columbia’s plans to create an exclusive cash cow. Both sides seemed to have strong arguments for the rights to do such films.[20]
The two studios made a complex trade-off in March 1999. Columbia relinquished its rights to create a new 007 series in exchange for MGM's giving up its claim to Spider-Man.[21] Columbia acquired the rights to all previous scripts in 2000,[11] but exercised options only on the "Cameron Material", i.e., both the completed multi-author screenplay and the subsequent "scriptment."[4] After more than a decade of attempts, Spider-Man truly went into production.[2]
Wow, you couldn't have been condensed into one response? maybe two?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to respond to your original comment, I certainly understand your point of view. But I think your die hard loyalty to Spidey may cloud your objectivity.
Is Spider-man more relatable? yes. But in the final analysis, are superheros to be relatable or admired? Superman clearly is almost a messiah-like character, demonstrating a wealth of characteristics that should be admired and imitated.
The tones of the film are also different, both to be admired for, not to trump the other. Should darker and grittier ALWAYS trump lighter and idealistic?
Spider-Man is a superior film in regards that it has the advantage of being newer. With that comes better effects, proven film techniques, higher production value, etc. But you have to look beyond the notion of "side by side if both movies were presented to you now". Hence a newer film will always win, by default then. Not a fair assessment.
Like I said, both films are true gems, and superior in the genre. It was a difficult call, but in the end what handicapped Spider-Man for me was the masks hamstringing Tobey and Willem. If you really want to take the gloves off, Superman:the Movie has withstood the test of time so much that the studios continued its continuity 28 years later. With Spider-Man being rebooted a mere 10 years after the original, and a mere 5 years since the last installment, it is clear that the studio could care less about the artistic merit of those involved in Raimi's vision and just want to milk the character.
As for the other 7 posts, I still maintain there are indeed numerous reasons why Spider-Man wasn't produced earlier. But with near embarrassing turn outs like the original Captain America, Dolf Lungren's Punisher, and the bootleg Fantastic Four, its clear that Marvel characters were doomed to failure until the technology arrived to make it believable.
Almost forgot...you said "Sure, Superman is a classic film but CLEARLY Spider-Man is the superior of the two." Clearly? No. How about the accuracy of Characterization?
Superman translated seamlessly from comics to film. Spider-Man, however, not so much.
First off, Spider-man always had artifical webbing, not organic. A cool interpretation, but not true to the original.
Mary Jane as his high school sweet heart? Wasn't it Gwen Stacey who was his first true love?
Like J. Jonah, Aunt May was a huge Spider-Man hater, but in the movie she seems, at best, indifferent. In sequels she's very pro Spider-Man.
Perhaps it can be argued that elements from classic Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-man can be seen, but that still proves my point. Superman is far more consistent.
You also said, "Plus, Superman says he never lies but as Clark Kent he's the world's biggest liar!" Wow, it's really all in or all out with you? First of all, how is Clark Kent a lie? Is he not Clark Kent? Was he not adopted by the "Kents" and named "Clark"? If so, how is his identity a lie? If he's the "World's Biggest Liar" he must tell lots of lies. Please list just five lies he has spoken. Go on, I'll wait. And if five "spoken" lies are found, five hardly constitutes as world's biggest. And if you're gonna espouse the argument that pretending to be weak is deceptive, ergo a lie, it isn't. That's just nit-pickery at its most absurd.