Did I call it?... Maybe not

Spider-Man musical to resume production

According to MTV's Splash Page, Spider-Man will be hitting the Great White Way after all. From the report:

According to Variety, production on "Turn Off The Dark" could resume as early as this week or as late as next week.

No official comments have been made by the show's producers, who suspended the musical due to "a cash-flow problem" in August, but Variety's report cites rumors around the theater industry that "Spider-Man" will swing back into action shortly.

However, despite what I predicted in Monday's post, MTV goes on to say:

As for who saved "Spider-Man," the obvious guess is the Walt Disney Company, who recently acquired Marvel Entertainment in a $4 billion deal. But the musically-minded entity is apparently not responsible for "Turn off the Dark's" salvation, according to the report.

Then... who is responsible? According to a snarky report from the NY Post's Michael Reidl:

Bono's too smart to put his own money in the show, but word on the street is that he's tapped into his vast network of rich friends and business associates to restart production.

Hm...

On the lighter side, here's some video from the musical's open casting auditions (courtesy MTV):

MTV Shows

And here's G4 Tech TV's analysis of what Disney ownership might mean for Marvel:

Video Games - E3 2009 - Attack of the Show

More responses can be found on Hero Complex.

The next step...

Interesting first release choice for MarvelMotionComics.com

This is pretty cool.

If I'm not able to get a proper staged version of my Superhero LIVE! play produced, pursuing something like this might be my next option.

Or... maybe pursuing something like this might lead to a proper staged version of SHL!...

hmmm..............

A little something cool; a little something inspiring...

Back from vacation, here are some neat links

Hey kids;
Sorry I haven't blogged in a while: was on a little vacation and just got back. I never know what the protocol is for vacation non-blogging ...

... erm... that's not entirely true. This is the appropriate post while on vacation. But I worry about announcing to the world that my pad is empty whenever I take off for a few days.

But maybe that's a pre-historic attitude for a blogger in this here 21st century, digital/information age. After all when you look at somebody like Jeff Jarvis, a news-media critic and social media analyst who recently decided to blog to the world about his prostate cancer, you kind of feel like a luddite when refusing to share about your little trip to NYC. (We had a great time BTW.)

I'm totally inspired by Jeff's transparency, moreover because I don't think I could do it if I were in his shoes. I hope he has a speedy recovery... and since he lives in America, I hope like hell he's got good insurance.

On to something a little lighter...

There's quite a bit of interest bubbling about James Cameron's newest movie since Titanic: Avatar. I hadn't heard very much about it, until my film buddy started excitingly telling me about over sushi last week. Then I come across a cool interview on the L.A. Times' Hero Complex blog. Here's part 1 and here's part 2.

My favourite portion of the whole interview is right off the top when it notes that Mr. Cameron is indeed a "Canadian" filmmaker.

... Except, when's the last time he did a Canadian film?

Is there any comparison? Part II

Mr. Ellis weighs in

A little background: Adrian Ellis and I go way back to High School, but have only reconnected in the past couple of years when I moved out to T.O. He's a wicked cool artist that composes for film but also composes and does sound design for theatre, most recently Staged & Confused's successful production of The Crackwalker.

Those of you that are interested in the nitty-gritty of the film composer's creative process should definitely check out his blog The Music Creative. I think its fascinating, and I totally dug his latest post on Music for Theatre. Oh, and you can also follow him on Twitter, you know, if you're into that sort of thing.

Aside from the fact that I think he's a righteous dude (and that we're planning to do some collaboration on the next incarnation of Superhero Live! as soon as I get this REALITY itch out of my system), I bring all this up because he wrote me an email the other day about my recent post that I wanted to share with y'all.

Check it out:

Hey Aaron,

You should open up your blog for non-Blogger users to comment!! ;)

(Aaron says: this is now fixed, by the by. Anybody who wants to post comments is now free to do so. Thx for the heads up, dude.)

I actually think this is a fascinating topic. Here are my thoughts:

Slimy producers vs. greedy wanna-be's

'If you build it, they will come'.

The producers see a need, and a cheap way to create programming that the public consumes like fresh baked double chocolate frosted cupcakes. As with most things that people lament about our consumerist, hyper-capitalist world, it is the public's acceptance, nay, requirement and hunger for entertainment in the form of sadism. They love to see people persevere and overcome, but even more, they love to see someone fail. This is what I find truly disturbing, not one opportunistic producer or fame-hungry stars in waiting, but the fact that people desire this highly negative, judgmental form of entertainment.

Why do they do it

Very very very very few artists have even the faintest clue about the music or film industry. There is an incredible deficit of proper and realistic education about the ins and outs, pitfalls of 'The Biz', and resources and strategies for success. Instead, people are transfixed by the myths and false promises of the industry - the big bucks and fame, that somehow, magically and by their (supposed) talent, they will be found, recognized, and in every way shepherded (bum patted) to success. Beyond this, even if an artist is somewhat educated about these things, they are not in any way prepared for what to do when 'it' does happen (you've won the lottery, now what?). A career is an incredibly difficult thing to manage, and even if you 'make it' a lot can happen. To make it you have to have a plan, and a sustained career has to have a plan.

So to answer your questions:

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...


I think it's ignorance of the realities of the industry, and moreover, of the nature of reality tv. Recently, filmmaker friends of mine wanted to join the 'On The Lot' program, where filmmakers 'compete' against one another in order to have a film produced by Spielberg (or something, can't remember). I said, forget it guys. They really thought it was a shot at fame.
1. It's a lottery,
2. The best do not always win
3. The producers aren't interested in making stars, they are interested in making dramatic television that retains a high viewership. They will put you in positions that will make you look terrible (by design or post-production), and at worst will cost you your integrity and any real credibility you might have. Do you think the 'winner' of this show will have real clout in Hollywood? Never. It's a joke. They really had no clue what it was really about.

People have stars in their eyes. Everyone believes they have a special talent that is unique and will be recognized. The truth is, no one cares. You have to fight tooth and nail (just like any other entreprenuer!!!) to make your art heard/seen/cared about. Go online and check out some unknown indie-bands on myspace or whatever. There are tens of THOUSANDS - and many are good, if not great! Why are they not famous? Well, they can't ALL be famous, even though they 'deserve' it.

As far as the non-reality star chasing artists are concerned? Man, it takes all types. Let's assume they know the odds of the industry. Well, you gotta still somehow believe that you are going to have a go at it and make it because of god knows what reason. Faith, I guess? Yea, some are in it for the money, some the fame... more are starting to get it that those days are probably over, but there are real ways (hello, Internet distribution/marketing) to make a living - but it's hard and will take tons of work. Me? I do it because I absolutely LOVE what I do, and I want to spend as much time as possible being creative with the BEST creative people - and that means, doing it professionally. I no longer chase fame/fortune - I know the chances are miniscule, and mostly dependent on luck. But, I do know if I bust my ass and do the best work I can, I have an ok chance of at least making a decent living doing what I love.

CHEERS!

Adrian

Dark disappointment?

No "Best Picture" for Dark Knight
not necessarily a bad thing

Listen, I can't complain about DK being beaten out by lesser films for the Best Picture nod, because I didn't see the other contenders. Mind you, A LOT of people missed out on the other contenders. This seems to follow the Oscar's latest trend of lauding films that nobody goes to.

Personally, I think this is probably the way to go: Point out the diamonds in the rough -- give the little guys a chance! (But then, I come from an independent/experimental theatre background... I know all about being the little guy in the big bad arts world.)

However, some people are REALLY disappointed by DK missing out on BP honours. I'm not. Why? Cause I think it'll be better for comic-inspired movies in the long run.

DK is the second highest grossing movie of all time. The only other movie to beat it was Titanic, which won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1997. (Whether or not it was deserved is another story altogether.) Thus, movie producers can conclude three things:

1) High quality comic book movies will make a helluva lotta money
2) Dark Knight could have made more money than it did (or will)
3) Simply copying Dark Knight is not the way to make the most money

Movie producers tend to take a good idea/concept and carbon copy it until it dies a horrible, horrible death. Look no further than the Batman movies of the 90's.

Maybe, however, just maybe, movie producers might realize that a blockbuster comic book movie that is capable of getting an Oscar nod is the way to go. The Dark Knight was the closest that they've ever got. But it was missing something... and, maybe, some more thought needs to be put into it before blindly copying and mass producing the shit out of the formula.

... Or maybe I'm giving Hollywood too much credit.

Anyway, let's keep it in perspective. I think The Dark Knight was a great movie, and the main reason for it's critical success lies in Heath Ledger's exceptional performance as Joker. He has been given Oscar recognition for that role (though whether he'll actually win is still very much in the air).

His recognition stands alone, as I think it should. His performance lifted the movie up. It's only right that the movie's accolades should not overshadow the performer.

Holiday updates and gifts

Introducing Adrian Ellis -- new composer for SuperHeroLive.com

I blogged several days ago about having a new development grant in for Superhero Live! Well, as you may imagine, developing SHL! while me and Mike are in Toronto and Shaun and John are still in Edmonton would be a bit tough. So, after much discussion, Shaunny and Johnny have released their music to be adapted into a new iteration (dependent on funding). Our new composer: the brilliant and multi-faceted Adrian Ellis.

A new iteration you say? Well, yes. We're adding singing. We're going into a full on Rock Opera, instead of "spoken-word-rock-opera." After the holidays, I'll go into more detail about the reasoning for our new direction for the show... but for now, I'd like to share a gift from Adrian to all of you.


Adrian has recorded a number of alternative Xmas songs everyone to listen. Click here to download or stream 5 excellent tunes that will put a smile on your face during the season. My personal favourite is "It's Christmas and I'm drunk."

Happy fourth day of Channukah and Merry Xmas Eve!

Wolverine preview

I'm sure those of you who've been waiting for this movie have already seen this trailer. Those of you who haven't, enjoy!

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD

Dark Oscar

Okay... enough with the political theatre. Let's get back to some geekdom here.

Check out this unofficial campaign to get The Dark Knight nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture.

Nice. It has my vote.

Fantastic Four -- Rise of the Silver Surfer

SPOILER ALERT. If you don't want to know anything about this movie before you see it, then stop reading right now.

Last night I picked up my fellow actor/comic-geek buddy, David Shelley, to go watch the next Fantastic Four flick. He had spent the entire day on a film gig and was pretty exhausted. I asked him if he was up for checking out the movie and he said he was ready to just relax and veg out in front of the big screen. I said to him, "Don't worry pal, tonight we're gonna enjoy some really cool special F/x and some really bad acting, and it will be a good night!"

Sometimes I'm so on the mark, I surprise myself.

FF 2 or "Rise of the Silver Surfer" is not a bad movie. It's not a great movie, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not bad. I did not come close to feeling the crushing deflation and seething anger that I felt after Spider-man 3. In fact, I felt pretty good coming out of the theatre. If you have kids, I would recommend taking them to this movie whole-heartedly. If you're a long time fan of the comic, you'll probably think it's a horrific bastardization of the FF mythology. But, then again, you'd probably agree that it's ten times better than the first FF movie.

The highlight of this film is the Silver Surfer. Completely animated, and voiced by the always stellar Lawrence Fishburn, the Surfer is also the best actor on the screen. This is in part a jab at the cast of the FF family, but also this is in praise of the director, F/x team and Fishburn. The performance of the Surfer was simple, direct and empathetic. And he also had the best lines.

Writing: the first 25 minutes of this movie, and the final 10 had me wincing in my seat. Until the FF started interacting with the Surfer, this movie stumbled -- badly. Too many overused, predictable one-liners and too many cheap jokes. And the cast either didn't have the talent to save the dialogue or, maybe, they saw that the stinky writing couldn't be salvaged and didn't bother to try. Jessica Alba, while always nice to look at, was probably the worst offender. As Sue Storm (eventually Sue Richards), she had absolutely ZERO chemistry with Reed Richards. In fact all her chemistry seemed to be saved up for Johnny Storm, her brother; as David pointed out, "Every time they had a scene together, I thought they were going to kiss!"

Iaon Gruffudd (Reed) tried his best, but the writers saved the worst bits for him. And, like Jessica Alba, he's just not old enough to pull of this role. (If the producers were smart, they would have cast Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan as the patriarch/matriarch of the ultimate superhero family: they both have the years, chemistry and chops to truly bring these roles to life.) Chris Evans (Johnny) had a little too much nudge-nudge, wink-wink in his performance for my liking, and Michael Chiklis was okay, especially considering he had a giant rock suit to act through for most of the movie.

Now, as my partner-in-crime, Shaun Mckee says, "I refuse to judge a movie for what it isn't instead of what it is." I, on the other hand, have no such qualms: I think the FF franchise has done a terrible dis-service to the myth of the Thing. The tragedy of the Thing is that he is trapped inside a monster's body and he can't get out. FF2, like its predecessor, keeps having the Thing transform between human and monster, and there are no consequences to the character. It's like Ben Grimm doesn't really mind being the Thing. And I'm not talking about his sense of humor or his good will or continual horseplay with Johnny Storm: this stays true to the comic and is one of the Thing's most endearing traits. At the same time, the Thing is the most tragic figure of the the FF as well as the physical manifestation of Reed's guilt. Neither movie takes the time to explore these themes (or the first one did but in the most cursory, platonic way possible -- like a laughable second thought). I feel like both FF flicks are prime examples of how when a superhero franchise is seen as money-making vehicle instead of an opportunity to make art, the consequence ultimately hurts the superhero-film industry as a whole rather than helps it. FF is one of the longest running and most recognizable comic titles out there: don't you think it's deserving of some research or at least recognition of its artistic merit? Don't you think it's more deserving of some thought and affection when being adapted for the screen? Don't you think the characters have something more to offer besides hot actors in tight outfits doing kick-ass special F/x?

But, maybe I'm wrong: maybe what I want is much too heavy when you're designing a franchise for kids.

(Mind you -- take look at classics like The Secret of Nymh or The Dark Crystal from the 1980's as examples of childrens' films that are unafraid to expose a young audience to elements of darkness. A generation grew up on these films; hell, I watched both of these films in elementary school. While scary, they were also wonderful.)

Okay - enough bitchin'. I actually liked this movie, for the most part. The exposition and conclusion, while painful, were also mercifully short and the movie wastes little time getting to the action. And the action is fun: the Surfer/Torch chase (as scene in previews) is excellent, there is a natural disaster in London averted, a choice battle between the Surfer and the US military which is short and sweet -- and an even better battle between the FF and Doctor Doom (SPOILERS COMING NOW) after Doom takes control of the Surfer's board and powers. I actually really like the film's depiction of Galactus (ominous black nebula cloud) and, as my buddy David says, you can see the outline of the comic-based Galactus head/helmet within the nebula during the film's climax (I'll have to take his word for it; I totally missed it). The film fails to explain how the Surfer is able to destroy Galactus or how he finds out he is able to do it... or if he already knew then what his reasoning was for not destroying it until this point. There were a couple murmers of "what?" in the theatre during the climax. This also was confusing for a moment because you think that the Surfer has decided to sacrifice his home world/true-love-at-home to save the Earth -- but then you realize the Surfer is actually deciding to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Earth.

So it's all good. Overall I'd say 3 1/2 stars of 5.

It's fun ride!

Event Movies

On May 25, 1977, Star Wars opened and flipped the film-making industry on its head, 55 days before that, I was born.

There has been a tonne of focus in the media about Star Wars' 30th anniversary because that movie changed... well, everything about movies. The term "Blockbuster" didn't exist before Star Wars, the opening weekend wasn't the litmus test for the film's success, and merchandising was meant to support the movie rather than vice-versa.

There has also been a tonne of lamentation: George Lucas' destruction of the Star Wars franchise through his incessant profit-mongering. The destruction of the film industry itself since the focus has changed from story-telling to special effects and action sequences. There was a quote in the Toronto Star: "The danger is that the public buys into the concept of seeing event movies to the point where people don't want to see anything but event movies."

Well, sure. But isn't that what Hollywood wants too? Why else do they built the huge cinema complexes with digital surround sound and 10 story high definition screens? "Silver-City" was not built for art films from Quebec. Or any other kinds of movies, really. If I'm going to pay $15 bucks for a movie ticket (plus another $30 on a small popcorn), you're damn right I want to see an event.

It IS an event. The experience of seeing an event movie in the (newer) theatres can be awesome (as in awe-inspiring rather than just "cool"). When the story and characters aren't totally ruined by shallow writing... which does happen more often than not with event movies... the experience can be immensely satisfying. And this is not to say that non-event movies don't allow for that same experience. However many people would rather rent those other movies, or catch them on TV a couple years down the road, or download it and watch it on the computer. In my case, I'd rather go to live theatre.

Because what's the point of paying $15 bucks to see a movie that doesn't do the screen it's shown on justice?

I grew up with the Hollywood of today; I can't lament for the past because I don't know what that was. I expect to see trilogies and I expect cool special effects. My expectations are not any lower because I grew up with Star Wars; I get just as disappointed and disgusted when what should be a perfectly good quality franchise gets ruined by "artistic" choices determined by profit rather than creativity.

People usually categorize the event-movie by its mega-budget, its merchandising capability, and its franchising capability. But it's more than that. It's an opportunity for a community to gather. All the "Pirate" nerds, all the "Sci-fi" nerds, all the "Schwarzenegger" nerds, all the "Comics" nerds... they all can get together and identify with one another. "We all belong to this community, we are great in numbers and we are proud of our geek-dom."

I'd like to make event-theatre to be honest. This is a bit of an oxymoron, though, as the experience of seeing theatre is already an event even when you've gone to catch an experimental solo performance with no props. Because the theatre community is by definition a tight-knit local community. And, to be fair, we're mostly made up of former high school drama nerds.

Theatre franchises have yet to be tried... George F. Walker's "Suburban Motel" excepted of course. I'd like to try to create a theatre franchise. If I'm ever successful in doing it, I hope that my artistic choices will always remain artistic.

I hope my audience will hold me to that.

Not everyone agrees with me...

Especially not my partner in crime, Shaun Mckee! He's a composer for Superhero Live! and plays the Bass Player.

I'm importing this blog onto my Facebook page (... yeah, I'm on Crackbook...) and Shaun had his own two cents on my review of SPIDER-MAN 3. Read on, superhero lovers, and see which side you agree with:

*** I should add that since Shaun's a notoriously slow typer, this original conversation was all mixed up because I would respond to Shaun's comments before he was finished typing them. I've tried to reedit so that it all makes sense. However I'm a biased editor, so if you think I'm winning this argument, it's probably because I made it to look that way... ;-)

SHAUN:
K, I will play number 1 to Aaron's captain Picard. First Aaron's main problem with the movie, at least what i get from his review, is how Spidey is seen as a hero by the people of New York. Aaron you know I have read a lot more spidey comics then you and you seem to forget, the people of New York have always loved spidey. But the comics dont focus on that cause why bother, people who love spiderman dont make a good story.it is J. Jonah Jameson who hates Spiderman, and the daily bugle gives him all his bad press cause jj runs it. I should mention I am talking classic spidey here not ultimate by the way. Yes there have been points where spiderman has been public enemy number 1, but this is definetly not the status quo in the marvel universe. Just because spidey is villified in the media that does not make it the public opinion. Just take the american media and the Iraq war as an example.

Now don't get me wrong here I thought Spiderman 3 was definitely disappointing, I give it a 6.5 out of ten, but it must be said there is flashes of brilliance in this movie, and also flashes of wtf were they thinking. Some of the best sequences of the trilogy were in this movie, but some of the worst sequences also. I fucking hate singing and dancing in my movies. and there were three of these sequences for no fucking reason. Why the hell would you have peter dancing to show how badass he has become? Hi im peter im turning evil, now look at me dance? Raimi you fucking idiot. You hear peter say he is becoming more powerful, but why not show this instead of giving him a god damned emo hair style and having him dance.

AARON:
I couldn't agree more! It was like watching a nightmare... I don't what they were thinking. And it's true there were some good moments in the film... but few and far between. Mostly they were great action sequences.

SHAUN:
By far though my favorite moment from the screening I attended was after the big jazz club sequence and peter accidentally "hits" MJ, in what was I imagine supposed to be a powerful dramatic moment,a four year old boy sitting in the row ahead of me said " she deserved it". The entire theater howled with laughter as his mother in disbelief asked "what did you say" he repeated " she deserved it".

AARON:
Weird: Some kid in our theatre in Toronto called her a tramp when she kissed Harry too. How come no one said anything when Spidey did the upside-down kiss with Gwen? That was BRUTAL! Nobody called Peter a Man-Whore.

Can you say double-standard?

See, my main problem in the film is not the fact that he was reviled -- I used that point to show that the film had totally departed from what makes Spiderman great -- how he suffers and perseveres. You're right -- you've read more Spiderman comics than me, but dude, all those New Yorkers were meant to represent public opinion in general -- esp. American public opinion and this was shown by the Spidey-pose in front of the stars and stripes. You're pretty generous with your rating... I'd put mine closer to a 3 out of 10 or less. I'm harsh because that movie was SUPPOSED TO BE GREAT. Same creative team, same core group that made the other two fabulous, and yet shit result.
But to be sure there were some things I liked:
1) Brilliant casting. Topher was awesome as Eddie Brock and Thomas Hayden Chuch looked like Stan Lee himself drew him (too bad the writers gave him a shit storyline though)
2) Acting was overall pretty good. Especially Topher, THC and James Franco (Green Goblin). The dialogue a lot of the time was shit, but the cast was talented enough to make it work most of the time.
3) F/X -- first spidey and green goblin fight was especially good. Venom looked suitably scary, they got the costume's alien appearance right, and Topher looked good with the crooked teeth
4) Peter Parker totally clueless -- at the beginning I was cringing with embarrassment with Peter's bonehead decisions about women and what not. That was great.
5) Bruce Campbell -- brilliant, again, nuff said.

SHAUN:
I actually like everything about this movie except everything to do with Mary Jane which unfortunately is about 50 percent of this movie. And singing and dancing. Is that not why we did superhero in the first place, to make a musical without the singing and dancing?

AARON:
Dude. Come on. What about that terrible sequence at the end with Sandman explaining himself to Peter? Long, boring and no need. It tried to make Sandman sympathetic, but instead it just made him unbelievable. What about the Butler coming out of nowhere and telling Harry how he cleaned Gobby's wound. Totally awkward plot structure -- and even if he did "clean the wound," how would he know it was a self-inflicted wound? The dialogue was terrible and the story was weak.

(But yeah -- we made SHL! so that you guys could rock out and I didn't have to sing...
But mostly to make a kick-ass story and hang out and talk superheroes and read comics and call it a business expense!!!)

SHAUN:
Dude have you ever read a comic with sandman in it? That is the sandman character to a tee. And yes it may be unbelievable but we are taking about COMIC BOOK characters. Sandman was always a sympathetic character and for the last fifteen years he has been a hero not a villan in the spiderman stories. Hell he was even an Avenger for a couple of years.

And the butler, well yes that was simply a plot device to advance the story, because they dug themselves a hole and forgot a shovel.

AARON:
Hm...
To tell you the truth, the Sandman I'm most familiar with is the one from the 60's cartoon...
I still thought the plotline with the daughter was extraneous and I didn't believe him when he said he was "sorry" and "he didn't want this" at the end. I don't care if they are comic book characters. They still have to be believable.

SHAUN:
I know but if you are familiar with the sandman character he is actually the most faithfully represented spiderman character in all three movies.

AARON:
If Sandman is the most accurately represented hero, then he is complex enough to focus a whole movie on him and him alone. Lot's of moral questions to explore when you're fighting a villain who's totally ruthless and yet is justified by his actions (ie. his sick daughter). Problem is, they never explored that part of his character and sacrificed it for the other four story lines they were following -- Peter and MJ, Peter and Harry, Peter and the symbiote, and the Eddie Brock storyline.

Too much.

SHAUN:
Yes too much because the studio forced Venom on him because thats what the fans wanted, was venom. I'm guilty for that and I know you are too. I wanted Venom, but not at the expense that we had to pay.

AARON:
Yeah I wanted Venom, I wanted Venom real bad.

Like I said, Topher Grace was really good. My favourite moment in the whole movie was when he was praying to God, and asked him to "kill Peter Parker". That was a truly chilling moment.

But back to the plot holes: they didn't need the butler. If Harry comes in at the end, it should be to save MJ, and that alone. Way more interesting angle -- the unlikely team-up, and then you have another element to the fight -- if they are victorious, do they then fight each other????

Why redeem the Goblin? Why redeem Harry and Peter's relationship? Why go for the happy ending when tragedy is so much more interesting...

SHAUN:
Happy ending? Dude he DIED. DEAD. Peter Parker's best and only friend in the whole world died, and thats a happy ending? Harry finally learned the truth about his best friend and his father, who was a raving lunatic who didn't love his only son, and died helping him save the girl they both loved and thats a happy ending? Just because Harry redeemed himself and finally made the right decision for the first time in the whole trilogy, does not make it a happy ending.He finally learned the truth and died to save his best friend whom he had despised for all the wrong reasons. I think thats pretty tragic dude.

AARON:
Meh. I didn't care by the time Harry died, because the story had gotten all stupid by that point. Intellectually I see your point. Emotionally, I felt nothing. I didn't care. Sure he learned the truth about his father, but the way the story revealed this (like you said) was a plot device that was forced and, well, stupid.

They shot themselves in the foot. I really didn't care when he died, I didn't care that he forgave the Sandman, and I definitely didn't care that he got back with MJ. And that makes it a terrible movie.

SHAUN:
I should add that I read a review which said the movie was crap before I saw it so I had zero expectations going in, while I am guessing you thought you were going to see the coolest movie ever, hence your huge disappointment.

AARON:
Yeah... I was expecting brilliance. I heard mixed reviews too, but man, this was supposed to be good. It was the foundation of the comic book movie industry. It had the creative core that made #1 good, and #2 great. What the hell happened.

SHAUN:
Overall I do not know who to blame the producers or Raimi. He has stated numerous time in the past he is a fan of the 60s comics and the 60s comics only. He does not like Venom and never wanted to involve him.He had the power to say look I am fucking sam the man let me make the movie I want to make. He should have stuck to his guns, introduced the suit and just left venom for number 4, especially since he and the cast have expressed zero interest in returning. w

AARON:
Raimi co-wrote the film along with Ivan Raimi (his brother?) and some dude named Alvin. The two Raimi's are also credited with the story. I don't know man. I think they dropped the ball on this one. Maybe they were drunk with power, like George Lucas making the Star Wars prequels...

I think the first sequel to all the comic book movies seem to be the best: Spiderman 2, X-Men 2 were the best movies in the trilogies. So I still have hope for FF.

SHAUN:
LOL I still think Xmen 3 was better then 1 and 2 put together, lol. Yes they may have been better dramatic movies but I dont watch comic book movies to get my drama fix, I want balls to the wall action and that was Xmen 3. The first comic movie without a silly love story for the girls.

AARON:
Oh, I don't know, Shaun -- action is fine, but I think you like story too. Don't mistake romance for story. X-men 3 had a great plot and should have been just as good as 2, except they tried to do too much just like Spiderman 3 -- Dark Phoenix Saga, the Cure saga, the Death of Professor X saga -- it's like they're trying to condense all the best storylines told over years of publishing comic books into a single film, and then the movie suffers.
I think romance can work in comic book movies but it has to be done right, and you can't sacrifice action for the romance.

SHAUN:
Yes but I refuse to dislike a movie for what it isn't rather then what it is. I know I get disappointed a lot when I see a movie for the first time and I have these great expectations for what I want to see, and it's usually starts off as "well in the comics......." I think that Xmen 3 Did a damn fine job of wrapping up its storylines and character progression of the first two movies and the movies alone. Aaron superhero movies are just like the Ultimate line, they are their own stories and theirs alone.Yes they draw INSPIRATION from some classic storylines but they are not adaptations of those storylines. XMEN3 took some elements from some classic stories but still managed to use all of them to tell its own story, and used it to create a satisfying conclusion that never contradicted what had come before. It all made sense. But you are correct that the same can not be said for spiderman 3.

AARON:
You know what I wish they could have done with Venom? Make a Secret Wars movie. Then a movie with Spidey dawning the black suit in New York, and really REALLY make him go down a bad road, until he finally separates himself from it and THEN make a 3rd movie with Venom.
That's what I wish. Sucks to be me.

SHAUN:
I know Aaron, that is why we need to be in the power positions in Hollywood. Let the real fans make the movies and not the suits that read comics when they were 10 and thought spiderman was neat.

SPIDER-MAN 3

WARNING: If you haven’t seen SPIDER-MAN 3 yet, and still want to go, stop reading right now…

I went to see SPIDER-MAN 3, Sunday evening. I felt like I was taking a chance, going on opening weekend but, surprisingly, there was no line up for the 7 p.m. show. When the commercials started at 10 minutes to, the theatre wasn’t even half-full. When previews finally ended (at 7:25!), there were still empty seats all around me.

I thought to myself: well maybe people don’t go to movies in Toronto. Maybe they like… I don’t know… plays? Concerts? Maybe they’re not as movie-crazy here as they are in Edmonton.

Nope.

SPIDER-MAN 3 sucks. That’s it. And I’m so disappointed.

And to top it off… I think I just witnessed the end of “superheroes” dominating Hollywood films.

SPIDER-MAN was the cornerstone franchise of both Hollywood’s and (especially) Marvel’s superhero-movie industry. No one was doing it better (except maybe X-MEN 2). Character, style, story and F/X all seemed to come together in the SPIDER-MAN movies; Sam Raimi made great superhero flicks. He seemed to get it, while the others (Marvel and DC alike) always had the stink of producers fucking with it for ever-more profit.

Now SPIDER-MAN stinks the same way.

From start to finish, the movie tried to do too much, be everything to anyone who bought a ticket, rendering the movie meaningless to everyone who watches it. From the weird disco-strutting “bad” Peter Parker, to the deus-ex-machina butler who “cleaned your father’s wounds”, to the news-report telling the audience what they are supposed to feel watching the climactic final battle, to the Sandman blowing away into the sunrise as Spider-Man forgives him (and therefore forgives himself)…

“All we are is dust in the wind…”

If I start going into details about the movie I’ll never stop writing. I’ll give you one example that illustrates my point: the throng of cheering, adoring fans who think Spider-Man is number one... AT THE END OF THE MOVIE.

Yes, Spider-Man can be popular within his own mythology at certain points, and the movie was bang-on in this by having it feed his ego and making him screw everything up. We love this about Spider-Man because it shows how he’s fallible, just like us. However, in the comics, Spider-Man is continually vilified and generally disliked even after he vanquishes his enemies. He’s unpopular within his own mythology, and audiences love that about him.

Because he perseveres. He chooses to do good no matter what because it’s his responsibility to do so, because of Uncle Ben’s immortal: “With great power comes great responsibility.” He’s a modern-day Sisyphus.

In the first movie, Aunt May says to Peter, “You’re not Superman.” And she’s right. In this movie, though, the producers seemed to forget that, and tried to make him into Superman-with-a-spider-mask. Their transparency is highlighted by the “Spider-pose” in front of the American Flag, as the audience cheers him into battle (…and the news reporter telling us that people are cheering for Spider-Man... just to make sure that we got it.)

But it is the producers who missed the point: we love how Spider-Man is reviled. We love that he puts his responsibilities above everything else. We hope that things will get better for poor Peter Parker; we secretly love that he suffers. It makes us want to buy the next issue.

SPIDER-MAN 3 does not make me want to see the next movie.

And, now what hope does the rest of the comic book inspired movies have now that their centerpiece has fallen? I mean, I'm excited for the next FANTASTIC FOUR movie, but I'm a comic book geek and even I admit the first FANTASTIC FOUR movie wasn't very good. Who else but the geeks are going to support these movies?

And... when are the geeks going finally give up on them... because they KEEP SCREWING IT UP!

A-hem.

I get excited about these things because I have a vested interest in superhero-based entertainment being popular among the masses. I wrote a story about a superhero -- I called him "Superhero" -- and I want the superhero boom to keep on rolling. When I see movies like SPIDER-MAN 3, I have my doubts.

So I don't know what to tell you. Go see it so that they keep investing money into superhero stories? Don't go see it because it's not what makes superhero stories cool?

Maybe this... download the Superhero Live! podcasts and listen to how's it's supposed to be done...

hehe.