Spiderman III plus Spiderman: Civil War

[selenak]

As opposed to the majority of my flist, I enjoyed the third Spiderman film, quite a lot. It gave me what I wanted to see, improved in comparison to the first two in one major regard - to wit, the characterisation of Mary Jane Watson - and what nitpicks I had weren't the sort that made me roll my eyes in disgust (which I did about the gratitious flag shot ending of Spidey I - now the gratitious flag shot in Spidey III was somewhere in the middle and a blink and you miss it thing, and that's okay - or the godawful aborted wedding stuff in Spidey II - but that falls in the MJ characterisation category, about which more - positively - below the cut). So, really? Nice movie. I was happy. Also sad, but in a gratified sort of way.



Okay, really and firstly, about MJ: there were some bits and pieces in Spiderman I that can read as an attempt to make her more than "the girl", the idealized love interest, whom both hero and audience was supposed to see as the best most wonderfullest ever. And Kirsten Dunst, imo, is a good actress, so MJ came across quite well, and better than the actual writing did. But in Spiderman II, those hints of characterisation were gone, and she really was just The Girl, and trust me, you don't want to hear my rant about the Jameson Junior jilting and end scene which was supposed to be romantic and which I hated to bits again. However, in Spiderman III, MJ was sympathetic, yet not perfect; the scriptwriters finally remembered Harry wasn't the only one belittled by his father (this did happen to MJ in Spiderman I, repeatedly), and worked out what consequences that would have; she had legitimate issues with Peter's behaviour before he got high on Venom. (Compare this to the tired old "love interest falls out with hero or doesn't get together with him because he cannot reveal his secret identity to her", and admit this is way better.) Her relationships with both Peter and Harry struck one as realistic, and whereas it's arguable in Spider-man I whether MJ was ever genuinenly interested in Harry (especially given her behaviour with Jameson Junior in II ) or just interested by default and because he was handsome and rich, in the third movie you had no doubt she really cared. Which made the threesome a threesome, with emotional connections going in all directions, instead of two plus one (whichever two you want to see).

This doesn't mean MJ wasn't still stuck with some of the damsel in distress stuff that alas still is mostly given to women in superhero movies, but I stand by my assessment that this movie was her best outing. On screen. Comicverse is another thing, which brings me to my next point.

Harry's storyline took the most important things that happened to Harry Osborn in the comicverse - attempt at son of goblinhood, amnesia, temporary team-up with Peter, rebound villainy, heroic and redemptive death - boiled them down to their essence and gave them an order that, imo, made more sense than the comicverse one does. (I.e. the fighting side by side happens before the heroic death and not in the middle of things, for one thing.) It also got rid of the wife and child he has in the comicverse; movieverse Harry really is all about Peter and Mary Jane, and the amnesia interval - this happens not just to Harry but every single member of the Osborn clan ALL THE TIME in the comics, btw - is used to poignant effect. If the movie had Harry trying to fight Peter all through, the final turnaround would not have been as believable; this way, we got the chance to see him without the burden of what happened to his father and the fallout with Peter and MJ, and it worked. (For me; your mileage may vary.)

Regarding the two new villains - I think people who complain that neither of them got much depth miss that neither of them is actually the big bad of the movie. (Nor is Harry, of course.) Spider-man III does what every superhero saga does sooner or later - it pitches the hero against his own dark side. This being a Sam Raimi movie and a take on Spider-man, it means there is a lot of black comedy involved, but, again imo, not at the expense of the seriousness when necessary. The entire walk-on-the-wild-side sequence complete with emo hair and Peter trying to be John Travolta is funny, and meant to be; right until the point where he deliberately hurts MJ, and the effect on her - and on bystander Gwen, who realizes what is going on and reacts appropriately - is shown as serious, and meant to be. The two other major instances of Peter deliberately trying (and succeeding) to hurt people - doing his best to kill the Sandman as Spider-man, and showing up at Harry's penthouse (as Peter, of course, because this isn't really about anything Spider-man related at all) for their last fight - aren't played as comedy, either, and so the darker aspect works.

What's more, it's not just agression that is multiplied; pre-Venom, Peter is shown to have a slight case of hubris going on, which is something very likely to happen if you are a super-empowered former bullying victim, sooner or later - and it makes him increasingly clueless when it comes to MJ. I had been wondering before the film whether they were going to play the whole suit thing as something that is utterly alien, based on the trailer, and was glad they did not.

Now for the nitpicks: well, I'm not too keen on the retcon of who-killed-Ben-Parker, especially since this set up requires Peter to have his big "I forgive you" scene with the Sandman when the more important OT3 plot requires him to be elsewhere where Harry is dying (and they had to do the Sandman talk first, because doing it after Harry died would have been anticlimactic). And frankly, the "if you want Peter to live..." scene with Harry-on-glider and MJ was stupid. Because it means MJ has to believe Harry would and could kill Peter (which, you know, he hasn't been very successful in so far). Given that the movie at that point of the action had already given MJ some good reasons to be on the outs with Peter, I think it would have made far more sense - and would have fulfilled the same plot point necessity for Harry - if Harry had been manipulative with her and given her that one additional push in the guise of friendship she required to call it off with Peter. Then the rest of the film could have continued in exactly the same way.

Not a complaint, just an observation: Gwen Stacy in the comicverse has essentially the place movieverse MJ has in Peter's life - she was his first love. Comicverse Gwen got killed by Norman Osborne and is one of the few people in the Marvelverse who actually stay dead (along with her father, Captain Stacy, Ben Parker and for that matter Harry Osborn - and the guilt complex Peter has regarding each is defining for the character). So when the trailer showed us a movieverse version of Gwen Stacy, I wondered whether she and MJ would essentially change places, with movieverse MJ as the first love who dies tragically, and Gwen as the second who picks up the pieces, which is what comicverse MJ does. Obviously, this did not happen, but I think Gwen's main purpose in the film might have been making fans worry that it might.

Half a complaint, half an observation: since the first two movies, I read far more Spider-man comics, and now I really miss the quips, which are so essential to comicverse Spider-man as glasses are to any incarnation of Clark Kent and Alfred is to Batman. This means the fact that movieverse Spider-man does not quip feels wronger to me than it used to.

Back things I liked: Toby McGuire's vaudeville routine with Bruce Campbell was priceless. So was J.J. Jameson throughout. And we got a Stan Lee cameo! (Sidenote: and how many people recognized Stan Lee when he showed up in Heroes episode, hm?) Ted Raimi, aka Joxer the Mighty, got another cameo in brother Sam's movies, which is always welcome. I adored that Harry, even when on his big father avenging kick at the start of the movie, is too vain to wear that horrible Goblin mask Norman did, because he wouldn't. And usually fight scenes aren't what I care about, but the Peter/Harry (yes, the slash is intentional) team-up at the end just rocked.

***

And now for a change of medium: Spider-man: Civil War arrived at my doorstep.



Okay, this one is a mixed bunch, with some excellent character scenes and developments, and some eye-roll-inducing simplifications, and of course the finale shows the huge problem you run in to if you do such a storyline that involves multiple Marvelverse comics - to wit, all the action of the final showdown takes place elsewhere, in this case literaly off screen. So you have our hero going into battle with a touching monologue on how he wonders whether the people will understand Captain America fights for them and their rights - and the next thing you learn is that, well, battle lost somehow (how isn't detailed - I know because I saw the scans, but I wouldn't just from this issue). Now I can understand JMS didn't just want to repeat Millar's Iron Man/Captain America fight scene, but I think the impact of Steve Rogers surrendering - and why he surrendered - on Peter Parker should have been shown in a Spider-man issue. Especially given the build up until then.

As mentioned in other entries and by a lot of other people, one of the problems of the Civil War saga was that the individual writers aren't on the same page about which story they're telling. JMS does not tell a story in which both sides have a point; his Civil War run for Spider-man is a very clear good side versus bad side story, which Peter being initially manouevred into joining the bad side by Tony Stark applying the emotional thumbscrews, realizing the mistake he made and joining the good side as a consequence. After which the good side, inexplicable in comicverse terms, loses. On second thought it's not that surprising JMS doesn't show the impact of Steve Rogers surrendering on Peter, because given the way he has written the this conflict in the later stages, Captain America would not have surrendered. He wasn't writing a Civil War, he wrote Freedom versus Beginning Fascism. While in the early issues of Civil War you can still be in doubt as to whether or not Tony Stark is sincerely trying for the best, the later ones really lay it on with a vengeance. We don't just get a thinly veiled equivalent of Guantanamo Bay but something that really had me go headdesk, and I don't even care about the guy - Richard Reeds (Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four) being nostalgic about the virtues of MacCarthyism. This is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and could only have been worse written if he had said "you know, Peter, come to think about it, those dictators in the 30s had some good ideas..."

This is even more regretful because Civil War also has some trademark JMS excellence; the scene where Peter throws up after having come out as Spider-man publically, and his conversation with Tony afterwards (this would be still human Tony, not yet Bad Daddy Tony); the second tv appearance, where Peter uses what he has learned from Tony and makes his change of mind regarding the Superhuman Registration Act public in a way that deals the pro Registration Side as devastating a blow as his earlier support was a publicity victory for it; and the Spider-man/Captain America conversation afterwards, in which JMS pulls off the tricky feat of making Captain America live up to his reputation and make the rethoric noble instead of hokey, and concluding it with a perfect Spidey reaction: "Can I carry your school books?" (Capturing both the sincere admiration and the quintessential need to quip.)

But compare and contrast the overall collection with a single issue: the Captain America/Iron Man crossover Civil War: Casualties of War by Christos Gage, subtitled Rubicon. That one doesn't give one side horrible fake and obviously designed to invoke antipathy and being shot down arguments like the "HUAC was the law! Yay MacCarthy!" stuff, it gives both sides good arguments instead, without denying their flaws. For example, you still have Manipulative!Tony Stark (and Steve Rogers calls him out on it, making the connection to Tony's alcoholic past to rub the point really in, but he's right), but you also have Tunnel Vision!Steve Rogers ("you don't see it because you don't make mistakes", says Tony); you have Steve Rogers asking what JMS never lets Peter ask, "why?", and Tony answering with the self-loathing and sense making "because it could have been me", i.e. the incident that triggers the Civil War, which was partly the fault of some irresponsible young superheroes; Tony goes on to explain that when he was still drinking, he essentially put a drunk in possession of a sophisticated fighting armor and could have done as much damage, and Steve's argument that superheroes "took always care of their own" if one of them misbehaved gets the counterargument that this is still dependent on a very few individuals (currently not exactly displaying equal minds), and not the same as control and punishment by law in the case of misuse of power, which comes with the registration act. At the same time, Steve scores with the argument that police, goverment and virtually every single institution can be corrupted, and if you hand over control of superheroes to them, how long before they define what a supervillain is? It's a great back and to throughout... and definitely not the same kind of conflict JMS is writing over at Spider-man.

One obvious problem applies to both, and to the Civil War set -up in general: it should have been obvious to the anti-registration side from the start that they can't, in the traditional comicverse sense, win, because the people they were fighting - Iron Man & Co. - were not the ones either responsible for the Superhero Registration act or able to countermand it. Tony Stark could lobby against or for it - and in the course of The Road to Civil War, he does both - but he and those of the superheroes siding with are just executive organs of the legislative power. It's Congress who has passed the law. If Tony & Co. had dropped dead mid-Civil War, it would still have been the law. (And if what Tony says in Casualties of War is true - so far I haven't heard another Marvel title says it wasn't - the original plan by both Congress and President would have been to use Sentinels to control superheroes, as they already do with mutants at that point of the Marvelverse timeline, which they then would have fallen back on to.) There never is one person/force to be defeated, whether you regard the conflict as a Civil War or as Freedom versus Emerging Fascism, which could solve the conflict.

Comments

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Who's Ted Raimi? There were a few moments in the movie where I got the feeling someone was a cameo that I should recognize but the only ones I did were Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell. Anyway, I really really enjoyed the way that Raimi used the "comic relief" characters as though they really had lives of their own. I'm thinking it would be fun to see him direct a film that is actually pure comedy.

I don't know what else I can say about Civil War that I haven't ranted about already. The Spider-man series does have some wonderful moments and I am still hoping that the Tony + Peter relationship will pay off someday.

"Casualties" was definitely the cream of the Civil War books, though it was apparently written late as a sort of fill in, rather than planned from the beginning. I have a hunch that, while Gage wrote it, there was input from other writers (Bendis and Brubaker, at least, and probably the current Iron Man writers) that this was what they wanted the story to be all along. Hellz, this might have been what Mark Millar was thinking when he came up with the whole thing, but you wouldn't really know from reading it.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Ted Raimi played Jameson's publicity guy; you could also see him in the first movie. He's Sam's younger brother and played a recurring character named Joxer in Xena: Warrior Princess; you can also see him in one episode of American Gothic. Very endearing character actor, not afraid of massive on screen humiliation but also able of very subtle sad moments when required.

I don't know what else I can say about Civil War that I haven't ranted about already. The Spider-man series does have some wonderful moments and I am still hoping that the Tony + Peter relationship will pay off someday.

I'm assuming the reason it was established to begin with was so Peter had something to lose in Civil War - after all, before he joined the Avengers, he wouldn't have, and the question of sides would not have been a question at all.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well, I do think that JMS played up the Tony + Peter bond (I avoid the slash advisedly because I don't read it that way) in order to give Peter an arc during CW, but Tony taking Peter into his family has been there since the beginning of the New Avengers era which started, I'm fairly sure, well before Civil War was planned. I think it's more a case of looking at the existing relationships and figuring out which would represent "the human face" of Civil War. So we get Peter and Susan Storm (in the main CW title and in the Fantastic Four) the token "pro-reg who develops a conscience." Unfortunately, IMO, the result of both arcs is to have the "awakening" character look naive (and in Sue's case kind of stupid and annoying, cough) and the awakening seem blindingly obvious.

Incidentally, in another title, Thunderbolts, Warren Ellis is doing a great, blistering critique of the extreme abuses of the registration system. This includes a team of bad guys led by Norman Osborn and including Venom, working for the Iniitiative. If the Marvel U worked with any kind of unity -- what I would like to see happen would be for Osborn to crack, and do something awful (but not fatal) to Peter, causing Tony to have yet another irrational and overpersonalized attack of conscience, abandon his former position, and try to make up with the resistance; meanwhile the Initiative and all the plans he came up with are now out of his personal control. Unfortunately, I don't think T'bolts is being acknowledged by most of the other marvel titles; it's more like, "Let Warren Ellis sit in his corner and be crazy."

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I do think that JMS played up the Tony + Peter bond (I avoid the slash advisedly because I don't read it that way) in order to give Peter an arc during CW

Agreed with you on the slash, or rather, lack of same - icon kidding aside, it does read as Peter looking for a father figure, and Tony looking for a son.

This includes a team of bad guys led by Norman Osborn and including Venom, working for the Iniitiative. If the Marvel U worked with any kind of unity -- what I would like to see happen would be for Osborn to crack, and do something awful (but not fatal) to Peter, causing Tony to have yet another irrational and overpersonalized attack of conscience, abandon his former position, and try to make up with the resistance; meanwhile the Initiative and all the plans he came up with are now out of his personal control.

This would also tie with Road to Civil War and the whole development for Tony starting when Maria Hill uses the "how long before Norman Osborn becomes Spider-man's fault" comparison and asks him "how long before superheroes going out of control become your fault", in an antithesis kind of way.

Incidentally, Norman must have had more resurrections than Jean Grey. Do they even bother to explain why he's alive?

Oh, and I forgot, in my main post: something which I really liked was how JMS wrote JJ Jameson's reaction. Millar just goes for the comedy of JJ passing out when Peter unmasks on tv, but JMS goes for the aftermath, and it's a rare case of Jameson not presented as a caricature, and the sense of personal betrayal works.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think Peter + Tony is written as slashy but I'm not sure the artists got the memo (though, incidentally, I really really love the artist JMS has been working with on Spiderman. Not only this icon but several of my TM-Tony icons come from those issues).

Osborn figures in the Civil War Frontline plot -- some nonsense about Tony trying to start a war with Atlantis, that I try to ignore, since it makes his characterization make even less sense than it does elsewhere. I don't know if Osborn's resurrection was explained there, or previously, but when they gave Thunderbolts to Warren Ellis, he obviously jumped all over the chance to use old Norman (and, like I said, Venom, who is a completely scary psycho -- which makes the 'Eddie Brock is a cutie and he and Peter should have hatesex' stuff that is springing up in reference to the movie sort of squicky; also, I wonder if those people missed the implication of Eddie stalking Gwen?)

The thing about Thunderbolts -- the title has existed for a while, with the theme of "bad guys trying to reform are putting in their time with the government;" as Ellis is now writing it, the team has been completely remade in Norman's image as a bunch of sadistic psychos, with the few who are actually well meaning being manipulated and used for PR sake. In CW 7, Millar has Tony praising the T'bolts to Miriam Sharpe (the Cindy Sheehan-esque victim's mother figure who set Tony on his whole crusade). I'm not sure, though, whether he's supposed to be referring to the old, mostly well-intentioned, T'bolts, or if he actually knows what Osborn is doing with the team. Editor-comments have suggested that SHIELD actually has no control over the T-bolts and, even implied that the government is training them in the eventuality that they need to take the other heroes down. But God knows if the editors actually know what they are talking about; re Civil War, it might be the first time.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I really really love the artist JMS has been working with on Spiderman. Not only this icon but several of my TM-Tony icons come from those issues

He does look very dashing in those issues, true.

Venom, who is a completely scary psycho -- which makes the 'Eddie Brock is a cutie and he and Peter should have hatesex' stuff that is springing up in reference to the movie sort of squicky; also, I wonder if those people missed the implication of Eddie stalking Gwen?

I think they did, and took Eddie's "I'm dating your daughter" claim to Captain Stacy to be true, even though Gwen subsequently makes it clear she's not dating him at all. I haven't read Venom in 616 continuity, but I'm reading through Ultimate Spider-man now, and Eddie is being creepy with Gwen and a scary psycho there too. When she rejects his advances, he uses the "come on, a girl like you..." line on her, and thus qualifies as a jerk before he gets into contact with the symbiont. This is cleverly done, as we see him being simultanously being all understanding pals with Peter, right until the point where the symbiont becomes an issue. Someone, I don't know who, said that in 616 comicverse, Venom is simultanously a jilted lover (the symbiont) and a jealous boyfriend (Eddie) vis a vis Peter Parker, with Eddie being jealous because the Symbiont is still hankering after Peter, and that's how it ends up in Ultimate as well. In either case, Eddie Brock definitely isn't meant to be the Harry Osborn type of sympathetic, tragic character, but a genuine creep.

But God knows if the editors actually know what they are talking about; re Civil War, it might be the first time.

*cleans glasses in Giles 'n early Wesley fashion*

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

PS -- Re: Gwen, I think it's possible that they are still holding out hope that they can convince Maguire to come back for a 4th movie, but know they probably won't have KD, so they wanted to set up a potential new love interest for a 4th movie. But I do wonder if "worrying the fans" really was on the agenda!

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

I think putting Gwen Stacey is was a deliberate way to worry the fans - just as, on a way more subtle level, that line about "meet me at the bridge..." worried a lot of geeks until she said "in Central Park"!

Raimi has said that Gwen Stacey's most defining characteristic in the comicverse is that she's dead. And she wasn't really given much to do in this movie - nobody would have cared if she's been offed in this film, I don't think.

But it would be very interesting if MJ dies in the next movie... although only if they can get everyone back!

[teh-no.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking it would be fun to see him direct a film that is actually pure comedy.

Hudsucker Proxy.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

? Wasn't that the Coens?

[teh-no.livejournal.com]

Yes, but he helped write it (I was sure the Coens had written it and he had directed it. Weird).

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Well, anyway, I didn't know the connection and I do like that movie!

[teh-no.livejournal.com]

Go Eagles!

[teh-no.livejournal.com]

And frankly, the "if you want Peter to live..." scene with Harry-on-glider and MJ was stupid. Because it means MJ has to believe Harry would and could kill Peter (which, you know, he hasn't been very successful in so far).

I could believe that Peter didn't tell her anything about Harry being the New Goblin (which is still, yeah, incredibly irresponsible of him, but he really just wants his friend back, so I could buy it). It's stupid, but it's in-character stupid. After all, last time MJ had ringside seats to a Goblin/Spidey fight, she saw Spider-Man getting his ass kicked and dragged off to an uncertain fate.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Good point, but that was the old Goblin, and surely he at least told her this particular incarnation is dead?

Besides, Peter not having told her anything about Harry's New Goblinhood still leaves me with the problem of MJ giving in to Harry's threat instead of saying to Peter "Harry's just showed up on a glider and acted kind of insane, so both of you, get your act together and tell me what the hell is going on".

This would have been independent from whether or not she wanted either to break up with Peter or at least ask for a time of separation. Both of which she'd been completely justified to do by the film. But not because Harry blackmailed her by threatening Peter.

[teh-no.livejournal.com]

Good point, but that was the old Goblin, and surely he at least told her this particular incarnation is dead?

I don't know, the movieverse is frustratingly vague on almost everything relating to the Green Goblin's fate. Maybe he let slip that the Green Goblin had died in his capacity as "Spider-Man's official photographer" (there's probably a fic in Peter trying to comfort her, and seeking absolution for his own part in Norman's death, there). But given the communication problems the entire movie spotlighted, I can believe he maybe didn't even tell her that much. Certainly, Aunt May's insistence that Spider-Man isn't a killer points towards the public at large believing that Spider-Man didn't kill Green Goblin, which is... confusing.

Besides, Peter not having told her anything about Harry's New Goblinhood still leaves me with the problem of MJ giving in to Harry's threat instead of saying to Peter "Harry's just showed up on a glider and acted kind of insane, so both of you, get your act together and tell me what the hell is going on". This would have been independent from whether or not she wanted either to break up with Peter or at least ask for a time of separation.

But then you would've have had Mary-Jane telling him there was someone else, which was one of those emotional beats the film really wanted/needed to hit, especially to sell Harry as a Big Bad. What they really needed was a leverage other than Peter, like Harry threatening to go after her family (imagine the complexity of him threatening to kill her father, say. THAT would be a good Acting! moment).

[selenak.livejournal.com]

But then you would've have had Mary-Jane telling him there was someone else, which was one of those emotional beats the film really wanted/needed to hit

Point taken!

imagine the complexity of him threatening to kill her father, say. THAT would be a good Acting! moment).

You're right, it would have been and would have worked, too.