How am I supposed to believe that a smart teen - an unpopular nerd - has hair that looks so perfectly-styled?Today I'm here because of hair and remake-itis. Yes, you read that right. Look at this picture I found while browsing the web, and understand my pain. Seriously, that 'do makes no sense for a teen, much less a straight one, much less a nerd!
|Parker is a natural 5'8", but 5'11" with hair.|
When I first heard about the reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, I cursed out loud. I'm a native New Yorker, so that's not rare, but I was stunned: Sam Raimi is an excellent director, and even if the 3 Spidey films weren't amazing or deep (I liked part 2 a lot), they made a ton of money.
More importantly, I trust Raimi; even when his movies have flaws, they're always respectable works. Although I wasn't thrilled with them at the start, I also grew to like the cast, including Tobey MacGuire and Kirsten Dunst.
While comic-book movies aren't important to me, quality film-making most definitely is. The reboot news seemed like... the opposite of that. Sony decided to ditch a proven director who had some fancy "ïdeas" and just re-start the whole franchise; apparently, the teen market only likes stories about teens. Will they reset this again in 5 years?
|Pete, what did you spend on product last month? It's ok to tell us you're gay...|
While some writers & directors handle this material smoothly, it's often seen as "stuff we need but that's keeping us from getting right to the action." As such, a total reboot - rather than replacing the cast - means that we'll have to have sit through, again, the entire "Peter Parker gets powers" sequence. Thanks!
But even worse, it means that everything that happened in the previous 3 films was meaningless - and not just because events in the prior movies are no longer "relevant." Nothing about them was seen as valuable by Sony - save the billion-plus dollars they earned.
And while this is scifi-action and not Hotel Rwanda, it devalues all the effort put into Spiderman Films 1-3, Section A. How will a studio appeal to my emotions if I know they could scrap this director, actor, and 3 storylines - at any time? For no reason involving "quality" or "artistic opinion?"... Is the secret that kids aren't discerning enough to notice this - or that there will always be a fresh batch of kids?
|"Spiders bit my bf & I can't stroke his hair!"|
This is not like the James Bond reboot with Daniel Craig; the new Casino Royale hit a complete reset button on that franchise, but it made sense. Dr. No was made in 1962, the first of 20 films in its run, and the lead was replaced 4 times. As an action/spy series, it made sense that new action movies put pressure on the producers to update James Bond for the post 2000-era. But Spider-Man 3 came out in 2007! How did that franchise become "less relevant?" (than it already was, naturally)
Unless reincarnation exists, I can't know what goes on inside a teenage girl's mind. However, they seem to like guys with "big" weird hair that obviously takes a lot of time to style. Hence, Robert Pattinson in Twilight. If I were Bella, I'd've assumed the kid I'm crushing on is very gay - at best, maybe freakishly metrosexual; which is hardly the big draw of teen romance, is it?
|With great mousse comes great responsibility. Also, great hold.|
I guess the real issue is that I'm offended by the studio's need to keep Peter Parker in his teen years. This is like the children-Jedi in the Star Wars prequels - you don't need to see someone your age in a movie in order to look up to them. I wanted to be Han Solo, or have Luke's powers, I didn't need kid versions of them to get me emotionally invested.
And I guess the second real reason that I'm so offended and annoyed is that I can believe that a radioactive spider bite would give you super-powers. I just can't believe your hair can be 3+ inches tall, yet a red and blue ski mask fits you like you're bald. This is all so stupid!