As if the unoriginality of Hollywood needed further attesting to, they have decided to reboot the Spiderman franchise as well as—wait for it—Daredevil. Yes. Daredevil. For those of you who can’t, or choose not to remember, Daredevil was anchored by Ben Affleck, who might possibly be the worst person to cast in the role of superhero. I don’t dislike Ben Affleck (the devil slips me twenty dollars), but his face is a bit too genuine looking to be considered badass or ominous.
Even in Mallrats, his role as Shannon, who is persistently trying to screw Rene (Shannen Doherty) in an uncomfortable place—think the back of a Volkswagon, but when it’s filled with feces—is a more douchebaggy GAP worker than badass.
I think it’s the rounded jaw—and by rounded I mean cartoonishly turgid. He was fine as Will Hunting’s sidekick Chuckie, but with the exception of Good Will Hunting and the Kevin Smith-owned portion of his resume, Affleck hasn’t done much in the last decade worth watching or re-watching (except Jennifer Lopez and Jennifer Garner from her Alias days).
So, in a way, I understand Hollywood’s desire to start Daredevil over. He isn’t a terrible character; he was created by Stan Lee, and his story is okay: Matt Murdock is a Hell’s Kitchen native (Wohoo! New York!) who is blinded by a radioactive substance that falls from an oncoming vehicle—which I guess makes more sense that a substance that simply falls from a parked vehicle. Damn you gravity!
Subsequently, Murdock’s blindness—combined with an exposure to radiation—results in a heightening of his other senses, making him more ninja-like in regard to their preternatural ability to judge and acclimate to their surroundings.
A couple of issues with this reboot are that—comicbookically speaking—Daredevil doesn’t have that many villains, or at least not enough to foster interest in a franchise. A mortal sin in the superhero genre is to flood the film with too many villains—see Joel Schumacher’s choice to include Robin, Bat Girl, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane in the obviously titled, desiccated corpse Batman and Robin. For the most part, Daredevil’s enemies are either muscular badasses or, eventually, drug dealers. That said, the 2003 Daredevil already used Bullseye, the incomparable Colin Farrell (that’s $50) and The Kingpin (Michael Clark Duncan). The writers also threw in Elektra (Jennifer Gardner) for good measure, which spawned an equally unwatchable movie of her own and two kids that carry the ass-chin chromosome.
Therefore, the producers at Regency have little left to reboot with. I suppose that the new Daredevil could be a straight origin tale, but the upbringing of a blind lawyer whose father is murdered doesn’t scream intrigue. Besides, two of the more recent superhero-origin movies (Batman Begins and Iron Man) found critical acclaim and have become the bar for origin stories.
Another issue is that the screenplay for this reboot was taken from the hands of Mark Steven Johnson (who also directed) and has been placed into David Scarpa’s hands—whom you might know as the guy who penned the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Oh. You don’t? Well, neither does anyone else, but it was so compelling that I chose to avoid watching it on a flight in favor of counting each bead of sweat that dripped down the undulating flesh of 16F’s neck.
That aside, the idea of rebooting a franchise is to restore interest in a franchise that has been led astray a la Casino Royale and Batman Begins. Overall, it doesn’t seem people clambered for the first installment of a Daredevil franchise, and the decision to reboot—or let’s be honest, simply remake—Daredevil is more like Ed Norton’s recent The Incredible Hulk, which, while better that Ang Lee’s Hulk, it probably won’t further a franchise or add anything new.
In other “let’s forget about that last installment and start from the ground up news,” Sony has decided to reboot Spiderman. Now, I wasn’t a huge fan of the Spiderman movies; they were fun, but the first one masturbated cheesy CGI all over the screen which disconnected me from anything happening within the movie, and the third one shot itself in the foot by wasting a true Spiderman villain in Sandman and diluting it with a quick introduction and rapid demise of Venom—possibly the most popular Spiderman villain to cross the pages.
Venom is like Spiderman’s Joker. You don’t split screen time with another villain, and if you do, then Venom should have been introduced at the end to preface a sequel. Admittedly, Spiderman 2 was decent, but I credit that to Alfred Molina’s turn as Doctor Octopus, not to Seabiscuit’s jockey or a dentist’s wet dream.
Likewise, it seems the reboot is already shooting itself in the foot. As the Hollywood Reporter suggests:
The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it. THR
First, I’m unsure how this is different from the first Spiderman, with the exception that a big name actor won’t don the costume. In the same vein, Peter Parker isn’t interesting. He’s a near-sighted shut-in who is socially inadequate; it’s not until the radioactive spider bites him that he becomes anything, so will his discovery of superpowers emerge through teenage angst like spraying graffiti over the bathroom walls with webs?
Angst is fine; it worked for Batman Begins, though before Bruce Wayne goes on his journey and decides to become a vigilante, he’s still unhinged and threatens to assassinate his parents’ killer and Carmine Falcone. Bruce Wayne is also a grown man who isn’t toiling in high school, so I kind of wonder who this franchise is aimed at. Since Iron Man, X-Men, and Batman have the adult-fan market nailed, is this new Spiderman gunning for the prepubescent meets young adult market?
If so, that’s fine, and marketing-wise it’s intelligent because your audience will age as your young Peter Parker ages—which is quite similar to the genius behind the Harry Potter franchise. The risk Sony takes is alienating anyone who might have read the Spiderman comic and wants reparations for Spiderman 3—I don’t have room for a mule, but I could probably hide a ferret.
Strangely enough, Spiderman also seems to be investing in the Harry Potter method of directing, namely selecting a different director for each film. Right now, Marc Webb of 500 Days of Summer fame is only slated to do the initial film and expects to be replaced for the second. Hey. Who isn’t looking for a teenage-focused, whimsical superhero movie?
