Third Time's the Harm?

I remember the comic book that got me into collecting when I was in junior high. It was a one-shot (complete story contained in one issue as opposed to a multiple-issue story arc) of The Amazing Spider-Man (issue #340) in which Spidey fights a group of women super villains. At the conclusion of the episode, he had decided that he wanted to be permanently rid of his powers, which he accomplished through the help of a "gracious" researcher's special ray beam gizmo. I didn't put a spoiler alert on this because the issue is now almost 15 years old. If you haven't read it by now, you probably aren't. Anyway, I collected the next 59 issues of that title, missing only #344 on my way to #399. I never got the 400th issue, for some reason. That's about when I stopped regularly collecting comics. At any rate, because that issue of Amazing was the one that got me going in my collection, Spidey's always had a very special place in my heart. It's the reason that the movies based on the comics are two of the few movies that I demanded we see in the theaters instead of waiting for the DVD. I've really enjoyed the work that Sam Rami, Toby Maguire, and the whole team have done on the first two efforts. They've remained relatively true to the source material (which I greatly appreciate) with their deviations being understandable, justifiable, and done in a way to not detract from the character. However, I'm having growing concerns with the upcoming third installment of the series.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping for something to go wrong this time; I just think that there's a chance of it happening. What they have going for them is obvious. The fact that the large majority of the cast is returning for the third installment of what is essentially a sci-fi/fantasy film is a testament to Rami, who also returns as the man in the big chair for number three (got tired of saying third movie) which is another plus. Rami deserves a large portion of the credit for the first two movies. They're still working with a character that has a ton of material from which to draw (40 years and counting) and, presumably, they'll be remaining true to the story lines again. Now we come to my ever-popular "however."

However, here are some of the things about which I'm concerned:

• It's still a sequel - It's incredibly rare in Hollywood for a sequel to be as good or better than its predecessors. We saw this with the Batman films, with the third X-Men movie (though the second was the best of the bunch), the Matrix films, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. Not to mention the huge number of sequels that go right to video ("Oh, hey! I didn't know that they made a sequel to that. Why is it starring Dolph Lundgrin?") The sequel successes is a much shorter list which includes Indiana Jones (at least for now, depending on how much input Lucas insists on having) and a few others. Now, a large portion of the "horrible sequel" list includes the common theme of the reigns and roles having been passed on to someone else, though the Matrix and Pirates movies also had colossal cast and crew continuity. Man, with alliteration like that, you'd think I was Stan Lee or something.
• The ego potential - Everyone involved in the film right now knows that they've done great work in the past. There is always a temptation to assume that you can just breeze through another one just like the previous (see also: Matrix, The and sequels). Are the actors going to put in the preparation necessary for their roles? Is Rami going to be as demanding of the cast since he has such a history with them? Where will they fit Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee in cameos?
• Character overload - This is my largest concern. One of the nice things about the previous two movies, is that they were really allowed to have focus. The first movie allowed us to concentrate on the origin story of the character and his battle with the Green Goblin. That was largely it, and it was a good thing. It was the first movie in what was hoped at the time to be a franchise of films. We were given the time to meet the principle characters, learn how they interact, and to care about them. In the second movie, we had the on-going love story of Peter and Mary Jane and the introduction of and conflict with Doctor Octopus, with the smaller sub-plot of Harry's downward spiral. Essentially, only two major new characters were introduced in the second movie: Doc Ock and his arms. The third movie is going in a new direction, though. We're going to be introduced to the Sandman. There will have to be at least two epic fight sequences with him along with learning his origin story. The whole sub-plot with Harry's hatred of Spider-Man looks like it'll be coming to the forefront. Peter's relationship with MJ is continuing to grow. It looks like we'll see the introduction (beyond a 30-second bit in the first movie) of Betty Brant - another love interest of Peter's. There's the symbiotic costume that will be introduced, along with where it comes from and what it actually does when Peter puts it on. In theory, we would also have the introduction of Venom in this movie as well. That's a lot of stuff to throw at an audience in one movie. The concern is that some or all of the characters won't receive the necessary development on the screen to make us care about them, which was so vital for the first two movies. Who gets short-changed? I ask you to remember the Batman series. They felt the need to keep "upping the ante" as they progressed through the movies. One villain in the first movie (Joker). Two villains in the second (Penguin and Catwoman) and third (Riddler and Two-face). Three whole villains in the fourth installment (Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze and Bane). The fourth movie is universally panned as the worst of the group. They relegated Bane, one of the best Batman villains to have appeared since 1970, to essentially being idiot hired muscle. This is the character who, in the comics, out-thought Batman on his way to breaking Bruce Wayne's back in the Knightfall story arc. I don't want the same sort of thing to happen to Venom or the Sandman. Sandman may not be a world-shaking villain, but played by Thomas Haydon Church, he should be a compelling character on film. Venom is one of the best Spider-Man villains to have appeared since 1990 (sound familiar?) and needs to be given time to show his motivation. I should probably get out of the bullets now.
  

So, as you can see, I feel pretty passionately about these characters. To a certain extent, I grew up with them, and I want them to be treated with dignity and care. And I hope that Rami and the crew cause this whole post to be laughable in about a month.