Pop Culture

Spider-Man Fights Back!

The Weekend Australian 5-6 January 2002

It worked for Batman. In the late 1980s, after years of mediocre sales, DC Comics hired some of the best writers and artists in the comic-book field to rejuvenate the caped crusader. Hype for an upcoming movie did the rest - and before long, "Batman" was the top-selling superhero in comics.

Now, it seems, it is Spider-Man's turn. Marvel Comics' flagship hero has seen an increase in sales, while his movie is tipped as one of the big releases of 2002. No small feat, for a hero who - if you ask any comic-book reader - recently went through a crisis that was worse than any of his villains.

It started about seven years ago, when his writers and editors sat down to discuss how to make his life more interesting. Spider-Man, once America's best-selling comic-book hero, had lost readers since his sales peak, and they were keen to restore him to his former glory.

"We've always seen that the great strength of Spider-Man is that he's a real person, he's one of us," says Sam Raimi, director of the "Spider-Man" movie. "He's a kid from Queens who doesn't have a whole lot of money. He doesn't get the girls, he's got acne, he's a fairly average kid. And he's one of us, unlike Superman who's from the planet Krypton or other fantastic heroes. He's really a kid who we identify with."

So at that historic meeting, his writers and editors agreed that he was suffering his greatest misfortune: he was getting lucky. The people's superhero had married the lovely Mary Jane Watson and moved into a cosy Manhattan apartment. "It's a tough situation because he's married to this beautiful, former model," admitted writer Howard Mackie. "That distances him from the target audience."

The solution - worthy of any soap opera writing team - was to hearken back to a 1975 story, in which the hero had been cloned. At the end of that story, the clone had died in an explosion... or so we thought.

Now it was revealed that, for 20 years (of our time), Spider-Man had been a clone. The REAL Spider-Man had been hiding for all those years. Now that this was revealed, the clone was allowed to lose his powers and retire gracefully to a life of marital bliss, while the original Spider-Man took over, with all his life issues intact.

It was incredible news - and the readers hated it. An email group, The Spider-Man Expatriates, promoted a boycott of any comics that endorsed their hero as an imposter. They weren't simply an vocal minority; subscriptions fell to 235,000, a 30-year low and a 60 percent drop from 1993.

"What they were doing in 1995 was wiping out the character that I knew,and replacing him with this upstart who had disappeared before I started reading," recalls Jonathan Couper, New Zealand-based editor of the website Spiderfan.org. "It's like learning at age 16 that you're adopted, and having them come in and try to take your Mum away. It's too late."

Eventually, Marvel did an about-face, restoring the clone's powers and revealing that, whatever they said, he wasn't really a clone. Perhaps, by that stage, it was too late. "The stories became too convoluted, too ridiculous," says Stephen Ford, of Sydney retailer Kings Comics. "People lost touch with the character."

"Marvel ... completely underestimated the groundswell of opinion," says Couper. "Then, too late, they folded under public pressure. They lost on both points. Firstly, they lost a lot of fans by sticking with their intention for too long, but at the end they lost their artistic integrity by bowing to the pressure. A double defeat."

Five years after it concluded, the co-called 'Clone Saga' is still an albatross around Marvel's neck. "Somewhere, the 'Clone Saga' became the catchphrase for all that is wrong in everything, not only comics," said Mackie, the only writer who didn't lose his job in the process. "World War III will be caused by the 'Clone Saga'."

The demise in Spider-Man's sales, however, coincided with the falling sales of all comics. In the US, sales of comics fell from $US850 million in 1993 to $275 million just six years later. It is hoped that Raimi's upcoming movie will mark a revival - not just for the character, but for comics in general - in much the same way that the "Batman" movie led to an upsurge in all-round comic sales in 1989.

Inevitably, the hype machine is in full swing, preparing for the release of "Spider-Man" in May 2002 with merchandise deals and a new animated series. A successful comic-book movie, however, doesn't necessarily lead to high comic-book sales. Last year's "X-Men", based on Marvel's most popular series, made $US54 million in its opening weekend, greatly increasing the price of shares in News, Ltd (owner of 20th Century-Fox). Despite that, Marvel lost $US14 million in that quarter.

Spider-Man, however, lends himself to franchising. "Spider-Man's lasted for 40 years," says comic-book writer Brian Bendis. "All this other stuff that's popular, it never lasts more than three years. 'Beavis and Butthead' was so popular for exactly three years. 'South Park' was popular for two years. Name another thing, other than 'Star Trek' -- which had to be reinvented, by the way -- or James Bond -- which had to be reinvented five times -- that has lasted over 40 years."

Last year, Bendis was given the task of reinventing Spider-Man, without having to tie up decades of convoluted subplots. The result was "Ultimate Spider-Man", which rewrote the character's origin to take place the early 21st century rather than the early sixties.

It was a case of going back to basics. Spider-Man had been devised by Marvel Comics' founding editor, Stan Lee, as a new kind of superhero. Like Superman or Batman, he was an orphan, but with a flawed character and a luckless personal life. (Under the mask, he was nerdy teenager Peter Parker.) In his first appearance in 1962, he had used his newfound powers to become a television star - failing to stop a burglar, who went on to kill his beloved uncle. It was his guilt, rather than a passion for justice, that turned him into a crime-fighter.

Assisted by publisher Bill Jemas, and Mark Bagley's fine artwork, Bendis made some updates. Peter Parker, who previously earned his pocket money selling photos of Spider-Man to New York's venerable (and fictitious) newspaper, The Daily Bugle, now works for the Bugle's Website. (A far more likely job for a teenage geek.) Where the original treated his uncle and aunt with old-fashioned respect, the new model rebelled against them like any teenager. But the basics (like his guilt over his uncle's death) are still there.

"Ultimate Spider-Man" has been a great success, immediately becoming one of the top-selling comics on the market. Collectors are already paying 10 times the cover price for the first issue. Bendis credits the concept of Spider-Man. "It doesn't need fixing. There's a core idea there. It's f---ing brilliant, and I love it."

While Bendis lured new readers with a teenage web-swinger, Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada also sought to give an overhaul to the "classic" Spider-Man, who has aged since 1962 (albeit considerably slower than the rest of us), so that he is now a struggling 20-something. Almost a year ago, he and Mary Jane had an amicable separation. "I wanted her off the chess board to focus on Peter," says writer J. Michael Straczynski. "There was a lot of background noise around Peter, and I wanted to lessen that to focus on him."

Straczynski is one of Quesada's secret weapons in his quest to revive Spider-Man, scripting "The Amazing Spider-Man" (drawn by John Romita, Jr, whose father drew Spider-Man in the sixties). JMS (as his fans know him) has a cult following as the creator of the science fiction television series "Babylon 5", renowned for its complex character drama. In his first three months, he has returned Spider-Man to his old high school, this time as a science teacher.

Straczynski's writing, honed through years of television, is a notch above the usual superhero action. He has also salvaged one of Spider-Man's great strengths: his humour. Spider-Man was devised as a quick-witted clown, who would lighten each fight scene with constant one-liners. "It used to be a really funny book," says Straczynski. "It used to have really great, funny lines, but they got replaced by wisecracks, which aren't quite the same thing."

Under Straczynski, the humour has returned. "I like you," an eerie, "Buffy"-style villain tells Spider-Man in mid-battle. "You're funny."

"Don't tell me. Tell Letterman," replies the hero. "I've been trying to get on his show for YEARS."

Ford believes that, in preparation for the movie hype, Quesada has put "Spider-Man" in the hands of the best writers. (As well as Straczynski and Bendis, he mentions British writer Paul Jenkins, who writes another comic, "Peter Parker: Spider-Man".) According to Ford, sales of "The Amazing Spider-Man" have doubled since Straczynski took over. However, what really increased sales was the news of the movie. In the past 12 months, Spider-Man's sales (across the board) have trebled.

Fans are hoping that, like "X-Men", the "Spider-Man" movie will stay true to the spirit of the original. Hence there was some concern when Ben Affleck was tipped to play Spider-Man. Affleck resembles a typical square-jawed comic-book hero - The New York Times once suggested that he looks like he was drawn by the elder Romita - but Spider-Man (or rather, Peter Parker) does not. Unconcerned by box office, the fans' choice was "Buffy" sidekick Nicholas Brendan, with his experience at playing geeky, comical, but basically tough high-schoolers.

Few, however, complained when the role went to Tobey Maguire, whose previous roles ("Pleasantville", "The Cider House Rules") have shown him as a perfect antihero. (Affleck has since been cast as the hero of another Marvel Comics movie, "Daredevil", about one of Spider-Man's crime-fighting allies.) From the little else that has been revealed about the movie, it seems that the concept is being taken seriously. "It's not like a cheesy superhero movie at all," says Kirsten Dunst ("Bring It On"), who dyed her hair red to play Mary Jane.

"People in most of the western world know that Spider-Man in the same way that they know Zorro, Robin Hood, Superman, James Bond," says Couper. "They have a picture, an idea, something which has lasted a generation.

"The comics are written by different writers, over many years. It's very hard to be true to a story which has been written, drawn, edited by - at my last count - nearly 800 different people. A couple of years of bad comics, a good movie, a marriage... Those mean nothing to the BIG Spider-Man."

CELLULOID HEROES

"Spider-Man" is only part of the fun. Fuelled by the success of the "Batman" series, "Men in Black" and "X-Men" (all of which have sequels in the pipeline), we can expect a deluge of super-hero movies over the next few years. A worry, because comic-book movies haven't always worked. On occasion, however, super-heroes have been given a new lease of life by their on-screen adventures - though not always for the better.

BATMAN
Many Batman fans would rather forget the ever-popular television series, which turned the concept of a dark vigilante into a parody, complete with forced acting and visual sound effects like "Zok!" and "Bam!". Emulating the silliness, sales of the comics went through the roof. Though the comics became more serious (and returned to their previous, indifferent sales) after the television series was cancelled, the on-screen Batman did not recover until the 1989 blockbuster.

SUPERMAN
DC Comics' flagship character (comic-book hero from the thirties, radio star in the forties, TV star in the fifties, animated hero in the sixties) had fallen out of favour since his peak during World War II. The blockbuster "Superman: The Movie" (1978) revived him, making a star of Christopher Reeve (who played mild-mannered Clark Kent and hunky Superman with equal flair). Unfortunately, its sequels gradually dwindled in quality, ending (mercifully) with the truly awful "Superman 4: The Quest for Peace" (1987).

SUPERGIRL
Superman's cousin had flopped in the comics, but it was still surprising when her comic-book was cancelled just as "Supergirl: The Movie" was released in 1984. The movie (starring newcomer Helen Slater) did nothing for the character, with its poor reception by both audiences and critics. A year later, DC Comics allowed her to die heroically. (A new Supergirl - same costume, different story - was introduced a few years later.)

DICK TRACY
Warren Beatty attempted to give one of his childhood heroes a shot in the arm with "Dick Tracy" (1990), which was mostly faithful to Chester Gould's original comic strip. Set design and make-up were excellent, with top stars (Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino) heavily disguised as low-life crooks. Beatty, however, made a dull hero (without Tracy's famous nose), and the movie was "a major disappointment", according to both Variety's review and the box office. The predicted "Dick Tracy" revival never happened.

MEN IN BLACK
The first successful movie based on a Marvel comic, "Men in Black" (1997) took its cue from an obscure series published by Marvel's adult-oriented Malibu line. Transformed into an ultra-hip science fiction movie, starring Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, it was a huge hit, even topping the Australian box office for its year. But although it was spun off into an animated series and a merchandising bonanza, the comic book disappeared - and most of the movie's fans remain blissfully unaware of its origins.