movies – The Hopeless Academic

Why is the webhead so lucrative? An answer to The Daily Wire

The content below may contain spoilers for the new movie, Spider-Man: No Way Home. Do with this information what you will.

I am a fan of the web-head. I have been a fan of the classic Peter Parker since I was in middle school. And as such, I have consumed a lot of Spider-Man content over the years, from television shows, to comics, to live action movies (yes, all eight of them.) I very much enjoyed the latest installment: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Apparently, I’m not alone. According to The Daily Wire, Spider-Man pulled in $253 million dollars domestically on opening weekend alone. Which, thanks to Covid, hasn’t happened in a long time.

In my perusing the internet after watching the movie (mostly to validate my own feelings towards it), I came across an article by The Daily Wire (yes, that same article that I referred not two sentences ago) that made me pause. It suggested that the reason the webhead made so much money was because it wasn’t woke—no LGBTQ+ stuff, no racial politics, etc. While I don’t tend to watch “woke” movies, I did find this assertion odd. I think it displays a remarkable misunderstanding of the webhead, the MCU, and the fanbase, so, in true “me” fashion, I decided, “Hey, why not pick this article into oblivion?”

So, let’s take a walk through this article, refuting it point by point. I will be taking quotes from the article: “‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ Suggests Movie Fans Are Fed Up With Woke Propoganda.”

I’ll start with the premise of the article, which cites Breitbart as its source: ““Newsflash: If you make a decent movie that seeks to entertain and move — instead of lecture and shame — we will show up,” John Nolte wrote. “‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ does precisely that. You will not only have a great time at the movies again, but there’s no gay, transsexual, or racial nonsense. This movie is about only one thing: Delivering the goods.””

Premise: This movie is “good” because there is no “transsexual, gay, or racial nonsense.” Okay, fine. Let’s see how they back this claim up.

Their first point: “Black Widow bombed because of overtly feminist themes that superseded the central narrative. Eternals had a similar issue because audiences saw the extraordinarily politically correct agenda and rebelled against it.”

I’d like to disagree with the claims made about these movies, and I will briefly point out this article seems to make a logic flaw. If these movies “bombed,” it does not necessarily mean that if you do the opposite of what these films do, i.e. “be woke,” that you will end up with a successful movie. But given that this is the point the article makes, let’s look at why these two movies in particular didn’t do well. Given the fact that all of these movies (Black Widow, Eternals, and Spidey) were released at differing stages of the pandemic, it’s good to take a quick look and see how Covid was doing for each of these.

Black Widow was released on July 9, 2021. This was around the time life was “getting back to normal.” Which theoretically means that if people really were excited about this movie, they could have gone to the theater maskless and watched Black Widow as if it were an entirely normal experience, and the movie should have been a smashing success. Assuming “bombed” means “did poorly at the box office,” then the article would be correct: Black Widow made $80.4 million on opening weekend—less than half the revenue Spidey cashed in at the end of his debut, which seems to indicate that fans weren’t willing to spend their money to watch this movie in theaters.

But this movie wasn’t just released in theaters. This movie was released on Premier Access with Disney+, which meant that if you wanted, you could pay $30 for a month to watch the movie as many times as you liked. Disney didn’t delay the release of Widow on Disney+, either—both the streaming service and the theatrical release were simultaneous. Typically, if fans want to watch a movie multiple times before the DVD or streaming service release, they have to go to the theater, paying the ticket price over and over again rather than a one-time fee, and this spending adds to the overall gross of the film (though in all likelihood would not affect the bottom line on opening day). With the streaming service, as everyone knows, you pay a one-time flat fee and the movie is yours forever (well, yours on the “cloud,” whatever that is). My guess? People mooched off the one person they knew who had a Disney+ account and was willing to splurge for the $30 Premier Access streaming fee. The streaming release affected the film’s box office performance to the point that Scarlett Johansson, the title actress, sued Disney over the fact that she wasn’t able to get the bonuses associated with said box office. (And that situation is a whole different can of worms.)

Now, to the actual point they’re making about feminism: I actually don’t really know what they’re talking about. I watched this movie—while it is a “girl power” movie, meaning there is a fair amount of women handing out unrealistic beatings to men, I didn’t necessarily think anything was “overtly feminist.” Honestly? I thought it was kinda cute. So we could safely say that Widow didn’t bomb because it was feminist, it most likely bombed because of the circumstances of the release.

Eternals faired even worse at the box office: $71.3 million on opening weekend domestically. Why the poor turnout? Well, there could be several reasons for this one—one could be that the film was released November 5, 2021. It is during cold and flu season, so the more cautious among us may have felt the desire to stay indoors. The reason The Daily Wire is implying it did poorly? Eternals features a gay couple kissing.

While it’s entirely possible that some people boycotted this movie for that reason alone, the more likely reason is they have no desire to watch yet another Marvel movie for characters they know nothing about. If we’re honest, absolutely no one knows who the Eternals are. They are a very niche group of heroes, and most casual comic-book fans (which is currently the majority of the MCU’s audience) would know them only tangentially at best. Marvel has turned some obscure superhero groups into box-office hits (Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6), but those were marketed as fun summer blockbusters with goofy jokes. No one knew who the Eternals were, no one cared to know, and they don’t affect the main MCU storyline we’ve already invested one-and-a-half decades working on.

Also, this might just be me living under a rock, but I saw zero ads for this movie. I didn’t know it had come out until after the conservatives were freaking out about gay characters onscreen. Marketing left something to be desired for this one, if you ask me.

Last, the article makes this point: “No Way Home has Peter Parker (Tom Holland) visit Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) with the request that everyone forgets he’s a superhero. But our leading man quickly learns that actions have consequences. Peter Parker makes mistakes, but the movie also includes a place for second chances and redemption. Plus, there are nods to American pride in the film, which is virtually nonexistent in the rest of Hollywood.”

The point I assume the article attempts to make is that because there are brief moments of American pride, and Peter Parker doesn’t treat himself as a victim, this movie did well at the box office. I’m not entirely sure what “nods to American pride” the article is referencing. There is a fight on the Statue of Liberty, which has been recently renovated to hold Cap’s shield (in honor of his sacrifice? I didn’t know and didn’t care). I’m assuming that’s what this means. Oddly enough, while this article praises the “American pride,” I actually found it startlingly lacking—for a Spider-Man movie.

Spider-Man movies typically have heavy American imagery. In most movies (including ones with Holland, the MCU’s pick for Spidey), he’s seen posing with a flag in the background. This might appear to be an odd choice, considering Captain America would be considered a more appropriate character for American pride, but it was a very deliberate decision made in the first live-action Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire.

You see, Spider-Man was released in May of 2002. Nine months prior to the release of the Raimi movie, America experienced 9/11. Two planes deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center, murdering thousands and shattering the illusion that America was untouchable. In the months following that attack, national American pride was at an all-time high, and countries all over the world were showing solidarity. Spider-Man also found a way to support the U.S.A.—there flags everywhere, yes, but some of the most iconic shots feature the webhead clinging to a flagpole flying the American flag. He’s from NYC, after all. Ever since then, American flags dot Spidey’s background. The movie has “nods to American pride,” because at this point, they’re basically required; it’s not because the webslinger is responding to woke Hollywood.

So, to recap, The Daily Wire basically says that No Way Home did well because it wasn’t woke like Widow or Eternals, and has a few American moments in it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Pitting Spider-Man against any hero is unfair—box-office wise, at least. Spider-Man is the most popular superhero globally, which is an impressive feat considering his competition is Superman, Batman, and Wonder-Woman, three iconic characters from Detective Comics created decades before the web-slinger. The U.S.A. crowns Spidey as its favorite hero—above Captain America, Iron Man, and Batman. Spider-merch sells—you really think a child is going to want an Eternals happy meal toy when he could have a pair of cheap webshooters? (Fun fact— we did get a cheap pair of webshooters in a happy meal once, and I also got an Eternals toy much more recently. The webshooters were cooler.) A fairer comparison would be pitting Spider-Man against the Nolan Batman trilogy—perhaps they aren’t on the same cinematic playing field, but The Dark Knight did end up making $1 billion dollars in the box-office worldwide (not on opening weekend, but still an impressive number.)

What makes Spider-Man such a beloved character is Peter Parker, his alter ego. He has been such a massive success as a character because his personal life is a complete mess, but he still tries to do the right thing and use his gifts to the best of his ability. The Spider-Man costume is one of the few in the MCU that hasn’t completely succumbed to the “battle-chic” aesthetic, which makes him bright and interesting to watch. Even if there was an entire cast with a diversity quota and a gay romance subplot, I would be willing to bet Spidey would still get quite the showing on opening night. Obviously, there would be people who boycott it, but most people just love Spider-Man and would be willing to forgive quite a bit just to watch him swing across the city.

Oh, and one more thing: this movie has had rumors flying around it for months. With the release of shows like WandaVision, rumors had started that this movie, perhaps, was going to attempt to introduce a “multiverse”—all three Spider-Men in one movie working together. The trailers only amped up the excitement for fans, who haven’t seen Molina on the screen as Doc Ock in over a decade. No one wanted this movie spoiled, so they tried their damndest to see this movie the night it opened.

And to be fair, it was worth going to see on opening night. Watching Andrew Garfield walk through that portal—I haven’t had that much fun in a theater in a very, very long time. The cheers that came out of everyone when Tobey waved made me smile.

Spider-Man didn’t get views because he’s not woke. Spidey got views because he’s Spidey. Stan Lee created an icon, and he’s not going to be going away any time soon. Does it help that there wasn’t a bunch of propaganda in this film? Of course, but I guarantee that’s not why he’s rolling in dough.

The best part about Spider-Man is that anyone could wear the mask. It’s just that Peter Parker wears it very, very well.

The Poetics

Image Credit: Kyle Head via Unsplash.com

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This month, we mark the one year anniversary of the Hopeless Academic! To mark this very auspicious occasion, I will be doing a summary of one of my favorite analytical works when it comes to literature, everyone’s absolute favorite: The Poetics by Aristotle. I referenced this work in almost every paper I wrote in college, and for good reason. In this work, Aristotle lays out several rules that are still followed (with several exceptions and improvements) by storywriters and even filmmakers today. If you studied literature at all in high school or college, you were probably introduced to the “story arc,” a diagram which reduced literature into a mathematical equation. (Exposition + Rising Action = Climax… or at least the graphical representation of that.) Aristotle is the great great great grandfather of that diagram, or at the very least, parts of it.

Obviously, I’m going to be leaving some things out, because… well.. it literally is Greek to me. (Seriously, the words are in actual Greek. At least I’m pretty sure they’re Greek.) Besides, I want to make this more fun, and if you wanted a chapter by chapter summary, you could go read sparknotes.

Now, in the Poetics, Aristotle makes a distinction between Tragedy and Comedy, but he focuses mostly on how a Tragic play should be constructed. Most people extrapolate his advice from tragic plays only to how stories in general should be constructed, including comedies, which is what we’re going to do today. Aristotle’s advice is solid regardless, so why not use it?

Most of what Aristotle has to say centers around plot, and how the elements of a tragic play can serve that plot. To him, the essence of a story should center around an action rather than a particular character, though modern filmmakers and authors might disagree. If we get down to brass tacks, though, I think that most people would choose to watch a movie where a bunch of boring people do something rather than a film where a bunch of interesting people do nothing. I think Aristotle knows this, too, but he sort of insulates himself from criticism by saying that a plot needs characters in order to accomplish anything. Even if he says that plot is the most important thing, he knows that plot almost by definition relies on characters.

In order to have a good plot, Aristotle also lays out what he thinks are the most essential structural elements to said plot. Two of the structural elements that he thinks every good plot should have are a peripeteia and an anagnorisis. Which are… what?

For those who know their Greek, a peripeteia is a reversal of the situation — in other words, that’s when things go from good to bad, or from bad to good. For example, in Cinderella’s story, her peripeteia is when she puts on the glass slipper — at least, that’s officially when her situation reverses. Before, her life was full of misery and abuse, but after she put on that slipper, her fate was sealed as the bride of Prince Charming, or whatever his name is. “But what about before, when Cinderella’s life was wonderful and then her father died?” you ask, and rightfully so. Didn’t her situation reverse then, too? Because this happens so early on in the story, most people would qualify this as exposition, or simply setting up the story. In fact, the animated Disney version has this part in voiceover, giving you only the necessary details so you know the facts of the story — the story itself doesn’t really begin until after her father dies.

So much for a peripeteia. What about anagnorisis? An anagnorisis , or recognition, is when somebody goes from ignorance to knowledge — honestly, it’s just when someone recognizes something. (Quite the fancy term for such a basic thing.) Aristotle apparently likes a bit of suspense in his stories. There are a bunch of movies and stories with recognition scenes, like the animated movie Anastasia. Anastasia has amnesia and doesn’t remember if she is the Duchess of Russia, but she recognizes the perfume on her grandmother’s hands, and the memories come flooding back to her. Her grandmother recognizes the necklace she had given Anastasia before they were separated, and the two reunite.

The other elements of the plot are a lot more basic — the complication is basically the rising action, or setting up the conflict in the story. The unraveling is the falling action in the story; this comes after the climax, and wraps up the story in a neat little bow.

“Great,” you think, “I have all of the basic structure in order to write a story that Aristotle would love.” Not so fast. Those are just some basic plot elements — he has a lot more rules.

Aristotle also has some thoughts on the length of the story. To him, the perfect plot follows along with an action that is roughly twenty-four hours in length. While it may seem overly restrictive, Aristotle’s idea is that the human brain can only handle so much — remember, people are remarkably lazy. Once you hit two days or longer, the plot gets too complicated for people to handle. Or at least, Aristotle thinks so. This is one of the rules that I’d chalk up to preference, personally, instead of doing a Jack Baur-esque type plot where everything you watch is shown in “real time.” Sadly, Aristotle wouldn’t even appreciate that type of television show, because it’s episodic. According to him, episodic plots are “the worst” (translation from the Greek.) His argument would be that it would be too difficult to keep up with all of that action. And honestly? This is actually kinda fair. Before the Netflix binge culture we somehow created, episodes were shown a week apart — who remembers all of the details of a show from three weeks ago? This is why most of the time, the only thing that remained consistent were the characters, and each episode was a story unto itself. With shows that aired on network tv, like The Office or Friends, you could skip most installments, and just watch that one singular episode. Even with shows that do have a continuous plot, there’s a quickie “Previously On…” recap. Maybe the ol’ man was onto something.

Ok. So we’ve got a complication, a peripeteia, an anagnorisis, some falling action, and a singular story with that takes place within twenty-four hours. Great! But you’re not done yet. This next rule is probably one of the most important rules.

You gotta keep it consistent. Aristotle calls this rule the “rule of probability and necessity.” It basically means that all of the characters have to be consistent unto themselves, and the plot can’t just randomly jump to a conclusion because… plot. Let’s take a character like Captain America, for example. He has been built up as a caring, noble character who would go to the ends of the earth for his friends. Above all, he’s seen as loyal, especially to those he views as family, and he’s been pretty consistent in every MCU movie he’s been in over the course of a decade. It would make no sense if, oh, I don’t know, he decided to make an entirely selfish choice and leave all of his friends behind just because he had a crush on some girl. Especially if he abandoned said friends after nearly killing himself to save said friends from brainwashing. That would make no sense at all.

Aristotle also wants to make sure that your story makes sense. You can’t have Superman showing up at every twist and turn just to save the day. Superman has a schedule to keep, and honestly, having him show up at every twist and turn is unimaginative and unexciting. Imagine watching a Batman movie and Superman just shows up at the very last second to save Batman from Joker. Sure, you’re happy Batman was saved, but wouldn’t it have been a bit more fun to watch Batman use his own ingenuity to save himself? Pixar actually has a rule for this, and they are famous for their quality storytelling. Their rule: “Coincidences that get characters into trouble are great; coincidences that get them out of it are cheating.” Aristotle, however, explains that sometimes, you have to cheat. It’s inevitable. Tony Stark needs his suit, but the nearest warehouse is thousands of miles away, and in order to get there in time, his Iron Man suit would need to break the sound barrier, which would be nearly impossible. That’s ok! Just don’t make us watch the suit traveling across the country. Just have it show up — CinemaSins can nitpick it later.

Obviously, Aristotle talks a lot more about what goes into a good story. There’s how you present everything, and the set design, and even the meter of the songs. (Which I suppose is the Ancient Greek precursor to sound design.) He has a lot of rules, not to mention his own philosophy on what tragedy is for and how it fits into the human experience.

Maybe some of his rules are outdated. Clearly, the episode thing is going to stick around for a long time to come. And stories told within only twenty-four hour periods don’t really exist that much anymore either. We’ve grown in sophistication since the days of Ancient Greek plays, too—almost everything that we depict onscreen in the twenty-first century looks incredibly realistic. The movie industry is worth billions, and actors praised like the gods Aristotle worshipped. But he certainly got something right, if studios like Pixar share his ideas. Every aspiring playwright, author, and screenwriter should memorize The Poetics. Maybe then Hollywood might start turning out some original films.