Spider-Man, that orb-weaving superhero drops down from on high upon an unbreakable web of protein. Then, as if uncommitted to gravity, he zooms away from it all while surgically shooting spider silk five times stronger by weight than steel. With remarkable toughness and elasticity it goes ballistic in threading a dragline across New York City to trap a helicopter between the twin towers of the World Trade Center….

The day following the horror of September 11th Sony Pictures made the tactical and tactful decision to ask that theater owners return all copies of the poster and teaser trailer for the motion picture. Last year when the typical outcome for a summer movie was to "open big then fizzle quickly," it occurred to me that the most anticipated summer film for 2002 has already met an unanticipated omen in having its movie art turn instantly into a collector's item. Apparently, the death of irony has been greatly exaggerated because-and we have this on good authority-the scene involving the WTC never appeared in the original shooting script. Needless to say, the price of the poster has risen significantly since that grave national injury.

(Incidentally, at least four of the Spider-Man costumes were stolen from the film set with a $25,000 reward being offered for their return.)

Reportedly, that sequence consisting of a typical bank heist that changes quickly when the thieves get on the helicopter wasn't planned to be in the final film. (Sure, uh-huh.) And considering how prominent the buildings are in the movie, all scenes previously showing the towers have been re-shot or edited.

Intended to be the tent-pole release of Sony's slew of summer fare, Spider-Man is not the only production reeling from the repercussions of the terrorist attack. However, this is the one movie that definitely every mainstream comic book fan is looking forward to. It's hard to say for how long exactly, but every once in a while the motion picture industry becomes a beehive of activity in trying to fast-track films based on traditional comic book titles like "Wonder Woman" and "Daredevil."

Even the more quaint and unfamiliar sounding name of "The Submariner" has been mentioned for movie adaptation. In all, about a dozen comic-to-film hopefuls are slated to go before the cameras. This includes X-Men II (X2) in May and "The [incredible] Hulk" next year. However, all talk will soon turn to tales and potential film versions of popular comic books will never see the inside of a movie theater should Spider-Man tank at the box office.

Over time, you'll start to hear that buzzing sound of what will be the most over-hyped movie of the year-"GO FOR THE ULTIMATE SPIN!" Well, it's a little lame to be sure, but we're just going to have to take the marketing department's word for it. But, really, what ad copy could possibly live up to…the most awaited comic book hero to come to the screen in motion picture history?!!

Then, again, without this short of sunshine what's the fun in living, right?

At a time when sequels form a higher percentage than ever of big-budget motion pictures, there's potential here. For months on end Spider-Man the movie has been spinning its web on The Net after years of measuring the limits of the fan base while being forged in the flames of Development Hell.

Based on the popular character created by Stan Lee (at his most inspired) and published by Marvel Comics, the film has roots going as far back as the 1970's failed TV series. Combining live-action with computer animation, the shooting script (which so far has received mixed-negative reviews) examines the pathos of heroic angst that will hopefully entertain some folks. However, success will first ride on convincing a loyal fan base to spread a pretty damn good word-of-mouth to a wider audience that the web-slinger on screen is a reasonable approximation of Lee's creation.

Since forever Marvel comics has aggressively positioned its superheroes to become feature-length, live-action films. Their efforts have been met with favor, having pushed "Blade" and "X-Men" onto the screen (Blade II due out on March 27th). All the same, Spider-Man is hands down Marvel's most enchanting and endearing celebrity, if perhaps for reasons not all that clear to those living outside the cult. Nevertheless, fickle filmmakers-re: skeptical film financiers-must be persuaded that a clone such as "The Submariner" costing maybe a hundred million dollars is worthy of a green light.

The paradox in bringing comics to film is that phenomenon of expensive cheap entertainment, which points up the delirium involved with making movies nowadays. This is the burden of wisdom that seems at odds with the nature of so much decision making in the industry. The big budget film that doesn't work is how Hollywood works, which never fails to puzzle if not amaze.

Therefore, an entire sub-genre of filmmaking is relying on the presently unproven Spider-Man who must open #1 at the box office on May 3d in order to run roughshod over the competition. Then without being blown off that pentacle-not too far too fast-the "web-spinner" must then continue to perform extremely well beyond his opening weekend. I say at least a fortnight to prevail against the countervailing winds of "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" due to romp into theaters on May 17th. (There will be others.)

There's been a lot of buzz lately on this project. So, is the flick everything fans have been hoping for? Hard to say, but why is it that every over-hyped motion picture turns out to be what every moviegoer fears? Remember "Pearl Harbor"? Simply put, this film will have that rather thorny problem of both overcoming and living up to the advance publicity in being no less than a crowd-pleasing hit. The alternative isn't pretty.

The movie's most reliable audience will be "racially diverse" males between the ages of 14 (the film's rated PG-13) and those approaching adult life's middle years. The film will need that older crowd to bring in the underage kids wherever on earth the MPAA rating might actually be enforced. And getting the grandparents to put down the remote and come out to the movies wouldn't be a bad idea.

While the box office is expected to be a gold mine, there's no guarantee that moviegoers will be intoxicated by another high-profile project that may amount to little more than science fiction eye candy driven by cartoon violence with a can-do spirit. So, before the film has a chance to become an editorial, Sony as a practical matter is leavening its financial burden against a possible shortfall. A tie-in with a few promotional partners like Dr. Pepper, Hardee's, Hershey's and Legos will leverage their risk to help defray the marketing expense, expected to be a third of the production cost or some $20,000,000 give or take.

For those of you on the planet asking, "Who is Spider-Man?" (Yes, comic fans, there is the likelihood that some still don't know yet.) Okay, it's like this: A sensitive but gifted high school student Peter Parker (Tobey McGuire, an actor who fits the role) is the sort of young man one might peg as a geek. Yeah, this is an intelligent kid but one who knows how to crack wise with the jocks. When he's bitten by a genetically altered spider, he acquires amazing powers that include the ability to induce "web-shooters." That means he can shoot spider silk out of his skin but on a large scale. He's also given the physical manifestation of spider-like strength and agility. How cool is that?

First, he enjoys his newfound strength as a big-time professional wrestler in a match with Macho Man, no less. But following a personal horror in his life, young Peter realizes that great power bring with it greater responsibility. So, he decides to fight crime instead (and in the process to save New York of all places) because after all duty to his fellows trumps everything else in life. Oh, and yes, Peter fashions a muted red, not-quite-white and blue costume of soft body armor with properties unmatched by any known synthetic fiber, tougher than a bulletproof vest. Cool!

The mystique of Spider-Man's powers and the threat of the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe…more on him later) strikes a balance with Peter Parker's life falling apart while illuminating his love interest in Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). Like an angelic metaphor with the clarity of a fable, the plot forcibly moves our hero to join in his first adventure. This cultivates the drama in the movie, making him inherently contradictory but not incoherent or inaccessible to fans of the comic book. I'd say judging from promotional clips, "Spidey" adapts quite well as filmed entertainment but unfortunately there's little here to compare to the final product. We'll just have to wait and see.

Oh, but there's something else. In the revised 30-second trailer, although exciting and well made, something creepy is going on-like something we don't know about yet, something not quite all there. Then quickly we discover that thin line between a real actor and the one that has been digitally created. It's low-key but feels odd. It's a line our hero crosses, making the "web-slinger" look more like a techno-fueled toy than a movie actor. I hardly know what to say, except…will movie audiences grow accustom to and eventually fond of DIGITAL images impersonating Spider-Man? Fact is I'm not at all sure how I feel about it myself. The effect is a tad disquieting. It comes and goes so fast, and yet it's hard to argue with the idea. Once the mask goes on mostly what happens is computer generated imaging (CGI), I guess, because there's nothing about the character at that point that requires a flesh-and-blood human being.

Probably, Tobey McGuire puts on the suit to throw himself into the action, as much as is humanly possible; the image at first glance appearing to be the actor but on closer examination we realize that it's indeed computer imaging. We squirm with amusement, fooled into thinking that the character had been brought impossibly to life, when in fact Director Sam Raimi has gotten McGuire out of the way for the primary digital special effect to take over the action. It'll be kind of like a stunt double stepping in to do those things that will have the character twisting repeatedly and bending a lot without breaking. That's too bad, if moviegoers had assumed that even a stuntman would be doing a high-wire act.

But don't worry. You can probably handle this CGI thing within reason. Who knows, once you see it in context you might have to rub those goose bumps down while waiting for the chill to leave your spine.

Now, keeping this in mind, moviegoers have already rejected a similar mock creation of human beings on film. It was something called "Final Fantasy," a very expensive bomb also produced by Sony Pictures. CGI is generally used in producing cartoons like "Shrek" or special effects (think "Titanic"). It's not at all misguided if it strikes the right cord with viewers. So far, "Fantasy" has earned back less than half its cost, while "Shrek" has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars. So there you are.

Well, let's face it, no human being no matter how agile could possibly accomplish the alacrity in rappelling from rooftops while spinning the tough fiber of spider silk into the spokes of a web. For one thing, CGI concedes almost nothing in carrying out such a fantastic feat; and for another, it jibes with this new totem for modern-day filmmaking.

However, more worrisome is the contrivance of the film's peculiar villain, the Green Goblin a.k.a. Norman Osborn (as portrayed by Willem Dafoe). Osborn is a millionaire gone berserk. (Is there any other kind?) This guy also has his ego altered in some mad-science gone weird. I just hope moviegoers wont' have to suffer something here that longtime readers of the comic have gotten quite used to seeing, which is the Goblin with his damn mouth hanging open. I mean, open all the time; just hanging there like that. And what about the high camp of "pumpkin bombs" and his glider and other assorted Batman-style kitsch? You just sort of wonder (and, frankly, worry) about how faithful the filmmaker is going to be toward the source material based on this shtick.

DaFoe is a fine actor who bares a striking resemblance to way the Green Goblin is drawn in the comic books. He definitely has the acting chops to play a terrific villain. That is if he plays by the rules of the genre, which holds that the good guy is only as good as the villainy is real to the audience. Translation: The viewer must be happily rooting for our hero while abidingly admiring evil's triumph over the burden of virtue.

Should DaFoe camp it up with that not-all-there thousand-yard stare and twisted histrionics, the actor will risk exiling the character from the plot and hobbling all credibility with the audience. This in the absence of a bad guy who looks like he just might win the day. Whatever CGI has brought fabulously to life will be fatally undermined and the movie will fail with its fans, while non-fans might sit this one out for a couple of weeks to wait on "Attack of the Clones."

If you're thinking that maybe this is a rant looking for a forum, the truth is I'm rooting for the film all the way. Despite the absurdity of the premise, I hope Spider-Man is a razzle-dazzle cheap-action rock-n-roll B-movie that will give my adrenal glands a pretty good workout. Hopefully, I'll be drawn into the move by the characters and buy into the story line. The deal is, given the ever rising cost of CGI filmmaking and fiscal skittishness on the part of Hollywood studios, the future of an entire sub-genre of "comics-to-film" movie making is relying exclusively upon the success of a single motion picture. At any rate, this one's going on somebody's resume.

If being cool is an accurate measure of the American Zeitgeist, then who's more cool than Spider-Man? Well, actually, "The Submariner" is-but that's another story.

By Frederick Louis Richardson
January 26, 2002