Spider-Man General Discussion

Said actress/model is a character with a name. Mary Jane Watson, who in the film, comes from the same background he does, he knows her from childhood, and he rebuffed her affections numerous times in a period before she was successful. Defining characters by the social signifier of their profession is reductive and, in the case of "model/actress" which tends to be framed as Trophy Wife, sexist.

Having said that, I have my own problems and issues with Spider-Man 2, albeit not for that. To me the first movie, Spider-Man is still the best of the Raimi movies and so far the best overall cinematic version. I don't think Tobey Maguire's Peter was perfect, or definitive, or the most faithful. I think it's great casting, great writing, and so on. But that doesn't mean that should be the only default approach to the character. So if people think I am bashing the MCU Spider-Man movies, it's not because I am holding them to a standard that can't be improved on or so on.

Edited by Revolutionary_Jack on Aug 12th 2019 at 7:18:39 AM

Heh. I just saw this Robot Chicken clip on TV and decided to bring it up here.

...guys, I think Jack was right about Otto...

I mean, Raimi's MJ has a name and that's pretty much it. She's a sexy lamp. She doesn't actually contribute to the story. She exists solely to be rescued. Over and over and fucking over again, to the point where I would've actually been pretty OK with her dying.

Gwen Stacy in the Amazing films was easily the best love interest character, as the only one who actually has a fucking purpose beyond being the love interest.

Well at least the MCU MJ has something of a personality.

I love MCU MJ. She's so much fun. She still fails the Sexy Lamp Test, at least so far. I hope she gets more to do in the next film. Zendaya brings so much dry charm to the character, I always enjoy when she's on screen, and I want her to hit villains with a mace.

Here's hoping she gets something to do next movie.

Though considering the Status Quo Change Spidey is facing, hopefully she can get something substantially interesting to do.

Honestly she could just replace Ned as the "guy/gal behind the computer". I never really liked him that much so that could be something for her.

Edited by slimcoder on Aug 12th 2019 at 11:27:06 AM

Tony having about four minutes of screen time in a Spider-Man movie does not mean Peter is playing second banana to him. And let's not act like Peter hasn't been prioritized at the expense of others in the MCU like shoe horning him into Civil War or pushing back Captain Marvel's movie once Marvel had access to Peter's film rights.

Gee, it's not like Peter Parker isn't a severely flawed character with a history of associating with severely flawed characters and even trying to see the good in them.

Peter has teamed up with Wolverine and Deadpool, two characters who make Tony look like a choir boy. He's dated the Black Cat a thief who once tried to ruin his life and who recently had a stint as a crime boss. He's even had Venom, a known killer who is far less sympathetic than any version of Tony Stark not written by J. Michael Stracynzki or Mark Millar. But being friends with a guy who used to sell weapons and then stopped because he saw they hurt innocent people is too far?

In fact, let's look at the things you condemn Tony for.

Selling weapons? Whatever issues there are with the military industrial complex (and there are many) weapons are going to be needed and again Tony stopped when he saw they were hurting people. But hey, it's not like making mistakes and atoning for them isn't something Spider-Man can relate to right?

Acting like a dick? Peter does that all the time. In some ways, even worse than Tony.

Giving his home address to the Mandarin? No. The Mandarin knew Tony's home address, all Tony did was lash out after an idiotic reporter got in his face after he'd just visited one of his friends in the hospital who'd nearly died in a Mandarin attack. At least Tony never let a villain run rampant because he was his friend's dad.

Edited by windleopard on Aug 13th 2019 at 12:24:17 PM

So here's the thing with MCU Peter — he is my favorite live-action Peter Parker and I consider him a better character than Raimi Peter and ASM Peter by far. Not a better superhero, a better character. Why? Well, both Raimi Peter and ASM Peter always felt like adults, even when they were portraying teenagers — especially egregious with the ASM movies, as those explicitly took place in high school, while the Raimi movies quickly moved out. But they still felt like adults making adult decisions and, well, neither one was very interesting to me. Raimi Peter's romance with MJ was pretty flat and ASM Peter's romance with Gwen was better, but suffered due to...them basically deciding that nothing ASM Peter did would have any consequences.

MCU Peter, on the other hand, is the only live-action Peter Parker who feels and acts like a teenager. We see him with his peers, with his friend, with his classmates. We see him doing the stupid shit that teenagers do, only this time compounded by the fact that he's Spider-Man. He misses a party because he's Spider-Man. He makes a mistake and almost gets his classmates killed because he's Spider-Man. He knows he has a responsibility, but there are times when he doesn't want that responsibility, when all he wants to be a normal teenager with a normal life.

You can talk all you want about his idealization of Tony Stark, but MCU Peter feels the closest to Comic Book Peter to me. Those years when Peter did everything he could, but it still wasn't enough sometimes. When he finally quit and threw away his costume. When he did what was right, even though he knew it would hurt. When he lifted a ton of steel that plays out — beat for beat — the same in Homecoming.

Homecoming, for me, was a solid B+, with a lot of the best stuff coming near the end. Far From Home, on the other hand, brought all of that and more and was definitely an A, providing a better Peter and a fascinating villain and a stunning climax.

(Of course, this is live action Peter Parker. My favorite Peter of all time is still Jake Johnson Peter from Into the Spider-Verse.)

Edited by alliterator on Aug 13th 2019 at 12:32:55 PM

MJ in FFH was a great romantic interest, way better than Liz was in Homecoming. Liz was really just there for Peter to rush on. MJ bantered with him really well, and they had great chemistry. I just wish she got to play a bigger role in helping Spider-Man.

And yes, Depressed Middle-Aged Divorce Peter B. Parker is the undisputed best Peter Parker. Literally the most I have ever related to Peter in my life.

Edited by Tiamatty on Aug 13th 2019 at 3:52:11 PM

I just hope that if Peter B shows up in Spider-Verse 2, he isn't still a human dumpster fire. I want him in at least a little better shape, a little less tired and miserable, and I want him and MJ to have kids.

Its gonna be interesting how they shift the conflicts there.

Well Peter B does already consider Miles like a son figure so having kids would prolly make him even more protective unless Miles gets really older.

I hope that Miles looks more like how he's depicted in Saladin Ahmed's Spider-Man book. He actually has some bulk to him and isn't a skinny tiny boi.

I'm also thinking if that Spider-Women spin-off ever bears fruit they show off more of Gwen's unique mythology like evil Matt Murdock or her Catwoman-esque relationship with Harry Goblin.

I just want more stuff in Gwen's universe, because right now it feels like she, Cap, Peggy, and Bucky are the only heroes and everyone else is either evil now, was already evil, or is secretly corrupt.

You know, I don't actually know if they can use Matt Murdock in the Spider-Women sequel, since it's made by Sony and Murdock is owned by Disney/Marvel. I know Marvel can definitely lend them the character and Sony and Disney are probably on good enough terms (since Marvel did just make a billion dollar movie for Sony), but I'm not sure if Sony would want to use any character not theirs.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 13th 2019 at 1:11:05 AM

Matt Murderdock. That's great.

Hey didn't I make a good pun with Harry Goblin?

It's alright.

A pun has to be a play on words. "Matt Murderdock" works because his name is "Matt Murdock." "Harry Goblin" doesn't really work, because...Goblin has nothing to do with his last name.

Of course, you could call him "Harry Osborn-Identity." Or "Harry Osborn-Again."

Huh that is better.

The first time he held little Annie, he knew,

“She’s like me, MJ."

cue time-skip, to when she's literally crawling on the ceiling, and Peter and MJ have no idea how to get her off.

Edited by megaeliz on Aug 13th 2019 at 7:29:30 AM

It might surprise you but there are feminists who think her character and her take on it is ahead of the curve (https://www.themarysue.com/spider-man-trilogy-gender-roles/). I personally think "contribute to the story" is a very plot-approach to things and ignores stuff like character, theme, context and above all emotions. Mary Jane and the love story with Peter is the emotional center of those movies. As Raimi himself said, "Even if everything else (Superhero stuff) doesn't work, my movies work as a love story".

The worth of a character isn't tied to the services they render as part of the hero's support team. If you take the latter approach then you end up having a story with no civilians, no one unconnected to, and so someone who comments on, and reflects off the actual story from an outside view. What you end up having, as in the MCU Spider-Man and even in Dan Slott's run near the end, is a story where the supporting cast in some capacity of the other ends up working for the hero, and so end up being insiders and as such not true civilians. I think Dunst got a lot of flack for that character which she did not deserve and recently the pendulum has started to swing the other way.

The MCU Peter Parker has none of that. He's sub-vanilla and to him the idea that Tony Stark has flaws is news. If Peter acknowledged that, then that would be something. But we get nothing.

Raimi Peter was only a teenager for the first half of Spider-Man 1. He's a college going adult for the rest of the trilogy.

At the price of not feeling anything like Peter Parker of both 616 and USM. Ultimately you have to do the character right, not do an accurate take on a teenager.

In any case, as Gail Simone herself pointed out on twitter (https://twitter.com/GailSimone/status/1147530628260175872). The movies aren't an accurate look at contemporary teenage life in the slightest. The music choices used by the film-maker are all 70s and other stuff, no music that kids today listen (for that see ITSV which does feature elements of that). There's also a lot of jokes looking down on teenagers for being involved on social media and so on which Simone said felt like punching down.

— 616 Peter as a teenager made his own costume and gadgets whereas the MCU operate on the logic that "poor people can't make stuff and need sugar daddy billionaires to give them handouts". — 616 Peter came from a Friendless Background and related more to women than men. Also true by the way of Ultimate Spider-Man at least after Bendis drops that dead-end Harry Osborn friendship at the start. They literally had to steal a supporting character from Miles to make this work. — 616 Peter made mistaks yes, but he was never as incompetent as the MCU Spider-Man was. Remember here is Green Goblin's reaction when he first unearthed Spider-Man's identity:

In the MCU everyone knows from the get-go that Spider-Man is some teenager in costume, even low-level punks like a Pre-Prowler Aaron Davis. 616 Peter was damn good at keeping his identity secret and hiding it from everyone. The Stinger at the end of Far From Home fell flat at me because well practically everyone knows Peter is Spider-Man already. What dramatic stakes are left in the film with that since nobody close to Peter will learn that secret through that manner.

I can list others. I don't think any version of Peter we've seen on-screen is true to the comics' character, I don't think Tobey's Peter is entirely true either, but MCU Spider-Man is far less faithful to the character than others we've seen.

. I still think the closest to 616 Peter we’ve ever gotten, has to be Spider-Man (PS4). (It helps that he’s already been established for 8 years, and is shown to already have had a bunch of crazy adventures.)

Edited by megaeliz on Aug 13th 2019 at 8:00:07 AM

I always felt the closest to 616 Peter was from the PS 1 Spider-Man games. XD

Spectacular Spider-Man is pretty close to the 616 Spider-Man albeit it has its own quirks and borrows from Ultimate. It's not 1:1 Lee-Ditko Spider-Man, which is fine. Spider-Man PS4 is a good adaptation or follow-up to the Ultimate Peter Parker...I wouldn't say it's faithful to 616.

The fact is Spider-Man in 616 is a dynamic character. He's a teenager who grew up and became an adult. So it's a hard part and a hard story to tell. And harder to cast.

A teenage Spider-Man is inherently unfaithful to 616 Peter. The truth is as anyone who has read Lee-Ditko Spider-Man can tell you, very little of teenage Spider-Man's time was spent in high school in the stories. Most of it was at the Daily Bugle and his first friendship and first romance was Betty Brant, office co-worker. IT's weird that Liz Allan takes the place of "first romance" in Weisman's cartoon and in the movies, because Peter and Liz never dated once in 616 and indeed ASM #28, Peter's high school graduation story, has that great scene where Liz admits that she wished she had acted on her crush and was too stuck up being the Alpha Bitch and arm candy for Flash to act out how she felt. It was great, mature, and so on. The fact is the idea of Spider-Man as a teenager is a '90s and '00s product. No cartoon showed Peter as a high schooler until Weisman's Spectacular. There's vastly more teenage Spider-Man in comics (616 and alternate) from that decade than before...stuff like Untold Tales, Chapter One, USM, Spider-Man Loves MJ and so on.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man is a perfect Adaptation Distillation, he cast actors who would age into college age for the majority of the film's second half and that worked. Garfield's film was miscast. The first movie showed them as high schoolers but had actors too old for the part and too anachronistic and unbelievable in many ways. Tom Holland looks like a teenager and was young enough for the first films but now you have a situation where it's going to be hard to convince audiences that this guy can go to college and be the actual Spider-Man of 616 Comics (the majority of which constitutes an adult Spider-Man in his 20s).