TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Go To

Watchtower Since: Jul, 2010
#51: Jun 24th 2015 at 8:39:40 AM

Have no idea how good Holland is, but I'll give Marvel credit: when they said they wanted young, they got young.

I once joked to my friends the best idea would be to do a Kraven mockumentary found footage film where we see the world through the eyes of a documentary crew working with/kidnapped by/coerced by Kraven the Hunter, and so Kraven basically roams around in New York, presenting superheroes and villains as if they were wild animals and attempting to hunt some of them like a superpowered Steve Irwin.

Look me dead in the eye and tell me you don't want to see this film.

I can't. It's too good. I'm this close to trying to throw my wallet at my computer.

if Phil Urich exists in this continuity (we already know his uncle does... or rather did, given that he's dead now), he's an already present candidate

It's an offhand line, but before Ben dies either he or his wife mentions not having any kids. They could possibly retcon it, but if they do they better make damn sure Phil's black.

What does Miles Morales existing or not have to do with Peter being Caucasian? They are different characters, you know.

That's one of my biggest issues regarding the Miles debate. Do you want Miles Morales, or do you want a black Peter Parker? It's upsetting how that isn't treated like as big a difference as it should be.

Funny since he defended the idea of Donald Glover auditioning for the role during the Amazing Reboot.

That's assuming he remembers. Stan Lee's memory tends to be going nowadays.

edited 24th Jun '15 8:40:35 AM by Watchtower

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#52: Jun 24th 2015 at 8:45:50 AM

[up]Phil Urich was Ben's nephew, not kid I don't think. The joke was that he was essentially an Anti-Hero expy of Peter Parker, right down to having his own Uncle Ben!

Watchtower Since: Jul, 2010
#53: Jun 24th 2015 at 8:49:23 AM

[up] Just checked, you're right. Could've sworn he was Ben's son. Shit.

.....Well, good news, that means the Urich family isn't completely out the picture.

edited 24th Jun '15 8:50:01 AM by Watchtower

InkDagger Since: Jul, 2014
#54: Jun 24th 2015 at 6:45:38 PM

Sorry. I should have specified. The Agreement was listed out on What they could or could not do with the character. They has specifications for what PETER PARKER could be (He is high-school/college age, white, lives with uncle ben and aunt may, etc.) and they had a separate listing of specifications of what SPIDER MAN could be. For example, they specified that Spider Man is not a homosexual unless he has been portrayed as such before (i.e. If they choose to adapt a Spidey that was gay, then it'd be ok, but they can't adapt Peter Parker into being gay because he isn't in previous iterations of the character).

I think Peter Parker has becomes a tired out story by now. We've had two reboots of the films by now with the same protagonist each time. Even if they DON'T kill off Uncle Ben again for our Origin Story and do so off screen, there'll still be the same plot threads we've done before hanging around.

I just simply think maybe the film series should think outside of the box and try something new and adapt a different iteration of the character. At the very least, I think it could pave the way for other iterations of Super Heroes to be adapted. Or, better yet, the films create their own identity for Spider man just for the films.

For the record, I never expected them to make MJ a dude so Peter could explore his sexuality, but I was so happy that Garfield was open to the idea. Just the sentiment was enough.

No offense to Mr. Lee, but I have to disagree. Its painfully hard to create new super heroes that gain the acclaim and popularity that the classics of comics have. On one hand, I completely understand what he means when the character was created in a certain way because I design my characters with certain traits in mind. But, well, quite frankly, we don't have many black super heroes. We don't have many gay super heroes. And, when they do show up, they're more often than not side characters or Token Minorities.

edited 24th Jun '15 6:46:26 PM by InkDagger

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#55: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:17:22 PM

The 'big, different' audience hook is this time around Spider-Man can interact with other superheroes in the context of a larger universe.

As for Peter's sexuality, he has so many already existing love interests that haven't been actually explored in other media yet, and who are female, that I think it's better if he remains hetero. There's nothing bad with being homosexual... but there's nothing wrong with being heterosexual, either, and frankly, we haven't had a proper onscreen relationship with Felicia Hardy, Betty Brant or even a MJ that looks and acts like the comics' yet, so have we ran out of existing lore to mine enough as to consider Peter and Harry Osborn in love (not to mention most of Peter's supporting male cast is quite above his own age— regardless of genders, we don't need to see Peter with Jonah or Robbie)?

So frankly, if you feel in so much of a need to make someone gay, I'd suggest trying it with another superhero.

edited 24th Jun '15 7:17:57 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

InkDagger Since: Jul, 2014
#56: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:28:23 PM

I never said anything is wrong with being heterosexual, so I feel like you're slightly putting words in my mouth there.

You make a fair point that we haven't seen many of Peter's less popular love interests.

A lot of people tend to latch onto Spider-Man as an opportunity for a non-heterosexual super hero is because he's always high-school or college age and in an opportunity where exploring sexuality is possible.

And, at the moment, there aren't any other super heroes in Marvel's movie line up that such an opportunity is available for. There aren't any gay super heroes. There aren't many black super heroes. Most of the Marvel Super Hero line up are straight white cis-men and any other identities that the comics come up with, such as Miles, are going to be seen as Black!Spider-Man or Fem!Batman or Gay!Thor rather than a legitimate identity for the character. Having a film adaptation, especially in the MCU, would legitimize things more so.

Once again, I would like to point out that the movies could always just create their own Spider Man independent of all previous iterations and just go from there to try something new.

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#57: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:36:35 PM

Frankly, if Peter were to be gay, he'd have to be gay in extreme denial or even self-despise, because he was raised by older people with very traditional values, and even if they aren't homophobic, I think they'd unconsciously try to steer Peter into heterosexuality. Plus, Peter's own nature is already self-destructive and deprecating in everything he is and does— adding a conflicted sexuality to that would be tricky because he's never going to be a 'happy' gay, just like he never can retain happiness at anything else for long. It's a very thin line between portraying that correctly and it being misread by audiences into a 'gay man suffers because he's gay'.

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#58: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:48:25 PM

Does he need to be gay? That completely invalidates 99% of Spider-Man's history. He could simply be bisexual, that fits at least, but there's no need for a massive retcon that's at odds with literally every portrayal of him.

InkDagger Since: Jul, 2014
#59: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:49:23 PM

I never said PETER PARKER had to be gay. And there's a large spectrum of other sexuality anyway.

edited 24th Jun '15 7:50:01 PM by InkDagger

stingerbrg Since: Jun, 2009
#60: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:50:22 PM

It wouldn't be a retcon to make him gay in the movies.

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#61: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:51:22 PM

Why not asexual? He's that way in the Ultimate cartoon, IIRC.

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#62: Jun 24th 2015 at 7:53:06 PM

It wouldn't be a retcon to make him gay in the movies.

So? It wouldn't be a retcon if they made Peter Parker a woman in movies, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be at odds with every other portrayal of Peter.

There's so many alternate versions of the character, take your pick. Spider-Gwen, Miles Morales, etc. Why radically change Peter Parker's character? Saying "he's the movie version" doesn't excuse that.

edited 24th Jun '15 7:58:28 PM by CassidyTheDevil

stingerbrg Since: Jun, 2009
#63: Jun 24th 2015 at 8:00:33 PM

You called it a retcon, it's not a retcon. I corrected it. That's all I'll get involved with in this discussion.

edited 24th Jun '15 8:01:19 PM by stingerbrg

TheSpaceJawa Since: Jun, 2013
#64: Jun 24th 2015 at 9:43:05 PM

Out of curiosity, why Spider-Man, of all characters?

Why does he seem to be the one leading character that seems to be the laser-focused target where people seem to be demanding all these alternate interpretations that don't line up with his comic history at all?

With all the interpretations of Batman, nobody is asking these things of the latest movie version of Bruce Wayne. Or Superman. Or even characters that they could conceivably get away with asking such things from without massive controversy due to not being nearly as publicly ingrained in people's consciousness the way Peter Parker/Spider-Man is.

Why does it seem to be Spider-Man who's the hill that these people who are asking for him to be something he's not are making their stand on? Why does it have to be Spider-Man, of all people? What is it about him that he has to be the character they make this huge fuss over?

EDIT: Or, for that matter, why does there seem to be a focus on black Spider-Man? Why aren't there similar demands being made for, say, 'Asian Spider-Man' or what have you?

edited 24th Jun '15 10:26:18 PM by TheSpaceJawa

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#65: Jun 24th 2015 at 11:20:27 PM

It's there for Batman and Superman too. It's not as prominent because they haven't had nearly as many reboots in such a short amount of time, but they too get calls for changes.

edited 24th Jun '15 11:20:52 PM by Tuckerscreator

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#66: Jun 24th 2015 at 11:32:35 PM

Batman is already gay, isn't he? tongue

edvedd Darling. from At the boutique, dear. Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
edvedd Darling. from At the boutique, dear. Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
Darling.
#68: Jun 24th 2015 at 11:41:02 PM

Ryan Potter, the half-Japanese actor who was Hiro Hamada's voice in Big Hero 6, would have been an interesting Asian cast.

Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#69: Jun 25th 2015 at 3:12:48 AM

At some point they need to adapt the Clone Saga, casting Maguire and Garfield as degenerate Spider-clones who may or may not actually be the original Peter Parker.

GoukaRyuu Since: Aug, 2012
#70: Jun 25th 2015 at 4:45:43 AM

I just want to point out that Marvel has a multiverse, different universes all related but different. The MCU is one of these universes. Why in this infinite landscape of infinite diversity do they always have to slavishly follow 616? The MCU can go its own way and still acknowledge 616 without having to submissively follow it.

Then again, that goes into my want of having any character but Peter Parker being Spider-Man because I am very bored with the idea. I wish they had gone Spider-Gwen if they weren't doing Miles.

edited 25th Jun '15 4:47:06 AM by GoukaRyuu

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#71: Jun 25th 2015 at 7:12:16 AM

Out of curiosity, why Spider-Man, of all characters?

Why does he seem to be the one leading character that seems to be the laser-focused target where people seem to be demanding all these alternate interpretations that don't line up with his comic history at all?

Because Spider-Man is the Everyman. People are supposed to look to him and see themselves in him. His role has often been a reflection of the audience, in which Spider-Man is as much escapism to the character himself as it is to his readers.

But comics aren't just the hobby of white, straight boys anymore. More and more people are expected to define themselves through Peter Parker who can't because he's not a reflection of them in any way. No matter how the character is portrayed, there's going to be people who look at the Everyman and say, "Every what? That's not me. I'm a woman. I'm gay. I'm black or latino. Don't give me a straight, white boy and go, "This is YOU," because it's not."

Everyone is supposed to identify with Peter Parker, and so the character is now in a tug-of-war because everyone wants a Peter Parker they can identify with. This is not just limited to controversial issues, either; people don't want a teenage Peter Parker because they grew up and he should too. People don't like Mary-Jane because they think it breaks the Everyman nature if the character is married to a supermodel. People want Peter to be a swinging single or married with a family or a kid again, whatever helps them identify with him more. He needs to be more nerdy, he needs to be less nerdy, he should be smarter, he should be more powers-focused, etc. He should be a better reflection of me.

Ultimately, there is only one Peter Parker and the audience is far too diverse today for that to be enough. This is why I think we need a Spider-family. We need a black Spider-Man and a Spider-Woman and a gay Spider-Man and all the different colors of the Spider-rainbow, so that everyone can have a Spider-Man.

A prospect the comics are well on their way to, but when it comes to film, we're right back where we started: who gets to identify with Spider-Man, and who's SOL? And the answer is always going to come back to the straight, white boys.

edited 25th Jun '15 7:14:06 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Watchtower Since: Jul, 2010
#72: Jun 25th 2015 at 8:14:49 AM

The thing with Peter Parker is that you have to use him. You can't not use him. He's one of the most iconic and recognizable comic book characters of all time, one of the most iconic characters overall in the modern day, and one of the testaments to comics as modern myths. Doing a Marvel universe without Peter Parker is like doing a DC universe without Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne. And yes, I'm pretty damn sure the rights issue was the only thing holding Marvel back, considering how quickly they're jumping to get him in as soon as they got the chance.

I would have no problems seeing Miles Morales and a spider-powered Gwen Stacy and whatever else could be come up with. Hell, if there was a not-white actor who could get through Hollywood and really do Spidey amazingly then I'd certainly run with it, and would at least be interested in whatever impact that would have. My main issue, as I noted before, is taking Peter Parker, making him black, slapping the name "Mile Morales" on him, and trying to justify that as a "replacement". I just find that disingenuous, y'know?

(The issue with making Peter Parker not-straight, or even not-male, is the domino effect. There would have to be a lot of work done, not just to Peter but to a lot of other characters, just to make it sensible.)

edited 25th Jun '15 8:15:23 AM by Watchtower

Demetrios Lucky Seven from Des Plaines, Illinois (unfortunately) Since: Oct, 2009 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
Lucky Seven
#73: Jun 25th 2015 at 8:28:44 AM

Batman is already gay, isn't he? tongue

Questionably so, if you consider Robin. tongue

Try telling that to Zatanna. tongue

Come on! Let's bless them all until we get fershnickered!
Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#74: Jun 25th 2015 at 8:38:06 AM

Why in this infinite landscape of infinite diversity do they always have to slavishly follow 616? The MCU can go its own way and still acknowledge 616 without having to submissively follow it.

They've been more fluid about the 616 verse than you might think. Bucky is now a full grown man who "died" in a train firefight, not a kid lost in a plane explosion. Peggy Carter became her very own action hero. Rhodey became Iron Patriot. Iron Man was captured in Afghanistan. The Cosmic Cube became an Infinity Stone. HYDRA became far more competent, Zola stopped playing second fiddle, and SHIELD was disbanded. Ultron was built by Stark instead of Pym. Plus that whole Mandarin thing that got so many mad.

EDIT: In hindsight I might have misinterpreted your comment. In which case your point about diversity would stand more because of how many other changes have been made.

edited 25th Jun '15 8:40:13 AM by Tuckerscreator

washington213 Since: Jan, 2013
#75: Jun 25th 2015 at 2:27:35 PM

Is this going to be another haphazard exploration of the origin story? That's what really turned me off from the last reboot. I don't care to see Uncle Ben die again. I don't care to see Peter explore his new powers that everybody already knows (though it was kinda necessary to reset him to mechanical webbing). I downright hated the last reboot because it really was the same movie I saw back in 2001. Peter dicks around with his powers, Uncle Ben dies, villain has split personality disorder and goes crazy because of serum and becomes green, villain threatens gf. In general, I don't need what is essentially a remake of a movie in 2017 that has already been remade within the same decade.

I hope they do it like the Hulk movies and just gloss over the origin story that everybody knows by now. And they pretty go "yep, everybody has different actors now, deal with it". And we did, and it was awesome.


Total posts: 1,075
Top