The issue is that this guts the original idea of Spider Man. Spider Man in the comics is way more independent and self motivated, and that’s a big part of why the character is loved. What’s the point of using the Spider Man label if Peter isn’t going to stay at least somewhat true to the original? They should have just made a new character if they wanted to do something different.
3 Likes
Which works great in the Sony movies. It’s different when you’re trying to tie it into a massive cinematic universe.
I personally am glad they didn’t just do the same thing we see every time.
1 Like
So uh… Why is comic Spider-Man, who is part of a massive comic universe, independent and self-motivated?
But it is too late. They already tainted it.
Why did you assume that? What I mean is, “no influence from other heroes. Peter is a self-made man through and through.”
2 Likes
Aren’t the comics much more individual in comparison to the culmination of over a decade of planning in the MCU?
1 Like
Have you read the comics? Or how Stan Lee created them? Even in the beginning stories there were cross-overs. Lee intentionally wrote all of them in the same universe. (Spider-Man even met the FF in his earliest stories.) But the point of Spidey was his independence as a growing man, not aspiring to be like other heroes.
Even then, the MCU started as individual adventures and many of the movies have been that way. Except for Spider-Man.
2 Likes
Not really, which was why I posed my response as a question.
Crossovers that were the culmination of a decade’s worth of movies?
I mean I guess so. But I’m actually quite glad the MCU didn’t just rehash the story for the hundredth time. Giving him more motivation, struggles and depth than just “protect [CITY] and [PERSON]”.
But the individual adventures were all linked to a single endgame: Endgame.
I’m sorry. I’m so so sorry.
1 Like
Crossovers in comics that inspired these movies my man. And yes, they led to big events from time to time. But often they were simply done for fun.
I wouldn’t say it’s a rehash to try and get the character perfectly. I don’t think any of the Spider-Man films, even my favorite Raimi ones, have gotten the character of Peter Parker/Spider-Man quite right. (The Raimi films got his world building right though.) Besides, I like the familiar character. You don’t even have to show his origin story, just give him a new adventure. Homecoming was so close in this department, with Vulture and the high school dynamic feeling so much more organic. But it failed in involving Iron Man, in my opinion, in both Spider-Man and the Vulture’s backstory.
Which is cool and I appreciate it, but if you notice, Peter Parker dies at the end of Infinity War and is out most of the next film. So he had little to really do in that movie, besides just be there.
But this distracts from my point as to why I think Spider-Man needs to be such an independent character from the other marvel heroes. I would go as far to argue that Spider-Man sort of plays the role of the “rogue” within the larger Marvel universe.
He is never permanently part of a team, because his ideals and personality contrast so differently. Like, in the MU the universe understands how dedicated he is (which is his greatest strength). But the point is that Spider-Man was not supposed to fit in. Steve Ditko intentionally tried to design him like a villain. Many other heroes view him as an outsider because he doesn’t work with teams often to solve his problems. (Which proves to be a flaw in his personality from time to time. Peter is horrendously anti-social.)
In a sense, Spider-Man was one of Marvel’s first “Anti-Heroes” in the traditional way: a character capable of heroic actions but not acting in traditional heroic ways. Spider-Man is self-loathing, cynical, anti-social (yes, even his wise cracking makes him anti-social), and occasionally selfish in his thinking. However, he is also selfless, brave, has phenomenal willpower and dedication (his true superpower IMO) and an incredible sense of what is morally right and wrong. He’s not a traditional Marvel hero for that reason, though modern stuff models after his original self so that statement becomes less true over time. But at the time of creation, he was a rogue in a company of astonishing heroes.
Because of this, Spider-Man remains a self-made hero and solves his problems on his own merit. Which makes him great.
3 Likes
Honestly, I feel like that part of his character has gotten lost over time, which I hate, because that was what made him such a great character. And don’t get me wrong, he’s still cool, but that’s it, he’s not anything more.
3 Likes
Because your argument is majorly based around Iron Man’s role in the MCU Spider-Man films.
Which is exactly what the MCU is. A bunch of different stories that coexist within the same universe. TASM series failed because it tried to set up a cinematic universe around just one character. The MCU Spider-Man films serve as pieces of a preestablished cinematic universe and nothing more.
And they had started to move past that stage by the time Spider-Man swung onto the scene.
Admittedly, I haven’t watched the Sam Raimi or Marc Webb films since I was in middle school. I enjoyed them back then, but in retrospect, they did have their flaws. Then again, if I were to rewatch them, chances are I’d still find stuff to enjoy-like the world-building, as you said.
What’s your point? Falcon, Scarlet Witch, Groot, the Winter Soldier, Wasp, Black Panther, Star-Lord, Drax, and Mantis underwent this same treatment. But to close things off, I have a confession to make.
No, you weren’t directing this question at me, but I haven’t read the comics. I know a good amount of stuff from reading the encyclopedias that my brother had when he was little, and from online articles/videos that theorize what could happen in the movies based on what happened in the comics, but I haven’t actually read any Marvel comic books-Spider-Man or otherwise. However, I do like Spider-Man above most, if not all, other Marvel heroes. I’ve always liked the idea of a high school kid who’s secretly a superhero, and whose tragic past was what made him decide to become a superhero. I like the concepts of MJ, J. Jonah Jameson, and Aunt May. And I think Spider-Man has a really great rogues gallery.
Like I said, the Tom Holland version isn’t perfect, but it arguably gets more things right than the other two movie incarnations. It totally nails the high school vs superhero life dynamic, and he makes lots of goofy wisecracks, and he genuinely feels like the “underdog” in a world of heroes like Captain America and Thor. The charm of side characters like Ned and MJ do bring good stuff to the table.
Even though I haven’t read the Spider-Man comics, I do feel that the MCU Spider-Man gets a lot of things right, especially because Stan Lee said that this was exactly what he envisioned when he created the character. Maybe that’s why the majority of comic book fans are so approving of the MCU Spider-Man-not just because they liked it, but because Spider-Man’s creator liked it, too.
[I’m just using this quote as context, but I’m basically responding to your whole argument here]
No, but does he need to do that in his first few movies?
We have no idea where the MCU is taking Spider-Man. In fact, I’d say Far From Home was a really deliberate attempt at beginning Spider-Man’s deliniation from Iron Man - hopefully he will continue to grow into his own, but for the time being I’m not enormously bothered.
If he’s still just “Iron Spider” by the time they’re done with him, there’s a problem, sure. But we need to give the MCU’s Peter Parker a chance to really grow into Spider-Man, rather than expecting him fully-formed off the bat. I don’t necessarily want him to be a finished character right out of the gate - it’s much more interesting seeing the story of how he grows into the role of Spider-Man (especially since his origin story was skipped in the MCU take).
2 Likes
Yes. because the movie is called Spider-Man. And the character of Spider-Man is very independent and self motivated. The character we’ve seen in the MCU has not acted like this at all. Why do we have to wait multiple movies for Spider-Man to act like Spider-Man?
1 Like
When the movie is titled “Spider-Man” I kinda want the main character to, I dunno, be the main appeal.
I shouldn’t have to wait several movies for a character to be established on his own footing. 
Then you’re speaking in the dark about adaptation. I know what Stan Lee said; I disagree with him regardless.
1 Like
People are stubborn and don’t want to be challenged. Grass is green. Water is wet. Pohatu is thicc. More at 11.
5 Likes
I guess I see a point here, but it’s really hard to judge objectively when we don’t know how his story ends.
Take someone like Luke Skywalker. Almost the entirety of Luke’s character arc sits around his relationship with his father, Darth Vader. That’s not say that’s all there was to his character, but it’s the most significant factor. His choices as a character in Empire Strikes Back (unknowingly) and Return of the Jedi (knowingly) all center around his relationship with Vader and his faith that Vader can be redeemed. That’s the core of his character.
But in the first Star Wars movie, that hadn’t even been planned yet! Now I’m not saying it’s good that it wasn’t planned, but I’m saying that you won’t find many people saying the Vader “twist” should have been in the first movie because otherwise “it’s not Luke Skywalker”.
Same here, and arguably more significant because we could (potentially) have way more movies with this Spider-Man than any other. If the news about the next movie are anything to go by, we’ll be seeing him really face what it means to be Spiderman pretty soon. I don’t see why we need the instant gratification of it - to some extent, I’d rather see the growth be gradual and explored in-depth. Hopefully Marvel does deliver on that front - we can’t really say for sure just yet - but I don’t think it’s fair to say that all Spider-Man’s character development should happen in his first movie. Where will he go from there, otherwise?
1 Like
That’s not what we’ve been saying. The characteristics of Spider-Man that we’ve mentioned are what defines his core. They aren’t his end, they’re his beginning. Spider-Man is not Spider-Man without them. He’s not a perfect character, but without these traits he’s an empty husk. I would recommend you try reading the old Spider-Man comics and you’ll see what you’re missing.
2 Likes
But Spider-Man has. He’s literally an established character they’re adapting. And have poorly adapted it.
It’s completely and utterly fair. You established his key personality and traits in one movie. Next movie, take the consequences of that further. The Raimi films do this right. That’s just good writing in general.
2 Likes
Yes, but there are a lot of “true” Spider-Man fans that seem to share my opinions, so I am not at all ashamed to say anything that I’ve said.
Sharing an opinion means nothing if you can’t back it up with something solid.
2 Likes
Ah yes, because I, who has read The Amazing Spider-Man from issue #1 to around 425 and the spin of Spectacular Spider-Man from 1-300 and Web of Spider-Man from 1-200, reading three decades worth of the character, am clearly unqualified and not on the same par as “true” Spider-Man fans. 
1 Like
I didn’t say that at all! I said a lot.
A lot. A lot. A LOT. Not all. You may have noticed that I quoted my own words to show that.
Okay, one, the people who share my opinions can and have backed it up with something solid. Two, I have done exactly that. If you’ve read the previous replies that I posted, then you’d know that.