Spider-Man Far From Home SPOILERS!

[rward777]

I think the secret Id will be resolved quickly while the bad public image will take a lot longer to resolve.

[Zeitgeist]

For those who think they're trying to make Spider-Man the next Iron Man, I regret to inform you that you completely missed the thread running throughout the whole film.

Anyway, I had fun. Mysterio was A+ awesome, such a great take on the character. I hope to see him again sometime. A little bit too much of Peter's classmates and teachers for my taste, I think Homecoming had the recipe just about right on that front, while Far From Home here has a lot more web swinging action - or at least felt like it. If I were to rank my favourite Spider-Man films...

1. Spider-Man 2 - 10/10
2. Homecoming
3. Into The Spider-Verse
4. Far From Home - 8/10

One gripe I have is that even in death, Tony Stark has a major influence on the narrative. What other Spider-Man villain will be connected to Stark in SOME way? Otto Octavius was Tony’s college room mate? Norman Osborn had his company bought out by Stark? Rhino is a disgruntled bodyguard? Kraven went on a hunting expedition with Tony during his pre Iron Man days?

I thought it was a nice touch but I agree that they shouldn't go to the well too many times.
It served a great purpose here though, to help show that while Peter had put Tony up on a lofty pedestal that the reality was that he clearly had a multitude of flaws and florked up repeatedly in his life - hell, Happy directly tells him as such. Tony himself told Peter himself that he wanted him to be better than he was, and in the end it's reinforced that Peter doesn't and shouldn't fit into Stark's mold. A lovely character arc about growing and becoming your own person, or hero.

[Ursalink]

They better tell us something about Spider-Man's next movie on SDCC 2019, because I'm going to get nuts after the Post-Credits' scenes.

[protege]

He brought a technology he didn't understand, knew nothing about, from an alien piece of technology to Earth. He should have had some degree of skepticism as a scientist about how that worked and so on, whether it was too good to be true. In Peter's defense, when the suit acted up he went to the Fantastic Four and tried to fix it, so that's to his credit, and of course the suit proved more survivable than he anticipated. But still, at the end of the day, he brought Venom and Carnage to Earth. That's on him. The equivalent of that in real-life are inspectors who neglected the stuff that happened at Chernobyl. Nobody intended the Chernobyl incident to happen, but we don't let anyone there off the hook because they didn't intend it.



Mac Gargan was a private investigator with no criminal record when he started. Jameson had no reason to think he was a bad dude all along. It's part of the irony that the guy Jameson thought was decent turned out bad, whereas Frederick Foswell, the reporter-turned-gangster got a second chance and ultimately turned out to be decent.



No it isn't. Jameson exists to remind Spider-Man and the readers that it's not entirely abouxt Peter. He's the embodiment of Peter's bad conscience. Because at the end of the day, whether it's the stopped clock being right or because of underlying themes, there was a time in his life where Peter was the self-centered, glory-seeking, selfish menace that Jameson accused him of being...he was that guy on the night he let the Burglar go. Chip Zdarsky's My Dinner with Jonah brought that up. Jameson said that he actually saw Spider-Man in his days as a TV performer and was in the audience and that's why he always believed Spider-Man is a fraud. Of course that story is weakened because Zdarsky neglected or forgot that Peter was partially responsible for the Spider-Slayers so Spider-Man's response about Jameson creating the Spider-Slayers feels wasted. On a literal level, Jameson seems unfair. On a deeper level, Jameson is there to remind Spider-Man of the person he well could have been and ensures that Spider-Man will always have to prove himself better. On an actual plot level, you can't feel bad for Jameson because he makes the books interesting. He ensures that Spider-Man never gets comfortable with victory.

Jameson isn't a bad guy or a villain. Trying to say otherwise is a case of someone fatally misreading the character and story, and the intent of several of Spider-Man's best writers. It also creates a much more shallow and childish story than the one that exists
This thing started because I had issues with framing Jameson as Alex Jones because of what Alex Jones represents. I feel it's a silly, clickbaity and reductionist approach taken by the MCU in treating a very complex and nuanced character. You responded with Jameson creating supervillains, so I would say you are being argumentative because again Jameson creating supervillains (and actually just Scorpion, so its supervillain singular, since Peter helped him with the Spider-Slayers) is secondary to him being presented as Alex Jones. Within the Marvel Universe, Jameson is a good competent journalist/editor. Alex Jones has never been that. Jameson did a lot of good in his early life before Spider-Man arrived and so on and it's because of that many characters in-universe like May and Gwen and others believe in his editorialized view that Spider-Man is a menace. Bendis himself showed that side of Jameson in The Pulse and his Jessica Jones series and also in USM. Jameson is a decent, capable, and conscientious journalist who just has this huge blind spot.

Wasn’t Jameson at least partially responsible for the human fly as well?

[kingaliencracker]

Well if you look at it from within the MCU then actually Uncle Ben doesn't exist. Or if he does, his death is absolutely not canon. There have been easter eggs and winks, initials on suitcases -- but that's not the same thing. This is a separate universe.

He doesn't need to be "mentioned every 5 minutes" to have a presence or impact on Peter's motivations. In Into The Spider-Verse, Ben is mentioned explicitly when Peter mentions his origin -- Ben speaks one line, and Peter says his name one time. But his impact is felt throughout in the theme of "great power, great responsibility."

Throughout 5 appearances in the Disney/MCU films, Ben has had 0 impact -- there is 0 indication that this version has a sense of "responsibility" to anyone except his superiors (the Avengers). What that means is that this version of Spider-Man an empty vessel. He is just a continuation of the MCU brand, and not much more.

So of course his villains are motivated by Tony and the Avengers; all of the Spidey characters are merely brand extensions of the Avengers in the Disney-verse. Maybe by Movie 6, they'll let Spider-Man be a recognizable version of his own character, but in the meantime, we'll all get tons of merch and clickbait videos, articles, trailers, and interviews to fuel the brand loyalty.

Again, I don't see it as big of a deal as you apparently do. Maybe it's because I've been a comic book fan for so long and have been following Spider-Man for nearly 30 years now that I don't need to be reminded that Uncle Ben died and Peter was complicit regarding what led to Ben's death. I just don't think it's needed or anywhere near the biggest gripe fans can/should have regarding the MCU Spider-Man.

[exile001]

Again, I don't see it as big of a deal as you apparently do. Maybe it's because I've been a comic book fan for so long and have been following Spider-Man for nearly 30 years now that I don't need to be reminded that Uncle Ben died and Peter was complicit regarding what led to Ben's death. I just don't think it's needed or anywhere near the biggest gripe fans can/should have regarding the MCU Spider-Man.

I suppose there are a few factors, first and foremost, Uncle Ben dies in the comics and that spurs Peter to become the heroic Spider-man. This is seen by the fan base as the "correct" way of starting a Spider-man franchise. Add to this that all other movie versions have used Ben in this era of Spider-man's career, so it is kind of the done thing now, which again leads fans to expect it.

They've chose (AGAIN) to use a teenage Spider-man who is new to everything, so the wound should still be very fresh and raw.

Another factor is that as time has gone on in the comics Ben has grown to this legendary figure, a paragon of wisdom and virtue. His death (and life) is now such a huge part of Spider-man, and Peter's life in general, that he towers over modern Spider-man comics in a way he never really did in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Heck, in the Ditko/Lee era of Spider-man Ben's death is rarely mentioned. The effects are felt, in that bills are pressing and Peter needs to be the man of the house, but Peter's actions, struggle and focus is FAR more focused on his living Aunt May. I think Peter evokes Ben's memory a handful of times during this time.

Lastly, a part of it is just fans being precious and entitled. Spider-man is OUR thing, and if the general audience want to enjoy him it should be on our terms and faithful to the character we know and love. And I can be as guilty of feeling it as anyone.

But yeah, I completely agree that at the end of the day skipping and failing to fetishize Uncle Ben's death is far from the biggest problem with this interpretation of Spider-man.

And it is just that; an interpretation. It doesn't have to be 100% comic accurate because, hard as it may be to believe, it wasn't made for Spider-man comic book fans. We are such a tiny percentage of the audience, and they can pretty much count on our money regardless.

These are fun movies that are doing well. They are getting our hero out there and hopefully finding new fans and bring in a new generation of comic book readers to keep our beloved hobby around for the next 50 years.

[Vegeta]

1) Stop changing goalposts or ignoring other people. We said that Uncle Ben can be mentioned by name or discussed in scenes without there being a flashback and so on.

And you need to stop acting as some sort of Spider-Man fandom gatekeeper. If I could get by as a child watching Spidey cartoons that ignored the Uncle Ben moment and still could love and understand the character, I am sure MCU movie fans can as well.

Saturday morning cartoons from the '80s with low-budget and low-production values and aimed for very small audiences with censorship restrictrions on showing and mentioning death and so on, aren't reasonable examples to bring into this.

It's not different. A movie is just a story. It may be longer and have a better budget but that's it. If a comic issue or cartoon episode doesn't mention Uncle Ben in it, it doesn't mean it automatically fails as a Spider-Man property. The MCU Spider-Man is it's own thing and it works just fine for the feel of the universe it exists in.

A movie is supposed to digest bits from across all Spider-Man movies. Not a single monthly issue comic which relies a lot on pre-established continuity. And besides Peter does mention Uncle Ben during HUNTED.

Issue 24 was titled "One on One" it wasn't part of "Hunted." And there's no reason the movies can't rely on the fact that audiences are probably already familiar with Uncle Ben from the older films or other Spider media. I can honestly go the rest of my life without seeing another Uncle Ben or Thomas and Martha Wayne flashback murder scene.

[Jekyll]

And you need to stop acting as some sort of Spider-Man fandom gatekeeper. If I could get by as a child watching Spidey cartoons that ignored the Uncle Ben moment and still could love and understand the character, I am sure MCU movie fans can as well

This x 100! Well said.

[Hypestyle]

spoilers***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
There was no mention of arrests in the case of Beck's support team. Obviously, William escaped to leak the doctored footage. I guess everyone else just dropped out of sight as well. If Beck is genuinely dead, hmm.. I guess we'll see.

[gregpersons]

Why is it sooo important that we see Uncle Ben? There was a whole first season of "Spider-man and his Amazing Friends" as well as a solo Spidey cartoon in the 80's where Uncle Ben wasn't mentioned once. it didn't hurt the narrative in anyway.

There's also multiple issues of the comic where Uncle Ben doesn't get a name check by Peter and the books read just fine! In many books published in the 90's Spidey was far more likely to be shouting "MARY JAAAAAAANE!" then recounting his Uncle's murder for the umpteenth time.And in the latest issue of Amazing Spider-Man (#24) Peter makes zero references to Uncle Ben and doesn't even utter the phrase "with great power..." and it still felt like Spider-Man!

You guys have 3 Raimi films of Peter Parker crying at the drop of a hat over his dead Uncle. Why do we NEED to see it yet again?

Nobody is asking to see Peter crying, or see Uncle Ben getting shot.

The point is that Ben as Spider-Man's moral compass has been replaced with Iron Man in the MCU -- because that makes sense for Disney's corporate branding -- but this creative choice makes this version of Peter a fundamentally different character.

MCU Peter Parker views his responsibility as being primarily to imitate the heroics of The Avengers, and to protect Tony Stark's interests and reputation. That's fine if you prefer it. But it's fundamentally different from a Peter Parker whose actions are motivated by a responsibility to protect random innocent people.

[Noronha]

I love Spider-Man and I don't like this "Spider-man".
This is Iron Boy with some elements of Spider-Man (names of the characters basically).

We have a Peter, MJ, May, Ned, Betty etc, but they are just there...

I agree that in this universe Peter´s uncle Ben is Stark, everything he does or thinks he should do, begins and ends with Tony.
That to me isn't appealing.

I thought the dynamic between MJ and Peter in HC with nicely established, the seeds were carefully planted, and here they just hit you in the head with it.
It goes from, there might be something there, to...OMYGODIMSOINLOVEWITHMJICANHARDLYBREAD in the first scene.

Mysterio on the other hand, just like the Vulture in HC, was perfect.
The way they adapted his character and his "powers of illusion" to the movie was flawless, thanks to fantastic CGI and a very good performance be Gyllenhaal.

I like Tom Holland though and would love to see him with more spider-man content and less marvel iron boy

Another thing that bother me and took me out of the SM feel is the absence of stakes.

SM in the MCU isn´t alone and he isn't the underdog fighting against the odds, triumphing through his guts/brilliance/perseverance.

The moment he is defeated and left stranded in the middle of nowhere in freaking Holland, he just makes a phone call, gets a private jet to pick him up, receives a pep talk, a new costume and he is off after Mysterio...

And I didn't even mention Nick Fury backing him up in the first half of the movie

[Scott Taylor]

This movie was great, Mysterio was truly amazing and I can't believe how well they modernized yet remained true to the character. The only "flaw" for me is that its still a Disney made-for TV franchise. The schoolkids, teachers, all the goofiness when characters are interacting. This thing is half serous Spider-Man movie and half run of the mill typical Disney teen flick. Also its the Ultimate verse rather than the 616, like all the rest of the MCU, which is just a lesser universe than the one Stan Lee built. This comes out especially with the "Iron Boy" stuff that continues and the interconnectivity of everything that happens to Stark and/or the Avengers. Bendis lives on at Marvel.

So my new up-to-date Spidey movie list preferences:

1. Spider-Man 2 - still perfection
2. Into the Spider-Verse - near perfection, but points knocked off for some weak villainy
3. Spider-Man 1 - flawed but its solidly the 616 and had great set up material
4. Spider-Man 3 - honestly I could flip this with Spider-Man 1 and be ok. They are about equal to me.
5. Spider-Man: Far From Home - yep this is closest to Raimi yet! Even had you know who in an after-credits scene, I mean wow
6. Spider-Man: Homecoming - good flick
7. Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Polished turd
8. Unpolished turd that was ASM

[Mister Mets]

Another thing that bother me and took me out of the SM feel is the absence of stakes.

SM in the MCU isn´t alone and he isn't the underdog fighting against the odds, triumphing through his guts/brilliance/perseverance.

The moment he is defeated and left stranded in the middle of nowhere in freaking Holland, he just makes a phone call, gets a private jet to pick him up, receives a pep talk, a new costume and he is off after Mysterio...

And I didn't even mention Nick Fury backing him up in the first half of the movie

There is also a big gap between the apparent stakes early on (the destruction of the world) and Peter wanting to hang out with his friends.

[exile001]

SM in the MCU isn´t alone and he isn't the underdog fighting against the odds, triumphing through his guts/brilliance/perseverance.

This is the entire final act of the movie. Spider-man goes into battle alone against impossible odds, a threat who has the power and intention of leveling London/UK/Europe (it kinda changes), with nothing more than a suit he made on the fly (accidental pun, I'm keeping it). In the end he literally closes his eyes and relies only on his Spider-Sense (that is it's name, screw you movie! Lol). That is the most Spider-man thing you can do!

In the same vein as the first movie, he has help and support throughout the movies and tends to fail or fall short. When his back is against the wall, when there is no one around to help him, he somehow plucks up his courage and rises to the occasion, gets his ass kicked and still gets up to find a way to win. This was actually something Ditko put in this early issues to keep Spider-man away from other heroes, usually with Spidery and Human Torch.

[CrimsonEchidna]

Finally went and saw it tonight and enjoyed it quite a bit. My immediate hot take is Jake Gyllenhal as Mysterio is easily the best portrayal of a Spider-Man rogue put to film.

I think Raimi vs the MCU debate is kind of played out since both movies have taken completely different approaches to adapting The Spider-Man myth is to film.