Disney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios Involvement In ‘Spider-Man'

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Says who, you?

Do you disagree with all or any of these things -- "He's Peter's father figure, role model, and the greatest love of May Parker's life."? I am simply saying a true thing when I point this out. Paul Jenkins, JMS, Roger Stern, Tom Defalco, J. M. DeMatteis, among others would agree with me too. Probably Dan Slott too. All of them, save Slott who wasn't interviewed at the time, said as much in Comic Creators on Spider-Man, and elsewhere too.

"He's Peter's father figure, role model, and the greatest love of May Parker's life." Do you disagree with that? Yes or no?

When Marvel used to have their yellow-boxed character intros in every issue back in the '70s, the summation of Spidey's made no mention of Uncle Ben.

The reason for that is that the comics themselves footnoted, captioned, or mentioned the continuity stuff all over the place, whether in letter' columns, opening captions, or in-page recaps. This happened loads and loads of times. Whether it's Master Planner Saga, ASM #50, ASM #90 (Uncle Ben is mentioned right after George Stacy's death), and beyond that. The comics had loads and loads of page time to do that.

Compare that to the Sunday version of the Newspaper Strip which in terms of distribution and eyeballs, as Stan Lee pointed out, always had a wider distribution than ongoing comics, always mentioned Uncle Ben. And that was a newspaper strip that wasn't especially violent and dark compared to the ongoing comics.

By now, Ben has been covered more than enough in the movies. Spider-Man can have many, many adventures without a single mention of Ben Parker.

Is Tom Holland's Peter the same character as that played by Tobey Maguire? Andrew Garfield? Or is he different? If the answer, according to you, is no...then it follows that we as an audience need to understand this version of Peter, this version of that character. Tom Holland is played a brand new version of Peter Parker, not the Peter Parker of any comics continuity or in continuation of the previous character.

The MCU Spider-Man is a teenager. What that means is that he's spent a greater portion of his life with Uncle Ben than without him. That's also true of the 616 Peter, who's around 25. The first 15 years of his life had Ben. The fact is Ben had a huge role in his formative years, the character's young so it's natural and logical, and organic for him to think of him or keep coming back to him. In the case of MCU, Peter is 16, so that means at most he's a year or so away from Ben's death. So it's less excusable for Ben to not be mentioned. In terms of psychological realism and so on, he does need to be mentioned or discussed.

[Frontier]

To be honest I think the lack of mentioning Ben would be less of an issue without the Tony Stark relationship/dynamic and if they did more with Aunt May.

[Adekis]

Is Tom Holland's Peter the same character as that played by Tobey Maguire? Andrew Garfield? Or is he different?

Well that's a weird question. Does Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan play the same character as Sean Connery? Or is he different?

The answer is both, obviously. Henry Cavill's Superman shares many important character traits with George Reeves' Superman, but they're not identical. And a fan can better understand the character by understanding multiple takes on him. It doesn't have to be about picking which one is worse.

Nobody has ever said that Uncle Ben isn't Spider-Man's father figure and a crucial part of his life, but has it occurred to you that Peter goes out of his way not to talk about him directly? He describes his lesson, "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you." He says it in abstract terms, because it's emotionally easier, less demanding for him, than saying "My Uncle died and it was my fault." I think that's very psychologically real.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well that's a weird question. Does Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan play the same character as Sean Connery? Or is he different?

Pierce Brosnan's Bond is meant to be in continuity with Sean Connery, George Lazenby and others. That's why you get vague references to Bond's wife in Roger Moore and Brosnan's movies. Daniel Craig's character is meant to be a reboot and since he has one more movie left, it remains to be seen what's in continuity or not after him.

The fact is each version of the movie Spider-Man is meant to be a different character. Not the same situation as Bond. And James Bond is likewise not an especially complex character compared to Peter. So you don't have to do too much with his background and origins.

Nobody has ever said that Uncle Ben isn't Spider-Man's father figure and a crucial part of his life, but has it occurred to you that Peter goes out of his way not to talk about him directly?

I think the movie needs to tell us that. Like why doesn't Ganke Ned mention it if he's childhood friends with Peter. Why doesn't May mention it? I think if my friend lost a father figure I'd be concerned if after a while he doesn't talk about his loss to me and so on.

[AlexCampy89]

Huh...Spider-Man doesn't have a reputation for creating enemies. Batman he isn't. Most of Spider-Man's villains would have been villains without Spider-Man. IN Raimi's first Spider-Man film, Norman Osborn would have become Goblin without Spider-Man. That's how it should be. Spider-Man's villains should be independent free agents who chose their criminal alter ego and so on through their own set of tragic circumstances.

As a rule, most villains should be like that. If you keep doing stories where the hero makes the villain or drives him then the hero doesn't feel like a hero. He feels like a f--k up. That's a huge problem with Tony Stark in the MCU in general (and why he's a poor fit for the role that MCU is putting him in for Spider-Man). The problem in the MCU is that they force and shoehorn Tony Stark awkwardly into their movies in a way that makes no sense. And it often sends a pretty hollow moral message.

For instance, in the comics, Adrian Toomes/Vulture was screwed over by a business partner called Gregory Bestman. The thing is at the end of that story, Bestman was turned in by Spider-Man for his corruption and condemned for his actions. By both the narrative (by Roger Stern) and Spider-Man the character. In the MCU, instead of Bestman you have Tony Stark take that role, but now the narrative is that Adrian Toomes has no right to feel resentment because Tony Stark is a protected character. He can never be called out or brought low as far as the MCU Spider-Man is concerned.

Likewise, Mysterio has his stuff plagiarized and stolen by Tony Stark, and where Roger Stern would use plagiarism to condemn Roderick Kingsley as a character (who stole products and IP from Belladonna driving her to villainy and then from Norman himself), the narrative doesn't do that in Far From Home.

I respectfully disagree.
I was talking more about the entire Spider-Man lore than the MCU or the movies in general.
I could argue that more often than not Spider-Man does actually create his own enemies.
Doc Ock origins are totally unrelated to Spider-Man, it is true, but Spider-Man is the first hero who actually defeats him. For a guy like Octopus, defeat is a hit to the gut, a pride cutter, an unforgivable attitude adjustment. So Doc Ock will device a plan even more evil, clever, cunning and will raise the stakes just to stop Spider-Man and make him feel guilty for it, as it was Spider-Man's fault who escalated the situation. Doc Ock at first tried to kidnap a random scientist and ask for a ransom. Later on he went on global scale level threats, like burning the entire world and blackmailing the Un.

Even Venom is the direct result of Spider-Man'actions. He bonded with an alien form of life he later on rejected. He destroyed the professional career of Eddie Brock. It does not matter if Spidey got rid of an evil symbiotic being that was devouring his physical and mental energies or that the end of Brock's career was the aftermath of pursuing a greater good (stopping the actual Sin Eater).

Even Goblin started like a joke, but then became a villain capable of disrupting the Avengers, being the new Shield/Hammer leader, replace the old Avengers with evil counterparts and literally lay SIEGE to Asgard. One could argue that Spider-Man is the main reason why those villains escalated from neighborhood threats to Avenger level threats.


Specifically, the MCU has a missing link like the comics or the Raimi-verse. Spider-Man is treated like an idiot, most of his enemies have nothing against him personally nor "professionally". Adrian Toomes even likes Peter. Quentin Beck just wants a cool pair of shades. (And I don't even want to argue how stupid is giving to a teenager a weapon of mass destruction, no matter how much you trust that teenager).

Maybe the problem is not that the villains are not directly tied to Peter, but that their actions more often than not lack stakes.
You know, in the MCU Captain America has to save the world from Nazis. Thor from deities. Spider-Man has to fight likeable persons (well, except Quentin Beck, he is an ******* in FFH and the reason why I liked him more than Toomes), persons pretty much like him.

I dunno, some of the greatest comic books issues of Spider-Man has him dealing with a threat that is both villainous and PERSONAL. The child inside, the Night Gwen Stacy Died, Kraven's Last Hunt, etc all those stories have a very personal component. Peter and Spider-Man lives are inevitably going to collide and one way or the other both identities of his persona are going to lose something.

The only significant loss MCU's Peter has ever experienced is Tony Stark. Not exactly the role model who raised Peter the way he is.

But Vulture, Shocker(s) and Mysterio (and the crew) being Tony's villains who casually happen to have crossed path with Peter is incredibly shallow and detrimental, imo.

[Prof. Warren]

Do you disagree with all or any of these things -- "He's Peter's father figure, role model, and the greatest love of May Parker's life."? I am simply saying a true thing when I point this out. Paul Jenkins, JMS, Roger Stern, Tom Defalco, J. M. DeMatteis, among others would agree with me too. Probably Dan Slott too. All of them, save Slott who wasn't interviewed at the time, said as much in Comic Creators on Spider-Man, and elsewhere too.

"He's Peter's father figure, role model, and the greatest love of May Parker's life." Do you disagree with that? Yes or no?

The fact that he is all these things doesn't mean that he has to be referred to constantly. It's a part of Peter's history. It doesn't need to play an active part in every Spider-Man story and, as it happens, it most often doesn't.

Key Spider-Man arcs like Kraven's Last Hunt don't refer to him at all and yet are still regarded as classic, benchmark tales. I just read through the first two Marvel Masterworks volumes of Spectacular Spider-Man and I'd be hard-pressed to recall a single mention of Ben.

In ASM's anniversary issue #100, when Peter is having a feverish nightmare, the ghostly figure that he fights through a gauntlet of his foes to hear their words of wisdom turns out to be Capt. Stacy. That role could have easily gone to Ben but Stan put Stacy in that spot.

Point being, as pivotal a figure as Ben is, he it isn't mandatory for every - or even most - Spider-Man stories to explicitly mention him.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Key Spider-Man arcs like Kraven's Last Hunt don't refer to him at all...

"Funny. I'm out there facing death every day as Spider-Man — But I never really think about it. Guess I don't let myself. Yet so many people I love have died before their time: Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, Gwen...Do I think I'm somehow immune? I'm going to die. But not yet."
— Kraven's Last Hunt Part 1, captions, written by J. M. DeMatteis. (1987),

I just read through the first two Marvel Masterworks volumes of Spectacular Spider-Man and I'd be hard-pressed to recall a single mention of Ben.

He's mentioned in one of Roger Stern's Annual, narrated by Aunt May though a series of photos. And also in other issues here and there.

[Prof. Warren]

Is Tom Holland's Peter the same character as that played by Tobey Maguire? Andrew Garfield? Or is he different? If the answer, according to you, is no...then it follows that we as an audience need to understand this version of Peter, this version of that character. Tom Holland is played a brand new version of Peter Parker, not the Peter Parker of any comics continuity or in continuation of the previous character.

Holland's Spidey is still Spidey. You don't have to recap the character's origin every time out. You don't have to belabor points that the audience is already familiar with.

We don't have to see Krypton explode in every Superman story or see the Wayne's get shot in every Batman story. And we don't need every Spider-Man story to involve Ben.

[AlexCampy89]

Holland's Spidey is still Spidey. You don't have to recap the character's origin every time out. You don't have to belabor points that the audience is already familiar with.

We don't have to see Krypton explode in every Superman story or see the Wayne's get shot in every Batman story. And we don't need every Spider-Man story to involve Ben.

Yeah, but at least make sure you let the audience understand why those characters chose to become heroes. While Uncle Ben or Thomas Wayne don't need to be shot for the third time in less than 20 years, they deserve at least a mention.

[Prof. Warren]

"Funny. I'm out there facing death every day as Spider-Man — But I never really think about it. Guess I don't let myself. Yet so many people I love have died before their time: Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, Gwen...Do I think I'm somehow immune? I'm going to die. But not yet."
— Kraven's Last Hunt Part 1, captions, written by J. M. DeMatteis. (1987),



He's mentioned in one of Roger Stern's Annual, narrated by Aunt May though a series of photos. And also in other issues here and there.

So, one brief mention among other names in KLH, the removal of which wouldn't have affected the story in the slightest, and scarcely at all in SSM - the first satellite title for Spidey. This only proves that mentions of Ben are not an essential component to all Spidey stories.

[Prof. Warren]

Yeah, but at least make sure you let the audience understand why those characters chose to become heroes. While Uncle Ben or Thomas Wayne don't need to be shot for the third time in less than 20 years, they deserve at least a mention.

Why? Do you like repetition that much?

Most people don't.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So, one brief mention among other names in KLH, the removal of which wouldn't have affected the story in the slightest,

Okay so you think you know better than J. M. DeMatteis on what counts and not for telling his story. It's not like comics isn't a very economical medium in terms of word count, chosen and pared down to essentials by writer and editor (in this case Jim Salicrup, considered by Stern, Michelinie, DeMatteis among others to be the best in Spider-Man's history).

[Prof. Warren]

Okay so you think you know better than J. M. DeMatteis on what counts and not for telling his story. It's not like comics isn't a very economical medium in terms of word count, chosen and pared down to essentials by writer and editor (in this case Jim Salicrup, considered by Stern, Michelinie, DeMatteis among others to be the best in Spider-Man's history).

I think DeMatteis would agree that the success of KLH as a story doesn't hinge on that one passing mention of Ben. It's fine that it's there but if it wasn't, the story would be no less of a classic.

[Frontier]

Why? Do you like repetition that much?

Most people don't.

I think it's only repetitious if you have to show him getting a shot again, but that's not really the only way you can go about it.

It's not like PS4 Spidey needed to re-hash his entire origin within the game.

[Ursalink]

I just can't believe it. First Sony said that if "Far From Home" didn't surpass 1000 millions, the deal would be over, and now they come with this.

Seriously, somebody hit some sense into these imbeciles to make a new deal!! They can't remove Spider-Man from the MCU after the mark he has left.