*MAJOR SPOILERS* The Secret of Spider-Man (2019) #1

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Not having Luke or Leia in it wasn't one of the movie's problems.

Han Solo hardly has many scenes in A New Hope, ESB and ROTJ without Luke or Leia. The major exception is that scene added in the Special Edition where Han Solo meets Jabba the Hutt in the Special Editions and of course when Han shoots Greedo (don't care personally if it's first/at the same time/or just after).

So one can argue that the character is largely defined by his interaction and connection to the latter two.

[WebLurker]

Han Solo hardly has many scenes in A New Hope, ESB and ROTJ without Luke or Leia. The major exception is that scene added in the Special Edition where Han Solo meets Jabba the Hutt in the Special Editions and of course when Han shoots Greedo (don't care personally if it's first/at the same time/or just after).

So one can argue that the character is largely defined by his interaction and connection to the latter two.

The point of the movie was showing how he became the guy we met in that movie, not going over who he became after it.

[The tall man]

Is Han Solo a lesser character without Princess Leia? Considering that the movie SOLO (Han without Leia and Luke) became the first Star Wars movie to fail at the box-office, the answer to that would be yes.

But does that mean Han is a lesser character? I don't think so.



The truth is that stories are organic messy things. The emotional center of Spider-Man's stories for a lot of people is the love story with Mary Jane. Emotional center is a very vague thing but its the organic substance of the story. Something that you can't just plot on a graph or write snappy dialogue to weave into existence.

Technically you can tell the story of Luke Skywalker's triumph over the Dark Side without Han and Leia. After all, there was no need for Luke to visit Cloud City since none of Luke's actions lead to Han and Leia's rescue. Likewise, Han and Leia don't do a great deal in Return of the Jedi in the Battle at Endor. But emotionally, Han and Leia show Luke why he fights, gives him a reason for what he believes in, and also factor in as to why he, unlike Dad, would not succumb to the dark side.

I'd say in the Spider-Man mythos, Mary Jane represents Peter's future, a bright hope, and is basically the main optimistic figure of the Spider-Man mythos. Uncle Ben represents guilt, Aunt May represents responsibility, Jonah Jameson represents Spider-Man's guilty conscience and a warning for what he could be, while Mary Jane represents forgiveness. She's someone who has experienced similar gullt like Peter has, someone who Peter unburdens his past too, and unlike every girl he knew, she accepts both sides of him. There isn't anyone to take her place. Mary Jane has always been this figure of hope. Right from her introduction, then the end of ASM #122 where she stays with Peter in his lowest moment, and in Kraven's Last Hunt, where her memory brings Peter back to life. Likewise in Doomed Affairs. And of course in Raimi's Spider-Man 1.

If MJ is all that to Peter's world then what does he bring to her? How is she enhanced by Peter being in her life? Does he bring the same qualities she does, does he make her a better person and would she be worse off without him.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If MJ is all that to Peter's world then what does he bring to her?

Kurt Busiek provided an answer for that in Untold Tales of Spider-Man #16 (the first 616 Spider-Man comic I read).

Peter played a part in helping her become a better person, allowed her to show courage she didn't know she had. That was the case in Conway's ASM #122 and the rest of his run, and also in Tom Defalco's run on Spider-Man. Where she unburdens her past to Peter and slowly becomes a closer friend to Peter, notably encouraging him to reveal his past and guilt about Uncle Ben to her, which also leads her to get him to snap out of one of his "Spider-Man no more" stuff.

For all that Peter frets about being Spider-Man making his life worse and so on, Mary Jane is someone who is better for Spider-Man being around, showing her that people can be selfless that they can change and make up mistakes they made and so on.

So that's also a case of Peter being Spider-Man being a good thing, that by himself he has made the world around him better in the more intimate character sense.

[PCN24454]

Kurt Busiek provided an answer for that in Untold Tales of Spider-Man #16 (the first 616 Spider-Man comic I read).

Peter played a part in helping her become a better person, allowed her to show courage she didn't know she had. That was the case in Conway's ASM #122 and the rest of his run, and also in Tom Defalco's run on Spider-Man. Where she unburdens her past to Peter and slowly becomes a closer friend to Peter, notably encouraging him to reveal his past and guilt about Uncle Ben to her, which also leads her to get him to snap out of one of his "Spider-Man no more" stuff.

For all that Peter frets about being Spider-Man making his life worse and so on, Mary Jane is someone who is better for Spider-Man being around, showing her that people can be selfless that they can change and make up mistakes they made and so on.

So that's also a case of Peter being Spider-Man being a good thing, that by himself he has made the world around him better in the more intimate character sense.

You are aware that that was written in the nineties long after they became a couple. The thing is that it’s a retcon/revision. While it’s not a particularly bad retcon (compared to Sins Past), it makes their choices less meaningful because they’re arguing that it was destiny rather than any choices on their part.

The reason why I compared it to Sins Past is because SP created a connection between Gwen and Norman beyond their connection to Peter. That’s like saying “it was the Joker who murdered the Waynes”. In trying to make the world bigger, they made it smaller by implying that they’re just following the “will of causality” which is something I seriously hate.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You are aware that that was written in the nineties long after they became a couple.

<INSERT NOSTRUM ABOUT EVERY COMIC IS SOMEONE'S FIRST>

<INSERT NOSTRUM ABOUT THE SPIDER-MAN YOU WERE INTRODUCED IS YOUR SPIDER-MAN>

Untold Tales #16 by Kurt Busiek is based on several parts of Mary Jane in stories by Roger Stern, Tom Defalco, and Gerry Conway. And I am not sure if it qualifies as a retcon since all it did was show a period of Spider-Man continuity from her point-of-view which had not been done before.

[Zeitgeist]

Is Han Solo a lesser character without Princess Leia? Considering that the movie SOLO (Han without Leia and Luke) became the first Star Wars movie to fail at the box-office, the answer to that would be yes.

That's some shaky causation my friend

Also I really liked Solo, tbh.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's some shaky causation my friend

Well Han Solo and Leia Organa in the OT is one of the great screen romances, right? Han Solo was a character introduced to spice things up but ended up being so popular that he and Leia became the couple with Lucas changing his original conception to work with the actual living chemistry. That's pretty similar to how Peter and Mary Jane's romance happened in the comics, right? Actual on-page chemistry and audience reception led to a change in the initial plans for the characters. Lucas realized at once and course-corrected immediately whereas Lee only figured out in the '80s.

So it's a valid comparison.

SOLO is a movie that mostly bases its character on the Han of the Cantina scene in the hope that it could carry an entire movie. And by and large, the message is it didn't work. The Han people prefer is the character who grew, developed, and changed after meeting Luke and Leia. SOLO tried to be true to the "character as audiences originally introduced" and it failed.

[Zeitgeist]

Well Han Solo and Leia Organa in the OT is one of the great screen romances, right? Han Solo was a character introduced to spice things up but ended up being so popular that he and Leia became the couple with Lucas changing his original conception to work with the actual living chemistry. That's pretty similar to how Peter and Mary Jane's romance happened in the comics, right? Actual on-page chemistry and audience reception led to a change in the initial plans for the characters. Lucas realized at once and course-corrected immediately whereas Lee only figured out in the '80s.

Right, Han and Leia are a quintessential sci-fi couple.
That said, I don't believe Han or Leia need to be with each other to present watchable versions of themselves. Han's 'lovable rogue' archetype alone has been lifted, duplicated, and referenced in film ever since his debut, from basically every character in Firefly to a homage in the Fast and the Furious series, so there's obviously a lot of meat to him alone.
Solo may not have done great at the box office, but I attribute a great deal of external factors to that (director's coming and going, stilted promotional machine, The Last Jedi backlash, perception of the film being an unnecessary side-story) over his characterisation - which again, I thought was fine.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That said, I don't believe Han or Leia need to be with each other to present watchable versions of themselves.

That doesn't square well with the commercial failure of SOLO. The first Star Wars movie to bomb at the box-office is a historical achievement lacking in glory. That kind of negates and discredits the premise I should think.

Han's 'lovable rogue' archetype alone has been lifted, duplicated, and referenced in film ever since his debut,

And has that archetype repeated among copy characters been as successful and iconic as the original. I would say no. That must be because that what defined the original was more than the surface-level impression people had of him.

Archetypes aren't characters by themselves.

...from basically every character in Firefly...

A show that got cancelled, a movie that flopped.

[Zeitgeist]

That doesn't square well with the commercial failure of SOLO. The first Star Wars movie to bomb at the box-office is a historical achievement lacking in glory. That kind of negates and discredits the premise I should think.

Only because you hinge it's lack of success squarely on the characterisation and no other external factors, where I obviously disagree.

And has that archetype repeated among copy characters been as successful and iconic as the original. I would say no. That must be because that what defined the original was more than the surface-level impression people had of him.

As iconic? None. Successful in their own rights? Definitely a few: Peter 'Star-Lord' Quill, Spike Spiegel from Cowboy Bebop, the list goes on.
The point is though that it's his personality that's lifted and referenced, so clearly he's more sum of his parts than his relationship with Leia.

A show that got cancelled, a movie that flopped.

Won a primetime emmy for special effects, has had comic book spinoffs, regularly ranks high in lists of cult/sci-fi TV series - it's popularity can't be denied.

[WebSlingWonder]

That doesn't square well with the commercial failure of SOLO. The first Star Wars movie to bomb at the box-office is a historical achievement lacking in glory. That kind of negates and discredits the premise I should think.



And has that archetype repeated among copy characters been as successful and iconic as the original. I would say no. That must be because that what defined the original was more than the surface-level impression people had of him.

Archetypes aren't characters by themselves.



A show that got cancelled, a movie that flopped.

Hold up now. Once you start dissing Firefly, we're going to have some problems.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Only because you hinge it's lack of success squarely on the characterisation and no other external factors, where I obviously disagree.

Fine, disagree away. But at the end of the day, it's a valid conclusion to draw. To quote the critic James Berardinelli, "Pretty much everything that needed to be said about the iconic character of Han Solo was accomplished during his on-screen appearances in Episodes IV-VII." (http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/s...tar-wars-story).

Solo failed because nobody behind-the-scenes could agree on what a Han Solo before Han Solo should actually be or actually become. Should they end the movie with the Han who shoots first, or the Han who would one day say "Changed my mind, kid". That compromise is what you see in the movie. The result was production fights, tonal issues, casting issues, and so on. The people behind the making of SOLO are talented individuals : Kathleen Kennedy, Lawrence Kasdan, Lord and Miller, then Ron Howard who took over, Alden Ehrenreich who was discovered by Francis Coppola (the same guy who discovered Harrison Ford when he worked as a carpenter in his office) is actually a very talented and capable actor. I think if that much talent couldn't make the concept work, then there's something wrong/flawed/limited about the concept.

As iconic? None. Successful in their own rights? Definitely a few: Peter 'Star-Lord' Quill,

Peter Quill featured in a movie that largely sold because of its soundtrack and the fact that it made a talking raccoon into a serious character for the first time ever. There's the reason that the Russos when choosing to represent the Guardians in IW and ENDGAME chose the Raccoon and made Quill into a joke. To quote James Gunn himself, "Rocket Raccoon is me".

Spike Spiegel from Cowboy Bebop,

A cult anime series vastly more popular in the west than in Japan.

Won a primetime emmy for special effects,

Was that even in the main ceremony or was that in some technical awards thing that wasn't aired?

it's popularity can't be denied.

It's popularity among the "happy few" (i.e. cult success) yes, that can't be denied.

[WebLurker]

Hold up now. Once you start dissing Firefly, we're going to have some problems.

I don't know; I generally like it (got copies of the TV show, movie, and comics), but I'm honestly not surprised that it was canceled; even excusing the fact that it was badly marketed and aired out of order, it's such a weird premise (the old west in space almost steampunk-style) that I kinda think it's an acquired taste. I also found the snark got excessive and distracting (I do understand that Joss Whedon writes stuff where the characters mostly speak in snark, but I find it gets grating after a few rewatches). I think it holds its own on the strength of its characters and could've remained a decent run had it lasted longer (although that assumes that the quality wouldn't drop too much over time, as is inevitable).

However, besides the overuse of snark, I do have to admit that there were a surprisingly high number of episodes that I wasn't a huge fan of (a couple I really didn't like, others I'm "meh" about the stories). I guess my boat is that I generally like it for what it was, but I think its fan base grossly overrates it and that its more of a mixed bag then not (I like Whedon's Avengers movies a lot more). But, seeing as I was invested with the Dark Horse comics to be annoyed that the new Boom Studios ones are an effective reboot that will not resolve the cliffhangers or move things forward over rehashing the "best of" era (albeit the best possible kind of rehash), I may not be as removed from the fandom as I think.

Peter Quill featured in a movie that largely sold because of its soundtrack and the fact that it made a talking raccoon into a serious character for the first time ever. There's the reason that the Russos when choosing to represent the Guardians in IW and ENDGAME chose the Raccoon and made Quill into a joke. To quote James Gunn himself, "Rocket Raccoon is me".

I don't know; Quill has always been a "Crouching Moron, Hidden Bad****" (to quote TV Tropes) at the best of times. Also, his emotional problems and losses really weren't played for laughs that much. (Endgame did make him the joke more, but, as noted before, his thing is that he really is a joke who's unexpectedly resourceful. (He's kind of a Captain Jack Sparrow-like figure in some ways).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

(I do understand that Joss Whedon writes stuff where the characters mostly speak in snark, but I find it gets grating after a few rewatches). I think it holds its own on the strength of its characters and could've remained a decent run had it lasted longer (although that assumes that the quality wouldn't drop too much over time, as is inevitable).

Whedon has been experiencing a backlash of late. I like Dr. Horrible (which to me is Superior Spider-Man done right...Neil Patrick Harris would make an awesome Octopus) but most of his stuff is fairly overpraised (and that includes his work in comics). And a lot of people have raised issues about his approach to "strong female characters" since it's always one variant of kickass types and so on (that letter by his ex-wife painting him as a class-a hypocrite kind of confirmed suspicions a lot of people had about his work, especially given that Whedon was oh-so proud of slipping in "mewling quim" in Avengers 2012). And yeah his dialogue is annoying.

As for Serenity and Firefly, I like Nathan Fillion and Morena Baccarin and I am glad that Whedon gave them work, and the show had potential but it also felt kind of...is-that-all-there-is. And I also think the show's attitude is dubious especially given that the premise was inspired by a book called Rebel Angels which is about Confederate soldiers who go rogue rather than submit to the Union...even if it was because they fought for slavery and didn't want it going away. By abstracting that attitude to a space-opera setting and making the characters whine about the war they lost, it's basically...removed politics from that attitude which to me is pretty dubious.

Say what you want about George Lucas, but that dude commits. He doesn't let you forget for one second in the prequels that Anakin Skywalker is fascism-curious and increasingly becomes convinced about totalitarianism.