Spider-Man: No Way Home

[Kaitou D. Kid]

There's a difference between saying it's a version with characteristics that you don't personally enjoy and saying it's a character that doesn't feel like Spider-Man period. The first way of expressing yourself makes it clear it's your own subjective opinion while the latter makes it sound like it's an objective fact...and that second option is demonstrably false which is why several people countered your post.

I can't speak for Vakanai, but I think you can make an argument that MCU Spider-Man doesn't feel like Spider-Man.

When you consider that Spider-Man was conceptualized as an empowerment metaphor for teens and for working-class people, a Spider-Man with ageist undertones who is reliant on the rich & powerful and blindly looks up to them would therefore be the equivalent of a Captain America who blindly looks up to the state. Forget my preferences as a fan, such a Spider-Man (like the MCU's) would be problematic for obvious reasons.

It is essentially a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Spider-Man, much like how John Walker/US Agent is a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Captain America. And that's not something that can be chalked up to it merely being an adaptational difference or creative difference; doing so borders on being a strawman argument.

[Immortal Weapon]

I mean, all of those examples you brought up are people he eventually rebels against and has a change of opinion about in other continuities where he may have looked up to them. This Spider-Man however never has his T'Challa moment where he stops blindly looking up to his idols like that, and that is the problem. It would be fine if he started out that way and had a change in attitude, but he hasn't had that in five films. This version is sadly not allowed to have opinions like that, and it reeks of ageist undertones too. Which is actually kinda crazy because challenging ageist notions about teens was one of the things Spider-Man was created for, much like how Black Panther challenges racist notions about black people.



How much of that hype has to do with Holland's Spider-Man, and how much of it has to do with the return of Garfield/Maguire and with exploiting the current Spider-Verse hype? The return of the previous two actors has been a massive part of this film's marketing and appeal, so the film's hype can't simply be credited to Homecoming and Far From Home. If anything, the fact Holland is the first Spider-Man to not be able to carry film without help from the previous Spider-Man, kinda proves my point.

I don't see this version of Peter turning against Tony even though he's a dick to Peter for majority of the time they are on screen together. Tony never became an outright villain in the MCU like he did during the comic Civil War. Honestly, if that story didn't force Tony into being a villain the relationship with him could have been a great thing for Peter.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I don't see this version of Peter turning against Tony even though he's a dick to Peter for majority of the time they are on screen together. Tony never became an outright villain in the MCU like he did during the comic Civil War. Honestly, if that story didn't force Tony into being a villain the relationship with him could have been a great thing for Peter.

Even before Civil War, Peter and Tony weren't exactly best friends, and Tony's admiration of Peter was always one-sided. Most of their pre-Civil War interactions were Peter sassing him while Tony played the straight man. At best Peter wasn't any closer to Tony than he was to the other Avengers.

The MCU version of Iron Man still shares a lot of the same character flaws that Stan Lee intended Iron Man to share, and Homecoming/Far From Home explicitly make it clear that this Tony has made a lot of the same mistakes as other corporate tycoons. Therefore, the fact Peter still blindly looks up to him and never has his T'Challa moment, I think is a valid criticism.

[thwhtGuardian]

I can't speak for Vakanai, but I think you can make an argument that MCU Spider-Man doesn't feel like Spider-Man.

When you consider that Spider-Man was conceptualized as an empowerment metaphor for teens and for working-class people, a Spider-Man with ageist undertones who is reliant on the rich & powerful and blindly looks up to them would therefore be the equivalent of a Captain America who blindly looks up to the state. Forget my preferences as a fan, such a Spider-Man (like the MCU's) would be problematic for obvious reasons.

It is essentially a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Spider-Man, much like how John Walker/US Agent is a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Captain America. And that's not something that can be chalked up to it merely being an adaptational difference or creative difference; doing so borders on being a strawman argument.

You could try and make that argument...but it's not a particularly good one as again it hinges on your own subjective tastes and ignores the fact that there have been many, many books published over the years(some even written by Stan Lee himself) with a tone and energy that are very similar to the films.

Again, you don't have to like the MCU version of Spider-Man but trying to pretend it's based on an objective fact is just intellectually dishonest...and it doesn't get you anything either making it just a really odd move when just admitting that it's a subjective preference is easier, less time consuming and ultimately honest.

Basically, this video puts a lie to the whole thrust of your argument:
Just substitute Spider-Man for Batman.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

I mean, the previous poster gave us a pretty good example (Spectacular Spider-Man). I would describe it as something that generally doesn't cause a lot of debate and controversy among a group. We can also add the Insomniac game, Into The Spider-Verse, and even the first two Raimi films to that list for obvious reasons.

Is this possibly a case of anecdote and someone only looking for answers that validate their own position?

[Gorthon616]

When you consider that Spider-Man was conceptualized as an empowerment metaphor for teens and for working-class people, a Spider-Man with ageist undertones who is reliant on the rich & powerful and blindly looks up to them would therefore be the equivalent of a Captain America who blindly looks up to the state. Forget my preferences as a fan, such a Spider-Man (like the MCU's) would be problematic for obvious reasons.

It is essentially a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Spider-Man, much like how John Walker/US Agent is a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Captain America. And that's not something that can be chalked up to it merely being an adaptational difference or creative difference; doing so borders on being a strawman argument.

I mean, lots of poor people and teenagers idolize rich people. In fact, I would say you probably see a higher incidence of idolization/celebritization of the rich and powerful as you go down social classes.

That's my opinion, but I think you are speaking more to a specific political/academic position which as far as I am aware has never Peter's. His best friend (at times) was a trust fund kid, and he married (for a time) a supermodel.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

You could try and make that argument...but it's not a particularly good one as again it hinges on your own subjective tastes and ignores the fact that there have been many, many books published over the years(some even written by Stan Lee himself) with a tone and energy that are very similar to the films.

Again, you don't have to like the MCU version of Spider-Man but trying to pretend it's based on an objective fact is just intellectually dishonest...and it doesn't get you anything either making it just a really odd move when just admitting that it's a subjective preference is easier, less time consuming and ultimately honest.

Basically, this video puts a lie to the whole thrust of your argument:
Just substitute Spider-Man for Batman.

I mean, it's not exactly subjective that Spider-Man's success had a lot to do with him being an empowerment metaphor for teens and for everyday working people. That's kinda part of history.

I would like to know which Stan Lee comic comes even close to portraying Spider-Man like the MCU version. I keep seeing attempts to try to find a comic equivalent to the MCU version in attitude, and there simply isn't. The only genuine equivalent I can think of are maybe the Disney XD shows.

[thwhtGuardian]

I mean, it's not exactly subjective that Spider-Man's success had a lot to do with him being an empowerment metaphor for teens and for everyday working people. That's kinda part of history.

I would like to know which Stan Lee comic comes even close to portraying Spider-Man like the MCU version. I keep seeing attempts to try to find a comic equivalent to the MCU version in attitude, and there simply isn't.

...and there's literally nothing in the films that doesn't match that feeling of wish-fulfillment and empowerment. It may not match your specific wishes or empowerment fantasies but again that's your own subjective view and isn't an objective statement of those issues not being present at all.

[InfamousBG]

I would like to know which Stan Lee comic comes even close to portraying Spider-Man like the MCU version. I keep seeing attempts to try to find a comic equivalent to the MCU version in attitude, and there simply isn't. The only genuine equivalent I can think of are maybe the Disney XD shows.

Spiderman the Animated series from the 90's. I think there were a good amount of episodes base off of Lee's books.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Spiderman the Animated series from the 90's. I think there were a good amount of episodes base off of Lee's books.

That Spider-Man doesn't share the same issues as MCU Spider-Man.

...and there's literally nothing in the films that doesn't match that feeling of wish-fulfillment and empowerment. It may not match your specific wishes or empowerment fantasies but again that's your own subjective view and isn't an objective statement of those issues not being present at all.

This is another frustrating trend I'm noticing with the MCU Spider-Man debates. Arguments in defense of it either bluntly deny the sidekick or "trust fund kid" elements in this version (with no explanation), or would go on about how great it is and how much it makes sense. Which one is it?

I mean, it's not like previous Spider-Man actors like Andrew Garfield have made this opinion before that Peter Parker isn't the type to look up to someone like Stark? Or that writers like Gail Simone and one of the directors of the Oscar-winning ITSV has pointed out the same flaws? This is surely just the opinions of a few fans on the internet with eccentric views of what Spider-Man is.

I would still like to know which Stan Lee comics come even close to portraying Spider-Man like the MCU's.

[thwhtGuardian]

That Spider-Man doesn't share the same issues as MCU Spider-Man.



This is another frustrating trend I'm noticing with the MCU Spider-Man debates. Arguments in defense of it either bluntly deny the sidekick or "trust fund kid" elements in this version (with no explanation), or would go on about how great it is and how much it makes sense. Which one is it?

I would still like to know which Stan Lee comics come even close to portraying Spider-Man like the MCU's.

It's not frustrating if you just come clean with yourself and admit it's a personal taste...unless you actually like being the neckbeard guy with the doofy batman mask in that clip? Personally, I'd rather be the guy that can accept that there are different strokes for different folks and moving on when there's a direction or characterization that isn't for me rather than pretending there is just one "real" take, but hey if you'd rather be that first guy I can't stop you.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

It's not frustrating if you just come clean with yourself and admit it's a personal taste...unless you actually like being the neckbeard guy with the doofy batman mask in that clip? Personally, I'd rather be the guy that can accept that there are different strokes for different folks and moving on when there's a direction or characterization that isn't for me rather than pretending there is just one "real" take, but hey if you'd rather be that first guy I can't stop you.

I mean, if we get technical, then yeah technically everything is personal taste. John Walker's Captain America or Ultimate Captain America aren't any less "valid" than 616 or MCU Steve Rogers. The same would go with a Wonder Woman with sexist undertones or a Black Panther with racist ones.

This technicality you want me to acknowledge is 1) is obvious & already goes without saying, and 2) misses the point.

As for your neckbeard comment ... I feel like we are back to asserting that the naysayers here are just a few random losers on the internet, so I'll just repost my ignored response from earlier:

I mean, it's not like previous Spider-Man actors like Andrew Garfield have made this opinion before that Peter Parker isn't the type to look up to someone like Stark? Or that writers like Gail Simone and one of the directors of the Oscar-winning ITSV has pointed out the same flaws? This is surely just the opinions of a few fans on the internet with eccentric views of what Spider-Man is.

[Agent Z]

I can't speak for Vakanai, but I think you can make an argument that MCU Spider-Man doesn't feel like Spider-Man.

When you consider that Spider-Man was conceptualized as an empowerment metaphor for teens and for working-class people, a Spider-Man with ageist undertones who is reliant on the rich & powerful and blindly looks up to them would therefore be the equivalent of a Captain America who blindly looks up to the state. Forget my preferences as a fan, such a Spider-Man (like the MCU's) would be problematic for obvious reasons.

It is essentially a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Spider-Man, much like how John Walker/US Agent is a perversion of the values we've come to associate with Captain America. And that's not something that can be chalked up to it merely being an adaptational difference or creative difference; doing so borders on being a strawman argument.

I would argue that claiming this Spider-Man being friends with one billionaire (whom the second movie acknowledges was not perfect and who is never portrayed as such in any of the films) is a perversion of the character's values and comparable to Captain America blindly following the state, is a strawman argument as well as an oversimplification of the films.

[thwhtGuardian]

I mean, if we get technical, then yeah technically everything is personal taste. John Walker's Captain America or Ultimate Captain America aren't any less "valid" than 616 or MCU Steve Rogers. The same would go with a Wonder Woman with sexist undertones or a Black Panther with racist ones.

This technicality you want me to acknowledge is 1) is obvious & already goes without saying, and 2) misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point at all, and that you cannot or will not accept that just makes you "that guy", and your argument is everybit as absurd as his argument about Batman best being a gritty avenger of the night.

Like I said, if you enjoy having people look at you like that animated gate keeper then by all means go for it, you do you man...just don't act surprised that no one takes your opinion respectfully or seriously as gatekeeping is never seen as a good look.

[Frontier]

So are we expecting Maguire and Garfield to fulfill the movies need for Spider-Man quips that I doubt we'll get from Holland?