AND LIKE THE CHIEF PROBLEM OF TASM1, WHY ARE THEY HELL-BENT ON MAKING PETER THE KEWL BADASS WHO WILL SWOOP FOR GRADUATION AND KISS A GIRL ON STAGE LIKE HE'S THE FUCKING FONZ?
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE REALIZE THAT WHEN YOU MAKE PETER A KEWL BADASS WHO IS GOOD AT EVERYTHING IT ACTUALLY UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE CHARACTER? WHICH IS THE IDEA THAT HAVING SUPERPOWERS WHEN YOU'RE A REGULAR KID DOESN'T ACTUALLY MAKE LIFE EASIER AND IN FACT MAKES IT WAY, WAY, WAY HARDER? ESPECIALLY TO DO THE RIGHT THING? NOR DOES IT MAGICALLY FIX ASPECTS OF YOUR SOCIAL PERSONALITY?
SO WHY ISN'T ANY OF THAT ACTUALLY INGRAINED INTO PETER'S CONFLICTS?
SERIOUSLY, WHAT IS PETER'S ACTUAL DILEMMA AND CONFLICT IN THESE MOVIES? THAT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GIVE UP HIS KICK-ASS MAGIC GIRLFRIEND? THAT PEOPLE NEED TO GET OUT OF HIS WAY AND LET HIM BE AWESOME? THAT PEOPLE SHOULD ALWAYS TELL HIM THE TRUTH AND TRUST HIM WHEN HE'S GIVEN NO EVIDENCE OF BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING RESPONSIBLE, BUT THEN PEOPLE OBLIGE WHEN HE MAKES THEM FEEL LIKE BAD PEOPLE? YEEESH. THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE THE RAIMI MOVIES COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CAMPY TONE AND STUFF, BUT THOSE MOVIES AT LEAST UNDERSTOOD HOW TO THROW CONFLICT AT PETER LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER. AND THE CONFLICT FOR PETER CAME IN THE FORM OF HOW INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT IT WAS TO LIVE LIFE WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
SO ARE THESE PEOPLE REALLY JUST LIKING THE NEW SPIDER-MAN BECAUSE SPIDER-MAN IS NOT HIT WITH THESE CONFLICTS? IS IT JUST THE FANTASY OF SPIDER-MAN BEING THE JAMES DEAN BADASS? WHY IS PETER'S ONLY SEEMING DILEMMA THAT THE WORLD WON'T ALLOW HIM TO BE TOTALLY AWESOME AT EVERYTHING?
WHY HAVE A CHARACTER WHO SEEMS TO REVEL IN DOING THE WRONG THING ALL THE TIME AND WHEN IT COMES TIME TO CONTEXTUALIZE WHY CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THOSE WRONG THINGS ARE BAD, YOU DON'T, AND INSTEAD JUST GIVE HIM A VICTORY LAP AGAINST THE RHINO?
IS THIS MOVIE LIKE IF THOR CAME TO EARTH AND WILLINGLY GOT PEOPLE KILLED AND LEARNED NOTHING AND WAS THEN GIVEN HIS HAMMER BECAUSE THE WORLD NEEDED HIS HELP?
WHY ISN'T ANYONE REALIZING THAT THIS PETER PARKER IS ACTUALLY A SOCIOPATH? CUE THIS GREAT QUOTE FROM "@joshraby The weird thing about ASM2 is how Peter discards the verbalized needs of every single person he comes into contact with." YUP. LIKE IT OR NOT, PETER IS THE MOST SELFISH ASSHOLE "HERO" EVER PUT ON SCREEN AND THE MOVIE DOESN'T KNOW IT. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE KEY. DID THEY NOT REALIZE A CHARACTER LIKE TONY STARK WORKS IF THE MOVIE (AND EVERY OTHER CHARACTER) ACTUALLY KNOWS IT?
BUT SINCE PETER STILL HAS TO APPEAR TO BE A "HERO" THE STORYTELLERS OVERCOME THIS WHOLE "PETER DISCARDS ALL THE VERBALIZED NEEDS OF PEOPLE" THING IS BY SECRETLY POSITIONING EVERY DRAMATIC SO THAT IT'S NOT DIRECTLY HIS FAULT. SO EVEN THOUGH VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING BAD THAT HAPPENS CAN BE TRACED TO HIS HUBRIS AND WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IT STILL EVENTUALLY POSITIONS THE MORALITY OF THE MOMENTS SO THAT NOTHING IS HIS FAULT, ESPECIALLY WITH GWEN STACY'S INSISTENCE TO HELP DESPITE ALL HIS PLEAS. OR THE WAY AUNT MAY IS GIVING HIM GOOD RESTRICTIONS AND THEN HE HAS TO HAVE A HEART TO HEART SO THAT SHE APOLOGIZES TO HIM BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO SELFISHLY BE HIS ONLY MOTHER OR SOME OTHER THING THAT MAKES NO SENSE? EVEN THOUGH WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY KIND OF INDICATION OF THIS BEFORE? YUP, JUST ANOTHER WAY PETER ALWAYS HAS TO BE THE AWESOME ONE WHO IS SECRETLY RIGHT.
BUT HULK, WHY DO YOU SAY THAT WHEN HE SEEMS LIKE SUCH A GOOD, LIKABLE GUY ON THE SURFACE? HULK'S SORRY, BUT THAT'S JUST TEXTURE AND IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH STORYTELLING OR HOW THE CHARACTERS WORK. THAT PROBABLY SOUNDS HARSH, OR LIKE HULK IS TRYING TO COME UP HERE AND EXPLAIN AS IF HULK KNOWS EVERYTHING, BUT HULK SWEARS TO YOU, THIS TACT FLIES DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF THE MOST BASIC WAY WE GIVE MEANING IN A STORY. BECAUSE WHAT A STORY IS "ABOUT" IS CREATED THROUGH WHAT WE CALL THE DRAMATIC CONSTRUCT.
PUT LIKE THIS: PRETEND EVERY MOVIE WORLD HAS A GOD. WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY TRUE BECAUSE MOVIES HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORS BEHIND THEM. THE STORYTELLER IS GOD OF THIS UNIVERSE. AND THE STORYTELLER CAN MOSTLY BE ONE PERSON OR MORE LIKELY A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE, BUT THEY ARE MAKING A SERIES OF CHOICES IN THE STORY AND THEY SAY SOMETHING WITH EVERY SINGLE CHOICE THAT THEY MAKE. AND THE THING THAT SAYS THE MOST ABOUT HOW THE WORLD WORKS? IN MOVIES IT IS ACTION AND CONSEQUENCE. DO THIS? THEN THIS HAPPENS. DO THAT? THEN THAT HAPPENS. AND WHAT THE UNIVERSE CONFIRMS THROUGH THESE "ACTIONS" IS THE FIRST PART OF THE STATEMENT COMING FROM THE WRITER; IT'S THE WAY THE UNIVERSE "WORKS." BUT THEN THAT STATEMENT IS CONTEXTUALIZED BY HOW THE CHARACTERS REACT TO HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS AROUND THEM, WHICH IS THEN CONTEXTUALIZED THROUGH A THIRD LAYER OF THE TONE AND VIEW OF THE FILM ITSELF. IT SOUNDS COMPLICATED, BUT REALLY THIS IS JUST BASIC CREATION OF THEME. IT'S INTEGRAL TO EVERY MOVIE EVER... SO HOW DOES THIS FILM NOT UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL?
TO TIE THAT QUESTION BACK INTO STRUCTURE, HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT PETER NEVER LEARNS A SINGLE LESSON THROUGHOUT TWO MOVIES? THINK ABOUT THAT. PETER MAY REACT AND GET UPSET AND BE SAD OR WHATEVER, BUT ASIDE FROM THE WHOLE DISCARDING OF "the verbalized needs of every single person he comes into contact with," HAS ANY OF THOSE EVENTS ACTUALLY CHANGED PETER'S BEHAVIOR AT ALL?