That guy subscribes to the idea that "Peter Parker Must Suffer" and tbh I like movie spidey, he still gets his shit kicked around and cries, it's just not his only character trait. I'm ok with Peter getting a few W's instead of being on the "everyone hates you/is out to kill you, Pete"
One of the best scenes in FFH is when he gets Happy to come get him, and that's as a result of his connections to stark. They clearly put a lot of thought into it.
And it's not like MCU Parker has it easy. Dealing with Vulture almost got him killed a couple of times and seriously embarrassed him in front of his personal hero on two different occasions.. He ends up get dusted and then undusted just in time to watch the stand-in for his father and Uncle Ben die from massive radiation exposure in using the stones. Then he finds out he's lost five years where the world has gone on, while he struggles with the legacy of Iron Man. Then he's got normal high-stress highschool things like trying to romance MJ and boom, Stark posthumously drops an army of murder drones on him, gets tricked into fighting a fake monster, gets tricked out of the drones, and then almost gets himself, his friends, and his romantic interest killed by that choice. Part of the murder attempt is also a hugely traumatic mindfuck sequence that ends with him getting hit with a fucking train. Then he gets a bunch of crap kicked out of him stopping Mysterio, who tries to talk Peter into trusting him again so he can sneak a bullet into his head. Finally, Mysterio adds the additional fuckery of revealing Spider-Man's identity to the world and trying to pin the drone attack on him.
I am also 100% A-OK with not every last second of every last aspect of Parker's life being pure, abject misery. That's just poor writing, and is probably the biggest thing I would happily see discarded from the character overall. He should get to have friends that are there for more than just to make him suffer, having romantic interests that are more than points of stress or danger, an overall life that isn't pathetic and horrible because he can't manage any kind of balance between "hero" and "life", and so on.
I know the Raimi version was big on the misery but frankly, I hated that shit. Parker is brilliant, yet somehow can only make money taking pictures? And even that only gets him a shitty closet of an apartment? And every major personal event ever is interrupted, inflicting additional guilt on him? Utterly yawntastic.
A Parker who fights as hard as he does because of all the positive support he gets from the people around him makes so much more fucking sense, not to mention is simple more enjoyable to see than watching every big thing in Parker's life get bashed to pieces with a crowbar at the most delicate moment.
I'm thankful to the Raimi movies doing Pete's origin so well we don't have to do it again anytime soon
Esp when Amazing Spider-Man missed the mask waaaaay harder and was basically an Ultimate Spidey movie over it's namesake, and I still enjoyed it for what it was
Local H Jay on
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I'm thankful to the Raimi movies doing Pete's origin so well we don't have to do it again anytime soon
I literally kept having flashbacks to all the shit the gets fucked up in Parker's life in Raimi's films because he honestly hewed too closely to the comics.
But I guess Raimi kinda had to, seeing as he didn't have a couple dozen movies to justify how some reimagining of the comic character is a lot better than trying to clone him.
I'm thankful to the Raimi movies doing Pete's origin so well we don't have to do it again anytime soon
I literally kept having flashbacks to all the shit the gets fucked up in Parker's life in Raimi's films because he honestly hewed too closely to the comics.
But I guess Raimi kinda had to, seeing as he didn't have a couple dozen movies to justify how some reimagining of the comic character is a lot better than trying to clone him.
I'm thankful to the Raimi movies doing Pete's origin so well we don't have to do it again anytime soon
I literally kept having flashbacks to all the shit the gets fucked up in Parker's life in Raimi's films because he honestly hewed too closely to the comics.
But I guess Raimi kinda had to, seeing as he didn't have a couple dozen movies to justify how some reimagining of the comic character is a lot better than trying to clone him.
*perks up*
Clone him, you say...
That's not the Ben people were asking for, but I do want that costume on the big screen so yes pls
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I'm thankful to the Raimi movies doing Pete's origin so well we don't have to do it again anytime soon
I literally kept having flashbacks to all the shit the gets fucked up in Parker's life in Raimi's films because he honestly hewed too closely to the comics.
But I guess Raimi kinda had to, seeing as he didn't have a couple dozen movies to justify how some reimagining of the comic character is a lot better than trying to clone him.
IMO it's the equivalent of "latest Batman is bad not because he's a casual murderer, but because they didn't show the pearls, they have to show the pearls, every single time!"
(by now the pavement of Crime Alley must be covered with the damn things)
You mean you don't want them to spend half of the next Fantastic Four film explaining, in detail, exactly how they got their abilities?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
IMO it's the equivalent of "latest Batman is bad not because he's a casual murderer, but because they didn't show the pearls, they have to show the pearls, every single time!"
(by now the pavement of Crime Alley must be covered with the damn things)
You mean you don't want them to spend half of the next Fantastic Four film explaining, in detail, exactly how they got their abilities?
and how Victor's face got burned, of course.
+2
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
IMO it's the equivalent of "latest Batman is bad not because he's a casual murderer, but because they didn't show the pearls, they have to show the pearls, every single time!"
(by now the pavement of Crime Alley must be covered with the damn things)
You mean you don't want them to spend half of the next Fantastic Four film explaining, in detail, exactly how they got their abilities?
and how Victor's face got burned, of course.
Reed tried to tell Victor you shouldn't microwave jawbreakers, but he was all "NO MAN COMMANDS DOOM".
On one hand I'm a sucker for time travel stories and love them
On the other hand *rubs temples*
They're like fairly tales to me
Once you're thinking "Wait why were Hansel and Gretel even out in the woods by themselves that does seem right" and "Hey wait a minute witches aren't even fucking real!" you've gone 'round the bend :P
Give me all the time travel movies. Even the terrible ones. ESPECIALLY the terrible ones.
TV Series too. Daybreak, Journeyman, Seven Days, ALL THE TIME TRAVEL!
okay
hold the phone here
another human being on this planet earth actually watched Daybreak?
Daybreak came out during the brief span where Taye Diggs was the awesomest man in the world.
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
It's also worth pointing out that Peter Parker Must Suffer has been a thing in the movies for literally two decades now. The MCU made a conscious decision to skip Spider-Man's origin story, and I'm guessing they similarly felt like rehashing literally the exact same beats post-origin would be boring and lazy.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I feel like there are a few origins that no longer need to be told:
* Batman
* Superman
* Spiderman
We've seen them all 50 times and there's nothing left there unless you're doing something new and different with it.
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That guy seems to have read a bunch of the "Spider-Man should be representative of the class struggle" takes that float around about the MCU version of Spidey and added some inaccurate or too-narrow beliefs of what Spidey should be into the mix. Demanding we see Uncle Ben die again is the most tedious take imaginable. Making him into Iron Man's protégé does change the character somewhat, and I'm not massively keen on it, so yeah that rankles a little and I think is valid. Complaining that Peter goes on a school trip rather than glowering unhappily in an NYC alley is hilarious.
If they really want to make Spidey true to his roots he should be an objectivist, as Dikto intended.
Nice protest sign, hippies, now get out of my face before I give you something to protest about.
Ultimately, all of these movies are produced in favor of preserving a horrifying late-capitalist hegemony, but I don't think it's ever been done more cynically and nakedly than in Far From Home; a film intent on ignoring the working class origins of its title character and instead swearing total fealty to our technocrat rulers.
I can't stop imagining the pitch of this person's voice getting higher and angrier throughout this paragraph. I'm not objecting to them writing a long political screed about an MCU movie but I get the same feeling when I see someone's long hot take about Harry Potter or Star Wars: just see some other movies, or read some other books, I'm begging you.
There's also a bit where he complains about the MCU's aversion to "meaningful consequences", as though that wasn't exactly how the comics worked. Almost every writer's tenure on a Spidey book ends with him where they started after all kinds of wild changes to his status quo. He's married, Aunt May dies, his arch-enemy dies, he's rich (ish), he's an Avenger, he has six arms, he has a Spider-Mobile, he's unmasked: all reversed eventually.
tl:dr: he makes a couple of valid points but it's lost in a mass of inaccuracy, selective memory and over-egging the politics because that's what THE DISCOURSE today demands.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Ditko just liked writing objectivists, and Peter ends up becoming a much more nuanced character as time moved on. I love Ditko but he had a habit of making all his characters rotate around ideologies, and it was really engaging stuff at the time; sometimes the characters feel flatter for it though, and I'm glad modern Pete not only gets some wins but also isn't a prick. Ditko put a lot of his younger self into that first run of Spider-Man, which is what made it iconic.
Dr. Strange I think is much stronger conceptually from Ditko's mind. The mix of mysticism and psychedelic imagery shows Ditko was absorbing the art around him in the 60's, and in turn he was putting out just inspired works. People focus a lot of Ditko's objectivist characters but Strange was a lot more philosophical and introspective. It was fairly high concept stuff at the time.
Complaining about lack of meaningful consequences in the MCU is pretty much obliterated by the extensive global changes being explored by F&WS currently.
To be honest I think the MCU is going to be heavier on actual consequences and lasting changes purely by virtue of the fact that the actors will leave their roles, or have left them already.
Iron Man is dead, Cap's gone, BP won't be recast, Widow is gone (though she's getting a prequel), etc. In the comics they'd be back within two years.
Stumbled across this and goddamn is this a molotov cocktail
But is OP wrong? I feel like they make a perfect case for their argument
They make a few fair points but for the most part just seem really, really angry that MCU Spidey is not faithful enough to the comics. Which is a direct result of real world fatigue over repeatedly rebooting the exact same story. It is what it is.
Specifically his working class origins, but the comics already had to soft retcon that. Stop me when you see the problem here: Disadvantaged orphan in an inner city public school manages to steal enough superscience compounds from the chem lab to equip himself as a superhero for years.
That origin hasn't worked since the 80's - his school today is lucky to have baking soda and vinegar in the chem lab and they'll notice either one missing in any quantity. The comics already retconed his school for later young superheroes a privately funded invite only free school for the gifted-as-in-possible-future-superperson.
Presumably Peter got in pre-spider because he was already smart-as-a-super-power like Amadeus Cho or Franklin Richards.
Like, his childhood house in the comics? A real life house in that location is going to be a couple million, except not really because it was bulldozed thirty years ago for an apartment building where a one bedroom studio is six grand a month.
It looks like I missed the thread, but the idea of Raimi depicting Peter Parker realistically as a loser is basically an example of the Mandela effect. Because so many people insist that he's the most accurate Peter Parker... and he just wasn't. Not even close.
Spider-Man in the comics was meant to be a loser compared to other superheroes, which was hard to convey pre-MCU because other superheroes didn't exist. In regular life, he was a struggling teen with a lot on his plate. But it's implied that a lot of his social problems were due to his own attitude. Like he's asking girls out to a science exhibit because that's what he wants to do, not because that's what they want to do. And when they rightfully turn him down, he cries and whines "I'll show them!" rather than reflecting on how he can improve. From there, Peter is generally scene as sociable and attractive, where Flash is more of a rival than a bully. His main problem isn't that he's an outcast, it's that he pushes people away. You know, because he's constantly flaking out on them. Because he's Spider-Man. When Raimi's version of Spider-Man came out, he basically depicted Peter as a perpetual victim who everyone picked on for no reason whatsoever. Basically, the male version of this:
Raimi's version of Peter definitely has flaws. Like the fact that he creepily falls in love with his next door neighbor he doesn't even know despite the fact that he never even talks to her like an actual human being. Or his general homophobia. But those are flaws are never actually treated as flaws. Nerds are mainstream now. Heck, nerds have basically been mainstream since the 1990s, when civilians were learning about the internet for the first time, and a college degree was starting to take the place of a high school degree in terms of job eligibility. Even in 2002, it didn't make sense for everyone to ostracize Peter simply for being smart, that's basically a Hollywood cliché left over from the 1980s.
That's a complete contrast from Garfield's Peter, who's a deeply flawed individual who's presented as such. A lot of people who hated his version would say things like, "I don't like this version, he acts like a bully!" Yeah, that's sort of the point. You're supposed to not like him at that point, so that his growth actually means something when he grows out of it. As opposed to McGuire, who makes homophobic jokes and the audience is supposed to laugh and never question it. Garfield's Spider-Man is about learning to be a better person. Raimi's Spider-Man is about... learning to punch bad guys because apparently they don't get punched hard enough. Which holds up super well in a post-BLM society.
And that's why I don't really mind that Amazing re-told the origin story. Because even though both versions saw their Uncle die, they took completely different and mutually exclusives lessons from it that you cannot reconcile. If they skipped over the origin story, they would have needed to skip over that lesson. Amazing Spider-Man is a movie about knowing when not to fight, which no other version of Spider-Man really explores. It's still a bit naïve by modern standard, because it presents the police chief as a generally good guy. But at least he's a good guy for good reasons, as opposed to, say... Dirty Harry.
It's ironic that Holland's version of Peter gets away with a lot of the things that Garfield's version is criticized for. The reason it works is because Holland's Spider-Man exists in the MCU, where he can be a loser superhero trying to prove his worth. And since he's already a loser as a superhero, that makes it more acceptable to have some wins as a civilian. Obviously, this wasn't an option for Garfield, so I don't think the comparison is fair.
As for the class issue, it doesn't really make any sense in the context of the MCU. In the comics, poverty motivates Peter into selling pictures, which simply doesn't work in a world where supervillains are rare and everyone carries a camera in their pocket. Meanwhile, here's Tony Stark with unlimited funds. Interns at tech companies can get paid a crapload. Even if you take Tony Stark out of the equation, Peter is still a genius in a world where tech is everything. He could make a shit ton of money as a side hustle just helping people with their electronics, but that would be super boring to watch, so you're better off just not exploring that side of his character in the first place.
Here's a funny video where Tony Hawk breaks down the scene (12:30 in). What's hilarious is that he can't seem to get past how unrealistic it is for the board to be stuck to Peter's feet... because he doesn't seem to realize that this is one of Peter's main powers. It's a very subtle touch that only a trained skateboarder would notice. Peter realizing, "oh shit, now that I have the ability to stick to things, I can do XYZ." But Hawk, who's obviously a trained skateboarder, assumes it's just Hollywood being unrealistic and not an intentional choice. He doesn't even acknowledge the fact that Peter is supposed to have powers until he sees the handstand.
If Spiderman was alive in the real world with money problems, he could set up a public bitcoin wallet and ask people to donate.
Or he could have a trusted fan run a pestering site for him. The fan could withdraw the money and convert to cash and give the cash to Spiderman without knowing spider man's identity.
The idea that superheroes need to work for free is dumb. I'm looking at you, Sam.
I think he means how are his feet sticking through sneakers. Pete can climb walls wearing his suit because his cling powers work through the material.
Don't they work through his shoes, depending on the writer?
Probably, but it's enough of a plot point where barefoot parker comes up more than once. It's one of the jokes about the Bombastic Bagman suit, his powers won't work if he wears their boots/gloves so he looks extra homeless wearing the costume.
Pete has enough upper body strength where he probably only needs his hands to support him on a wall, though
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I think he means how are his feet sticking through sneakers. Pete can climb walls wearing his suit because his cling powers work through the material.
Don't they work through his shoes, depending on the writer?
They do, he changes his attraction to a surface IIRC which lets him cling to a hit through clothes and armor. It’s a weird ability that Kane (a defective clone) uses to disfigure people’s faces.
The Raimi movies changed it to be hair follicles IIRC.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
If Spiderman was alive in the real world with money problems, he could set up a public bitcoin wallet and ask people to donate.
Or he could have a trusted fan run a pestering site for him. The fan could withdraw the money and convert to cash and give the cash to Spiderman without knowing spider man's identity.
The idea that superheroes need to work for free is dumb. I'm looking at you, Sam.
In the comics a side gig run by a the various superhero lawyers and megarich superheroes is literally untraceable shell companies for superheroes. So there's, for example, a Ms. Marvel LLC that owns and licenses the rights to the costume, logo, etc (with some of those licensed or transferred from Captain Marvel LLC). If a hero is anonymous and a member of a paying team it would be the shell corporation that gets paid.
That corporation would license any toys or movies, as well as sidekicks or other Ms. Marvels operating in other cities, or sue any of the above created without that license. And it's also the point of contact to try and sue if Ms. Marvel throws your car at MODOK, but keep on mind it's represented by literal super lawyers and you're probably going to lose six ways from Sunday.
I think this first came up in the original Civil War, at least that's the first time I remember seeing it. In the more recent Infinity, Spider-man threatened to sue Generic Spider Hero (i.e. Blade wearing a cheap halloween costume) for operating as an unlicensed spider hero.
Best part is Marvel gave Simu Liu the poster to put up on social media today since it was his birthday and told him the trailer would be up in a few weeks.
Then pranked him by surprise dropping the trailer today for him as a birthday present.
I don't know anything at all about Shang-Chi, but that looks fun.
Him and Iron Fist tend to be BFFs and pal around doing Kung Fu stuff. I'm really hoping that Marvel reboots Iron Fist and puts him in the sequel or something.
Posts
And it's not like MCU Parker has it easy. Dealing with Vulture almost got him killed a couple of times and seriously embarrassed him in front of his personal hero on two different occasions.. He ends up get dusted and then undusted just in time to watch the stand-in for his father and Uncle Ben die from massive radiation exposure in using the stones. Then he finds out he's lost five years where the world has gone on, while he struggles with the legacy of Iron Man. Then he's got normal high-stress highschool things like trying to romance MJ and boom, Stark posthumously drops an army of murder drones on him, gets tricked into fighting a fake monster, gets tricked out of the drones, and then almost gets himself, his friends, and his romantic interest killed by that choice. Part of the murder attempt is also a hugely traumatic mindfuck sequence that ends with him getting hit with a fucking train. Then he gets a bunch of crap kicked out of him stopping Mysterio, who tries to talk Peter into trusting him again so he can sneak a bullet into his head. Finally, Mysterio adds the additional fuckery of revealing Spider-Man's identity to the world and trying to pin the drone attack on him.
I am also 100% A-OK with not every last second of every last aspect of Parker's life being pure, abject misery. That's just poor writing, and is probably the biggest thing I would happily see discarded from the character overall. He should get to have friends that are there for more than just to make him suffer, having romantic interests that are more than points of stress or danger, an overall life that isn't pathetic and horrible because he can't manage any kind of balance between "hero" and "life", and so on.
I know the Raimi version was big on the misery but frankly, I hated that shit. Parker is brilliant, yet somehow can only make money taking pictures? And even that only gets him a shitty closet of an apartment? And every major personal event ever is interrupted, inflicting additional guilt on him? Utterly yawntastic.
A Parker who fights as hard as he does because of all the positive support he gets from the people around him makes so much more fucking sense, not to mention is simple more enjoyable to see than watching every big thing in Parker's life get bashed to pieces with a crowbar at the most delicate moment.
Esp when Amazing Spider-Man missed the mask waaaaay harder and was basically an Ultimate Spidey movie over it's namesake, and I still enjoyed it for what it was
I literally kept having flashbacks to all the shit the gets fucked up in Parker's life in Raimi's films because he honestly hewed too closely to the comics.
But I guess Raimi kinda had to, seeing as he didn't have a couple dozen movies to justify how some reimagining of the comic character is a lot better than trying to clone him.
*perks up*
Clone him, you say...
That's not the Ben people were asking for, but I do want that costume on the big screen so yes pls
Oh no.
Marvel: Okay.
Spider-man fans: Goddammit, Marvel.
You mean you don't want them to spend half of the next Fantastic Four film explaining, in detail, exactly how they got their abilities?
- John Stuart Mill
and how Victor's face got burned, of course.
Reed tried to tell Victor you shouldn't microwave jawbreakers, but he was all "NO MAN COMMANDS DOOM".
Daybreak came out during the brief span where Taye Diggs was the awesomest man in the world.
I have it on DVD.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
* Batman
* Superman
* Spiderman
We've seen them all 50 times and there's nothing left there unless you're doing something new and different with it.
We should go over it one last time.
If they really want to make Spidey true to his roots he should be an objectivist, as Dikto intended.
Nice protest sign, hippies, now get out of my face before I give you something to protest about.
I can't stop imagining the pitch of this person's voice getting higher and angrier throughout this paragraph. I'm not objecting to them writing a long political screed about an MCU movie but I get the same feeling when I see someone's long hot take about Harry Potter or Star Wars: just see some other movies, or read some other books, I'm begging you.
There's also a bit where he complains about the MCU's aversion to "meaningful consequences", as though that wasn't exactly how the comics worked. Almost every writer's tenure on a Spidey book ends with him where they started after all kinds of wild changes to his status quo. He's married, Aunt May dies, his arch-enemy dies, he's rich (ish), he's an Avenger, he has six arms, he has a Spider-Mobile, he's unmasked: all reversed eventually.
tl:dr: he makes a couple of valid points but it's lost in a mass of inaccuracy, selective memory and over-egging the politics because that's what THE DISCOURSE today demands.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Dr. Strange I think is much stronger conceptually from Ditko's mind. The mix of mysticism and psychedelic imagery shows Ditko was absorbing the art around him in the 60's, and in turn he was putting out just inspired works. People focus a lot of Ditko's objectivist characters but Strange was a lot more philosophical and introspective. It was fairly high concept stuff at the time.
Iron Man is dead, Cap's gone, BP won't be recast, Widow is gone (though she's getting a prequel), etc. In the comics they'd be back within two years.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Specifically his working class origins, but the comics already had to soft retcon that. Stop me when you see the problem here: Disadvantaged orphan in an inner city public school manages to steal enough superscience compounds from the chem lab to equip himself as a superhero for years.
That origin hasn't worked since the 80's - his school today is lucky to have baking soda and vinegar in the chem lab and they'll notice either one missing in any quantity. The comics already retconed his school for later young superheroes a privately funded invite only free school for the gifted-as-in-possible-future-superperson.
Presumably Peter got in pre-spider because he was already smart-as-a-super-power like Amadeus Cho or Franklin Richards.
Like, his childhood house in the comics? A real life house in that location is going to be a couple million, except not really because it was bulldozed thirty years ago for an apartment building where a one bedroom studio is six grand a month.
Spider-Man in the comics was meant to be a loser compared to other superheroes, which was hard to convey pre-MCU because other superheroes didn't exist. In regular life, he was a struggling teen with a lot on his plate. But it's implied that a lot of his social problems were due to his own attitude. Like he's asking girls out to a science exhibit because that's what he wants to do, not because that's what they want to do. And when they rightfully turn him down, he cries and whines "I'll show them!" rather than reflecting on how he can improve. From there, Peter is generally scene as sociable and attractive, where Flash is more of a rival than a bully. His main problem isn't that he's an outcast, it's that he pushes people away. You know, because he's constantly flaking out on them. Because he's Spider-Man. When Raimi's version of Spider-Man came out, he basically depicted Peter as a perpetual victim who everyone picked on for no reason whatsoever. Basically, the male version of this:
Raimi's version of Peter definitely has flaws. Like the fact that he creepily falls in love with his next door neighbor he doesn't even know despite the fact that he never even talks to her like an actual human being. Or his general homophobia. But those are flaws are never actually treated as flaws. Nerds are mainstream now. Heck, nerds have basically been mainstream since the 1990s, when civilians were learning about the internet for the first time, and a college degree was starting to take the place of a high school degree in terms of job eligibility. Even in 2002, it didn't make sense for everyone to ostracize Peter simply for being smart, that's basically a Hollywood cliché left over from the 1980s.
That's a complete contrast from Garfield's Peter, who's a deeply flawed individual who's presented as such. A lot of people who hated his version would say things like, "I don't like this version, he acts like a bully!" Yeah, that's sort of the point. You're supposed to not like him at that point, so that his growth actually means something when he grows out of it. As opposed to McGuire, who makes homophobic jokes and the audience is supposed to laugh and never question it. Garfield's Spider-Man is about learning to be a better person. Raimi's Spider-Man is about... learning to punch bad guys because apparently they don't get punched hard enough. Which holds up super well in a post-BLM society.
And that's why I don't really mind that Amazing re-told the origin story. Because even though both versions saw their Uncle die, they took completely different and mutually exclusives lessons from it that you cannot reconcile. If they skipped over the origin story, they would have needed to skip over that lesson. Amazing Spider-Man is a movie about knowing when not to fight, which no other version of Spider-Man really explores. It's still a bit naïve by modern standard, because it presents the police chief as a generally good guy. But at least he's a good guy for good reasons, as opposed to, say... Dirty Harry.
It's ironic that Holland's version of Peter gets away with a lot of the things that Garfield's version is criticized for. The reason it works is because Holland's Spider-Man exists in the MCU, where he can be a loser superhero trying to prove his worth. And since he's already a loser as a superhero, that makes it more acceptable to have some wins as a civilian. Obviously, this wasn't an option for Garfield, so I don't think the comparison is fair.
As for the class issue, it doesn't really make any sense in the context of the MCU. In the comics, poverty motivates Peter into selling pictures, which simply doesn't work in a world where supervillains are rare and everyone carries a camera in their pocket. Meanwhile, here's Tony Stark with unlimited funds. Interns at tech companies can get paid a crapload. Even if you take Tony Stark out of the equation, Peter is still a genius in a world where tech is everything. He could make a shit ton of money as a side hustle just helping people with their electronics, but that would be super boring to watch, so you're better off just not exploring that side of his character in the first place.
Apparently that was Garfield's idea since he skateboarded as a kid and wanted to bring that into the role, and the director just went with it.
Here's a funny video where Tony Hawk breaks down the scene (12:30 in). What's hilarious is that he can't seem to get past how unrealistic it is for the board to be stuck to Peter's feet... because he doesn't seem to realize that this is one of Peter's main powers. It's a very subtle touch that only a trained skateboarder would notice. Peter realizing, "oh shit, now that I have the ability to stick to things, I can do XYZ." But Hawk, who's obviously a trained skateboarder, assumes it's just Hollywood being unrealistic and not an intentional choice. He doesn't even acknowledge the fact that Peter is supposed to have powers until he sees the handstand.
Don't they work through his shoes, depending on the writer?
Peter can't afford nice shoes...
I mean, it's one of those things. Like how their clothes never get ruined or only barely singed when in reality they would be completely shredded.
Or he could have a trusted fan run a pestering site for him. The fan could withdraw the money and convert to cash and give the cash to Spiderman without knowing spider man's identity.
The idea that superheroes need to work for free is dumb. I'm looking at you, Sam.
Probably, but it's enough of a plot point where barefoot parker comes up more than once. It's one of the jokes about the Bombastic Bagman suit, his powers won't work if he wears their boots/gloves so he looks extra homeless wearing the costume.
Pete has enough upper body strength where he probably only needs his hands to support him on a wall, though
They do, he changes his attraction to a surface IIRC which lets him cling to a hit through clothes and armor. It’s a weird ability that Kane (a defective clone) uses to disfigure people’s faces.
The Raimi movies changed it to be hair follicles IIRC.
In the comics a side gig run by a the various superhero lawyers and megarich superheroes is literally untraceable shell companies for superheroes. So there's, for example, a Ms. Marvel LLC that owns and licenses the rights to the costume, logo, etc (with some of those licensed or transferred from Captain Marvel LLC). If a hero is anonymous and a member of a paying team it would be the shell corporation that gets paid.
That corporation would license any toys or movies, as well as sidekicks or other Ms. Marvels operating in other cities, or sue any of the above created without that license. And it's also the point of contact to try and sue if Ms. Marvel throws your car at MODOK, but keep on mind it's represented by literal super lawyers and you're probably going to lose six ways from Sunday.
I think this first came up in the original Civil War, at least that's the first time I remember seeing it. In the more recent Infinity, Spider-man threatened to sue Generic Spider Hero (i.e. Blade wearing a cheap halloween costume) for operating as an unlicensed spider hero.
Putting a stake in the ground that there will be a joke about Razorfist using the bathroom.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Then pranked him by surprise dropping the trailer today for him as a birthday present.
He is the Master of Kung Fu.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Marvel. Put it in my veins.
Steam: adamjnet
Him and Iron Fist tend to be BFFs and pal around doing Kung Fu stuff. I'm really hoping that Marvel reboots Iron Fist and puts him in the sequel or something.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!