Why the Marvel Movies Should Ditch Peter Parker

[JimB]

I have read all but Miles Morales (save for a few pages, he just isn't that interesting to me based on the little I've seen and the summaries I've read, plus I've never been the biggest fan of the Ultimate universe to begin with).

Then you will have to forgive me for suggesting you have very little business describing the content of stories you have not read.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

First off, Captain America: Civil War is (so far) only borrowing the name. We have no idea how much of the original storyline is being adapted; if any at all. The Russo Brothers previously teased William Burnside, though I could just as easily see John Walker. Everyone assumes "Civil War" has to mean Rogers v Stark. It doesn't have to. The Avengers: Age of Ultron is merely borrowing the name of an unrelated storyline.

Secondly, this isn't the first time Marvel and Sony have collaborated. Does anyone remember how they were in talks to put the Oscorp Tower into the NYC skyline during The Avengers? The only reason it didn't happen was because Marvel was too far into post-production to add it in. This already sets a precident for Garfield's Peter Parker to exist alongside the MCU.

IF we're getting an actual adaptation of the storyline from the books then don't be surprised if Peter is somehow involved with the war breaking out, and don't expect him to survive the film. Not that this is likely to happen. Filming begins in April. If he's not in the script by now, he won't be at all.

Whatever Spider-Man we get (and I hope and pray it's Miles,) he'll make his debut in the post-credits stinger.

I would also accept Takuya Yamashiro. A Japanese hero would certainly appeal to more markets than just here.

 

[The Bucket]

Given that in the Marvel universe the Norse legends are meant to be based upon contact with the Asgard, please explain how casting a black man as 'the whitest of gods' makes any fuckin' sense lore wise.

About as much sense as casting a blond Australian to be what in myth is a hairy ginger. And not making Thor and Sif married. And all the other dozens of lore changes the comics have always made, they've always just vaguely resembled the source material.

The comparison to what they are doing with Ant-man is not particularly apt as they are doing that primarily to get around the fact that Ant-man is a wife abusing son of a ***** without actually ignoring his back story.

The situation is a whole lot more complicated than him being a malicious wife beater (and unlike everyone else who makes mistakes in the Marvel universe that get people hurt or killed, he isnt allowed to forget it). Assuming we aren't talking about the Ultimate version of course.

 

[Saetha]

I imagine it would be difficult in terms of roster packing, but if I were allowed to be an idealist:

I actually kinda agree with this. Want more of Peter Parker? Afraid that Morales is too unrecognizable to be Spiderman? Well, why not make the next movie (Assuming there is one) about Peter Parker and Miles Morales. It could be a retirement story for Parker, an origin for Morales. Passing the torch, you know? You have Parker's iconic image, but still a fresh spin on the character in Morales taking over, and you won't have comic book outsiders going "Who's this kid? Where's Peter?"

Seems like the best of both worlds to me.

 

[SuperFlik]

To anyone who says that Miles (or Ben Reilly, or Kaine Parker, or Miguel O'hara [a stretch, I know]) would be too unknown a character for the uninitiated...

Marvel made a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. They're GOING to make an Inhumans movie. At this point they could include Spider-Ham just for the hell of it and still make millions.

 

[The Bucket]

Given that in the Marvel universe the Norse legends are meant to be based upon contact with the Asgard, please explain how casting a black man as 'the whitest of gods' makes any fuckin' sense lore wise.

About as much sense as casting a blond Australian to be what in myth is a hairy ginger. And not making Thor and Sif married. And all the other dozens of lore changes the comics have always made, they've always just vaguely resembled the source material.

The comparison to what they are doing with Ant-man is not particularly apt as they are doing that primarily to get around the fact that Ant-man is a wife abusing son of a ***** without actually ignoring his back story.

The situation is a whole lot more complicated than him being a malicious wife beater (and unlike everyone else who makes mistakes in the Marvel universe that get people hurt or killed, he isnt allowed to forget it). Assuming we aren't talking about the Ultimate version of course.

Hair color and relatinship misunderstandings are not a particularly egregious differences. Going from the whitest of gods with teeth of gold to Idris Elba is pretty different. They did the same thing in GotG. Rather than have a blue or white Kree played by a black guy, they had to make sure their token black guy for GotG was black. It has jack all to do with what's right for the character and everything to do with politically correct bullshit.


As for no longer being a wife abusing son of a *****, to be willing to beat the shit out of the person closest to your heart for nothing is not something you just wake up and decide to change one day.

Why does hair colour matter less than skin tone when it comes to authenticity? Asgardians are immortal space aliens, race has never been shown to be a thing that matters to them. And surely relationship status would matter more than either of them, with Thor being long term married informing many of the myths. It seems really arbitrary to say those are inconsequential but skin color is vitally important. As for GOTG, do you mean Drax? Because he's more dark green with red than black, very consistent with his look in comics.

And Hank Pym is a really long affair, but basically he was never intended to have intentionally hit Janet. The script called for him to be shut off in his lab in a completely unhinged mental state tinkering away at a robot and for Janet to confront him, which he'd respond to by throwing up his hands in a "get away from me" gesture, which would accidentally strike her. However, due to miscommunication, the artist interpreted this as him striking her, and he was stuck with the stigma from then on. In the decades of comics since then, he's made numerous moves to atone for this, far more than most other capes who take actions that (knowingly or accidentally) cause the death or injury of loved ones or civilians.

 

[JimB]

Going from the whitest of gods with teeth of gold to Idris Elba is pretty different.

I will never stop questioning why of all the changes from the so-vaunted "lore" of Norse mythology--why is Odin riding a horse instead of a goat? Where are his ravens? Why are the Asgardians aliens who're into Tolkien cosplay instead of gods? Why is Loki Odin's son instead of his blood brother? Why did Odin lose his eye in battle instead of trading it for knowledge and power?--the one thing, the one goddamned thing people can't let go is casting a black guy to play someone who is not real, and never was real, and never will be real, but whose Caucasian-ness is apparently so immense it warps reality to make any attempt to portray this completely fictional being as anything other than white somehow a moral wrong.

It has jack all to do with what's right for the character and everything to do with politically correct bullshit.

Would you please explain what exactly is wrong with casting Djimon Hounsou as Korath instead of condemning the impossible-to-defend bogeyman of political correctness? I understand that the problem with this casting is self-evident to you, but it is not to me.

 

[Hebby]

How many spiders are there around with transferable super powers I wonder.

 

[Quantum Glass]

I mostly just don't want Spiderman to be a kid.

Adding teenagers is kind of hit and miss, and while I don't abhor risks, it seems an unnecessary one.

Age Morales up and I'm happy.

 

[Mister K]

snip

You want my reasoning and proof? Please, look at it.

Spoiler

I, as a consumer, have every right to "to vote with my wallet". If I think that race-swapping an existing character instead of creating a new one is a bad buisness and artistic practice, if I think that this is an attempt to show that non-white non-male character can't be successful without wearing the suit of already existing white guy and this is degrading and is bullshit on a lot of levels, I will not only not buy comic books with this "attempt", I will also not watch a movie with said "attempt".

Also, may I quote someone who actually IS (at the very least claims to be) a minority?

First off, you're talking to an actual minority so it'd be nice to understand what you think is so "telling" about my position.

Secondly, it's absolutely exploitation and it's not a good thing. It devalues the character.

Take how they put Falcon into the role of Captain America. This is a character that is extremely well liked already by fans and has even recently gotten into the MCU and was well received. So what do they do to him?

They boot Steve and give him Captain America. This is completely disrespectful to Falcon. He's a good character. He deserves his own book, not pretending to be Captain America. It's also disgusting meta-commentary on how Marvel views their black characters - basically the only way for them to be successful is if they make a white character move aside for them. It's stomach churning in it's insincerity and offensiveness.

Also, you need to re-examine your position on this. I can't believe you are advocating for some sort of fictional affirmative action for fictional characters. These are not real people, you know that right? Treating them like real people is something that crazy people would do. There is no bias on behalf of Marvel or any other comic book publisher against having black characters. Their challenge is just making a character (regardless of their race or gender) that people will enjoy reading about.

They have managed to do this in the past and I suspect they will manage to do it again. Tossing together a gender swap or a race swap that we all know will only be reverted later is the kind of fake social justice crap that I expect from hipsters and slacktivists. They always conflate media representation with influencing people's social and cultural values instead of the other way around, it just being a representation of what people want to see or read. This is why these lame attempts always fail.

People will read good characters regardless of their race, gender, whatever. They will not tolerate obvious exploitation because it's offensive.

P.S. I want more characters like Blade, Falcon and Luke "Where is my money honey?" Cage.

 

[Mister K]

Whor was downright insulting at times,

Whoah! Whoah! Wait. Run this by me again. There is a current, existing character, whose name is WHOR?!
*checks wiki*
Huh, I haven't found such character. Nods, help me out please.

 

[Jake Martinez]

To anyone who says that Miles (or Ben Reilly, or Kaine Parker, or Miguel O'hara [a stretch, I know]) would be too unknown a character for the uninitiated...

Marvel made a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. They're GOING to make an Inhumans movie. At this point they could include Spider-Ham just for the hell of it and still make millions.

This is a false equivalency. Everyone knows that Spider-Man is Peter Parker. Hardly anyone knew what GOTG was about.

In one case, the audiences expectation is already largely set about what they are going to see. In the other case, the audiences expectation is still waiting to be set.

Regardless, my objection more to the insincere exploitation going on in the industry to anything else. If Marvel was interested in doing anything other than grabbing free press headlines then they would put some real creative effort behind resurrecting a franchise like Heroes For Hire which features 3 really strong characters, 2 of which are a married interracial couple and their bi-racial child.

These characters and their plot line, by the way, isn't something new. It was created like almost 30 years ago. So people who think that Marvel isn't capable of creating popular minority characters or story lines are full of shit and people who think that this is all "brand new" and as a direct result of their slacktivist bitching are ignorant.

They can do it, they just don't want to when they can do crappy stunts like make a female Thor, sell some books, then revert it later when the inevitable spike in popularity dies off. It's pure fucking exploitation and I wish people supporting it would pull their heads out of their asses and realize what's going on.

 

[nykirnsu]

Whor was downright insulting at times,

Whoah! Whoah! Wait. Run this by me again. There is a current, existing character, whose name is WHOR?!
*checks wiki*
Huh, I haven't found such character. Nods, help me out please.

They're probably talking about the recent female Thor; Whor probably being a combination of woman and Thor - no idea if the whore pun was an intentional insult or not.

 

[Phasmal]

Mmm, when I read this I actually kinda thought `Yeah, Peter Parker's been done recently, why not something different?`.

Apparently because the universe would collapse OMGAAAWD POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

MMmmm.... kay.

I just find the movie versions of Peter Parker dull and uninspiring. Maybe they could do something better with a different Spider-Man, maybe not. But I always felt he came across poorly in the movies.
Like, the Tobey Maguire ones he always came across as a whiny pissbaby and the more playful and joking parts of his personality seemed to disappear.

And with the recent reboot I just kinda didn't `buy` him as Peter Parker. Like `oh I'm such an outsider, I'm never gonna be seen as cool by being an outsider who can skateboard, yeah everyone thinks I'm such a huge nerd`. Nah.

So- I personally think it would be cool. It's not like I'm saying Peter has to disappear down the memory hole, but I'd be interested in seeing a Spider-Man that wasn't him at least once.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I would be ok with in (I mean the Ultimate universe was originally created for those who just got into comicbook thanks to the films) and in a way a funny stab to Sony. Yes I read that Garfield may not repaise his role as Spider-man again but to have him killed off and replace with Miles sound like a funny stab to me.

 

[Verlander]

No, you shouldn't treat race representation like a checklist, but that's what adding a character for token reasons is.

I think there is a difference between throwing yet another black sidekick into a white character's story and making a movie about a (half-) black hero who is not defined, and indeed even code-named so we never forget it, by his race. I mean, have you ever counted how many black people were even in the streets during the Chitauri invasion during Marvel's Avengers? How many Asian people? How many Hispanics? If I weren't white, I'd have to feel pretty fucking invisible to the creators of the Marvel Universe.

Interesting perspective. I agree to an extent, although I've not been to New York and don't know what NYC looks like on the street. On the clips and news reports I see, the city centre is predominantly white?

The MCU could definitely improve in this regard - Agents of Shield is doing well to keep a diverse team, but the films are lacking. The thing is, Cap 3 will have a black hero, Black Panther. He's not a sidekick, and given the hints and spoilers about him, he won't be a minor character in the MCU either.

For mainstream audiences, Spiderman is white. Changing that up, regardless of how legitimate the reasons might be, will confuse moviegoers and distract from the character. Marvel ain't gonna do that, they don't want Fox, CNN and MSNBC reporting that Marvel are changing character colour to please people - which is how the mainstream news would treat it, because they don't give a fuck.

 

[JimB]

You want my reasoning and proof? Please, look at it.

Spoiler

I, as a consumer, have every right to "to vote with my wallet". If I think that race-swapping an existing character instead of creating a new one is a bad business and artistic practice, if I think that this is an attempt to show that non-white non-male character can't be successful without wearing the suit of already existing white guy and this is degrading and is bullshit on a lot of levels, I will not only not buy comic books with this "attempt," I will also not watch a movie with said "attempt."

None of that answers the question I asked, but perhaps that is my fault for being unclear. Let me try again. I am attempting to discover what evidence you have that you understand the secret reasoning of Brian Michael Bendis and the editors who approved the creation of Miles Morales, particularly since that evidence is completely at odds with the testimony given in interviews.

Also, may I quote someone who actually is (at the very least claims to be) a minority?

Go nuts, but I don't agree with his position, and I think he's setting up minority characters for abject failure if he thinks the notoriously afraid of change comic-reading public is going to accept fresh characters who aren't attached to an existing property to piggyback goodwill from. I also do not understand how his genetic ancestry confers upon him any particular authority in the matters of publication cost-benefit analysis.

I agree to an extent, although I've not been to New York and don't know what NYC looks like on the street.

Neither have I, but I think arguing from realistic portrayals of extant demographics falls a bit short when the setting involves cyborgs zombies on flying chariots being blown up by an alcoholic wearing an X-wing as a business suit.

The thing is, Cap 3 will have a black hero, Black Panther. He's not a sidekick, and given the hints and spoilers about him, he won't be a minor character in the MCU either.

I'll withhold judgment until I've seen the movie, but as a secondary character in another character's movie, I have to assume for now that his goals are subordinate to the main character's and dependent upon the main character for success; and I do not think it is unfair to describe a character with that lack of agency as a sidekick.

For mainstream audiences, Spider-Man is white. Changing that up, regardless of how legitimate the reasons might be, will confuse moviegoers and distract from the character.

I must ask you to forgive me if I say I have zero respect for anyone who can understand a white dude getting bit by a nuclear spider and getting powers but becomes confused if the spider bites a black-ish dude. Sticking to walls only makes sense if one's ancestry is western European, huh?

(Please note I understand that you are presenting this as your understanding of the movie-going public's position rather than as your own, and as such my condemnation is not intended to apply to you.)

 

[mecegirl]

Also, may I quote someone who actually is (at the very least claims to be) a minority?

Go nuts, but I don't agree with his position, and I think he's setting up minority characters for abject failure if he thinks the notoriously afraid of change comic-reading public is going to accept fresh characters who aren't attached to an existing property to piggyback goodwill from. I also do not understand how his genetic ancestry confers upon him any particular authority in the matters of publication cost-benefit analysis.

Can I be the *ahem* actual minority that agrees with you Jim B . Since we are using our racial status to gain debate points instead of our arguments... I'm Black, I'm also female if you need gender points.

It's like people don't pay attention to what has happened in the past. Its damn hard for an established minority chracter to get a foothold with the comic reading public. If we were talking about the wider public sure, it would work just fine. But the superhero comic book community is super small. These are the Diamond rankings for this month. http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/597?articleID=159865 Anyone want to play count the books with minority leads? There were more as of last year, but like usual they get pushed out. Marvel and DC have tried again and again. Sometimes both the writing and art is solid. Sometimes they punk out and give the character subpar talent. Either way the books don't last too long. Comics aren't as widely circulated as novels, or tv shows are. For example.You can find plenty of folks who like Static, and have great memories based on his cartoon(Static Shock). His show aired in 2000, got four seasons. But when DC created a new book for him in the 52 it failed. Even before the bullshit that was the writers situation, the first issues sales were dismal. Folks didn't even give it a chance to see if the writing was shit. It didn't get mid range sales that tapered off because the talent wasn't there. It was a failure from the start.

Also,did anyone give this much of a shit when Bucky Barnes filled Caps boots? Thor's hammer is Marvel's bicycle but folks freak out over it being given to a woman...like that hasn't happened before. Even Wonder Woman has lifted that hammer and she isn't a Marvel Character. As always, despite how gimmick heavy superhero comics are, its suddenly exploitation just because something big happens to a minority(or female) character. We are talking about the genre that used to allude to the main characters death on ever cover. The genre that has a "big" event (that interrupts individual books story lines) every couple of months. The bigger issue is the writing of those gimmicks.


On topic
I think some folks are just Peter Parker-ed out. Between the movies and the cartoons most of his major storylines have been covered. Right now all there is is the novelty of watching Parker interact with the other Avengers. Not everyone is gonna be hyped about that opportunity...cuz then what's next? The Sinister Six would have been awesome to see on the big screen, but the last Spidy movies were subar IMO. We sure as hell don't need to go into the Madam Web stuff. Spiderman is a long running franchise, I'm sure there is a story or two that could be adapted to film. The question is if it is both too soon or too redundant. A large portion of us would be groaning if they announced a reboot, the same way we'd be disillusioned about another stand alone Batman movie. So I see no reason to be down on folks asking for a shake up in how Spiderman is presented. No one should be surprised that folks want something different considering the last five movies. The comics themselves have shifted things around so much(actual death, fake death, clones, different dimensions, brain swapping, daughters taking over the mantel) that a change in the movie verse should be easy for fans to swallow. The movie going public isn't so dumb that they can't handle a little change either.

 

[happyninja42]

Whor was downright insulting at times,

Whoah! Whoah! Wait. Run this by me again. There is a current, existing character, whose name is WHOR?!
*checks wiki*
Huh, I haven't found such character. Nods, help me out please.

Just a disparaging moniker for the current female Thor.

They're probably talking about the recent female Thor; Whor probably being a combination of woman and Thor - no idea if the whore pun was an intentional insult or not.

Can't exactly insult a fictional character, plus it's just too perfect of a pun not to use for a character I do not like. My dislike has only been compounded by how they're really milking the guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurl power shit for all it's worth with the most recent issue where a woman villain says Whor should be treated the same as the old Thor then hypocritically decides not to fight her because she is a woman (this all taking place after another villain fighting her brings up a good point why her concept is stupid and the most Whor can do is go "NU-UH!" then punch him).

Yeah....I'm kind of disappointed with the female Thor series too. They're just laying on the male dickery too thick. I feel like I'm reading a Norse mythology story written by the people of the Mad Men generation. Where women are only good for making babies and shutting the fuck up. I can appreciate some level of friction with this type of character, but everybody?! Come on. It doesn't have to be all about "One lone woman trying to make her way, in a man's world" Considering how many weird aliens in comic books likely don't even have gender, to see them flip their shit about so much is really odd to me. And it's tiresome.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Yeah... no. How about instead we have Spider Girl and stop pretending that race is the most important factor in choosing a superhero. The political correctness in this article is off the charts.

So much irony in this post.