Why the Marvel Movies Should Ditch Peter Parker

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
JimB said:
You want my reasoning and proof? Please, look at it.

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?
Jake Martinez said:
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

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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

New member
Apr 2, 2010
590
0
0
SuperFlik said:
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

New member
Oct 13, 2012
88
0
0
Mister K said:
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
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

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
1
3
Country
UK
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

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
JimB said:
Verlander said:
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

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Mister K said:
You want my reasoning and proof? Please, look at it.

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.

Mister K said:
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.

Verlander said:
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.

Verlander said:
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.

Verlander said:
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

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
JimB said:
Mister K said:
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 :p. 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

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
Mister K said:
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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.

nykirnsu said:
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

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
Hdawger said:
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.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
JimB said:
Verlander said:
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.)
It's not really about that though. Changing up a well established story or character in any way is going to attract scrutiny. If they made James Bond an American, or the Ghostbusters female, it'd be a move that would attract a certain amount of criticism from people. Those people don't need to be racist or sexist to be unhappy with that change, and it's not an issue of being believable either - to make a change to a character in such a way, there generally needs to be a reason behind the change.

This is the problem with Miles Morales. When Heimdal was "blackwashed", it was to increase the diversity of an all white cast. When Johnny Storm was the same, it was because the new series was abandoning it's comic roots and relaunching as a young adult film. The motivations behind these changes are clear, even if they're less than honourable (I personally would love to see a greater diversity in these films by introducing fully fleshed characters, rather than what I perceive to be tokenism). Neither of those reasons apply to Civil War, so why change the formula?

The problem isn't so much that there's no reason to change the character up - between 2002 and 2014 there were 5 Peter Parker films. I'm pretty sick of him. It's that, with there being no clear reason to change him, the blanks are going to be filled with people's opinions on the matter, and a character and film franchise as big as this is going to have some major coverage. What will Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc have to say on that matter? What reason will they make up? It's the "liberal agenda", or "political correctness gone mad"? Casting Morales as Spiderman won't attract any more people to the cinema than will already go, but the discussion around that casting may stop people from going, and Marvel cares about it's bottom line.
 

rgrekejin

New member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
0
I'm kind of surprised at the number of people who suggest they use Miles, but just tweak his origin so he's the original Spiderman. It makes me suspect that those people have never read a Miles Morales Spiderman story.

The character of Miles Morales *presupposes* Peter Parker. It isn't possible to have Miles without first having Peter. So much of his character is defined by his guilt over the death of the original Spiderman and his efforts to live up to the legacy of his predecessor. Miles Morales isn't just Spiderman, he's the *Second* Spiderman, and that he's the second one is just as important to who his character is as the fact that he's Spiderman in the first place. Asking for Miles without Peter is like asking for Batman, only not an orphan. Superman, only not the alien survivor of a doomed world. Captain America, only not an American soldier. The fact that Miles is a follow-up to Peter is not some spare bit of lore that can be clipped out - it's a bedrock component of who the character is.

If you're asking for Miles, only not as a follow-up to Peter, it's important to recognize that you don't actually want Miles Morales. The changes made to the character would have to be so extensive that they would be the same in name only. What you actually want is just Black Spiderman. And that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to want. But let's not pretend you want Miles because you bear some abiding love for the character.
 

Spaceman Spiff

New member
Sep 23, 2013
604
0
0
rgrekejin said:
I'm kind of surprised at the number of people who suggest they use Miles, but just tweak his origin so he's the original Spiderman. It makes me suspect that those people have never read a Miles Morales Spiderman story.

The character of Miles Morales *presupposes* Peter Parker. It isn't possible to have Miles without first having Peter. So much of his character is defined by his guilt over the death of the original Spiderman and his efforts to live up to the legacy of his predecessor. Miles Morales isn't just Spiderman, he's the *Second* Spiderman, and that he's the second one is just as important to who his character is as the fact that he's Spiderman in the first place. Asking for Miles without Peter is like asking for Batman, only not an orphan. Superman, only not the alien survivor of a doomed world. Captain America, only not an American soldier. The fact that Miles is a follow-up to Peter is not some spare bit of lore that can be clipped out - it's a bedrock component of who the character is.

If you're asking for Miles, only not as a follow-up to Peter, it's important to recognize that you don't actually want Miles Morales. The changes made to the character would have to be so extensive that they would be the same in name only. What you actually want is just Black Spiderman. And that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to want. But let's not pretend you want Miles because you bear some abiding love for the character.
Just tweak his origin a bit. MCU has done tons of tweeking. Just look at Ultron, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Whiplash, War Machine. Some of us just don't want a third Peter Parker.

Example: Miles has a science accident (or could be inhuman) and develops abilities, but isn't competent with them. Some crazy event happens and he could step in to help, but isn't confident in himself and doesn't. A hero or somebody gets hurt or dies. He feels guilty and doubles down on training, later he steps up as a hero. Done.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
Mister K said:
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".
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on John Stewart, the black Green Lantern? He fits the above model you presented, yet I never see anyone describe him as being a "black guy wearing a white guy's suit". In fact, most chatter on him that I hear is pretty positive about him being his own character, even though he's wearing some other guy's suit. So what are your thoughts on him? Do you think he's his own specific character or just a black guy in a white guy's suit? And if you do think he's his own specific character, what makes him different from Miles Morales, considering they have very similar concepts?

I'm not criticizing you or anything, I'm just curious about your thoughts on another superhero with a similar scenario to that you described above.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
Mister K said:
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".
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on John Stewart, the black Green Lantern? He fits the above model you presented, yet I never see anyone describe him as being a "black guy wearing a white guy's suit". In fact, most chatter on him that I hear is pretty positive about him being his own character, even though he's wearing some other guy's suit. So what are your thoughts on him? Do you think he's his own specific character or just a black guy in a white guy's suit? And if you do think he's his own specific character, what makes him different from Miles Morales, considering they have very similar concepts?

I'm not criticizing you or anything, I'm just curious about your thoughts on another superhero with a similar scenario to that you described above.
Can't say that I have a personal opinion, since I know jack sh*t about DC. Sorry.

Well, I'll try to judge from what I know. Isn't Green Lantern is part of cosmic police, i.e. basically there are tons of other humans and not humans who have the same powers? So, can I assume that it was like replacing replacing a dead cop (did he die?) with another cop? If yes, then whatever, I suppose. If it's more complicated than this, then I really don't know.

Although, as I said, I know almost nothing about DC
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
671
0
21
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
medv4380 said:
Miles back story is different then Peters?

Peter Guilted by the Death of Uncle Ben because he should have stopped a guy that probably would have killed him had he actually tried. Peter's not bullet proof and too green to have not gotten shot.

Miles Guilted by the Death of Peter Parker because he did nothing to stop the Green Goblin from killing him but would have killed him too had he actually tried. Miles was not experienced enough to join the fight.

Sounds like the same back story with tweeks to the characters involved.
Not really, plus Peter's failings is a lot more to do with selfishness since he only let the robber go since he was angry at the guy who cheated him. Had he done the right thing (the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing), he could have easily prevented Uncle Ben's death. Miles is more about living up to a legend's name.
So getting spider powers at around the same time as spiderman, and just wanting to be normal up until Peter dies isn't selfish at all.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
Mister K said:
Can't say that I have a personal opinion, since I know jack sh*t about DC. Sorry.

Well, I'll try to judge from what I know. Isn't Green Lantern is part of cosmic police, i.e. basically there are tons of other humans and not humans who have the same powers? So, can I assume that it was like replacing replacing a dead cop (did he die?) with another cop? If yes, then whatever, I suppose. If it's more complicated than this, then I really don't know.

Although, as I said, I know almost nothing about DC
Pretty much yeah. Lantern's are assigned to defend sectors of space. I don't know if he died or not, as I don't read DC either, or Marvel really for that matter. So there is some precedent for replacing them as time goes on, a built in legacy system if you will.

I personally don't mind the idea of a black/hispanic Spiderman, taking over his mantle, because as I said earlier in this thread, I enjoy legacy stories. I personally find the idea of passing on the mantle of a protector/hero to another, and having them continue the tradition a very satisfying story. It allows new stories to be told, while maintaining some familiarity from the previous story. You and I disagree on it being an insult to the person who is now wearing the suit, as I don't see it implying that he couldn't "make it on his own without the white guy first". I see it through the lens of time passing, and not letting a powerful icon fade into history (history in-universe of the comic). But, I'm a white guy, so feel free to disregard my opinion on the matter if you want.

I don't really care that they've made Spiderman mixed ethnicity, and I don't promote that they've done it for "diversity" reasons. I honestly don't care one way or another what his ethnicity is, as his story isn't really rooted in any ethnic origin at all. He's a New Yorker, and New York's been famous for being a location with all kinds of races for a looong time. If they can write good stories about a kid, who happened to get powers similar to Spiderman, and felt compelled to take up his mantle and continue his work after he died, cool. I'm totally down for that story, if they tell it well. But again, I'm a sucker for legacy stories, so I'm sort of biased in that regard.