Why the Marvel Movies Should Ditch Peter Parker

Yakostovian

New member
Jul 26, 2010
28
0
0
Personally, I can see Miles as the character in the MCU, but what I would prefer is that they acknowledge he isn't the first Spider-Man.

A lot of Miles' motivation comes from being in Peter's shadow. And there is a ton of social commentary that you could make from that.

Having Miles in Civil War with the added caveat that he is constantly trying to figure out what the right thing to do: according to Peter Parker.

EDIT: I think if I were making a new Spider-Man movie, the opening scene would be a battle that ends in the Death of Peter Parker.

Act 1: Flashback 6 months to the start of Miles' story, with Spider-Man in the news, and how Miles' supporting cast feel about it all. Miles gets bit early in this act, and the end of act 1 is the same as the opening scene, but from Miles' perspective instead.

ACTS 2-3 are whatever hijinks you can throw at the kid.
 

rgrekejin

New member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
0
Spaceman Spiff said:
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.
I dunno. I would argue that that's probably so dissimilar so as to no longer be Miles, or at least no longer a very good version of him.

I mean, you can "tweak" a lot of things about a character without really thinking you've changed much, but lo and behold, you have. Case in point: Tristar's Godzilla. Still a giant lizard/dinosaur. Still radioactive. Still arose as a result of the atmoic bomb. Still wades up out of the ocean to lay waste to coastal cities. Still has giant spikes on his back. Pretty much the same, right? Just a few tweaks?

But, as anyone who has seen the movie agrees, Tristar's Godzilla was a completely unacceptable substitute for the genuine article. As far as I'm concerned, it's Miles status as a somewhat guilt-ridden legacy hero that's the core of his character, and you can't change that without changing the character in a pretty significant way.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,916
118
Yakostovian said:
Personally, I can see Miles as the character in the MCU, but what I would prefer is that they acknowledge he isn't the first Spider-Man.

A lot of Miles' motivation comes from being in Peter's shadow. And there is a ton of social commentary that you could make from that.

Having Miles in Civil War with the added caveat that he is constantly trying to figure out what the right thing to do: according to Peter Parker.

EDIT: I think if I were making a new Spider-Man movie, the opening scene would be a battle that ends in the Death of Peter Parker.

Act 1: Flashback 6 months to the start of Miles' story, with Spider-Man in the news, and how Miles' supporting cast feel about it all. Miles gets bit early in this act, and the end of act 1 is the same as the opening scene, but from Miles' perspective instead.

ACTS 2-3 are whatever hijinks you can throw at the kid.
Problem with setting it up with him being the 2nd Spiderman in the MCU. Doing so would make a very large plot hole of "Ok, so where was the 1st Spidey in all this stuff? Why didn't he help out in the Battle of New York?" Because you know he would've. There was no mention of him at all in the current MCU canon, so sticking Miles in and saying "Oh yeah, and he's the 2nd Spidey" will just make things very muddled and confusing for people.
 

Jodan

New member
Mar 18, 2009
379
0
0
Well you convinced me. I would be for this.Though I dont have any special attachment to spiderman.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
mecegirl said:
Can I be the actual minority that agrees with you?
Sure, as long it's understood I am no more interested in your racial composition than I am in Jake Martinez's.

Happyninja42 said:
I'm kind of disappointed with the female Thor series too. They're just laying on the male dickery too thick.
I haven't filed all my comics recently, so I can't find every issue of the book, but have they actually made much issue of Thor's sex? I remember a bunch of people calling her a witch, but I'm pretty sure that's just because they think she's a magic-user who enchanted Mjolnir. There's the thing with Absorbing Man and Titania in the last issue, but I actually kind of like that...well, until Thor hit Titania. You don't hit surrendered enemies. Dick move.

Verlander said:
It's not really about that though.
I was being a little sarcastic there, and I apologize for that. It did obscure the actual message I wanted to send, which is, "Spider-Man is a dude in spandex who sticks to walls, punches bad guys, jumps around, makes dorky jokes, and has serious emotional issues. Miles Morales is Spider-Man every bit as much as Peter Parker is, and if people genuinely cannot see how Miles Morales is Spider-Man despite those similarities, then I have no sympathy for them or their confusion, particularly since a movie titled Spider-Man is really only promising us a Spider-Man, not Peter Parker."

Verlander said:
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.
Are you saying Heimdall is not fully fleshed?

Verlander said:
Casting Morales as Spider-Man won't attract any more people to the cinema than will already go, but the discussion around that casting may stop people from going.
Oh, fuck those people.

(Yeah, I know, that's not a realistic attitude for me to expect Marvel to take, but seriously, fuck those people.)

rgrekejin said:
The character of Miles Morales presupposes Peter Parker.
I get what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your specific terminology (I will not accept that another character is a part of a different character; maybe of his circumstances, but not of his character) and perhaps with your overall message. Miles Morales is, in a lot of ways, indistinguishable from Peter Parker: he's a genius who got bit by a spider, used his powers selfishly, learned a lesson when someone important to him died, and now fights crime to atone for his selfishness while living with his only surviving caregiver. I agree that him becoming Spider-Man in response to the death of Peter Parker is a brilliant and poignant touch, but I don't believe it's strictly necessary for his character.

That said, I realized while driving at work today that my ideal Spider-Man movie would essentially be based on the mini-series Spider-Men, in which 616 Peter meets Miles Morales because of dimensional bullshit and they get to team up to beat Mysterio. A cold dump into the movie of Miles and Peter on a roof while Miles tells Peter that costume is in bad taste would be great for me.

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
You know why no one freaked out when Bucky Barnes took on the mantle of Captain America? Because Bucky Barnes was Cap's sidekick for years, and even after that his history was deeply entwined with Steve Roger's history.
How long have Captain America and Falcon worked together, and how much closer does their relationship need to be for this to be okay with you?

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
Whor is an even more egrarious[sic] offender.
Please stop saying "Whor." I get that you dislike the character, but if you must insult her, could you please do so without using her sexuality as a basis for that insult?

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
First of all, Thor is a freaking name, not a title.
I do not remember the comic ever saying it's a title. That seems to only happen in internet discussions. In fact, issue five quite explicitly says Thor's name is his name, and the Odinson simply gave it away (and part of me wonders if him thinking his identity is dependent on Mjolnir isn't part of the reason he's no longer worthy of Mjolnir--he's become co-dependent--but never mind that for now) without Thor ever asking for his name or attempting to identify herself by his name. You seem to be arguing against a position the book has not taken.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
Eh, I didn't really care all that much about Cap-Falcon.
You're right, you didn't say a word about the Falcon switch. My apologies.

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
Maybe if they didn't use her gender as the driving force behind the character such an insult wouldn't be warranted.
Please indicate where in any of the issues published so far her gender has been an issue of her character. I think you are confusing character with marketing strategies.

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
It's not my fault a portmanteau of woman and Thor is Whor.
No, it's just your fault that you keep saying it, and please don't pretend that the punchline is some algebra of "Woman + Thor - X" when it's clearly that you're referring to her as a prostitute.

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
Thor is an actual name and is considered the masculine form (there's a number of feminine versions, including Thora, Torny, or Torhild).
I think we can assume there's a difference between the metaphysical weights of Thor Smith and Thor Odinson's names.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
It couldn't be because he was the best actor?
Idris Elba is such a badass in that movie I kind of wish he'd been cast as Odin. I mean, he's rather too young, and sure, probably no one will top Anthony Hopkins's delivery of the whosoever speech, but still, I'd like to have at least been a fly on the wall during an audition when he read some of Odin's lines.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,916
118
JimB said:
Happyninja42 said:
I'm kind of disappointed with the female Thor series too. They're just laying on the male dickery too thick.
I haven't filed all my comics recently, so I can't find every issue of the book, but have they actually made much issue of Thor's sex? I remember a bunch of people calling her a witch, but I'm pretty sure that's just because they think she's a magic-user who enchanted Mjolnir. There's the thing with Absorbing Man and Titania in the last issue, but I actually kind of like that...well, until Thor hit Titania. You don't hit surrendered enemies. Dick move.
Yes, the issue of her sex comes up on just about every page. From the first page of issue one, they've painted just about every male character in a very misogynistic light. So much in fact, that after reading it, I posted a thread asking if some of the characters were historically this big of a douche-nozzle, or if this was something for this particular comic. The gist I got from most was "no, they were not this big of an asshole in the other comics." I mean seriously, it's so bad that I'm sometimes waiting for a character to just simply say "*****, shut up, put that hammer down, and go make me a sandwich", it's really that heavy handed. Which annoys me, because I wanted to like the series, but the writing is making me dislike it a lot.
 

OrokuSaki

New member
Nov 15, 2010
386
0
0
Why do people keep talking about Miles Morales like he's some interesting new character? Admittedly I only read the first book of his series, but he was just Peter Parker again with the only difference in his origin being that instead of an Uncle Ben character he WATCHED PETER PARKER DIE.

How about this, we depart from Peter Parker and focus on a character that has an interesting character arc, like Kaine. And instead of "Spider-Man" we choose to name him after a character that he himself had a personal conflict with, like the Scarlet Spider.

And instead of Dan Slott, we can get someone who's actually proven to be competent at writing comic books, like Chris Yost. Hold on, I think someone should write this down.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
JimB said:
mecegirl said:
Can I be the actual minority that agrees with you?
Sure, as long it's understood I am no more interested in your racial composition than I am in Jake Martinez's.
I am not at all being serious with that comment. :p

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
mecegirl said:
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.
You know why no one freaked out when Bucky Barnes took on the mantle of Captain America? Because Bucky Barnes was Cap's sidekick for years, and even after that his history was deeply entwined with Steve Roger's history. Him becoming Captain America felt like a natural progression since it was years in the making. Same can be said of Dick or Wally taking on the mantle of their longtime mentors, it would be disingenuous for anyone else to take on the role. Miles Morales? Random kid that happened to gain similar powers around the time Peter Parker died. Kamala Khan? Random kid that gained powers around the time Ms. Marvel disappeared and took on her name because she idolized her. Whor is an even more egrarious offender. First of all, Thor is a freaking name, not a title. You didn't see Beta Ray Bill calling himself Thor when he was using Thor's hammer, he was just Beta Ray Bill but with Thor's hammer. Everyone else who has used the hammer has done so on an extremely temporary basis, never fully taking on the mantle for themselves. Whor on the other hand is just this so far random woman whose relation to Thor is so far completely unknown and is apparently the only one possibly worthy of Mjolnir for reasons currently a mystery. Not only that, they've nearly wrung the "A woman using Thor's hammer? PREPOSTEROUS" angle almost dry to the point the most recent issue comes across as a bad parody in how hamfisted it is.
You do realize that I'm only bringing up Bucky because of others complains about the Falcon right? Cuz back when it was first announced that Falcon would take the mantle folks came out of the wood works claiming that it felt contrived and that it was going to be forced as if this would be the first time that Cap passed his mantel off to a good friend. Pretty much Jake Martenez's arguments were all over the comic book websites that I frequent.

Since you mentioned Wally and Dick I have to ask if you also have a problem with the third generation of DC characters. With Cassie Sandsmark, and Tim Drake. Even Cassandra Cain came into the bat mythos out of the blue.. All new characters have to come from somewhere. There was no existing connection the the mantles they took on until the writers created them. Especially not in Cassandra's case, she didn't even have Barbra's blessing before she became Batgirl. If we judged all new characters so harshly they might as well never create them at all.

I also don't understand your contention with Miles. You know that Brian Michael Bendis, the creator of Miles Morales, is also the original writer for the Ultimate Spiderman book right? This is something that is very rare for superhero comics. He's been writing the book since its inception in 2000. You don't think he thought everything through when he was writing the death of Ultimate Peter Parker?

Marvel comics wanted to change Carol Danvers from Ms Marvel to Captain Marvel so it created a vacuum. They felt the need to fill it with a brand new chracter. And this feels wrong to you why? What else were they gonna do with the name? Did you want them to waste time writing Kamala searching out Captain Marvel just to ask her if she could use the name? They did meet in her comic and Carol was written as being fine with it. Kinda in the same way that Donna Troy didn't seem to mind Cassie taking the Wondergirl mantle. Donna had long since outgrown the name. That's not even counting how convoluted Donna's backstory is, or how at one point both Wondergirl and Superboy were really Diana and Kal-el as kids before someone decided to insert Donna and Kon-el. And yes she's a fangirl, but that's no more out of touch than Tim drake figuring out who Batman is by sneaking pictures of him.

Thor seems to be both a name and a title. Beta Ray Bill never took on the name Thor because Beta Ray Bill wasn't becoming Thor. Or rather, he wasn't taking on the responsibilities that Thor holds as an Asgardian "god" and protector of Earth. This new chracter is. Bill just needed the power to save his people, and in the end Odin had a similar hammer created for Bill. The closest situation to the current happenings in the Thor title is what happened to Eric Masterson. There was a bit of back and forth with him being merged and separated with/from Thor and that's how he became Thor. Then, similar to what is happening now, Thor killed someone and was stripped of his powers. In this case it was Loki who Thor killed (and yay reversible comic book deaths). Masterson had already proven himself worthy of wielding Mjolnir so Odin made him "Thor" after Thor's screw up. Eventually Masterson was given his own weapon and became Thunderstrike and even had his own comic of the same name for a bit. This new character will probably end up the same way.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
ravenshrike said:
Shee niou shiong mao niao. What frelling part of I don't give a shit that they cast Elba or Hounsu is so difficult to get through your skull. My point is they were cast they way they were, as recognisably black people, as a sop to political correctness. Otherwise Korath would have gotten the blue man group treatment and Heimdall would have been CGId to be an albino or Marvel's answer to Big Blue from Watchmen. To state otherwise is the ultimate in willful ignorance or outright falsehood. Take your frelling pick.
Lovely, to think any different than your personal speculation that black people are only cast for certain roles solely because of political correctness is to be willfully ignorant and false. Because, of course, Marvel could never have thought Idris Elba looked better as he was than as a dumb looking CGI albino (because, as we've already discussed, taking "whitest" or "brightest" to mean "palest" does little more than inform upon the importance you put on skin color), and the same for Hounsou (not to mention that there's enough blue people in that movie). Apparently, it's impossible for people to simply disagree with you on which would look better, they simply must have fallen into the pit of political correctness!
I don't know why people keep getting hung up on the idea that Heimdall is some glowing albino when there are sources that describe his armor as white. But I guess I shouldn't trust the books I was assigned to read in college. Whitest couldn't mean anything else than his skin is super pale right?

https://books.google.com/books?id=I...wCw#v=onepage&q=myth heimdall's armor&f=false

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28497/28497-h/28497-h.htm#ch13

Heimdall was always depicted in resplendent white armour, and he was therefore called the bright god. He was also known as the light, innocent, and graceful god, all of which names he fully deserved, for he was as good as he was beautiful, and all the gods loved him. Connected on his mothers? side with the sea, he was sometimes included with the Vanas; and as the ancient Northmen, especially the Icelanders, to whom the surrounding sea appeared the most important element, fancied that all things had risen out of it, they attributed to him an all-embracing knowledge and imagined him particularly wise.