Far From Home MCU Spider-Man is very, very inaccurate

[Infinity9999x]

Agreed completely. I feel numb to it now and as if the novelty has worn off a bit. The hype for both S-M3 and TDK was so damn incredible, and it feels so damn long ago too. Like 20 years or something haha. I'm hopnig the hype for Matt Reeves Batman can echo times of old but we'll see. none of the MCU films have been able to get me as hyped as both of those films did.

I think it’s a combo of a lot of factors. I was 18 during the TDK hype, so I was at the right age where I was old enough to incessantly follow the production, but also still had that level of youthful excitement that fades as you get older.

You combine that with the fact that we didn’t get that many superhero films, and it was the first time Venom would ever be in live action, or the first time in nearly 20 years the Joker would be seen in live action, the hype for that is pretty much.

We’ve have tons of great superhero material since, but no matter how good something is, if you get it more regularly, it’s just not going to be as exciting.

 

[metaphysician]

Its a theory that makes you wonder why the bothered with this trilogy in the first place if its being undone.

There's an easy answer: that's because its an incredibly dumb theory. Its the kind of question-begging logic that is related to the "Superman isn't actually Superman yet, he is only supposed to become Superman in the third act/sequel/JL movie/reboot".

 

[Chris B]

After seeing FFH, my feeling on MCU Spidey is basically the same as it was after Homecoming. Which is that Tom Holland is perfectly cast as Peter Parker, and if the writing ever gives him a chance he could easily become the best all-around Spidey.

The thing is while I find the MCU Spidey movies entertaining and "cute", I just cannot get too invested in this Tony Stark protege approach they've taken with the character and the lack of Uncle Ben, and everything that plenty of people have already voiced. It just feels disappointing to me that instead of just letting Spider-Man be the flagship, iconic character he is to the Marvel universe, they seem to have put more value in making him fit in super snugly to the world and tone they've created with the other films. Which is understandable, I just think the result is....OK. Definitely not terrible, but far from great.

And I love me some Marissa Tomei, but wow. They've basically made her being the hot, cool aunt as her defining character trait. I can't remember her having a single, actual dramatic scene in either film. She's a fun presence to have in the movie as a background character, but that's all they've got for May? Really?

I don't know. While I think both Homecoming and FFH are OK to good movies, and manage the impressive juggling act of attempting to tell Spider-Man stories within the narrative insanity that is the MCU right now....for movies about Marvel's flagship character being made at the height of Marvel's powers, I can't help but feel that the result is pretty underwhelming. Especially how stylistically flat the films are. Compared to Raimi's films and of course Spider-Verse, these ones feel painfully generic in execution. One thing I can certainly applaud is the casting of the villains. Keaton and Gyllenhaal both brought a level of gravitas to their respective films and were easily among some of the better MCU villains.

This pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

My biggest problem with the while Tony Stark as a mentor angle is I think its really robbed Spider-Man of the whole everyman angle that has always been a part of the character's appeal and something that Raimi really nailed in his trilogy. Though I think FFH was an improvement in that regard despite not liking Happy coming in at the end to basically bail him out in the third act. In contrast to Homecoming where he had to strike out on his own to stop the Vulture.

And not continue to beating a dead horse, but I just can't get behind many of the changes they made to the supporting cast. .

 

[Herofan]

Agreed that making Flash academically strong and as or more unpopular than Peter were annoying changes for the worse.

So is MCU Spider-Man. Even after he meets Stark he's advised to contain his efforts to only more street-level crime since Tony doesn't believe Peter is on the level to deal with serious large-scale threats that the Avengers regularly deal with yet. Spider-Man fights regular thugs and crooks like always has done in the comics.

I didn't get why he wanted so much to join the Avengers and fight their kinds of missions (other than, frankly, wanting to get glory) or why at the end he decided to not join the Avengers. I didn't want him to join but him not joining felt very random or even against the themes the film seemed to be trying to have.

I think the character was also badly hurt by having his suit from and thus being so tied to and identified with Iron Man. I don't think the character would stop being Spider-Man because a mentor took away his tools and he thought he was nothing without technology.

People LOVE to complain about Starks presence in these films. If all goes as planned we have probably 12+ films with Tom Holland (including appearances in other films) and I think once all is said and done everyone is going to appreciate having seen Spidey's arc.

It is certainly a big risk to stretch his high school experience through three solo films, fairly doubtful that we would see more than that. The solo films are also likely to still have crossovers with older heroes so the way he is used in relation to them probably won't change.

I'm friggin calling it now ; they're gonna pull that bull**** from Dan Slott's Superior Spider-Man run of Peter owning Parker Industries just to further emphasize these ridiculous parallels to Tony. I'm ****ing calling it, and if (or when) they do it they can OFFICIALLY miss me with this ****

Jon Watts is kinda already the Dan Slott of Spidey films at this point anyway

A way to pander to both fans of Slott and those that dislike him would be to do a Parker Industries stage but then have him erase it (and the whole identity reveal, give up his wealth to get back the secret) out of history like OMD, have Peter undo something that was many fans actually want to see undone.

 

[Herofan]

Spider-Man in the comics has a history of being recruited by people to do missions, especially if that mission has world-ending stakes. In the Ultimates Fury recruited Spider-Man a few times for some Shield related missions. And the Civil War comics like in the movie version Stark recruits Peter in that as well.

Peter Parker has gotten costume upgrades from other heroes before, including Stark. In fact, Stark gives Peter the Iron Spider suit upgrade in the Civil War comic book storyline. So the idea of Peter getting an upgrade for his classic homemade costume from Iron Man also has a comic book precedent.

A lot of the Marvel Studios version of the character is derived from Civil War. IMO Civil War was part 1 of 3 (or part 2 of 4) of at least one of the worst Spider-Man stories and eras ever.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I do think it's f***ed how this Spider-Man can make a phone call in the middle of Europe and have a high tech jet arrive with all kinds of cool stuff so he can make a new suit.

 

[2kt09]

I do think it's f***ed how this Spider-Man can make a phone call in the middle of Europe and have a high tech jet arrive with all kinds of cool stuff so he can make a new suit.

♪ I am!
I am Iron Lad! ♪

 

[Shikamaru]

Like Gail Simone said, probably the most disrespectful thing about MCU Spider-Man is how much they toned down the counterculture themes of Spider-Man. He's significantly more obedient and dependent on the rich and powerful than Spider-Man normally is. He's also not as quick with his mouth around guys like Stark and Fury.

There's an implied undertone throughout these films that working-class Millennials need approval and resources from the 1% to be cool and efficient.

In the MCU's defense, this is significantly toned down in their Spider-Man films than in the Russos'. It's still disrespectful to Spider-Man, though. It's also disrespectful to today's kids suffering from rising income inequality.

 

[Schlosser85]

......I think you're reading a little too much into it. The only "rich and powerful" person Peter admires is Tony. Who is a literal superhero, and basically leader of The Avengers.

It's not like they have him fanboying at Trump Tower or some other obviously crap role model.

 

[Herofan]

Like Gail Simone said, probably the most disrespectful thing about MCU Spider-Man is how much they toned down the counterculture themes of Spider-Man. He's significantly more obedient and dependent on the rich and powerful than Spider-Man normally is. He's also not as quick with his mouth around guys like Stark and Fury.

There's an implied undertone throughout these films that working-class Millennials need approval and resources from the 1% to be cool and efficient.

In the MCU's defense, this is significantly toned down in their Spider-Man films than in the Russos'. It's still disrespectful to Spider-Man, though. It's also disrespectful to today's kids suffering from rising income inequality.

I hadn't thought specifically about the deference to the rich but he definitely does defer to authority generally (which nowadays probably is associated with political/cultural moderation or apathy more than anything else). He does, though, seem to have an admiring, very uncritical view of Tony's wealth in that he has belief and no doubt that with his wealth and power Tony is on the side of, protecting the underdogs like he does so they are, should be, will be on the same side.

......I think you're reading a little too much into it. The only "rich and powerful" person Peter admires is Tony. Who is a literal superhero, and basically leader of The Avengers.

It's not like they have him fanboying at Trump Tower or some other obviously crap role model.

Well nearly all the Avengers opposed him and/or otherwise quit so he should pretty obviously be pretty controversial as leader of the group and a role model.

The movies do have Peter cleaning up Tony's messes and, I believe (haven't seen FFH), never realizing or caring that Tony did cause a lot of problems, that he is cleaning up his messes and so maybe he shouldn't be so admiring of Stark and following of him.

 

[Shikamaru]

......I think you're reading a little too much into it. The only "rich and powerful" person Peter admires is Tony. Who is a literal superhero, and basically leader of The Avengers.

It's not like they have him fanboying at Trump Tower or some other obviously crap role model.

Who is also the richest and most powerful man in the MCU. He's the MCU's Lex Luthor in terms of status.

He's also a pretty crap role model. That's not a jab at Iron Man btw, that's his appeal. He's a superhero with all the flaws of a guy like Norman Osborn.

And that works fine in other Marvel movies...it doesn't work when you make him so uncritically admired and romanticized by Marvel's most class-conscious hero. He should be at least as critical of Tony as the other Avengers.

It likely wasn't intentional; it's still problematic.

I hadn't thought specifically about the deference to the rich but he definitely does defer to authority generally (which nowadays probably is associated with political/cultural moderation or apathy more than anything else). He does, though, seem to have an admiring, very uncritical view of Tony's wealth in that he has belief and no doubt that with his wealth and power Tony is on the side of, protecting the underdogs like he does so they are, should be, will be on the same side.



Well nearly all the Avengers opposed him and/or otherwise quit so he should pretty obviously be pretty controversial as leader of the group and a role model.

The movies do have Peter cleaning up Tony's messes and, I believe (haven't seen FFH), never realizing or caring that Tony did cause a lot of problems, that he is cleaning up his messes and so maybe he shouldn't be so admiring of Stark and following of him.

This.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Im okay with Peter being a fan of the big superheroes, afterall he is a newcomer in this world of established superhero legends. Its just weird how he is totally okay with taking down Captain America, no questions asked. He should idolize him too (maybe he does it's not entirely clear), and there should be some conflict inside him about arresting Cap. This is one of the first reasons why MCU Peter doesnt quite feel like the Peter Parker

On another topic, even though it's been said countless times how Peter acts in awe of everything all the time, i felt like this was worth pointing out: even when its not superhero stuff, but Ned telling him about his lego deathstar, Peter responds with "What! That's insane!". It's this manufactured feel that defines MCU Spider-man to me

 

[I Am The Knight]

To be fair, that's how a lot of teens act today.

 

[DyeLorean]

I didn't get why he wanted so much to join the Avengers and fight their kinds of missions (other than, frankly, wanting to get glory) or why at the end he decided to not join the Avengers. I didn't want him to join but him not joining felt very random or even against the themes the film seemed to be trying to have.

Character growth. He was a kid that wanted to rub shoulders with the big heroes, but in the end he realized he is better off helping the little guy, helping in the neighbourhood. That he can still be a hero even when he isn't 'Avenging' big threats.
Infinity War/Endgame kinda defeat the purpose but he is a bit accidentally sent into space and that whole adventure (plus, it's been 15 years... it was about time that we saw the character doing something different).
Far From Home was about him taking a bit of a break from being Spider-Man but he also learned that he can't choose when to be a hero. It's a full time job.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Like Gail Simone said, probably the most disrespectful thing about MCU Spider-Man is how much they toned down the counterculture themes of Spider-Man. He's significantly more obedient and dependent on the rich and powerful than Spider-Man normally is. He's also not as quick with his mouth around guys like Stark and Fury.

There's an implied undertone throughout these films that working-class Millennials need approval and resources from the 1% to be cool and efficient.

In the MCU's defense, this is significantly toned down in their Spider-Man films than in the Russos'. It's still disrespectful to Spider-Man, though. It's also disrespectful to today's kids suffering from rising income inequality.

Yup. And it's one of the reasons I'm starting to be uneasy with the MCU Spider-Man more and more as time goes on. It just isn't the Spider-Man I know.

 

[The Caped Knight]

The truth of the matter is this is a modern day version of Spider-Man, he's a teenager in our current society. And realistically Peter needed a benefactor and Tony fits the bill.

We saw a glimpse of Peter Parker genius intelligence and resourcefulness in the way he constructed a homemade amateur suit as well as the liquid material to produce his webbing.

Moreover in far from Home, Peter constructed his suit using Stark tech and since hes is a member of The Avengers. It's no different than the update uniform and equipment Tony made for the team in age Of Ultron.

 

[Web-Head]

Yup. And it's one of the reasons I'm starting to be uneasy with the MCU Spider-Man more and more as time goes on. It just isn't the Spider-Man I know.

All of us were clamoring for Spider-Man in the MCU and look where we're at now...

 

[Solaire]

I know it’s crazy. So many wanted Spidey in the MCU now so many or a vocal minority hate it, all the while the movies review extremely well and they do amazingly well in the boxoffice too. Spidey finally joining the billion club.

 

[shabadoo25]

A lot of you are honing in on perceived problems at the close up level of the Spider-Man stories when the real issues are at the 30,000 feet level of the MCU.

If you grew up in the 60s, Peter Parker is a nerdy kid to you wearing glasses. If you grew up in the 70s, he's a late 20s photographer dating a model. If you are a recent kid, he's a Tony Stark lite CEO.

The people guiding the MCU have to navigate actor schedules, CGI lead times, studio marketing departments and the passage of time in telling these stories. Hence, the cheat of the 5-year blip letting them catch up.

I don't like it that 60 some odd years of Avengers adventures have been pared down to 4 or 5. Maybe a few more if you count some unseen "raiding parties."

If you want comic book movies done under a big budget with talented actors, you have to live with some choices that will annoy you. Over all, I think Feige and crew have done a pretty darn good job with their decisions.

 

[Shockdingo]

Yup. And it's one of the reasons I'm starting to be uneasy with the MCU Spider-Man more and more as time goes on. It just isn't the Spider-Man I know.

Yeah, I absolutely dig these movies, but the more I listen to reviews and analysis, I get more uneasy and disappointed.

 

[Spidey_62]

I dunno, I see stuff online like people saying this is the first time Mary Jane's been interesting anywhere (saw it maybe on stan Twitter): I like the character in the movie just fine but saying stuff like that knocking the source material totally irks me.

Better than her in the comics? She's one of the most interesting and three-dimensional supporting characters in comics, period! People talk out of their butt having never looked at a comic before beyond a cursory YouTube summary or Wiki search anymore. It's just disheartening how much people don't seem to really be fans of the characters beyond an actor they like playing them or that it's in the MCU and therefore has more merit. Maybe it's the old-time purist in me but it just makes me worrisome about the future of comics again if future generations just aren't gonna care where this stuff came from.

 

[Herofan]

I don't like it that 60 some odd years of Avengers adventures have been pared down to 4 or 5. Maybe a few more if you count some unseen "raiding parties."

The Avengers breaking up in their third movie, four years after their first and a year after their second, felt way rushed to me.

Yeah, I absolutely dig these movies, but the more I listen to reviews and analysis, I get more uneasy and disappointed.

To me a confusing and frankly annoying claim from fans of the films is that it's real good that Peter started out really immature and is growing real slowly because then he can grow more and become a lot more like the comic book version of the character in later sequels. Aside from the overconfidence of the certainty that there will be many more sequels (let alone what they will involve), it's admitting that the initial character is very different from the comics version, where even early on he was pretty mature, and it's arguably still, or more so, making those early films feel pretty wasteful.

 

[ironwez20]

Peter felt so different in civil war in my opinion. He was much more confident

 

[XSpidercideX]

I dunno, I see stuff online like people saying this is the first time Mary Jane's been interesting anywhere (saw it maybe on stan Twitter): I like the character in the movie just fine but saying stuff like that knocking the source material totally irks me.

Better than her in the comics? She's one of the most interesting and three-dimensional supporting characters in comics, period! People talk out of their butt having never looked at a comic before beyond a cursory YouTube summary or Wiki search anymore. It's just disheartening how much people don't seem to really be fans of the characters beyond an actor they like playing them or that it's in the MCU and therefore has more merit. Maybe it's the old-time purist in me but it just makes me worrisome about the future of comics again if future generations just aren't gonna care where this stuff came from.

100% truth right here.

I can completely sympathize and feel the same way. Mary Jane is one of my favorite comic book characters of all time and I have dreamed of seeing her come to life on the big screen in the way I fell in love with her character in the comics. I’m still waiting.

People talk out their asses not knowing these characters or just going off movie/cartoon versions and it’s frustrating to see people diss beloved characters based off of inferior versions.

MJ of the comics is 10x the character of anything seen outside....Both Dunst and Zendaya don’t come close to portraying a meaningful fraction of this character.

People just don’t understand that characters in comics have not been handled properly yet so their knowledge/perception of who they are is incomplete at best or severely flawed in the majority of cases.

 

[XSpidercideX]

100% truth right here.

I can completely sympathize and feel the same way. Mary Jane is one of my favorite comic book characters of all time and I have dreamed of seeing her come to life on the big screen in the way I fell in love with her character in the comics. I’m still waiting.

People talk out their asses not knowing these characters or just going off movie/cartoon versions and it’s frustrating to see people diss beloved characters based off of inferior versions.

MJ of the comics is 10x the character of anything seen outside....Both Dunst and Zendaya don’t come close to portraying a meaningful fraction of this character.

People just don’t understand that characters in comics have not been handled properly yet so their knowledge/perception of who they are is incomplete at best or severely flawed in the majority of cases.

And one more thing... you get characters like Gwen Stacy getting the biggest upgrade of all time in ASM movies (better than comic book Gwen) and we don’t even get an MJ in those movies for comparison. Completely unfair and shapes popular perception of Peters love
Interests to be a polar opposite of the reality in the comics.