That depends on how much longer it is before we see it again. I think Holland right now doesn’t look that much older than he was when he first started playing the role in CW so if they do the origin again in the next movie then I’d say Holland doesn’t need much or any de-aging. But if they wait until Holland is older(like in his forties) to address the origin than they will obviously have to de-age him.
Honestly I'm perfectly fine with it if they never include him. He isn't necessary in the story they've written thus far. And I'm all for making the MCU as different from the comics as the writers want, rather than forcing things to be a certain way just to appease a bunch of comic purists. All the purists complaining about deviations from the comics have been an annoyance to me ever since superhero movies started becoming big, and it's satisfying seeing the MCU writers ignore the purists and stick to their artistic integrity instead.
That depends on how much longer it is before we see it again. I think Holland right now doesn’t look that much older than he was when he first started playing the role in CW so if they do the origin again in the next movie then I’d say Holland doesn’t need much or any de-aging. But if they wait until Holland is older(like in his forties) to address the origin than they will obviously have to de-age him.
Holland definitely looks significantly older than he did in Civil War. He looked like a twelve-year-old there. Nowadays he at least looks like a late teenager. He has laugh lines and such, a little more maturity in his face, not to mention is just filled out physically.
Holland definitely looks significantly older than he did in Civil War. He looked like a twelve-year-old there. Nowadays he at least looks like a late teenager. He has laugh lines and such, a little more maturity in his face, not to mention is just filled out physically.
Tom is now on his 5th appearance as spider-man yet he still looks way younger than both Tobey and Andrew did during their very first film
Tobey especially looked too old for the role and every time I rewatch the first spider-man I always finding myself asking why Is this 30 year old man chasing after a school bus lol
Holland definitely looks significantly older than he did in Civil War. He looked like a twelve-year-old there. Nowadays he at least looks like a late teenager. He has laugh lines and such, a little more maturity in his face, not to mention is just filled out physically.
That's one of the first things I noticed once he showed up in the film and I'm totally fine with that. After nearly 3 years in the MCU, he should look a bit older and physically mature. I'm just glad that he's not looking too old for the role yet, unlike Tobey and Andrew did.
Honestly I'm perfectly fine with it if they never include him. He isn't necessary in the story they've written thus far. And I'm all for making the MCU as different from the comics as the writers want, rather than forcing things to be a certain way just to appease a bunch of comic purists. All the purists complaining about deviations from the comics have been an annoyance to me ever since superhero movies started becoming big, and it's satisfying seeing the MCU writers ignore the purists and stick to their artistic integrity instead.
that part in Civil War was quite well done. But once Peter became a main character in Homecoming, they should've done something that's not overly subtle
If they wanted to completely avoid Uncle Ben as a topic, they should've gone with early college Peter Parker. Still a lot younger and more inexperienced than other Avengers, but 3-4 years after his origin. Then if they never ever mentioned Uncle Ben, I might be fine with it. But this Peter Parker and Aunt May were just 6 months from Ben's death. At that point in the time line, addressing it is part of the package so that the story feels truthful. Just because there's a meta-reason that some people are tired of Uncle Ben isn't an excuse.
Maybe part of the story could've been that Peter feels that people expect him to have moved and to act normal and he does it to fit in. When May takes Peter and Ned to the party, she asks to have a minute with Peter and tells him "you know, Ben would've wanted you to have fun. You know that right?". Peter brushes her off with a mask of positivity, but later when Peter comes home after a failed battle with the vulture and May is acting worried, so he opens up about it and they have a small heart to heart.
that kind of stuff. would that be so insufferable? What they went with, avoiding the topic completely except with a couple vague hints, feels fake. What makes the disconnect worse is that May is a completely different version and so is Peter
Ben Parker not being a factor would be fine if it wasn’t for Tony Stark having more influence over the narrative than Ben did in the previous movies. Even Spidey’s baddies are tied to Tony Stark. Even the novelty of interaction with other Marvel heroes falls flat because the only one he’s interacted with in a meaningful way is Stark.
Lot of strawmen in this thread. Somehow wanting a reference to uncle Ben has been interpreted as being a major plot point or focus of the movie. Someone even mentioned just having a picture of him in the movie. I don't get why anyone would have a problem with that.
I'd have preferred more on Ben in Homecoming. And building some more dynamic around it. God blessed me with these ideas:
May is putting on an act as the cool aunt. She breaks this act when she snaps at Peter after the boat incident. She's, in fact, worried sick about him (his actions, everything), but doesn't want to weigh him down with that stress, after Ben's death.
This would be a flashback after May talk with Peter, in which she would tell him that he can't carry the weight of the world on his shoulders.
Ben and May are having a hard time paying the bills, so Peter, fresh off of getting his spider powers, decides to try his hand at making money off of it. Ben is troubled when Peter presents some of the money to him. He tells Peter that it's not his job to do this and tells him that he doesn't want him to get hurt in however he got his money. Peter argues that he's fine, but Ben says that sometimes you have to accept you're place in a situation, to use what you can do responsibly, which can sometimes mean not doing something, as well as doing something. Putting all the responsibility onto yourself isn't the way to accomplish things and you can lose sight of the important things like that. Peter's frustrated at this, not listening. He sneaks out of his room later to go to a talent competition, think small scale "America's Got Talent", maybe even have him show a display of strength in him pinning a wrestler as an easter egg. Peter gets the money and is feeling pretty proud of himself.
This flashback would conclude in the scene where he's crushed by the rubble. We would do a transition from his reflection in the water, with his mask...
To him looking in the mirror of the locker room after the talent show, counting his money. A robber would run past, the security chasing as he says to do something. The robber gets away, and Peter dismisses it as saying "It's not my job." We cut to Peter walking home after that, stopping when he sees police lights at his apartment complex. An ambulance is there. Peter sees May crying in the arms of a neighbor and is face drains of all its color as we transition from his horrified face, back to...
Present day as Peter stares in the reflection of the water. And that's the moment when Peter lifts up the rubble.
This doesn't mean I need this to happen in the movie, but I think it doesn't fit the character to not address it.
I always want to see something new and fresh. The general audience certainly. Uncle Ben was explored in SM1 and ASM1. I, for one, don't want to see the same thing rehashed over and over again. 'With great power comes great responsibility'. Yes, we get it, I'm fine with no mention of Ben. My only problem is May is a little too carefree. But if you think about it, Homecoming is six months after the death of Ben. Endgame is two years after the death of Ben and FFH is 8 months after Endgame. If it realistic to expect someone to be in mourning nearly 3 years later?
Lot of strawmen in this thread. Somehow wanting a reference to uncle Ben has been interpreted as being a major plot point or focus of the movie. Someone even mentioned just having a picture of him in the movie. I don't get why anyone would have a problem with that.
There is no picture of Ben because if they do want to retread old ground (I hope they don't) you want to be able to cast fresh and not return to the person in the photo.
Lot of strawmen in this thread. Somehow wanting a reference to uncle Ben has been interpreted as being a major plot point or focus of the movie. Someone even mentioned just having a picture of him in the movie. I don't get why anyone would have a problem with that.
Yep. But I guess the main reason why Peter becomes Spider-Man just simply isn't important to this franchise, and to a lot of fans I see. It's sad, but it is what it is.
I don't mind different interpretations of Spider-Man. In fact, I welcome that MCU Spidey is different. But you can't just ignore the core reason why Peter does what he does. And I don't want them to, like, focus an entire plot on Ben like many people on this thread tend to throw in with incredibly poor arguments when others bring him up, but he needs to be addressed. And not just vaguely or choosing not to name-drop him either (the only Uncle Ben mention I liked so far is that scene in Peter's bedroom in Civil War, that was executed perfectly).
To ignore his presence, is to ignore one of the main elements of Spider-Man's DNA. There's no disputing that.
MCU Spider-Man is essentially an updated version of the live action 1970s TV series Spider-Man. He had aunt May in his life, but there was no mention of Uncle Ben, and his uncle wasn't a factor in why he became Spider-Man or did what he did at all. He just did it because he was personally heroic somehow, but not motivated by anything in particular.
The vast majority of Spider-man comics never mentioned Uncle Ben. Even in the original Lee Ditko run outside Amazing Fantasy in the origin story, he's barely mentioned. My point is they've already shown the Uncle Ben stuff twice (one time too many IMO), there is no need to go back and do it again. I think Sony is playing it pretty close to the vest as far as allowing the use of characters from previous films. We know the whole Norman Osbourne thing in FFH was a total internet fabrication. However it was shocking to see
J.K. Simmons cameo as Jameson
so it seems there is some willingness of Sony to reuse some of these characters. We'll see if it continues with sinister six or something else. We know they want MCU spidey and Venom crossover, but I'm not sure they can do this without Marvel's approval, if it's not spelled out in the current agreement.
If they are able to use Uncle Ben, you don't just throw it in for the sake of it. It has to make sense to the story. As I said before, Tony was NEVER a replacement for Uncle Ben, this was a plot point that was raised going back to Civil War. Peter lost his mentor, and they simply could not gloss over that in the films.
The issue in the film about finding "the next Iron Man", isn't about Peter being Spider-man or not. He clearly is already established as the "friendly neighborhood" Spider-man. He is trying to decide on if he can fill a bigger role against bigger threats.
Bottom line here, there is no issue other than those that want to nit pick this issue. The MCU does not follow the comics, that much is clear. It's a cinematic interpretation. Heck even Iron Man in the comics is distinctly different than RDJ's interpretation, but it's the one that has become the most popular, for obvious reasons.
Having said that, the last two films more closely represent what I remember of the old Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. books, as far as the hero stuff, the battles. The MCU stuff is just an additional layer. FFH is by far my favorite Spider-man film of all of them, even the Raimi films which I do love. So the fact they don't mention Uncle Ben is really a side note IMHO.
There is no picture of Ben because if they do want to retread old ground (I hope they don't) you want to be able to cast fresh and not return to the person in the photo.
I was just using that as an example of a ridiculous thing that some people responded to the suggestion of as if it would somehow make the movie worse. There seems to be an attitude with some that the very mention of his existence would ruin the movie. I saw this same attitude from some with the Raimi movies when they were being released, where some fans felt the need to defend every action and story choice and anything else would be worse than what we got. There are some that would be upset with a suggestion as simple as May mentioning Happy is the first man she's seen since Ben died. 5 seconds of screentime turns into "they are rehashing old plot points, I don't want to see that again, etc."
Especially since there were zero complaints about Ben in the past movies. I get not wanting to see the entire loser kid gets bit by a spider and gains powers, doesn't use them responsibly and his uncle dies for it for 45 mins again, that makes sense. No one is arguing for that, and we're way past that point now anyway.
Its the vehement disdain for the character being mentioned at all that's bizarre to me, and I feel is linked to peoples desire to defend every aspect of the films. It's funny how differently people speak about the Raimi films on this forum compared to when 1 and 2 were released, up until 3, where even then some defended every action. Time changed that.
I feel like this would be like Harry showing up and Norman not being mentioned and a bunch of people saying "I don't even want to hear his name we already know that" or the other way around and having Norman without Harry.
The vast majority of Spider-man comics never mentioned Uncle Ben. Even in the original Lee Ditko run outside Amazing Fantasy in the origin story, he's barely mentioned. My point is they've already shown the Uncle Ben stuff twice (one time too many IMO), there is no need to go back and do it again. I think Sony is playing it pretty close to the vest as far as allowing the use of characters from previous films. We know the whole Norman Osbourne thing in FFH was a total internet fabrication. However it was shocking to see
J.K. Simmons cameo as Jameson
so it seems there is some willingness of Sony to reuse some of these characters. We'll see if it continues with sinister six or something else. We know they want MCU spidey and Venom crossover, but I'm not sure they can do this without Marvel's approval, if it's not spelled out in the current agreement.
If they are able to use Uncle Ben, you don't just throw it in for the sake of it. It has to make sense to the story. As I said before, Tony was NEVER a replacement for Uncle Ben, this was a plot point that was raised going back to Civil War. Peter lost his mentor, and they simply could not gloss over that in the films.
The issue in the film about finding "the next Iron Man", isn't about Peter being Spider-man or not. He clearly is already established as the "friendly neighborhood" Spider-man. He is trying to decide on if he can fill a bigger role against bigger threats.
Bottom line here, there is no issue other than those that want to nit pick this issue. The MCU does not follow the comics, that much is clear. It's a cinematic interpretation. Heck even Iron Man in the comics is distinctly different than RDJ's interpretation, but it's the one that has become the most popular, for obvious reasons.
Having said that, the last two films more closely represent what I remember of the old Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. books, as far as the hero stuff, the battles. The MCU stuff is just an additional layer. FFH is by far my favorite Spider-man film of all of them, even the Raimi films which I do love. So the fact they don't mention Uncle Ben is really a side note IMHO.
This is basically how I feel about it. I'm not against the movies referencing Ben, I just don't think its necessary. As I said earlier in this thread, if you pick up a random issue of Spider-Man, there's a big chance they don't reference Ben at all.
Yep. But I guess the main reason why Peter becomes Spider-Man just simply isn't important to this franchise, and to a lot of fans I see. It's sad, but it is what it is.
I don't mind different interpretations of Spider-Man. In fact, I welcome that MCU Spidey is different. But you can't just ignore the core reason why Peter does what he does. And I don't want them to, like, focus an entire plot on Ben like many people on this thread tend to throw in with incredibly poor arguments when others bring him up, but he needs to be addressed. And not just vaguely or choosing not to name-drop him either (the only Uncle Ben mention I liked so far is that scene in Peter's bedroom in Civil War, that was executed perfectly).
To ignore his presence, is to ignore one of the main elements of Spider-Man's DNA. There's no disputing that.
Yup. And to be completely blunt, I think another reason people make excuses for not mentioning Ben is because to a lot of people who only know the characters through the MCU, they just wanted to a Spider-Man that jokes and is with other heroes. That's shallow to me, especially since theres so much more to the character than just jokes. Spider-Man being in the MCU is no excuse to just flat out ignore core aspects of the character. I care more about the core aspects being there than just seeing him joke around with Captain America and Iron Man.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
