Spider-Man

[Dagenspear]

Yes there was. The promoter screwed him out of the prize money. Peter then instantly refused to stop the thief. It's dramatic payback for what the promoter had done just seconds before. It's easy to sympathize with Peter in that moment. "Yeah, that promoter got what was coming to him!" The promoter wronged Peter so Peter wronged him back.

On page 8 of AF #15, the cop said it all. Spider-Man could've just tripped the thief to stop him from escaping. There was no personal grudge between Peter and the cop. But Peter didn't lift a finger to help because "that's not my job". It was uncalled for and totally a jerk thing to do.

It's easy to think that, but we'd all be wrong. It was far worse than what Peter did AF #15, because it wasn't just an action of self-involvement. He allowed a dangerous criminal to get away because he wanted revenge.

I'm too lazy to dig the commentary out but if Raimi really said that, he's not paying attention to his own movie. The promoter screwed Peter over so Peter screwed him over right back just a few seconds later. Was Peter acting like a moral, virtuous hero? No. But I think a lot of people sympathize with his inaction.

And I did. But I was wrong. Peter's action was more evil than selfish, like in the comics. It was a purposeful, vindictive action he made with malice of forethought. The only sympathy comes from us thinking we might do the same thing, but we'd all equally be just as much in the wrong too. I did get his words wrong there. Raimi's actual words were:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

Rather than show Peter as a total jerk like the comic book did, Raimi gave him that small sliver of sympathy which changes the character arc a bit. Rather than Peter paying the price for his hubris (as he did in AF #15), you could say he that the clearer, more obvious lesson he learns is that two wrongs don't make a right... and can even have unintended consequences.

As I showed in my quote, Raimi didn't give Peter any sympathy, at least he didn't view it that way. If anything he made Peter look far worse, because his action wasn't about self-involvement, it was an action he made with complete malice of forethought to let a dangerous criminal get away because he didn't like the guy he robbed. It was an utterly far more selfish action and one we'd all be in the wrong for making.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't misunderstand, that's an interesting moral lesson for Peter to learn in the film... but it's still different from "With great power, there must also come great responsibility", which is the moral lesson he learned in AF #15.

It isn't different, because Peter's action is still about responsibility. He rejects the responsibility in favor of his own selfish desire for revenge.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

It's easy to think that, but we'd all be wrong. It was far worse than what Peter did AF #15, because it wasn't just an action of self-involvement. He allowed a dangerous criminal to get away because he wanted revenge.

Exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. In AF #15, Peter did what he did from smug self-absorption. In the movie, it was an act of petty revenge predicated on the promoter screwing Peter out of his prize winnings. The audience subconsciously sympathizes with his decision even if they may not completely agree with it.

He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

You're proving my point for me. In AF #15, Peter was motivated by selfishness. You and Raimi both seem to agree that his movie counterpart wanted to stick it to the promoter because the promoter stuck it to him first. Again, different motivations are in play. That's not good and that's not bad; it's simply true.

It isn't different, because Peter's action is still about responsibility. He rejects the responsibility in favor of his own selfish desire for revenge.

The very least you can say is that the movie complicates what was inherently simple in the comic. In AF #15, Peter didn't lift a finger to help because "that's not my job". He was a douchebag. It was totally uncalled for especially since he'd been dealt with fairly and honestly as far as the narrative suggests.

In the movie, he'd just gotten screwed out of money and mistreated by the promoter and so as an act of petty vengeance he let the thief escape with the money. He was mildly sympathetic in his decision because he had NOT been dealt with fairly and honestly as the narrative had established just a few seconds earlier.

Your moral quibble seems to be Peter taking petty revenge. And I agree, it is not laudable... but it is sympathetic. Understandable though it cannot be condoned. This complication is specific to the movie and utterly absent from AF #15.

[Dagenspear]

Exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. In AF #15, Peter did what he did from smug self-absorption. In the movie, it was an act of petty revenge predicated on the promoter screwing Peter out of his prize winnings. The audience subconsciously sympathizes with his decision even if they may not completely agree with it.

You're proving my point for me. In AF #15, Peter was motivated by selfishness. You and Raimi both seem to agree that his movie counterpart wanted to stick it to the promoter because the promoter stuck it to him first. Again, different motivations are in play. That's not good and that's not bad; it's simply true.

The very least you can say is that the movie complicates what was inherently simple in the comic. In AF #15, Peter didn't lift a finger to help because "that's not my job". He was a douchebag. It was totally uncalled for especially since he'd been dealt with fairly and honestly as far as the narrative suggests.

In the movie, he'd just gotten screwed out of money and mistreated by the promoter and so as an act of petty vengeance he let the thief escape with the money. He was mildly sympathetic in his decision because he had NOT been dealt with fairly and honestly as the narrative had established just a few seconds earlier.

Your moral quibble seems to be Peter taking petty revenge. And I agree, it is not laudable... but it is sympathetic. Understandable though it cannot be condoned. This complication is specific to the movie and utterly absent from AF #15.

It's not sympathetic at all. It's a vicious, vengeful, evil action. One made specifically to hurt another person, not because he was self-involved. That's far less sympathetic than what happened in AF #15. It's a dark and twisted action. Whether or not the audience subconsciously sympathizes with him, his action is still worse. It's a vindictive action, instead of a careless one. It's made for far more selfish reasons. We would sympathize, because we, humans, are vindictive mean people, devoid of a desire for anything beyond our own selfish fleeting pleasures. That's what makes it worse. Peter took pleasure in letting that dangerous criminal get away because it hurt someone who hurt him. Not because he was self-involved. He took pleasure in it even though it could cause someone else to be hurt. That's worse.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[riddler]

You guys debating the validity to Peter's actions or inaction is the whole point; being a super hero is not supposed to be a glamorous job for Spider-man; it's filled with dillemmas and moral questions and "damned either way situations. The choices of 'the right thing' are not always obvious and decisions have consequences. Super heroes are vigilantes so the law doesn't apply to them, essentially they make their own justice which has a grey area.

The wrestling promoter essentially stole from Peter; Peter survived his encounter with the wrestler in 3 minutes and should have gotten his full reward money. So in essence justice was done to the scammer; he stole from Peter and the thief stole from him. Unfortunately justice was not done to society; a criminal went free and committed another crime which was a negative impact to Peter. That being said had peter stopped him, the wrestling scammer learns nothing and suffers no consequences likely going on to scam more people going forward.

[Dagenspear]

You guys debating the validity to Peter's actions or inaction is the whole point; being a super hero is not supposed to be a glamorous job for Spider-man; it's filled with dillemmas and moral questions and "damned either way situations. The choices of 'the right thing' are not always obvious and decisions have consequences. Super heroes are vigilantes so the law doesn't apply to them, essentially they make their own justice which has a grey area.

The wrestling promoter essentially stole from Peter; Peter survived his encounter with the wrestler in 3 minutes and should have gotten his full reward money. So in essence justice was done to the scammer; he stole from Peter and the thief stole from him. Unfortunately justice was not done to society; a criminal went free and committed another crime which was a negative impact to Peter. That being said had peter stopped him, the wrestling scammer learns nothing and suffers no consequences likely going on to scam more people going forward.

We have no way of knowing if that guy learned something. But Peter didn't do that for a lesson. He did it for revenge. He did it for his own selfish pleasure to get back at him. It was for himself.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Dark Knight]

Bottom line, Peter Parker is a teenager. A human being. He's not perfect and that's the point. He's always learning.

[Edd Grayson]

Bottom line, Peter Parker is a teenager. A human being. He's not perfect and that's the point. He's always learning.

And that's what made Spider-Man stand out. He was a hero who was also a teenager and he also didn't get much in return for his heroism.

As they said in the 60's show: "Wealth and fame? He's ignored. Action is his reward."

[The Dark Knight]

Maybe like having Robin as the main hero, if Batman didn't exist.

[Edd Grayson]

Yes, something like that.

[The Dark Knight]

With prolonged isolation at home I'm feeling chilled out and at peace. As such I've been diving back into Spider-Man to the point I haven't been interested in anything much else comic related lately.

I've been pondering again why I enjoy Spider-Man. Apart from what I posted here from years back about relatability (which is a big one), I like how he's super powered but completely susceptible to getting his ass kicked. He has gadgets like Batman and Bond, but has a completely different set of circumstances and viewpoints compared to those types. That counterpoint is fun to explore and embrace. I can very easily be dark and mean or silly and lighthearted. The latter is where my head is right now.

By the way, 'Feels So Good' by The Sonic Hijackers would be perfect for a musical montage. I'll be keeping this on loop while I'm baking bread and cooking beef stir fry in any case.