Spider-Man

[Edd Grayson]

Has anyone here read Amazing Spider-Man comics? I have read after I had seen the 2002-2007 films and some animated series, and Peter Parker was different here from those films. The animated versions were closer.

[thecolorsblend]

It's funny how if you think about it, Amazing Fantasy #15 isn't a superhero origin story. It's a standalone science-fiction tragedy about a kid whose life and family are destroyed by his own hubris and greed. Lee and Ditko expanded on the story and created what is indisputably Marvel's most enduring character... but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

[Edd Grayson]

Yes, it could've easily been a one-off story without him going on to fight costumed villains. But I still love it that they made the Amazing Spider-Man series and today he's one of my favorite superheroes. 

I thought it was pretty funny that uncle Ben never told Peter anything about responsibility as the movies and some shows insisted, it was a lesson that Spider-Man learned on his own and that was concluded by the narrator.

[thecolorsblend]

Yes, it could've easily been a one-off story without him going on to fight costumed villains. But I still love it that they made the Amazing Spider-Man series and today he's one of my favorite superheroes. 

I thought it was pretty funny that uncle Ben never told Peter anything about responsibility as the movies and some shows insisted, it was a lesson that Spider-Man learned on his own and that was concluded by the narrator.

Yup. But damned if retellings don't always show Uncle Ben saying it to Peter. It's one of those weird assumptions people make about the mythos of any character that eventually becomes ingrained dogma... even though it never existed in the first place.

As a comparison, there's the Superman/Clark/Lois love triangle. It's a fascinating story from a psychological standpoint. Two people love each other but don't have their names/aliases straight. The only weakness the love triangle has is it doesn't exist! Go back and read those old Superman comics. You can find instances of Lois loving one and dismissing the other but by and large that isn't something that was done very often.

As to the live action Spider-Man films, the Amazing Fantasy origin is pretty intricate for what it is. I don't think any of the live action origins have really captured it. In AF #15, Peter makes the unprovoked, unmotivated decision to let the thief go. There was no justification to his actions whatsoever. He did it just to be a jerk. It's as simple as that.

But in the films, he's always got a halfway excuse for his actions. In the 2002 Raimi film, the organizer stiffed him on his prize money. In the Webb film, the cashier refused to sell him the chocolate milk because he was two cents short. He was out of line but his actions were sympathetic.

In AF #15, he's a total prick. All he cares about is himself and everyone else can FOADIAF as far as he's concerned.

The revelation of the thief's true identity plays differently in the movies then. In the comic, it's a lesson in responsibility. In the films, I'd argue he would've taken different lessons from his experience. Maybe slightly different, maybe very different. But different. "With great power there must also come great responsibility" isn't necessarily the most obvious thing Peter would take away from his decisions in the live action films. "Don't take revenge, no matter how petty", "self-indulgence is dangerous", "keep your temper in check" or other values are more likely lessons he'd learn in the films, I think.

It's small potatoes, maybe, but we're all fanboys here.

[The Dark Knight]

At his core, Peter Parker is a teenager. A flawed human being - not a boy scout or a dark vigilante. He's the financially struggling kid from New York making his way through life's obstacles.

Yes, he can be arrogant, whiny and often down in the dumps. It's entirely possible he would've used his powers purely for self gain if his uncle didn't get shot. But that's what makes the character.

The spider bite, plus his uncle's fate, makes him a victim of circumstance. He strives to overcome his flaws and to learn from his mistakes. As said, in the original origin he simply lets the criminal go. And ever since, he's lived with that guilt. He's trying to make up for it.

He learned to think of others instead of his own small circle, even though he's under appreciated by the city at large. The powers are cool, along with the villains. But I think this interesting balance has managed to keep people hooked on the character all this time. It's relatable.

[Edd Grayson]

In the comics Parker acted like a real teenager, and that doesn't make him less sympathetic for me. That is, I don't understand why they felt they had to make him more meek in the movie and made him let the burglar go because he was cheated out of money by the manager.

I don't think the character is radically different, but the 2002-2007 films showed us a lot of the science geek aspect while the comics showed us the science geek as well the snarky and sometimes overconfident teenage hero. I prefer the original character.

I think it makes a lot more sense and makes the character feel really matured in the comics that Spider-Man accepted having a great responsibility without it being spelled out earlier by his uncle for him. I was a little annoyed even in the cartoon when he used to say every few episodes "My uncle Ben, he always used to tell me..."

[Edd Grayson]

This issue has always been one of my favorites. And I feel the 90's show actually expanded it nicely on the Jameson-Spider-Man angle.

[Dagenspear]

Yup. But damned if retellings don't always show Uncle Ben saying it to Peter. It's one of those weird assumptions people make about the mythos of any character that eventually becomes ingrained dogma... even though it never existed in the first place.

I think it was retconned in the comics that Ben said that at some point.

As to the live action Spider-Man films, the Amazing Fantasy origin is pretty intricate for what it is. I don't think any of the live action origins have really captured it. In AF #15, Peter makes the unprovoked, unmotivated decision to let the thief go. There was no justification to his actions whatsoever. He did it just to be a jerk. It's as simple as that.

There wasn't a justification in the Raimi movies. That's the point. Peter isn't justified in shirking responsibility because someone did something wrong to him. In the audio commentary Sam Raimi refers to it, I think, as "you can really see the hubris building in him. He really thinks he's justified. But he's wrong" or something to that effect. It's interesting because Sam Raimi is pretty hard on Peter. In the Spider-Man 3 commentary he refers to Peter as being in the wrong in his reaction to the Sandman situation, having an ego and how the original idea before Venom came into the equation Peter was intended to be falling to the sin of pride.

But in the films, he's always got a halfway excuse for his actions. In the 2002 Raimi film, the organizer stiffed him on his prize money. In the Webb film, the cashier refused to sell him the chocolate milk because he was two cents short. He was out of line but his actions were sympathetic.

They weren't sympathetic in the Raimi movie really. In TASM they weren't really dealt with.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[Edd Grayson]

It was retconned, but it's interesting to note the difference from the original comic. And both films that dealt with the origin didn't do it like it was in Amazing Fantasy #15.

[thecolorsblend]

I think it was retconned in the comics that Ben said that at some point.

Indeed... but it is a retcon. He never said that in AF #15... which was my point.

There wasn't a justification in the Raimi movies.

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.

"you can really see the hubris building in him. He really thinks he's justified. But he's wrong" or something to that effect.

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.

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.

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.