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.
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11035738_714250722040002_4808603917201336347_n.jpg?oh=0047bbb4d6bc37267be40600d5fd2cbd&oe=567FD175)
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.
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.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Sep 2015, 20:29Yes, 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.
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.
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..."
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.
(https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10686739_581262395338836_3876249312252671629_n.jpg?oh=c72df4d50ac29a166939713c925cc6f9&oe=56AB47D4)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 6 Sep 2015, 04:34Yup. 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.
QuoteAs 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.
QuoteBut 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!
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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 11:59I think it was retconned in the comics that Ben said that at some point.QuoteIndeed... but it is a retcon. He never said that in AF #15... which was my point.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 11:59There 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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 11:59"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.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 31 Jan 2016, 06:46Yes 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.
QuoteI'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.
QuoteRather 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.
QuoteTwo 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!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 19:02It'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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 19:02He 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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 19:02It 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.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 22:38Exactly 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!
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.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 10 Feb 2016, 00:58You 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!
Bottom line, Peter Parker is a teenager. A human being. He's not perfect and that's the point. He's always learning.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Feb 2016, 05:58
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."
Maybe like having Robin as the main hero, if Batman didn't exist.
Yes, something like that.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wmt4OrA9Q
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 3 Apr 2020, 16:29
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wmt4OrA9Q
The thing about Spider-Man that works for me is that he's basically a lower class kid trying to make good. Sometimes the whole world is against him. Either his moral clarity is 100% pure or else he really is
that determined to make thing up to Uncle Been. Either way, the guy's unstoppable. He never gives up, even when giving up seems like the only sane thing to do.
Also, by all rights, the guy really should be a villain. His origin story? That's not how 99% of heroes begin. And that says a lot about Peter, as far as I'm concerned.
Finally, there's the cathartic Revenge Of The Nerds thing, which is sort of passé now. But it is true that a nerdy kid like Peter in high school back in the sixties would probably grow up to become very well to do. The sky is the limit, really. Tech? Pharma? The NSA? Peter would've had a lot of options to choose from starting in the seventies. I suspect his potential and his drive would eventually allow him to rival Tony Stark.
I like the low key nature of Spider-Man and indeed Batman. They're underpowered in comparison to their counterparts in the Avengers and the Justice League, but they're the most real. Thinking and acting locally is where noticeable and meaningful change can be made. Are walking cheat codes like Thor really going to be interested in carjackings and bank robberies? That's below their pay grade.
Weapons dealing, drugs and turf wars have a grit level that excites me in ways intergalactic matters don't. Nothing annoys me more than street crime. There's something primal about people looking at the world around them, deciding enough is enough, and then taking on the challenge. I believe a lot of Spider-Man and Batman's popularity is tied to that added sense of struggle and satisfaction.
Several years ago, I read Spider-Man vs Wolverine, which was published in the late Eighties, and the What If? sequel. Neither of these were the most memorable comics I've ever read, but it was definitely trying to do something daring with Spider-Man.
From what I can remember, a secret spy (and Wolverine's love interest) called Charlemagne was wanted by the KGB for killing undercover Russian spies, which included slaying those who were living in Manhattan. That's how Peter got entangled in this mess with Wolverine and Charlemagne. The only distinctive memory I still have in the climax Spidey and Wolverine are in the middle of gunfire from the Russians, and Charlemagne decides the only way to end the chaos is to commit suicide - by scaring Spider-Man from behind and tricking him into throwing a lethal punch.
(https://chasemagnett.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/spider-man-kills-charlie.jpg)
Now I should add context that before the spies had ambushed them, Spider-Man was already on the edge after he had a brief fight with Wolverine, because he tried to stop Logan from killing Charlie as a way to help her commit suicide. Spider-Man, for the first time ever, knew deep down he was put in a position where he would have to kill, but was no match for Logan's strength and was further intimidated by Logan's brutality and cold-blooded threats. Peter Parker certainly made mistakes throughout his life, but this scene really outlines the first time his panic and moral principles are truly tested.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/348a58e2fe80fe5907d8ce21a83abc74/tumblr_o1boqbH5Dh1t172jho3_r1_540.jpg)
At the end of the day, the hunt for Charlie was over and Peter and Logan go their separate ways scarred from the experience. IIRC, even Ned Leeds was killed by the spies, but Peter still returns home while coming to terms with what he had inadvertently done.
This brings me to the What If? Spider-Man vs Wolverine comic, which was published a few decades later. As it implies in the title, it's set in the alternative where Peter didn't go back to America.
All I could remember in this comic was the simple premise that Spider-Man stayed in Europe to help Logan track down Charlie's sister, who was a SHIELD agent wanted by the Russians, and who happens to have a strong resemblance to Gwen Stacy. Not really sure what they were going with here other than to connect a subconscious layer of guilt in Peter's psyche. That Peter can't go back home to the innocent life as the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man in Manhattan because of his guilt, while he has a chance to start a new life where he becomes more volatile with another woman who happens to resemble his first love he couldn't save? Looking back, it's a bizarre choice.
The biggest turning point for Peter's state of mind was when he outright kills without a flinch.
(https://i.imgur.com/GlBzZeO.jpg)
Are they the best Spider-Man comics out there? Probably not. But I can't fault them for experimenting with the character, and it reminds me it's fun to read alternative "what if" scenarios when a pivotal moment changes a character's state of mind.