Let me put aside how, basically until NWH, MCU Spider-Man had major writing/character problems all on his own because in citing the above stuff you are clearly making an argument from the POV of âthis adaptation doesnât suck because it is rooted in something from the comicsâ
Problem. WHICH comics? And more poignantly which comics SHOULD your adaptation be rooted in.
The fact that MCU Spider-Man idolized Tony Stark isnât a defence of MCU Spider-Man it is just demeaning of USM Spider-Man and yet more evidence of how USM is not and frankly was never a particularly great interpretation of Spider-Man.*
Let me put this as absolutely bluntly as possible.
It is innately IMPOSSIBLE to have Peter Parker look up to ANY superhero as his father figure/mentor figure and have it NOT suck as a version of Spider-Man.
This sucked when they did it in 616 too.
Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in large part CREATED Spider-Man to NOT have any type of relationship like that.Â
He was designed to be a teen hero who was his own man and independant, a subversion of the norms of teen superheroes in 1962. Shit that was literally the reason why he was called Spider-MAN in the first place. Stan wanted the character to age over time and didnât want to deal with the awkwardness of altering his codename or of him being called Spider-Boy or something when he was in his 20s.Â
Peter Parker werenât no boy. He wasnât a boy wonder. He wasnât the teen sidekick. He wasnât the kid ward. He wasnât the learning lad superhero. He was a MAN who rose and fell off the back of his own skills and hard work. He invented his OWN gadgets. He figured out his OWN fighting style. He learned what his limits were on his OWN.Â
Independence at every point of his career (exempting of course temporary team ups) is fundamental to his character.
The MCU didnât not understand that.
Bendis, who after all stuck him on the New Avengers and did nothing with him for nearly 10 years, did not understand that.
Disney animation do not understand that.
And apparently far, far, far, far, far too many fans also do not understand that.Â
To make render Spider-Man in a relationship with Steve, Tony or whoever like the one in the MCU or in the above pages is an outright insult to the vision Stan Lee and Steve Ditko implemented for the character.
And frankly, if you are going to take Bendisâ take of Spider-Man over Lee and Ditkoâs you are utterly deluded.Â
*Iâve been on record about this countless times.
The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon is everything USM the comic book should have been. A modernization that retains the fundamentals of the source material making changes only as necessary.
I.e. not turning Norman into a literal green goblin monster or Venom into a borderline tentacle hentai creature retaining MJâs 616 persona and not having Nick Fury super spy be an integral character to the ongoing narrative.
USM is arguably one of the most overrated Spider-Man series/AUs there ever was and was categorically the most overrated of the 2000s.Â
I respect it was not the original version of the character, but unlike say Spec, the 1994 cartoon, the 2018 video game the problem was it was never a particularly good take on the character either. It was Bendis AU were things were arbitrarily different for no discernable reason. It was never a legitimate take on the character and has only been treated as such over the years due to a combination of nostalgia and a reinforced narrative to the contrary. Elements of it are good and a sound thing to borrow from but it should NEVER be foundational in your interpretation of Spider-Man, especially in a media adaptation. Literally EVERY great Spider-Man adaptation has always prioritized the 616 stuff and more specifically the Lee/Ditko/Romita material that Bendis was (poorly) remaking.Â
discoholicmusic
origamiaround
snowghoul
2087
turnnoffyourmind
kaledo-art
jacobvanloon
andulkaphoto
