10 reasons why the mcu spider-man is the worst

[noob]

at this point I am probably the only one who likes the Holland movies more than Maguire's

 

[Bayne]

at this point I am probably the only one who likes the Holland movies more than Maguire's

Nope. Homecoming is easily the best SM movie for me. Far From Home disappointed a bit, but I'd still take it over everything Raimi.

 

[FlareKnight]

I hadn't thought about it too much. But I do agree with a fair number of the points here. It does feel like some things are lacking from MCU Spider-Man. I do get the idea of using Iron Man the way they did. And basically using him to replace Uncle Ben, even though presumably that whole thing did still happen originally. But it does really undermine a lot since he has all this tech thrown at him and it's hard to leverage Peter having a difficult financial situation if one of the richest people on the planet was basically acting as his father figure.

Spider-Man has had ups and downs when it comes to live action. I think all of them had their own flaws. I guess we'll see what the next movie does with the character. Could definitely be used to clear the slate a bit and introduce some elements that have been lacking.

 

[TheVileOne]

It just really bothers me that the MCU Spider-Man films have nearly erased Uncle Ben from memory. I get wanting to do things differently, but to not have any presence or narrative weight of Ben's loss is a major problem for me.

Also, Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is still the dirt worst

 

[Boom]

It just really bothers me that the MCU Spider-Man films have nearly erased Uncle Ben from memory. I get wanting to do things differently, but to not have any presence or narrative weight of Ben's loss is a major problem for me.

Also, Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is still the dirt worst

Garfield was saddled with a version of Peter Parker that wasn't exactly likable.

Captain Stacy: "Stay away from my daughter. Promise me on my deathbed."
Peter: "I promise."
Also Peter: "'Promises are made to be broken amirite, Gwen??"

 

[Another_Fool]

Tom Holland is my second favorite actor to portray Spider-man. I mean he's really good. However he's saddled with my least favorite take on Spider-Man.

I really didn't like that he was such a pandering suck up to Tony and was so eager to be an Avenger.

Second, while I don't mind that Marvel Studios wanted Peter to have a mentor, I hate that they didn't make it Steve Rogers. The Captain America/Spider-Man relationship is one my favorite things in the comics and was one of the primary reasons I wanted Spider-Man in the MCU. This was a shoo in. Instead Marvel Studios perplexingly never took advantage of it.

There are a couple other things that go on about but these are the primary things that have stuck a craw in me about the MCU take on the character.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The Holland spider movies haven’t really connected with me despite how much they have going for them.

But I will say, I do think they’re making the right choice by switching things up with Stark/Strange etc. We’ve already had 5 “normal” pre-MCU Spidey movies after all.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Garfield was saddled with a version of Peter Parker that wasn't exactly likable.

Captain Stacy: "Stay away from my daughter. Promise me on my deathbed."
Peter: "I promise."
Also Peter: "'Promises are made to be broken amirite, Gwen??"

I'll say it again...

As it should be.

Peter is who he is BECAUSE he is not some moral paragon.

Garfield had a personality and reasons to act out as a young adult that are actually in line with Comic Peter who has been a *****e canoe of epic proportions in and out of costume. Despite the popularity of the Raimi films Comic Peter is much more than a put upon sad sack that bad **** happens to. He, because of arrogance, short sightedness or just plain old bad decisions based on selfishness makes his own problems or creates his own complications.

People wanna put up Tobey as the GOAT Spidey because they grew up with it but Maguire Spidey is far too much of a cipher.

Also I ask... Was Garfield"unlikable" or did he do one or two things "unlikable" based off of character and character history that gets jumbled in the head as "the character is unlikable all the time" because, again, the previous version was a soft spoken bland door matt?

And bland door mat is just not how Spidey's personality should be in or out of costume.

 

[fan4stic]

I'll say it again...

As it should be.

Peter is who he is BECAUSE he is not some moral paragon.

Garfield had a personality and reasons to act out as a young adult that are actually in line with Comic Peter who has been a *****e canoe of epic proportions in and out of costume. Despite the popularity of the Raimi films Comic Peter is much more than a put upon sad sack that bad **** happens to. He, because of arrogance, short sightedness or just plain old bad decisions based on selfishness makes his own problems or creates his own complications.

People wanna put up Tobey as the GOAT Spidey because they grew up with it but Maguire Spidey is far too much of a cipher.

Also I ask... Was Garfield"unlikable" or did he do one or two things "unlikable" based off of character and character history that gets jumbled in the head as "the character is unlikable all the time" because, again, the previous version was a soft spoken bland door matt?

And bland door mat is just not how Spidey's personality should be in or out of costume.

There's a difference between being a flawed person, whose not a moral paragon, and being an unlikable jerk. I find him to be an unlikable jerk. I only really know animated series and movie Spider-Man, to be fair, but I don't think I should have to know comic versions to not find him unlikable. Maybe he didn't always do unlikable stuff, but I think the movie didn't show enough of him not being that way to offset it.

Raimi's Spider-Man 3 showcased the concept of Peter being arrogant, short sighted and making bad decisions based on selfishness and such. I think that movie showing that, and really emphasizing the personal consequences of it and the lesson Peter can learn from it, to me, shows that idea better than what TASM did.

Peter certainly isn't a bland doormat, as a whole, in Raimi's movies. Peter shows himself to take initiative in cases in the other movies, before SM3.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

There's a difference between being a flawed person, whose not a moral paragon, and being an unlikable jerk. I find him to be an unlikable jerk. I only really know animated series and movie Spider-Man, to be fair, but I don't think I should have to know comic versions to not find him unlikable. Maybe he didn't always do unlikable stuff, but I think the movie didn't show enough of him not being that way to offset it.

Raimi's Spider-Man 3 showcased the concept of Peter being arrogant, short sighted and making bad decisions based on selfishness and such. I think that movie showing that, and really emphasizing the personal consequences of it and the lesson Peter can learn from it, to me, shows that idea better than what TASM did.

Peter certainly isn't a bland doormat, as a whole, in Raimi's movies. Peter shows himself to take initiative in cases in the other movies, before SM3.

Yeah... You don't know the character then.

And Raimi's third film had the BS of the symbiote to hand wave Peter's personality shift so, frankly, viewers like you would be able to say to yourselves "Oh... it was that meanie black goo, not our poor put upon Peter" to absolve him of his jerkiness.

Yeah... that's Saturday morning cartoon from the 70's ****. And it's silly. And it's judgmental on characters and people in general because let's see from the first film Peter is a smart high schooler who stands up against bullies with or without powers who once he has the ability to puts himself in jeopardy. He obviously feels guilt about many things and he starts on the road to understanding his quest to end a life for the sake of vengeance.

But... None of that matters. Cuz... I don't know because the examples of Garfield being some how an irredeemable ******* one simply can't invest in as a protagonist is some silliest reasoning I've seen online from the fanboy set.


Peter Parker is, yes, supposed to be an Everyman in comparison to the Steve Rogers with his time tossed super soldier hook or Tony Stark with his ultra rich, super genius background. But Everyman doesn't mean blank page you get to project things onto with no personality. Peter has a personality in his home medium and it hasn't been sheepish student since the character was in high school and even then Lee made sure to drop all kinds of examples of Peter NOT being in the league of most heroes of his day by making him flawed... AND FUNNY. And being funny might mean the character is gonna be cruel sometimes or say something off the cuff that upon further consideration is callous.

Well... time to cancel Spidey because he's offensive, I guess?

No... That's silly. But more silly is the fanboy stereotype of needing these characters to be bland and not have CHARACTERISTICS and be the dullest "moral" upholders of the law etc. but which in practice produces stories and characters that are stuck in GI JOE/Transformers cartoon mode. Stan Lee created these characters as a way to broaden the field and make these people seem more real and he did it by making them flawed human beings. What amazes me consistently is the childish way so many online choose the barest inkling of a flaw and spin it into "that person is SO over the line" when whatever is highlighted is just, you'know, being alive combined with the need for conflict and drama.

 

[fan4stic]

Yeah... You don't know the character then.

And Raimi's third film had the BS of the symbiote to hand wave Peter's personality shift so, frankly, viewers like you would be able to say to yourselves "Oh... it was that meanie black goo, not our poor put upon Peter" to absolve him of his jerkiness.

I don't think I should have to, to not dislike a character.

That's not accurate. Peter's already being a jerk, and arrogant and selfish before he wears the symbiote in the movie. Maybe not as aggressively one as with the symbiote, but he still is one. Peter chooses to wear the suit at one point knowing what it's doing, as well.

Yeah... that's Saturday morning cartoon from the 70's ****. And it's silly. And it's judgmental on characters and people in general because let's see from the first film Peter is a smart high schooler who stands up against bullies with or without powers who once he has the ability to puts himself in jeopardy. He obviously feels guilt about many things and he starts on the road to understanding his quest to end a life for the sake of vengeance.

But... None of that matters. Cuz... I don't know because the examples of Garfield being some how an irredeemable ******* one simply can't invest in as a protagonist is some silliest reasoning I've seen online from the fanboy set.

90's cartoon.

I don't care. Superman saves lives in MOS and BvS. That doesn't mean I have to find him likable. His character actions can be heroic. It doesn't make his personality heroic. Similar to Oliver on Arrow. Yeah, he helps people at times. I don't care. I think he's unlikable jerk whose emotionally abused people and murdered people, with the show not really caring to personally acknowledge it much. However:

Peter turning a plutonium truck into busy traffic and then swinging away as it demolishes the cars, with the people in them, and gleefully wanting to break a promise to a dying man, I think aren't silly things to dislike someone for.

Peter Parker is, yes, supposed to be an Everyman in comparison to the Steve Rogers with his time tossed super soldier hook or Tony Stark with his ultra rich, super genius background. But Everyman doesn't mean blank page you get to project things onto with no personality. Peter has a personality in his home medium and it hasn't been sheepish student since the character was in high school and even then Lee made sure to drop all kinds of examples of Peter NOT being in the league of most heroes of his day by making him flawed... AND FUNNY. And being funny might mean the character is gonna be cruel sometimes or say something off the cuff that upon further consideration is callous.

Well... time to cancel Spidey because he's offensive, I guess?

No... That's silly. But more silly is the fanboy stereotype of needing these characters to be bland and not have CHARACTERISTICS and be the dullest "moral" upholders of the law etc. but which in practice produces stories and characters that are stuck in GI JOE/Transformers cartoon mode. Stan Lee created these characters as a way to broaden the field and make these people seem more real and he did it by making them flawed human beings. What amazes me consistently is the childish way so many online choose the barest inkling of a flaw and spin it into "that person is SO over the line" when whatever is highlighted is just, you'know, being alive combined with the need for conflict and drama.

Peter in the Raimi movies also had made quips. Not as many, maybe, but I'm not exactly hurting from it. Andrew's version a sarcastic guy isn't one of the reasons I dislike the character. Why bring that up? Him doing it while also doing basically nothing but that, while the criminal drives around in a plutonium truck is apart of it, and the movie and the character developing no consideration for it.

What's the bottom part about? I said there's difference between being flawed and not a moral paragon, and unlikable. I didn't say any of the bottom stuff.

 

[Herofan]

I think MCU Spider-Man is the worst because I get the sense that Holland, Watts and the writers don't like Spider-Man/Peter Parker, at least 80% of the humor is at Peter's expense.

 

[Herofan]

Garfield was saddled with a version of Peter Parker that wasn't exactly likable.

Captain Stacy: "Stay away from my daughter. Promise me on my deathbed."
Peter: "I promise."
Also Peter: "'Promises are made to be broken amirite, Gwen??"

Having him make that promise near the end, to break it a few minutes later (passage of time was definitely not emphasized effectively), was definitely a weird decision and even weirder was to follow that up with breaking them up at the beginning of the sequel. Probably influence from Twilight to want to be really moody and angsty.

I'll admit I didn't feel particularly bad at Peter for deciding to not keep it as I thought George in general and also him making Peter make that promise were really jerky.

Despite the popularity of the Raimi films Comic Peter is much more than a put upon sad sack that bad **** happens to. He, because of arrogance, short sightedness or just plain old bad decisions based on selfishness makes his own problems or creates his own complications.

Occasionally, I think very much not often pre-1999, and when he did make mistakes he did feel really bad about them. It felt like Garfield Peter Parker pretty much caused all of his own problems.

 

[Originalavenger]

I will admit at the beginning I was disappointed with Holland's casting but his spider-man grew on me especially after Infinity War like how could you not like him after that performance? Initially I thought that Andrew Garfield would have done really well along side the other the Avengers as a more equal spider-man to the other Avengers. But that didn't end up being the direction Feige and Pascal wanted to go in.

I do hope Holland sticks around for the long game. I believe Feige once referred to the Harry Potter franchise as inspiration for the MCU Spider-Man so hopefully Holland continues to grow into the role and we get that more mature standalone spider-man a lot of people want. And maybe a little less Tony Stark influence on the character. As much as we all love Tony Stark his influence on Spidey is a little overpowering. Obviously it will always be there but can we just move away from it a tiny bit? And please give us more Spidey in NYC. That was a great tease in FFH.

I've often wondered if Marvel not owning the full rights is a reason why this spider-man feels a bit disjointed for some people? Marvel didn't want to go all in on the best possible version they could offer in case they ever get the rights back down the road.

My spin to your comment would’ve been the flip side!! How much did Sony nose in on the making of the movies??!! It’s there IP to use so we’re they looking over marvels shoulder?? Just a thought