Far From Home MCU Spider-Man is very, very inaccurate

[Infinity9999x]

I think personality traits don't matter, because just having those makes the character interchangeable, so I think you saying she has none of the traits of the character isn't true. But I think she does have the personality, but with certain aspects more focused on than others.

I enjoyed BF and B&R. The world of Burton maybe, but that world was reset with Schumacher's. I don't think there was a personality change. Burton's had an over the top vibe, moreso BR, to me. I think Schumacher's continues that.

I think the characterization is there, with the personality traits, but with different aspects focused on. It's not about falling in love with the character to me. I've never even particularly liked any version of MJ. But that doesn't mean that I think Raimi didn't do the character. The characterization, personality traits and backstory are there, to me. I think the character wasn't written poorly. MJ had a character in the trilogy, so she was developed to me. I think she had more character development in SM1, than May, Ned, Michelle, Flash and Liz in HC altogether.

I mean, if you think personality traits don’t matter, I don’t know what to tell you. Without personality, there is no character. You’re essentially saying as long as the backstory is there, the character can act however they please, and I think you’ll find most people wouldn’t agree with you. If Spider-Man has the Uncle Ben backstory, but brutally kills all his criminals and acts like a hardened war vet, that’s fine, because personality doesn’t matter?

If that works for you, cool. That just won’t ever work for me.

 

[ragingdemon155]

The general consensus from fans is Maguire was a great Peter Parker while Andrew Garfield was a good Spider-Man.

Holland is becoming my favourite version of PP/Spider-Man and I'm actually excited to see him grow as the character. I just hope that he relies less and less on Stark's techs.

I swear you are literally stealing the words out my mouth,lol. That’s exactly how I feel.

Tobey is the best Peter, Andrew was the best Spider-Man but Holland to me mixes and blends both the best.

They did a great job casting someone young and hopefully we do get to see him age with the character. As far as tech goes thankfully he used much less of it in Far from Home so I’m hoping that trend continues.

 

[Another_Fool]

To me it just came off a little try hard but each to their own.

I think that's fair either way but may I submit this one thing for why it may feel try hard and let me know what you think?

For me I initially thought it felt forced too but I think one time I watched some of the scenes in isolation (YouTube clips) where Garfield quips and it felt better. I was trying to put my finger on why that was so then it hit me. The ASM movies suffer from exteme tonal shifts. In ASM1 we're being sold in the first hour a more serious/broody take on Spider-Mans origin and then by the time we get to Spider-Man quipping they're trying to make him funny in a movie that had not too much humor up to that point. It's pretty jarring and the scene specifically feels forced rather than the performance. Its like the Spidey scenes are in a bit of a different movie.

ASM2 is a little more fun (though much worse movie) so it feels a little better, however they're doing those tonal shifts again throughout the movie and again it feels like the Spidey and romance scenes are in a different film from the dour mopey scenes about Peter searching out the secret of his parents.

The material and lines also aren't great (c'mon it was Orci and Kurtzman of Bay-Transformers infamy who wrote that dialogue) but I thought Garfield did his damndest to elevate it.

 

[fan4stic]

I mean, if you think personality traits don’t matter, I don’t know what to tell you. Without personality, there is no character. You’re essentially saying as long as the backstory is there, the character can act however they please, and I think you’ll find most people wouldn’t agree with you. If Spider-Man has the Uncle Ben backstory, but brutally kills all his criminals and acts like a hardened war vet, that’s fine, because personality doesn’t matter?

If that works for you, cool. That just won’t ever work for me.

The gap between comic MJ and Raimi MJ isn't as wide as comic Peter and a Peter who does that. I think it's fairly close. I think Raimi does have the comic versions personality traits and characterization mainly, though with different things focused on. My argument is that Raimi MJ has the character arc and backstory of the character, so I don't think the character has to have the exact personality traits of the comic one. What you're suggesting is if Raimi MJ was like a prostitute or porn person or something like that and did drugs or something like that. She wasn't. Raimi's MJ more had more focus on her insecurities, which in story was connected to her homelife. I think that's a less drastic departure for the character than some of the things the MCU has done with some characters, even some Spider-Man characters.

 

[DyeLorean]

About the original post. I agree with a lot of the points. It is mostly true. However, we already had not one, but TWO iterations of Spider-Man/Peter Parker. Both with pro and cons, sure, but we've already seen a lot of that.

The MCU Spidey, however, does something that the other ones couldn't: Spider-Man belongs to the Marvel universe now. There are different stories to be told now, he is integrated into a bigger narrative with different characters. Granted, I would be furious if this happened back in 2002 and I was like "but wait, where's Uncle Ben?". But we've seen that. Twice now. They might be saving that part for a future movie, who knows. But the things they're doing now is just a lot more interesting. Even with a few flaws here and there, they still (mostly) nail the character and specially the villains. Doc Ock is still up there, but Vulture and Mysterio are also top notch.

 

[Web-Head]

While I really enjoyed SMFFH, I do feel alot of the zingers and jokes fell really flat as opposed to SMHC which had alot of great lines and gags. To be fair , alot of that seemed to be in the first act which seems to be getting most of the criticism.

I noticed that they went with different writers this time around which may account for the dialog not being as funny and edgy as SMHC was.

The humor didn't work for me in FFH either, except for the "kinda rides up the ol' webshooter" bit. That was great.

I don't think Maguire, Garfield and Holland really nailed the quippy side of Spider-Man which is a shame as they all brought something interesting to the character.

See... I think Garfield did it. From the moment he put on the costume his Spidey cracked wise, often at the expense of those he was up against, which is part of Spidey. With the mask on Peter can say ALL the things he wants to, even mean spirited things. In that aspect being Spidey works as a release vavle for him.

I still think Garfield is the best Spider-Man (not Peter Parker). His delivery is just so funny and he really gets across his emotions in costume with the mask still on.

I think Holland is easily the best Peter Parker, though. Just my opinion, I know a lot of people that feel Holland is the best Spider-Man in and out of costume.

Agreed. Garfield is still my favorite Spider-Man and I do like a lot of his Peter in TASM2. I blame a lot of it on the writing, but a lot of his quips were coessential Spidey.

"Uh-oh. Somebody's been a bad lizard"
"A god named Sparkles?"
"I'm glad you're not one of those cops who rides a horse"

Overall, I might like Tom's Peter a little bit more than Andrew's, but a lot of the Iron Man stuff about him really bugs me.

 

[Donner]

I want more Peter Parker and less Tony.

 

[WhoMani]

Well at least the character doesn't feel like a sidekick in his own movie which I felt was the case in Homecoming.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't need it to be accurate I need it to be good.

Indeed. People need to remember that "different" doesn't automatically mean "worse", anymore than it automatically means "better". Wholesale disregard for the source material is never a good thing, but neither is a fetishistic obeisance whereby the source material is a perfect icon which can only be respected by exacting reproduction. A movie adaptation is, and will always be, an *adaptation*, a new addition to the character canon. An understanding and respect for the source material, that seeks to find the core aspects that define the mythos and make it interesting and meaningful, and apply those to creating a story, while *also* looking for those aspects that are unimportant or counterproductive to the work of adaptation and thus can be changed or discarded, is the key to success. Know what to keep, what to change, and what to cut. After all, even if the source is perfect ( and it *never* is ), its still a different medium with different virtues and constraints.

Or, Batman vs Superman wasn't bad because it was different than the comics. It also wasn't bad because it was trying to be the same as the comics. It was bad, *because it was bad*, or more precisely, because it had a poor understanding of the characters and how to tell a story, and thus was unable to tell a functional story either when it changed things or when it kept things the same. The same applies to any movie.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

Before MCU Spider-Man we basically got the same movie 5 times in a row. I'm fine with MCU Spidey being more closely tied to Stark and the rest of the MCU and not having the same level of inner turmoil that he has in the previous movies.

 

[metaphysician]

The problem is though is this is the third version of Spider-Man we have seen in short order and this version needs to be different from the previous ones, the Amazing Spider-Man movies were criticized for being too similar to the Raimi films. So I don't mind that this take on Spider-Man is different, I think being interesting and honoring the spirit of a work is more important than trying to adapt something to the letter.

Really Marvel and DC comic characters have been around for so long and been subject to so many retcons, that you have to change something when adapting these characters.

Okay, I do think its worth noting that. . . yes, people did criticize the TASM movies for being too similar to the Raimi movies. However, this doesn't mean that their flaw actually *was* "being too similar". "Similarity to a prior, good, movie" is a nice easy tangible detail to lock onto if you, the viewer, feel that there is something wrong or off or unappealing about a movie, but can't clearly define what is causing the movie to be wrong or off or unappealing. So, when J Random Movie Viewer says "it was too similar to the old movie", they very likely mean "the characters and story were poorly executed, in ways that I can easily see but don't have the proper tools to describe".

 

[The Overlord]

Okay, I do think its worth noting that. . . yes, people did criticize the TASM movies for being too similar to the Raimi movies. However, this doesn't mean that their flaw actually *was* "being too similar". "Similarity to a prior, good, movie" is a nice easy tangible detail to lock onto if you, the viewer, feel that there is something wrong or off or unappealing about a movie, but can't clearly define what is causing the movie to be wrong or off or unappealing. So, when J Random Movie Viewer says "it was too similar to the old movie", they very likely mean "the characters and story were poorly executed, in ways that I can easily see but don't have the proper tools to describe".

I think a problem with some of the Amazing Spider-Man films is they cover the same ground as the Raimi films.

Amazing Spider-Man tackled the origin story, despite seeing it 10 years ago in the first Raimi film, that origin took up most of the first act and part of the second in that 2012 and I think that was a waste of time and made the film seems disjointed, because this stuff does not pay off when got to the Lizard story. Heck, Peter does not catch his uncle's killer in that movie, so it makes that search Spidey does to find the killer seem pointless because it is dropped in favor of the Lizard plot, there is no pay off with it, so it seems worse than the origin from 2002.

MCU Spidey has not covered the same ground as the other film series did.

 

[metaphysician]

I think a problem with some of the Amazing Spider-Man films is they cover the same ground as the Raimi films.

Amazing Spider-Man tackled the origin story, despite seeing it 10 years ago in the first Raimi film, that origin took up most of the first act and part of the second in that 2012 and I think that was a waste of time and made the film seems disjointed, because this stuff does not pay off when got to the Lizard story. Heck, Peter does not catch his uncle's killer in that movie, so it makes that search Spidey does to find the killer seem pointless because it is dropped in favor of the Lizard plot, there is no pay off with it, so it seems worse than the origin from 2002.

MCU Spidey has not covered the same ground as the other film series did.

I find it ironic that you quote my post, and basically provide a case study in exactly what my post proposed. You claim TASM's problem is covering the same ground as before, and then provide a fairly extensive description of how the problems in TASM have *nothing to do with that*. Covering the same origin as the Raimi movie did not cause the movie's "hunt the killer" subplot to fizzle off into nothing, nor did it force the creation of a disjointed Lizard plotline. Its that randomness, where poorly designed pieces don't actually fit together into a thematic whole, that makes TASM a bad movie. . . but its a lot easier to say "its the same origin done again".

 

[The Overlord]

I find it ironic that you quote my post, and basically provide a case study in exactly what my post proposed. You claim TASM's problem is covering the same ground as before, and then provide a fairly extensive description of how the problems in TASM have *nothing to do with that*. Covering the same origin as the Raimi movie did not cause the movie's "hunt the killer" subplot to fizzle off into nothing, nor did it force the creation of a disjointed Lizard plotline. Its that randomness, where poorly designed pieces don't actually fit together into a thematic whole, that makes TASM a bad movie. . . but its a lot easier to say "its the same origin done again".

But these are not mutually exclusive things, I could have problems with the Amazing Spider-Man covering the same ground as the previous films and for having narrative problems, heck I would argue covering origin again wastes time that could have been spent on the Lizard story.

But let's focus on the actual topic of the thread if the MCU Spider-Man are ''faithful adaptions or not'' and whether being faithful to the letter would make these movies better or not. What is ''being faithful to the source material'' mean when we are on the second reboot of the character? What does being ''faithful to the source material'' mean in a comic book medium dominated by retcons and inconsistent storytelling, that has gone on for over 50 years ago? Would the MCU Spider-Man have been better if it covered the origin story again or is it better for not covering it this time?

 

[Frodo]

Garfield's spiderman was the best when it comes to wisecracking even more so in amazing spiderman 2 but than people complained he was a jerk. Its something that worried me and still does has when we got a good spiderman people all of a sudden said he was a jerk I dont get it.

Well , I think alot of different subjective things played into the response to Garfield's Peter in general.

Basically, Garfield was very much in the same position that Kilmer was after Keaton, Dalton was after Moore, Affleck was after Bale.

He was the next guy after a beloved and popular actor in the role, and the audience , arguably, may not have been ready to accept a new actor in the part just yet. The scripts certainly didn't do him any favors.

It tends to be tougher for the guy who immediately follows the popular and beloved actor then an actor who's had some distance from than popular actor. I don't think that's the only reason why Garfield faced resistance during his tenure , but one of them.

 

[spider-neil]

You are going to get less of the 'sidekick' aspect going forwards. Tony isn't there anymore and FFH is about Spider-Man learning to do it on his own.

 

[Gothamsknight]

You are going to get less of the 'sidekick' aspect going forwards. Tony isn't there anymore and FFH is about Spider-Man learning to do it on his own.

Even so, blasting "back in black' as Peter creates his new suit made me cringe a little. The implication is there and it doesn't make me hopeful

 

[DoomRulz]

I like that Holland is the perfect blend of Spidey and Peter which is something that Maguire and Garfield lacked. That said, I think I prefer the first and second Raimi films to the MCU Spider-Man. It's not that I think this iteration is terrible, but rather, like OP said, he's too...tech-y. I prefer just a nerdy kid doing what he can with very little. That's not who Holland's Spider-Man is.

 

[ironman29758]

Gail Simone, who loved Far From Home had some valid points about Peter in MCU, particularly FH personality. For those interested. Here's Gail Simone's views on the film from twitter summarized here:

What happened to Spider-man the smartass?

...The reason Spider-man works in the comics is because he is the loner, the underdog. Everyone thinks he's a doormat. He's bullied at school, he's bulled in his job, he's bullied in the spidey suit...So when he fights back, when he gets the better of people who are stronger and richer and meaner, WE ****ING LOVE HIM because that's a world we'd all like to live in...


But THIS Spider-man doesn't tell jokes, doesn't mock the powerful, he is in awe of them, he only wants to please them and be friends with them and avoid disappointment from them...And weirdest of all, they made Spider-man EVERYONE's straight man. Nick Fury, MJ, his fellow students, the villains, Happy, even his aunt, EVERYONE makes fun of him and his response is puppy eyes...It's odd.


I think they've created a very credible Spider-man, we care about him and he's likeable. But it's a very, very different take...

When comic book Spidey says he's the "friendly neighborhood Spider-man," he's being ironic, he's being flippant and funny. In this one, they try to make it an actual mission statement without a hint of irony. It comes up several times...

Okay, that was my big thing. A Spider-man who doesn't tell jokes is always going to feel a little bit wrong to me. There are a couple other things...It makes me sad, as a Spidey fan, that they've made this an Iron Man spin-off.

When Spidey takes off his sparkly spider armor and wears a much less tech-y version, I was DELIGHTED. The moment didn't last.

But I still like the Spidey who invented his OWN gear...

And finally, this makes me feel bad to say, but I thought most of the kids didn't work. Most of the kid VIBE felt off, too. I don't get this version of Flash. He COULD bully Peter with his internet presence, but he's never actually effective, so Peter is never the underdog...I felt the kids were being mocked so consistently, not by Peter, but by the filmmakers, it was a bit off-putting. "Ha, look at how silly these teens are these days," is a weird take in a Spider-man movie...

And that feeling kind of permeates the movie...for one thing, ALL the showcase soundtrack songs are from decades before Peter was even BORN...You're making a movie about the youngest big icon hero, and you use ACDC, the Go-Gos, and the Ramones for the key emotional moments? How does that have anything to do with a kid today?..."I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" was released 27 years before Peter was even BORN. I love the Ramones, I know a lot of kids do, too. But...wouldn't they be listening to something from this century?...

It's weird that in a movie about youth and young love and making youthful mistakes, I wanted more Happy and May than Ned and Betty. Also, there's a plot with the kids that goes nowhere, and it's weird...BUT. These really are mostly minor things. I love the movie, I had a great time, it's certainly the most explosive Spidey film, the cast is great, go see it, you'll have a blast.

https://***********/GailSimone/statu...30628260175872

Honestly, she had some points on this take of Spider-Man:

-compared to when they first came out, I can admit Webb take on Spider-Man has a lot of flaws that could have been fixed. But one thing I will defend and like was Andrew's take on Peter in the first ASM film. He felt like. I know people complaint he was too flippant or arrogant and hipster, but honestly rereading the 616 and Ultimate Spidey (punched Nick Fury so hard his eyepatch fell off but can be cordial and work with him, had several arguments with Aunt May but they patched up and still had a loving and stable relationship, asked Tony if he actually knew what he was doing when Tony was trying to mentor Peter and not afraid to call Tony out even though Ultimate Peter looked up to Tony for his scientific brilliance in several issues as well) and even looking at the cartoons, Peter was hot to temper and arrogant even after Peter's uncle died. That doesn't mean, he didn't learned from his mistakes and admit when he was wrong but he felt like a realistic teenager (Peter's argument with Captain Stacy I felt showed that Peter can admit he was wrong and it forced him to step up to be a hero, same with Peter's argument when he was sneaking in late, it was Peter just begging her to go to sleep and not worry about him but fans just made the argument overblown). I felt like MCU Spidey went to far in the opposite direction. A nice medium could have been found between the two.

I get this is a Peter who grew up in the MCU and seeing Iron Man and the Avengers being established heroes (and apparently being the kid in IM2 who Tony saves) as opposed to Peter in the comics who first became Spidey when Iron Man, Hulk, and everyone was starting off too, but what makes Spidey stands out is this is a kid who had loss his parents, his uncle and was a kid who got powers at random and deflects his emotions of fear and loneliness with humor to the point where he grows from being an introverted loner to being more confident and ease in his Peter Parker identity and thus making friends and earning the respect of his peers as time goes on and I think the MCU doesn't really capture that part as well.

As for Spidey using Stark tech. I don't necessarily have a problem with Spider-Man at first being provided Stark tech and just going from there. One big complaint I remember people having with Raimi and Webb films was that the costume were just unrealistic to be made by a Lower Middle Class High School teenager which MCU solved by having it come from Tony (Not to mention in the Ultimate comics, Tony upgraded Peter web shooters in Ultimate Spider-Man#151 and when Peter worked for Tony in the Civil War era which matches with Spidey first appearing in the Civil War film, Tony gifted him the Iron Spider outfit, so it's not without precedence). Peter creating Spider-Man outfit and gear works when it's an adult Peter with resources and technology to create said gear( PS4 Spidey working for Doc Ock or 616 Spidey working for Horizon or TriCorp). I think having the initial costume coming from Tony works but just have Spidey build from their and be his own hero from this point on.

Same with Vulture and Mysterio being connected to IM at first and Spidey was just a bystander in the cross for the hatred(Moreso with Myserio than Vulture who was more interested in selling black arms to provide for his family than getting revenge on Stark), yeah the initial start was hatred for Tony but eventually, it was Spidey who . I came up under 90 Spider-Man TAS, Ultimate Spider-Man comics and the Spectacular cartoon finding a way to streamline everything and showing how everything is connected. "Green Goblin was trying to recreate Spider-Man but also was trying to be the next Captain America! That makes sense!" Greg Weisman pointed it out in an interview about SSM: "The Marvel Universe was basically built on the fly. Since we’re starting this cartoon from scratch, we have the luxury of building a more cohesive universe from day one because we know where we’re going to go with these characters and who’s going to come later." This is a Spider-Man who is being built into the corner of the MCU, as opposed to Iron Man or Hulk or Captain America who didn't have to worry about that.

Plus i like how they are more "street level" average joe blue collar workers/employees, it adds to the MCU Spidey charm to me.

I think MCU Spidey, Andrew Garfield and Tobey are as much faithful to elements of the original character as easily as they deviate from the comics Spidey and that's why I enjoy watching them, but I can see why their complaints about each of them . But at the end of the day, they are just different adaptions of the same character (who has 60+ years of different interpretations and ideas of his characters in the comics as well).

 

[Abudefduf]

This has got to be the most damning criticism of MCU Spider-Man I've ever read. It's true, though. for the life of me, I can't picture this Spider-Man mocking Doctor Doom or starting a ridiculous feud with the Fantastic Four.

 

[Dark Raven]

View attachment 26953

This has got to be the most damning criticism of MCU Spider-Man I've ever read. It's true, though. for the life of me, I can't picture this Spider-Man mocking Doctor Doom or starting a ridiculous feud with the Fantastic Four.

That's one thing I would've liked in FFH is for Spidey to mock Mysterio's fish bowl.

 

[Frodo]

Midnight's Edge posted an insightful video about the Sony/Marvel deal which accounts for the legal differences between MJ and Mary Jane, Ned and Ganke, the Hot middle aged Aunt May and the elderly Aunt May, and the homemade suit vs the Stark centric suit.

 

[Dark Raven]

Midnight's Edge posted an insightful video about the Sony/Marvel deal which accounts for the legal differences between MJ and Mary Jane, Ned and Ganke, the Hot middle aged Aunt May and the elderly Aunt May, and the homemade suit vs the Stark centric suit.

This is the video, which would explain why Spider-Man in the MCU is so inaccurate:

Gail Simone, who loved Far From Home had some valid points about Peter in MCU, particularly FH personality. For those interested. Here's Gail Simone's views on the film from twitter summarized here:


Honestly, she had some points on this take of Spider-Man:

-compared to when they first came out, I can admit Webb take on Spider-Man has a lot of flaws that could have been fixed. But one thing I will defend and like was Andrew's take on Peter in the first ASM film. He felt like. I know people complaint he was too flippant or arrogant and hipster, but honestly rereading the 616 and Ultimate Spidey (punched Nick Fury so hard his eyepatch fell off but can be cordial and work with him, had several arguments with Aunt May but they patched up and still had a loving and stable relationship, asked Tony if he actually knew what he was doing when Tony was trying to mentor Peter and not afraid to call Tony out even though Ultimate Peter looked up to Tony for his scientific brilliance in several issues as well) and even looking at the cartoons, Peter was hot to temper and arrogant even after Peter's uncle died. That doesn't mean, he didn't learned from his mistakes and admit when he was wrong but he felt like a realistic teenager (Peter's argument with Captain Stacy I felt showed that Peter can admit he was wrong and it forced him to step up to be a hero, same with Peter's argument when he was sneaking in late, it was Peter just begging her to go to sleep and not worry about him but fans just made the argument overblown). I felt like MCU Spidey went to far in the opposite direction. A nice medium could have been found between the two.

I get this is a Peter who grew up in the MCU and seeing Iron Man and the Avengers being established heroes (and apparently being the kid in IM2 who Tony saves) as opposed to Peter in the comics who first became Spidey when Iron Man, Hulk, and everyone was starting off too, but what makes Spidey stands out is this is a kid who had loss his parents, his uncle and was a kid who got powers at random and deflects his emotions of fear and loneliness with humor to the point where he grows from being an introverted loner to being more confident and ease in his Peter Parker identity and thus making friends and earning the respect of his peers as time goes on and I think the MCU doesn't really capture that part as well.

As for Spidey using Stark tech. I don't necessarily have a problem with Spider-Man at first being provided Stark tech and just going from there. One big complaint I remember people having with Raimi and Webb films was that the costume were just unrealistic to be made by a Lower Middle Class High School teenager which MCU solved by having it come from Tony (Not to mention in the Ultimate comics, Tony upgraded Peter web shooters in Ultimate Spider-Man#151 and when Peter worked for Tony in the Civil War era which matches with Spidey first appearing in the Civil War film, Tony gifted him the Iron Spider outfit, so it's not without precedence). Peter creating Spider-Man outfit and gear works when it's an adult Peter with resources and technology to create said gear( PS4 Spidey working for Doc Ock or 616 Spidey working for Horizon or TriCorp). I think having the initial costume coming from Tony works but just have Spidey build from their and be his own hero from this point on.

Same with Vulture and Mysterio being connected to IM at first and Spidey was just a bystander in the cross for the hatred(Moreso with Myserio than Vulture who was more interested in selling black arms to provide for his family than getting revenge on Stark), yeah the initial start was hatred for Tony but eventually, it was Spidey who . I came up under 90 Spider-Man TAS, Ultimate Spider-Man comics and the Spectacular cartoon finding a way to streamline everything and showing how everything is connected. "Green Goblin was trying to recreate Spider-Man but also was trying to be the next Captain America! That makes sense!" Greg Weisman pointed it out in an interview about SSM: "The Marvel Universe was basically built on the fly. Since we’re starting this cartoon from scratch, we have the luxury of building a more cohesive universe from day one because we know where we’re going to go with these characters and who’s going to come later." This is a Spider-Man who is being built into the corner of the MCU, as opposed to Iron Man or Hulk or Captain America who didn't have to worry about that.

Plus i like how they are more "street level" average joe blue collar workers/employees, it adds to the MCU Spidey charm to me.

I think MCU Spidey, Andrew Garfield and Tobey are as much faithful to elements of the original character as easily as they deviate from the comics Spidey and that's why I enjoy watching them, but I can see why their complaints about each of them . But at the end of the day, they are just different adaptions of the same character (who has 60+ years of different interpretations and ideas of his characters in the comics as well).

Shorter paragraphs please for web copy. Otherwise it borders on being a wall of text like the very first post in this thread.

 

[ironman29758]

This is the video, which would explain why Spider-Man in the MCU is so inaccurate:





Shorter paragraphs please for web copy. Otherwise it borders on being a wall of text like the very first post in this thread.

Sorry

 

[Frodo]

This is the video, which would explain why Spider-Man in the MCU is so inaccurate:

Thanks for posting the video. It does make me wonder if we actually will end up ever seeing the Osborns in the MCU, as has been rumored lately , or even characters like Doc Ock or Kurt Connors.

If we do, something tells me they'll be quite different from how we've seen them in the previous iterations.