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

[fan4stic]

Man, if you think we saw MJ displaying a confident, take to crap attitude, someone who was confident in herself and called Pete on his BS...then I don’t know what to tell you. That simply wasn’t displayed in the films. If you think it was...then I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what those terms mean.

The character displayed in the Raimi films shared none of the main character traits that made MJ such a good character. No way around it.

You said:

Mary Jane is someone who hides her issues behind a confident, cocky, take no crap demeanor.

Not that she is those things. In SM1 she hides behind that with her friends. She does that when Peter catches her outside the diner and she pretends she just got off from an acting gig.

As far as take no ****, she shows that when Normans yells about her to Harry. And when she fights back against those muggers

In SM2, when Peter is asking her to get chowmein with him, she calls him out and at the exhibit when Peter is trying to recite poetry to her. When Ock has her she's snapping at him.

In SM3, she calls out Peter for making out with Gwen, who he knew. And she comes to his place and tells him that he needs help and calls him out on what she thinks he's gonna try to do. In that movie she's also hiding her issues with her being fired behind a mask of confidence at the Spider-Man rally.

Not that I think the character has to have these things, as long as they have their backstory. I think that's like saying as long as Batman is serious and brooding it's Batman, even if he doesn't have money and his parents weren't killed. I think it's the opposite. I think some traits can be interchangeable, while without the backstory, it's like a different character with the name. I think that defines the character.Superman being broody doesn't make him Batman. If he was a human whose parents were killed in alley and he was rich, I'd think he was more like Batman.Superman being broody doesn't make him Batman. If he was a human whose parents were killed in alley and he was rich, I'd think he was more like Batman.

By that line of thinking, Tom Holland Spider-Man isn't a good adaption, because we don't see him deal with the weight of Uncle Ben's death or even hear his name.

 

[Infinity9999x]

You said:



Not that she is those things. In SM1 she hides behind that with her friends. She does that when Peter catches her outside the diner and she pretends she just got off from an acting gig.

As far as take no ****, she shows that when Normans yells about her to Harry. And when she fights back against those muggers

In SM2, when Peter is asking her to get chowmein with him, she calls him out and at the exhibit when Peter is trying to recite poetry to her. When Ock has her she's snapping at him.

In SM3, she calls out Peter for making out with Gwen, who he knew. And she comes to his place and tells him that he needs help and calls him out on what she thinks he's gonna try to do. In that movie she's also hiding her issues with her being fired behind a mask of confidence at the Spider-Man rally.

Not that I think the character has to have these things, as long as they have their backstory. I think that's like saying as long as Batman is serious and brooding it's Batman, even if he doesn't have money and his parents weren't killed. I think it's the opposite. I think some traits can be interchangeable, while without the backstory, it's like a different character with the name. I think that defines the character.Superman being broody doesn't make him Batman. If he was a human whose parents were killed in alley and he was rich, I'd think he was more like Batman.Superman being broody doesn't make him Batman. If he was a human whose parents were killed in alley and he was rich, I'd think he was more like Batman.

By that line of thinking, Tom Holland Spider-Man isn't a good adaption, because we don't see him deal with the weight of Uncle Ben's death or even hear his name.

First, I’ve never mentioned backstory or lack of it, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Secondly, how a character acts and comports themselves ABSOLUTELY is important. If the Joker is displayed as a person who gets their skin bleached, dresses up as a clown, but is a lovely, pleasant person who raises kittens, that’s not the Joker is it?

Mary Jane has issues yes, and she used the confidence to cover them. She also is a legitimately confident, powerful person. Raimi’s MJ didn’t display that. Sure, she had a few moments of mild spunk, and that was about it. That is not capturing the essence of Mary Jane. Largely she’s seen as someone who’s...more or less wearing her depression and unhappiness with life on her sleeve. And she openly pines after Pete, something she rarely stomached in the comics, on top of having no decent writing to show us why these two characters like one another.

It was just bad writing, no way around it.

 

[The Overlord]

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.

 

[fan4stic]

First, I’ve never mentioned backstory or lack of it, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Secondly, how a character acts and comports themselves ABSOLUTELY is important. If the Joker is displayed as a person who gets their skin bleached, dresses up as a clown, but is a lovely, pleasant person who raises kittens, that’s not the Joker is it?

Mary Jane has issues yes, and she used the confidence to cover them. She also is a legitimately confident, powerful person. Raimi’s MJ didn’t display that. Sure, she had a few moments of mild spunk, and that was about it. That is not capturing the essence of Mary Jane. Largely she’s seen as someone who’s...more or less wearing her depression and unhappiness with life on her sleeve. And she openly pines after Pete, something she rarely stomached in the comics, on top of having no decent writing to show us why these two characters like one another.

It was just bad writing, no way around it.

I mentioned that. I'm saying that I think having the attitude or personality traits of the comic character doesn't make them the character. Raimi MJ has the backstory and aspects of the character, but Raimi's movies use her differently than the comic version. But I still think it's the character, because by the same measure that's used for other characters, they'd still be see as their characters, just different versions. Superman can brood. Batman can be light. It doesn't make them not their characters. What does to me is if their backstory were changed. I think some traits can be interchangeable, while without the backstory, it's like a different character with the name.

I think that by that line of thinking, Tom Holland Spider-Man isn't a good adaption, because we don't see him deal with the weight of Uncle Ben's death or even hear his name.

But also, what you're talking about there is a villain and are using the difference in being nice to being villainous. By that measure, I think Raimi MJ is accurate, because she's not really villainous in the way that I think is an opposite of the comic character. I think a more accurate comparison would be how the Joker is comedic villainous in one take and more darker twisted villainous in another. And we've had different versions who have been like those, but I don't think that makes them any less like the Joker character. Even DCAU TAS, the Joker had varying different traits in that way, where one episode he'd just want to throw a pie in Batman's face or another where he'd want to when a troophy or another where he was caring about his finances, switching gears to trying to make everyone watching a news broadcast go insane and also kidnapping Tim and brainwashing him to be like him.

There's not any real writing to show us why Lois and Clark like one another in Superman The Movie. But it's there. However the movie shows and tells why MJ likes Peter: She sees him as someone who thinks her being herself is a great. He fully is into what she wants to do with her life, even when she's uncertain about telling him. When she's got a regular job, he tells her it's nothing to be ashamed of. But how the romance is written isn't necessarily about how the character is written. Peter himself, I can cop to the idea that I think, beyond he thinks she's pretty, it isn't really strongly developed why he likes her. Though I think an argument could be made that he grows to like her more for herself, than what he thought of as from afar. Though I also think that by having Peter know of her homelife early on could be a showcase of him seeing behind her facade and him liking her as seeing her as a vulnerable person.

I'm not arguing she's a perfect adaption. But you said that she shared none of those traits. I pointed out that she did. I think they have captured the essence of the character, but not necessarily in the way you may want it to be captured. The essence to me isn't the vague traits of confidence and stuff that I think could apply to other female characters, but the backstory the character has. Even then, she has the traits, though not as hugely prominent, but still apart of the character. I think this makes her a more comic accurate adaption than some characters in the MCU Spider-Man. I think that saying that the character being confident and all that the essence of her characters makes her seem to have not that much dimension.

 

[Abudefduf]

Can't we all just agree that both Raimi's MJ and Michelle Jones aren't good adaptations of the character

 

[fan4stic]

Can't we all just agree that both Raimi's MJ and Michelle Jones aren't good adaptations of the character

I don't think Raimi's is a bad adaption, but I think Michelle is just bordeline not trying to adapt much.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't think Raimi's is a bad adaption, but I think Michelle is just bordeline not trying to adapt much.

This is where we inherently disagree. I think Raimi’s is a bad adaptation, because I fundamentally reject the premise that a basic origin is more important to a character than their personality. Now, they’re both important, because often the origin informs their personality, but as I pointed out with the Joker, if you have the origin and then completely miss what makes the character who they are, then you have fundamentally misunderstood the character.

Raimi’s Mary Jane did that. She had none of the spirit of what made Mary Jane Mary Jane. Did she have a few moments where she showed a modicum of spunk? Sure, but that’s like saying because someone made a joke once they’re a stand up comedian.

Raimi made Mary Jane fundamentally a character that defined herself by who she was dating, and someone who openly suffered from some severe insecurity issues. That just isn’t who Mary Jane ever was.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I don't think Raimi's is a bad adaption, but I think Michelle is just bordeline not trying to adapt much.

yes, the character of Michelle as an original character isn't a bad one, its the fact that they felt the need to give her the "MJ" nick name as a tribute to a different character that she is not/ and probably will never be

a lot of the supporting characters are in "name only" instead of just letting them be new original characters they gave them names of characters that they are nothing a like from the comics{that is my only issue with any of them) other wise I don't mind the characters or how they act or interact with each other

 

[fan4stic]

This is where we inherently disagree. I think Raimi’s is a bad adaptation, because I fundamentally reject the premise that a basic origin is more important to a character than their personality. Now, they’re both important, because often the origin informs their personality, but as I pointed out with the Joker, if you have the origin and then completely miss what makes the character who they are, then you have fundamentally misunderstood the character.

Raimi’s Mary Jane did that. She had none of the spirit of what made Mary Jane Mary Jane. Did she have a few moments where she showed a modicum of spunk? Sure, but that’s like saying because someone made a joke once they’re a stand up comedian.

Raimi made Mary Jane fundamentally a character that defined herself by who she was dating, and someone who openly suffered from some severe insecurity issues. That just isn’t who Mary Jane ever was.

I think the Joker isn't an appropriate comparison. The Joker doesn't have a set backstory and he's a villain. I think villains are more often open to being changed in their backstory, for a couple reasons. I think a more accurate comparison would be how the Joker is comedic villainous in one take and more darker twisted villainous in another. And we've had different versions who have been like those, but I don't think that makes them any less like the Joker character. Even DCAU TAS, the Joker had varying different traits in that way. And the changes to MJ in Raimi's don't fundamentally change the character, like that would the Joker. I think it more focuses more on character aspects that are already in the character. Personality can be interchangeable. Any character can be confident and loyal and/or take ****. I think that's an interchangeable personality to display. But the backstory is the root of the character in comics. Without that, as far as the comics developed she wouldn't be a girl who hid her issues behind a mask of confidence and partying.

I think the character already had insecurity, otherwise the character wouldn't have hid her issues behind a mask of confidence. You can't say she had none of the spirit and say she had some. Either she did or she didn't. MJ showed those aspects more than once in the whole trilogy, certainly more than once in the first movie. I also don't think your comparison is appropriate, because MJ is a character who only is displayed in 2+ hour movie for every big story shift that's developed and she's not even the main character for those movies. That's not the same as someone making a joke once. Even if she displayed those aspects. It may not be in the way you may want, where the aspects you want are more prominent than that, but I think both aspects are apart of the character in those movies, like I think they are in the comics, more with Raimi emphasizing the other.

I don't think it's ever developed that she defines herself by who she's dating. She's not an actress in SM2 because John wants her to be, or Peter wants her to be. Her actions in SM1 are mostly independent of what the male characters want from her. I think that's actually the structure of the character in the movie, that she likes that Peter likes her for being herself. In SM3, her character is in opposition to what Peter wanted from her.

The essence to me isn't the vague traits of confidence and stuff that I think could apply to other female characters, but the backstory the character has. Even then, she has the traits, though not as hugely prominent, but still apart of the character. I think this makes her a more comic accurate adaption than some characters in the MCU Spider-Man. I think that saying that the character being confident and all that the essence of her characters makes her seem to have not that much dimension.With that description, I think she could be a version of Catwoman for all info that description gives on the character. Superman can brood. Batman can be light. It doesn't make them not their characters. What does to me is if their backstory were changed. I think some traits can be interchangeable, while without the backstory, it's like a different character with the name.

I think that by that line of thinking, Tom Holland Spider-Man isn't a good adaption, because we don't see him deal with the weight of Uncle Ben's death or even hear his name.

I'm not arguing you have to like Raimi's version more than comics, but I think that doesn't mean that versions a bad character or a necessarily bad adaption. I think there's room for improvement. I think that's an opportunity that's been missed with MCU Spider-Man.

yes, the character of Michelle as an original character isn't a bad one, its the fact that they felt the need to give her the "MJ" nick name as a tribute to a different character that she is not/ and probably will never be

a lot of the supporting characters are in "name only" instead of just letting them be new original characters they gave them names of characters that they are nothing a like from the comics{that is my only issue with any of them) other wise I don't mind the characters or how they act or interact with each other

 

[Another_Fool]

Ok, here's what Far From Home got right. We FINALLY have a Spider-Man who is not itching to get called in to the job but rather would like to get on with his personal life if he can. Always bugged me in Homecoming how eager Peter was to be a hero and also how pandering he was. That felt like a fundamental misunderstanding of the character and at least they corrected it with this installment.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think the Joker isn't an appropriate comparison. The Joker doesn't have a set backstory and he's a villain. I think villains are more often open to being changed in their backstory, for a couple reasons. I think a more accurate comparison would be how the Joker is comedic villainous in one take and more darker twisted villainous in another. And we've had different versions who have been like those, but I don't think that makes them any less like the Joker character. Even DCAU TAS, the Joker had varying different traits in that way. And the changes to MJ in Raimi's don't fundamentally change the character, like that would the Joker. I think it more focuses more on character aspects that are already in the character. Personality can be interchangeable. Any character can be confident and loyal and/or take ****. I think that's an interchangeable personality to display. But the backstory is the root of the character in comics. Without that, as far as the comics developed she wouldn't be a girl who hid her issues behind a mask of confidence and partying.

I think the character already had insecurity, otherwise the character wouldn't have hid her issues behind a mask of confidence. You can't say she had none of the spirit and say she had some. Either she did or she didn't. MJ showed those aspects more than once in the whole trilogy, certainly more than once in the first movie. I also don't think your comparison is appropriate, because MJ is a character who only is displayed in 2+ hour movie for every big story shift that's developed and she's not even the main character for those movies. That's not the same as someone making a joke once. Even if she displayed those aspects. It may not be in the way you may want, where the aspects you want are more prominent than that, but I think both aspects are apart of the character in those movies, like I think they are in the comics, more with Raimi emphasizing the other.

I don't think it's ever developed that she defines herself by who she's dating. She's not an actress in SM2 because John wants her to be, or Peter wants her to be. Her actions in SM1 are mostly independent of what the male characters want from her. I think that's actually the structure of the character in the movie, that she likes that Peter likes her for being herself. In SM3, her character is in opposition to what Peter wanted from her.

The essence to me isn't the vague traits of confidence and stuff that I think could apply to other female characters, but the backstory the character has. Even then, she has the traits, though not as hugely prominent, but still apart of the character. I think this makes her a more comic accurate adaption than some characters in the MCU Spider-Man. I think that saying that the character being confident and all that the essence of her characters makes her seem to have not that much dimension.With that description, I think she could be a version of Catwoman for all info that description gives on the character. Superman can brood. Batman can be light. It doesn't make them not their characters. What does to me is if their backstory were changed. I think some traits can be interchangeable, while without the backstory, it's like a different character with the name.

I think that by that line of thinking, Tom Holland Spider-Man isn't a good adaption, because we don't see him deal with the weight of Uncle Ben's death or even hear his name.

I'm not arguing you have to like Raimi's version more than comics, but I think that doesn't mean that versions a bad character or a necessarily bad adaption. I think there's room for improvement. I think that's an opportunity that's been missed with MCU Spider-Man.

As I said earlier, I simply don’t agree that the essence of a character is their backstory. I think the backstory is important, and can inform the character, but the characters personality, their choices, are what make people fall in love with them. You’re arguing that a character can essentially act in whatever way as long as they have the backstory down, and I fundamentally disagree with this.

Heck, by your logic, as long as they give Zendaya the broken home backstory, she’s a perfect Mary Jane interpretation.

That aside, I don’t see how you can watch the Raimi Mary Jane and think she was a confident character. She’s displayed as someone outwardly second guessing herself at nearly every decision, while openly pining after Peter. That is not Mary Jane Watson.

Zendaya hasn’t been a good representation of Mary Jane either, but if I’m not going to get Mary Jane, I’ll take her character. She’s at least been enjoyable to watch on film. And honestly, it would have been fine if they hadn’t called her MJ at all. The weird kind of but not really Mary Jane thing is my only issue with what they’ve done with her. Just keep her a full original character.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Well... What backstory does MCU MJ have would be a better question? It doesn't have to mirror comic MJ, but... so far they haven't given us anything.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

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.

interesting, I don't recall these complains or criticisms? if anything my issue with those movies was how hard they tried to differentiate them self's for the Raimi films, and changes his backstory too much

saying the two were too similar is kinda silly as they are the same character

Raimi films were very similar to the comic origin but there was a lot of room for improvement on the way it was handle always felt too rushed for me, so I think they could have retold that story in a different way and still been original about it...

personally I respected the fact that this take on Spider-man just by pasted his origin, people know the story, they didn't need some new spin on it

 

[hellblazer103]

B-but whatever do you mean? It's accurate cause like he quips ! And his eye lenses move! Holland is best perfectboi Spidey manz and MCU is perfect and literally nothing you can say will change that. You're probably just a Raimi fan blinded by nostalgia


/sarcasm

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I honestly thought Holland was a lot less funny in this than HC. I don't really recall him quipping or being particularly funny even. If anything this was in line with Raimi since in those films funny stuff HAPPENED to Peter/Spidey but he himself never really had any memorably funny dialog.

I would like to state I actually am very fond of Holland in the part and until this outing very much enjoyed his appearances in the MCU.

This one fell very flat for me though.

 

[Frodo]

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.

 

[Frodo]

interesting, I don't recall these complains or criticisms? if anything my issue with those movies was how hard they tried to differentiate them self's for the Raimi films, and changes his backstory too much

Alot of the complaints focused on ASM 1 in which there was basically complaints about starting the reboot off with his origin again as opposed to doing what the MCU did and just hit the ground running.

Then with ASM 2 , I think alot the complaints dealt with using the Osborn's once again, running the Goblin saga into the ground in one film, and the back and forth romantic drama which mirrored the Peter /MJ drama from the Raimi films.

Sony was basically trying to please too many masters. They wanted an angsty CW like teen superhero reboot, while setting up multiple films ala Harry Potter, while at the same time wanting to establish and MCU like Cinematic universe, while at the same time wanting a more grounded reboot superhero ala Batman Begins, while also emulating the more campy and lighter hearted moments of the Raimi films in ASM 2 .

 

[Primal Slayer]

I do think they got rid of to many classic Spidey elements and Hope that they start introducing them in future films.

 

[WhoMani]

To be honest I didn't think that Holland's Spidey wasn't funny in Homecoming and the jokes felt flat in that movie. I think Far From Home was Holland's best performance in the role and I can't wait to see how this character will grow in future movies. I do hope that Spider-Man relies less on Stark's tech in future movies and despite me not liking the jokes in Homecoming I do hope that Spidey will be quippy again.

 

[hellblazer103]

Homecoming is funny when you're watching it for the first time while drinking Four Loko (can anyone relate? Just me? Kden lololol) but rewatching it reveals how painfully forced and cringey all the jokes really are

 

[WhoMani]

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.

 

[Hannibal75]

I don't know how comic-book accurate is this iteration of the character but after seeing Far From Home I'm definitely not a fan of it.
I understand what they are trying to do. But it's one thing for Peter to be a socially awkward teenager and another this spineless klutz I saw. I mean, I find it hard to believe that even emo-MJ would waste five minutes on this loser.

 

[TheScarecrow]

a lot of the supporting characters are in "name only" instead of just letting them be new original characters they gave them names of characters that they are nothing a like from the comics{that is my only issue with any of them) other wise I don't mind the characters or how they act or interact with each other

I agree - this is a very likeable group of kids. The only drawback is that Marvel Studios could have made them great original characters but instead decided to make them discount versions of comic book characters people love.

Why burden your actors like that?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

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.

 

[fan4stic]

As I said earlier, I simply don’t agree that the essence of a character is their backstory. I think the backstory is important, and can inform the character, but the characters personality, their choices, are what make people fall in love with them. You’re arguing that a character can essentially act in whatever way as long as they have the backstory down, and I fundamentally disagree with this.

Heck, by your logic, as long as they give Zendaya the broken home backstory, she’s a perfect Mary Jane interpretation.

That aside, I don’t see how you can watch the Raimi Mary Jane and think she was a confident character. She’s displayed as someone outwardly second guessing herself at nearly every decision, while openly pining after Peter. That is not Mary Jane Watson.

Zendaya hasn’t been a good representation of Mary Jane either, but if I’m not going to get Mary Jane, I’ll take her character. She’s at least been enjoyable to watch on film. And honestly, it would have been fine if they hadn’t called her MJ at all. The weird kind of but not really Mary Jane thing is my only issue with what they’ve done with her. Just keep her a full original character.

Without the backstory to inform the character as is, what's left? If Batman was lighter, wouldn't he still be Batman, if he fought crime in a bat suit with his fortune after his parents were killed in an alley in front of him? With MCU Peter how he is, not particularly focused on the loss of Ben or even mentioning of it and Tony being a more prominent figure in his life as a mentor, isn't he still Spider-Man?

I think that's not the case. Raimi's MJ still had the aspects of the comic character, though not as focused on them. I think that by the character being someone who hides her issues behind a mask of confidence etc. that shows that insecurity was in the character. And I think that saying that those things don't make the character, when she has basically an adaption of the other stuff, is making the comic character seem one note.

I'm not arguing you have to like either character or not. Maybe some found the Raimi version to be something they were engaged by. I think she has more going on as a character than some of the MCU Spidey characters.