Far From Home Spider-Man: Far From Home General Discussion and Speculation - Part 2

[Infinity9999x]

I don't see how their shifting of Mary-Jane is any worse than Ned in SM H or that it's worse. Same with Ock and Vulture.I mostly agree.

You don’t see how it’s any worse? They took a complex, layered love interested who was also a close friend and made her into a bland love interest. They dumbed the character down and removed most of the nuance to MJ’s character.

Ned Leeds was an at times interesting minor player in the comics. They changed his personality and made him a more major supporting character. It’s not remotely the same.

Vulture is a better comparison as his characterization was very much altered and he was a bigger character. However in Toomes’ case, they took a villain who was relatively one note and gave him a more interesting motivation and backstory. People don’t complain about it in the same way they don’t complain about what TAS did to Mr.Freeze, the changes made the character more interesting.

With Ock, they removed the more interesting facets of his morality by making him a kind of Lizard/Ock hybrid. Again, reducing the nuance to Otto’s personality and neglecting a much more interesting backstory that perfectly parallels Peter’s.

So to sum up: Homecoming made cosmetic changes. SM2 altered main characters, often opting for more simplified, or just plain worse interpretations. Homecoming captures the heart of the comics much better.

 

[Shikamaru]

Not true. In SM1 Peter is shown to beat up Flash and enjoy it, when the wrestling promoter's robbed, Peter is shown to have a sense of pride at letting the robber go. When he fighting Bonesaw he's shown to make fun of and enjoy doing so, his opponent. When Ben's killed, Peter's unbridled rage bleeds through and he hunts him down and breaks his hand and when he falls out the window Peter just stares coldly down at him. That's just the first one. Much less innocent than Tom's.It's bleeds through in how she reacts and responds to people and is played up a bit in SM3.Ganke isn't Peter's friend in high school. There's a story reason for it, but it's still a difference.

All the examples you brought up are in the origin, which (apart from when wearing the symbiote) is a time when Peter acts out of character and is more selfish than usual in every continuity. As far Peter in everyday life goes (meaning before and after the origin story), he's not the Clark Kent-esque kid with old school values that Tobey plays him up at.

Also for a time when Peter acts more selfish than usual, SM1 has the most selfish-less Peter of all the origins I've seen.

As for Ganke, taking characters from other stories and putting them in Peter's high school life is a common adaptation trope (see Raimi, Webb, Spectacular Spider-Man).

 

[fan4stic]

You don’t see how it’s any worse? They took a complex, layered love interested who was also a close friend and made her into a bland love interest. They dumbed the character down and removed most of the nuance to MJ’s character.

They didn't make her bland. She had a character ruled by insecurities. Throughout the 1st movie we saw her be someone who hid her pain, we saw her angry, frustrated, sad, giddy, tough, she was a full character.

Ned Leeds was an at times interesting minor player in the comics. They changed his personality and made him a more major supporting character. It’s not remotely the same.

They changed his character. That's a difference from the comics. Like the others are.

Vulture is a better comparison as his characterization was very much altered. However in Toomes’ case, they took a villain who was relatively one note and gave him a more interesting motivation and backstory.

But it was changed. Like Ock. It's an adaption movie thing. Things will be changed.

With Ock, they removed the more interesting facets of his morality by making him a kind of Lizard/Ock hybrid. Again, reducing the nuance to Otto’s personality and neglecting a much more interesting backstory that perfectly parallels Peter’s.

I don't see how he was watered down. He was compelling to me.

So to sum up: Homecoming made cosmetic changes. SM2 altered main characters, often opting for more simplified, or just plain worse interpretations. Homecoming captures the heart of the comics much better.

Ganke being Ned and a man in the chair for Peter and in on his secret isn't cosmetic, same for Vulture. Or IM being heavily involved in his character journey.

 

[fan4stic]

All the examples you brought up are in the origin, which (apart from when wearing the symbiote) is a time when Peter acts out of character and is more selfish than usual in every continuity. As far Peter in everyday life goes (meaning before and after the origin story), he's not the Clark Kent-esque kid with old school values that Tobey plays him up at.

Also for a time when Peter acts more selfish than usual, SM1 has the most selfish-less Peter of all the origins I've seen.

As for Ganke, taking characters from other stories and putting them in Peter's high school life is a common adaptation trope (see Raimi, Webb, Spectacular Spider-Man).

But it's all apart of his character. It's in the movie. That doesn't discredit it.

It's not selfish-less. It's more selfish. He does it for his own pleasure purely. That's selfish. His reason for getting the money is selfish.

That's my point.

 

[Infinity9999x]

They didn't make her bland. She had a character ruled by insecurities. Throughout the 1st movie we saw her be someone who hid her pain, we saw her angry, frustrated, sad, giddy, tough, she was a full character.They changed his character. That's a difference from the comics. Like the others are.But it was changed. Like Ock. It's an adaption movie thing. Things will be changed.I don't see how he was watered down. He was compelling to me.Ganke being Ned and a man in the chair for Peter and in on his secret isn't cosmetic, same for Vulture. Or IM being heavily involved in his character journey.

She was a full character? I find that debatable. But even if we go with that, the character they gave her was infinitely less likeanle and interesting than her comic counterpart. Comic MJ was a confident, take to no crap girl who dealt with her insecurities and abusive upbringing by putting on a strong front, sometimes through a party girl persona, sometimes through simply being strong minded and independent. Movie MJ’s main arcs were debating if she really wanted to be with Peter or someone else.

They completely missed the essence of who Mary Jane was, Mary Jane, a character who is pivotal to the story of Peter Parker.

Ned Leads was a tertiary supporting character at best, trying to compare them is moot. It’s like trying to argue that someone making a change Ace the Bathound is on the same level as making changes to the Joker.

As for how they simplified Ock, they diluted the fact that Otto went through a very similar origin to Peter (as a young man bullied for his lack of physical prowess and love for science, experiences a horrific accident, gains great power...but decides to use it to control and lord over others). Otto made a choice, just as Peter did, he just made the opposite one. Making him a good man deep down who is seduced by an evil AI takes away the wonderful dichotomy that Otto has with Peter in the comics.

It removes his sometimes gray morality *that he is in control of at all times*. Otto is not Norman Osborn (pre resurrection) or The Lizard. He doesn’t need an outside influence to become Doc Ock. SM2
Simplified him and made him something he wasn’t by adding the evil AI influencing him.

These are changes to the core of a huge Spider-Man character. Not a nothing supporting character like Ned. And Iron Man being a role model hardly effects the core of Peter Parker in HC. Spidey has often gone through moments of hero worship in the comics, and it usually follows the same arc homecoming did, with Peter deciding to stand on his own and realizing he has to believe in himself.

 

[Nemeres]

Raimi's MJ was definitely a bit of a scream queen in excess, and unlike Gwen, or Lois, or Pepper, or Steve Trevor, she wasn't a particularly helpful love interest during the 3rd acts.

I can't say I care much about fidelity to her comics counterpart, though. She was what movies 1 and 2 needed: a vulnerable but layered girl-next-door with a well-defined character arc. She has low self-esteem and is in need of validation once high school ends and real life begins... and then she realizes dorky Pete is the one truly worth falling for. It plays into Peter's story because it validates him too. Then she tries to move on because he won't have her, but once she learns ab his identity she decides to throw her own voice into Peter's decision. "You don't have to do this alone. It's my turn to save you." And it works. SM2's well-earned happy ending wouldn't pack the punch that it does if the fondness for the characters weren't there or if it didn't feel like the end to a hard-fought struggle for both. They got there without making MJ a comics-accurate party girl, so more power to them.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I can't say I care much about fidelity to her comics counterpart, though. She was what movies 1 and 2 needed: a vulnerable but layered girl-next-door with a well-defined character arc. She has low self-esteem and is in need of validation once high school ends and real life begins... and then she realizes dorky Pete is the one truly worth falling for. It plays into Peter's story because it validates him too. Then she tries to move on because he won't have her, but once she learns ab his identity she decides to throw her own voice into Peter's decision. "You don't have to do this alone. It's my turn to save you." And it works. SM2's well-earned happy ending wouldn't pack the punch that it does if the fondness for the characters weren't there or if it didn't feel like the end to a hard-fought struggle for both. They got there without making MJ a comics-accurate party girl, so more power to them.

I feel like that is being very kind to the character.

Problem with Raimi's Mary Jane is that in order to care about her and peter you have to forget that she clearly had issues where she wasn't very faithful to any guy.

When she runs away from her wedding at the end of SM2 you are meant to feel happy that she and peter will be together but you really have to ignore alot of stuff that wasn't very nice of her to do. one being trying to get with peter before being pushed away and then revealing she had a bf anyway.

Presumably we are meant to feel for her not being with the guy she really wants to be with though

 

[Infinity9999x]

Raimi's MJ was definitely a bit of a scream queen in excess, and unlike Gwen, or Lois, or Pepper, or Steve Trevor, she wasn't a particularly helpful love interest during the 3rd acts.

I can't say I care much about fidelity to her comics counterpart, though. She was what movies 1 and 2 needed: a vulnerable but layered girl-next-door with a well-defined character arc. She has low self-esteem and is in need of validation once high school ends and real life begins... and then she realizes dorky Pete is the one truly worth falling for. It plays into Peter's story because it validates him too. Then she tries to move on because he won't have her, but once she learns ab his identity she decides to throw her own voice into Peter's decision. "You don't have to do this alone. It's my turn to save you." And it works. SM2's well-earned happy ending wouldn't pack the punch that it does if the fondness for the characters weren't there or if it didn't feel like the end to a hard-fought struggle for both. They got there without making MJ a comics-accurate party girl, so more power to them.

Comic MJ was much more than just a party girl. She was much more layered and nuanced, and I see no reason why we couldn’t have gotten a similar arc where you made her a character that was actually more then a simple damsel in distress, or someone we see Peter begin to value as a friend before seriously dating her.

I can understand why some people don’t mind certain Raimi film changes. The Joker (the poster) and I have argued Raimi’s Ock quite a few times over the years, and he makes solid points as to why he was able to accept the changes. And at the end of the day, we’re really just debating which adaptations we find more acceptable. There is no correct answer.

But one thing I can’t get behind is the idea that the Raimi films MJ was in any way as layered or interesting as her comic counterpart. She just had better material and had more dynamic characterization. Again, it’s subjective, but the film MJ’s fairly minimal character development I found to be very limited, especially compared to what we had seen MJ do in the comics.

 

[Blood Spider]

Is anyone here getting pumped for the Insomniac PS4 Spider-Man game? I feel like that game is going to keep me busy and entertained for some time, which would also make the wait for A4 and FFH a bit easier.

It's been a long time since we've had good Spider-Man video games, so I hope this one delivers.

Mega pumped! And it's so close now!

 

[fan4stic]

She was a full character? I find that debatable. But even if we go with that, the character they gave her was infinitely less likeanle and interesting than her comic counterpart. Comic MJ was a confident, take to no crap girl who dealt with her insecurities and abusive upbringing by putting on a strong front, sometimes through a party girl persona, sometimes through simply being strong minded and independent. Movie MJ’s main arcs were debating if she really wanted to be with Peter or someone else.

They completely missed the essence of who Mary Jane was, Mary Jane, a character who is pivotal to the story of Peter Parker.

I don't see how she was any less likable than her comic version. We saw Raimi MJ be take no more than once and we saw her deal with her insecurities by playing the popular girl. We saw her be independent. MJ's arcs in the Raimi;s were around dealing with her insecurities.

Ned Leads was a tertiary supporting character at best, trying to compare them is moot. It’s like trying to argue that someone making a change Ace the Bathound is on the same level as making changes to the Joker.

But Ned's changes aren't the issue, the intrusion of his change in Peter's life is. Peter never had Ganke as his man in the chair.

As for how they simplified Ock, they diluted the fact that Otto went through a very similar origin to Peter (as a young man bullied for his lack of physical prowess and love for science, experiences a horrific accident, gains great power...but decides to use it to control and lord over others). Otto made a choice, just as Peter did, he just made the opposite one. Making him a good man deep down who is seduced by an evil AI takes away the wonderful dichotomy that Otto has with Peter in the comics.

It removes his sometimes gray morality *that he is in control of at all times*. Otto is not Norman Osborn (pre resurrection) or The Lizard. He doesn’t need an outside influence to become Doc Ock. SM2 Simplified him and made him something he wasn’t by adding the evil AI influencing him.

Everything from Ock is already in his character. He's already arrogant and dangerous before the chip's influence. He attacks Spider-Man for trying to stop his out of control experiment before the chip's even damaged. Yes, the arms have an influence, but he's him the whole movie. His arrogance, violence, is all him. More an adding on to his character than necessarily watering down.

These are changes to the core of a huge Spider-Man character. Not a nothing supporting character like Ned. And Iron Man being a role model hardly effects the core of Peter Parker in HC. Spidey has often gone through moments of hero worship in the comics, and it usually follows the same arc homecoming did, with Peter deciding to stand on his own and realizing he has to believe in himself.

I'd say they aren't changes to the character's core. IM is large part of Peter's development in the movie. I don't say that's a bad thing here. but it's there.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't see how she was any less likable than her comic version. We saw Raimi MJ be take no more than once and we saw her deal with her insecurities by playing the popular girl. We saw her be independent. MJ's arcs in the Raimi;s were around dealing with her insecurities.But Ned's changes aren't the issue, the intrusion of his change in Peter's life is. Peter never had Ganke as his man in the chair.Everything from Ock is already in his character. He's already arrogant and dangerous before the chip's influence. He attacks Spider-Man for trying to stop his out of control experiment before the chip's even damaged. Yes, the arms have an influence, but he's him the whole movie. His arrogance, violence, is all him. More an adding on to his character than necessarily watering down.I'd say they aren't changes to the character's core. IM is large part of Peter's development in the movie. I don't say that's a bad thing here. but it's there.

Did we ever see MJ be independent? She was dating Flash in the beginning of the movie,then Harry, both of whom she seems to be trying to mold herself to fit into their world as opposed to the comic MJ who was very “this is me and if you don’t like it screw off”. She then has a thing for Pete, and is stuck in yet another love triangle in SM2. When did we see her be the independent, strong minded MJ from the comics? When did we get a scene establishing how she and Peter are friends who have common interests other than being attracted to one another...just because. We didn’t get any of that, and it was sorely missed.

Ned being a man in the chair is an addition that is new to high school Spidey, I’ll give you that. But it’s not something that’s never been present in Spider-man’s history. He’s had friends who know his secret and will attempt to help him how they can. And again, it’s a cosmetic change. It’s not something that I saw as effecting a core element of a main character or the Spider-Man mythos. It transplanted an element that is typically reserved for an adult Spider-Man and transplanted it to a younger one.

With Ock, if they really wanted to make the case that he was in control, they would have shown it. In the comics, there is no doubt that Otto has always been in control of his choices. In the film, Otto pre AI is shown to make bad choices and be over confident, but nowhere near the level he chooses to go in the comics (without influence). Adding the element of the evil AI makes him a less compelling character to me because you remove the choice Ock takes to become a full villain and they removed the backstory that lead him to those choices. All of which I found to be infinitely more interesting, and quintessential to what I love about the character.

And I agree on the IM thing, and that’s really been the crux of all my points. I don’t mind small more superficial or cosmetic changes, what does bother me are changes to what I view as core elements of main characters or core aspects of the mythos. SM2 did that in many respects, which is why I’ve never been fond of it.

 

[Immortalfire]

Maybe we will finally have some wheatcakes appear on screen. I hope.

 

[Spidey_62]

Maybe we will finally have some wheatcakes appear on screen. I hope.

The new Spider-Man cartoon isn't anything to write home about but there was a scene in one of the newer episodes I remember well where Aunt May is feeding Gwen some wheatcakes and Gwen thanks her for the famous pancakes and Aunt May practically scolds her that they're wheatcakes lol.

 

[Kev4000]

Tom Holland in Prom Suit (?) On IG
Hell lets hope we See him in this with short hair in the movie.

 

[ehh]

Tom Holland in Prom Suit (?) On IG
Hell lets hope we See him in this with short hair in the movie.

I thought his slightly longer hair looked cool. Doesn't really matter to me either way though.

 

[The Sand Master]

I disagree. Spider-man 2 is a much better Spider-man film. Holland may be the best actor to play Spidey, but the overall movie feels the least like a Spider-man movie to me.

I don't think that's true. There's no Ned knowing his secret in high school, Iron Man making his suit, him dealing with it's instant kill mode and Aunt May being hit on in the comics as far as I know. But Raimi Spider-Man does quip, just not much.

"That's a cute outfit. Did your husband give it you?"

"It's you whose out gobby. Out of your mind!"

"Here's your change!"

"I have a knack for that."

I can only think of one real quip in Homecoming:

"Wait a minute. You guys aren't the real avengers. I can tell, hulk gives it away."

Agreed with both of you.
Some people are just blinded that Marvel Films have the intellectual property of Spider-Man and anything before that is of a lesser product.
Some people are obsessed with pigeon-holing things to fit their minds.

 

[Nicko-Ray]

Think that’s just a tbt from him @ The Oscars y’all.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Agreed with both of you.
Some people are just blinded that Marvel Films have the intellectual property of Spider-Man and anything before that is of a lesser product.
Some people are obsessed with pigeon-holing things to fit their minds.

Or people simply have differing opinions. It’s funny, when I first voiced problems with SM2 when I joined in 05, I was flamed to holy hell and back. Now? Not quite as much. Opinions change. For the record, I actually view SSM as the best non-comic adaptation of Spider-man. HC is my favorite film, but SSM was the perfect blend of 616, USM and original material in my opinion. It’s a shame it was canceled. It had the potential to rival BTAS.

 

[Spidey_62]

Apparently there's description for a LEGO set out there for this movie that has Molten Man in it, so it's possible Molten Man might show up in this now too. RUMOR: Another Minor Spider-Man Villain May Appear in Far From Home

 

[Abudefduf]

You know, I'm starting to believe that both Hydro-Man and Molten Man will indeed be in the movie, but in the form of illusions created by Mysterio.

 

[Venom 1988]

Apparently there's description for a LEGO set out there for this movie that has Molten Man in it, so it's possible Molten Man might show up in this now too. RUMOR: Another Minor Spider-Man Villain May Appear in Far From Home

Where does it say its Lego though?

 

[Vic Ryan]

@Infinity9999x I really love how you break down the different aspects of Homecoming and Spiderman 2. I really like spidey 2 but i think Homecoming gets a lot of hate from some fans who didn't really get to understand the movie and its characters. Representation-wise, Homecoming actually did a far better job than all the previous Spiderman movies

 

[Infinity9999x]

@Infinity9999x I really love how you break down the different aspects of Homecoming and Spiderman 2. I really like spidey 2 but i think Homecoming gets a lot of hate from some fans who didn't really get to understand the movie and its characters. Representation-wise, Homecoming actually did a far better job than all the previous Spiderman movies

Thank you. Honestly, like I said above, it’s really just about what people put more stock in when it comes to adaptations. Certain people are more annoyed by some kinds of changes, while others have no problem with it etc, and there’s no real right or wrong, just what speaks to you. SM2 never felt like the Spider-man world I fell in love with, but I can respect why people enjoy it, and I respect it as an important piece of superhero film history.

I’m excited to see how the homecoming Spidey world will continue to grow. I honestly hope they keep looking at the SSM cartoon for influence, because that is still my favorite non comic adaptation of Spidey.

 

[Shikamaru]

I will say as much as I like the world of Homecoming, I'm not entirely sold on the supporting characters. So far I think they're a bunch of Rachel Dawes - great ideas, but not great characters. It's my only problem with Homecoming on multiple viewings.

The idea of a livelier Aunt May to show how Millenials go through more stress than their parents? Great idea, but this May on her own isn't that interesting.
The idea of a classist Flash who uses social media to humiliate Peter? Great idea, but MCU Flash as a person isn't as interesting.
The idea of an MJ who's an activist? Classic MJ was an icon for second-wave feminism, so it makes sense. But I'm not feeling Michelle as much as I feel classic MJ.

All of these are great ideas to reflect the times, but that's about it. Whereas when the original versions of these characters came out, they were great ideas and great characters on their own. I cared about what happens to them and not just about how they play off Peter. Far From Home will have to seriously fix this issue IMO.

The exception to this are Liz and Toomes. They were brilliant.

 

[Spidey_62]

Where does it say its Lego though?

Eh, I saw some other sites specifically mention LEGO but they might be pulling it out of their butts assuming LEGO because of all the past leaks from their toys.

(I swear I replied to this yesterday but it didn't actually post? Here's hoping this one goes through, janky new boards)