Yes, I don't get where people have come up with the idea that Peter was experimented on, nor why - if it's true - it somehow undermines WHO Peter is and WHAT makes him special.
Let's say his Dad DID messed with his DNA...so what? How does that change his character? How does this change the fact that he's a smart, nerdy, shy kid who gets spider powers, and uses them poorly before learning to use them responsibly after Uncle Ben's death? It's not like he even KNOWS that is what happened and walks around school with girls swooning over him because he has super genes.
People seem to be hanging on the fact that because his DNA being messed with changes Peter because now instead of "anyone" being able to be Spider-Man, now, ONLY Peter can.
Guess what?
ONLY Peter can be Spider-Man, regardless of what's in his DNA prior to the spider bite. It is PETER'S personality, his life lessons, his desire and his mistakes and need for repentance that MAKES Spider-Man. It has NOTHING to do with his DNA. And remember, it the comics, he learned of the Spider-totem, which is pretty much a mystical version of the dad-messing-with-his-DNA angle.
Yes, as an audience, we know that only Peter Parker is Spider-Man--it's his story that we want to read and watch, after all. But on a
symbolic level, Spider-Man is supposed to be Marvel's equivalent of the everyman, the "hero who could be you" and that Peter Parker is essentially supposed to be "one of us." Peter doesn't gain his great powers as a result of having unique genes or coming from the right background or social class; he gets them through a simple quirk of fate, in that he just happened to be at the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at the wrong time, depending upon how you look at it). If Peter Parker is supposed to be "one of us," then
symbolically any one us could have been in his position, suddenly finding great power bestowed upon them. The question behind the overall story with Spider-Man is what do we do with that power?
Because you're right: it has
nothing to do with his DNA. But the film, even though it could very well try to make the case that "it's not who you are but what you do that matters," is ironically making it all about his DNA. Because if not for his special DNA, then he could not acquire his spider-powers. In other words, the film suggests, on a
thematic level, that Peter's greatness is predetermined, that he is one of the "chosen few" who can become great, for good or ill,
because of his special abilities.
People can have more than one motivation. It's his desireto learn about his parents that starts the ball rolling. This does not take away from Ben at all. In fact, to me, it seems like it will help ACCENTUATE Ben's importance. Being obsessed with his parents might cause a rift between Peter and Ben, which would be a much more believable, and dramatic version of the little fight that Peter and Ben had in SM1. Upon his death, Peter will realize that by obsessing over his parents, he did not appreciate Ben.
Yes, but when one is telling a story, there is usually a single motive a character which drives all the other motives. In the comics, films, cartoons, etc. Peter's primary motivation is one of guilt, to make amends for his culpability in his uncle's death.
Current Spider-Man editor, Steve Wacker put it much better than I can in a recent interview he made with CBR:
...Peter Parker became Spider-Man when he was bitten by a radioactive spider, but Spider-Man didn't become a hero until his Uncle Ben was tragically murdered by a burglar Peter let escape a previous crime he witnessed but didn't involve himself in preventing. Since then, guilt has been a strong force in Peter's life, but he has come a long way since then. So, is Spider-Man still primarily driven by guilt? Or does it not have as a big a hold on him as it used to?
Steve Wacker: I think it's his defining characteristic, overall. That's the big bang for Spider-Man -- the moment he lets his Uncle Ben down. It sort of defines the whole book. The reason the book was successful was because, arguably for the first time, we saw a character whose life as a hero put a cost on their regular life. They paid a price for the gift that they were given. To me, that's the whole ball game. The minute that goes away you've got a different character.
In terms of the status quo of the ongoing book, I don't think it's a good idea to have Peter get completely over that guilt that he feels about letting his Uncle Ben down. I think what makes him a great hero is that he's trying to make up for that fatal flaw every day. It's Greek drama.
So a Peter Parker whose primary motivation is find out the truth about his parents disappearance and along the way live up to the ideals and expectations of his parents essentially makes him a different character because he now he is driven by different motives to do what he does.
Also, you pointing out that his obsession with trying to find the truth about his parents making him overlook the importance of Uncle Ben actually highlights another problem with the focus on the parents. In the original comics, and even in the Raimi films, Peter Parker had a loving, healthy relationship with his Aunt and Uncle; they were, for all practical purposes, his mom and dad, even if they weren't his biological parents. The problem for Peter wasn't that he lost his mom and dad--it was that he wanted to be popular, to have lots of friends and everybody to look up to him. And in doing so, it ironically cost him the one person who already was his best friend and more. That argument in the car with Ben in the first movie? That's Peter being frustrated over what he thought was his Uncle treating him like a child when he thought he was already becoming a man, too busy thinking about his own needs and taking his love and friendship with his Uncle too much for granted.
Stories are full of "coincidences" if you want to look at it that way. But really its as simple as cause and effect. One event leads to another, which leads to another, etc.
Having some coincidence is fine. But if you have too many then it strains credulity, undermining the "suspension of disbelief" that's very important in a story like this.
Heh, you should be in the Olympic Long Jump competition, because that was one of the biggest jumps to a conclusion I've seen lately.
Ignoring the fact that we have NO IDEA if the rumor concerning Peter's DNA is true, there is NOTHING that suggests Peter getting bitten was some elaborate design by his father. ALL we know is that Peter's parents left in a hurry and were never heard from again. Plenty of stuff would have been left behind. The suitcase is a plot device - nothing more. Its what starts Peter's desire to find out more about his parents.
Again, if this rumor is accurate, the way Peter gains his powers is that his father did something do Peter's DNA that specifically requires the bite from a spider--the DNA of which Peter's father also apparently tampered with--in order to activate Peter's powers. And then, about ten years later well after his father has disappeared, Peter just happens to find his dad's briefcase, which just so happens to find an ID card and a pair of glasses belonging to his dad, which Peter just so happens to wear to pass himself off as his own dad to get into Oscorp--in spite of how many updates to the security Oscorp would have undergone all that time--and just so happens to find a room with all those spiders, in which one of them just so happens to bite Peter and "activate" his dormant powers, which just so happens to be what his dad years ago designed his own son's DNA to do.
To be clear, I'm NOT saying that Peter's father actually had this all planned out. What I am saying is that in order for this story to work, it requires one massive coincidence after another to the point of ridiculousness. And the alternative, that somehow this actually was all planned and foreseen by his dad is even more ridiculous. That's why, if this plot development about Peter's powers is true, it's a massive plot hole.
The second sentence doesn't change the first. The second sentence - if true (which again, we have no idea, and I've yet to see any evidence that supports the hysterics) - does nothing but add a little bit more story to the event, it fleshes it out. It can still be easily explained as "Peter Parker gains super-powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider." because that is STILL what happens.
Ah, but the point is that, according to the rumor, the spider DOESN'T actually give him powers because Peter had these powers all along. It just takes the spider's bite to "jump start" them. That's different that simply saying "the spider gave Peter his powers." Heck, even the totem origin (which just as equally unnecessary) even has the spider give Peter powers via the bite. Having the powers JUST be the result of the spider bite and nothing more has worked for all these years without unnecessary embellishment because it follows the KISS rule. And if you have to over-explain something, then maybe you should have just left it well enough alone.
Once again, we have no idea if this is true, and therefore we have no idea of the context of the rumor. I would agree that if his dad just came home one day and decided he wanted to dick around with his son's DNA, that'd be a problem. BUT not knowing what the context is - why he did it, and what, exactly did he do if anything - doesn't allow us to judge his actions. Even still, I, as an audience member, WOULD care about Peter uncovering the mystery, because I WOULD want to know why.
But you see, that's my point--if Peter's dad did mess around with his own son's DNA, you have to come up with a VERY good reason why he felt compelled to do so. Otherwise, we would absolutely hate this guy's guts and feel that Peter is wasting his time trying to figure out what happened to a guy who not only "left him" but also "abused him."
t:
