Far From Home The Uncle Ben Problem

[Spider-Fan]

It has nothing to do with that at all. Yeah, people wanted a "more jokey" Spider-Man no doubt, but that's not why people are okay with not seeing Ben Parker. It's about covering new ground with the character. We have seen 2 franchises start from the beginning in the point in Peter's life where Ben should dominate. The Raimi trilogy maybe lingered on Ben too much come SM3. But instead of being fixed to one type of Spider-Man story, we want to something new. I don't want to see Krypton explode 500 times. I don't want to see Thomas and Martha Wayne get shot 500 times. I don't need that. Here, we got a Spider-Man who was Spider-Man for a while by the time we met him. He had time to grieve. There is nothing wrong with exploring the character in a new way we haven't seen before. We've seen who/what Spider-Man means in the context of his own section of his world. The MCU had a chance to explore the character in a more global sense: Spider-Man within the superhero community, and that is what they're doing. I don't have any issue with this, but I know my opinion has 100% nothing to do with "teh more jokez!!!!" because I was never on the bandwagon that he needed to quip every 10 seconds.

 

[Arachnerd]

Again, it's not about them doing the origin again. Why do so many people misinterpret this? It's such a tiresome strawman argument to use, and just shows you don't really take other people's arguments in any way seriously.

Into the Spider-Verse brought Ben up, but it didn't beat you over the head with it. I don't remember anyone complaining about that. And yes, Ben isn't brought up in most Spider-Man comics, but at least you get the idea that he had an impact on Peter's life, that his presence is still felt in every person he saves and every villain he stops. I don't get that from MCU Spidey. Sure, you can bring up the "but he and May have moved on by now" argument all you want, but I haven't been given any indication that Peter lost an uncle and May a husband. And those "vague" hints (minus the one in Civil War which was the only one I thought was well done) don't cut it. MCU Peter's sense of responsibility seems to come more from his adoration/respect for Stark than anything Ben might have taught him.

And going a bit OOT here, another problem with MCU Spidey is that, as much as I do like him, the choice not to focus on dramatic elements that were introduced in Homecoming was an incredibly poor one. Far From Home delves into the responsibility philosophy a little bit, but not enough to be satisfying, in my opinion. They wasted the plotline with May finding out about Peter's identity and any dramatic potential that could have had, just to have her like fully supportive and having no issue with it whatsoever. That's problematic, because it feels like they don't want to delve deep into the issues and consequences Spider-Man usually has to face, and instead focus more on having a complete lighthearted venture with little to no depth. I get doing the first movie in this manner, but in the second where the stakes have to be raised, I expected more from it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I am not saying people wanted an origin again. What I am saying is Spider-Man's backstory is as known as the death of the Wayne's or Krypton blowing up. Meaning it is not a story beat we really need to cover again, origin or not. I'd like to see other stories covered.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

 

[Arachnerd]

I am not saying people wanted an origin again. What I am saying is Spider-Man's backstory is as known as the death of the Wayne's or Krypton blowing up. Meaning it is not a story beat we really need to cover again, origin or not. I'd like to see other stories covered.

You're not really understanding the point I'm coming across, but since this thread has been going around in circles and no opinions are being changed on the matter, I feel it's pointless to keep talking about it.

Point of the matter is, I think the new PS4 game and Into The Spider-Verse have a better understanding of who Peter Parker/Spider-Man is as a character than the MCU currently does. Unpopular opinion, but it's my honest thoughts.

And it's a shame too because Tom Holland is utterly fantastic in the role. I'm just not a fan of most of the creative decisions taken with the character and his world.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You're not really understanding the point I'm coming across, but since this thread has been going around in circles and no opinions are being changed on the matter, I feel it's pointless to keep talking about it.

I understand the point 100%. I just don't agree with the notion that not mentioning Uncle Ben ignored his importance to the lore. Yes, Ben Parker technically has no context in the MCU. But my point is because Spider-Man's origin is very well known at this point, we can all pretty much guess that he was close to his Uncle, let a burglar run off during a robbery, and that led to his Uncle dying. Hence why he has been Spider-Man for months by the time we see him in Civil War. We don't need Ben Parker's name at this point. The MCU has chosen to explore Spider-Man and his themes in a different way, and I do find it refreshing that we're exploring other aspects of the character.

 

[Arachnerd]

If the MCU does an incredibly poor of showing Ben's philosophy and reasoning in Peter's actions as Spider-Man, then it doesn't matter how refreshing this interpretation is. It massively fails at conveying one of the key aspects of Spider-Man's character, whether Ben is mentioned or not.

At this point, it's clear we have massively different opinions on this, so I think it's best to drop this since it's clear we're not gonna convince each other of the opposite. I'm glad people enjoy MCU Spidey and praise him as much as they do, but these movies, to me at least, might be fun superhero flicks... but they don't feel like Spider-Man to me.

 

[Shockdingo]

But instead of being fixed to one type of Spider-Man story, we want to something new. I don't want to see Krypton explode 500 times. I don't want to see Thomas and Martha Wayne get shot 500 times.

I'm very much a to each their own type of guy, but there's a difference between showing the same thing in agonizing detail for the umpteenth time and still indicating it happened. I mean, this isn't fans pining over a random, disposable element not being in another adaptation like Batman disappearing before anyone realizes or wanting a "final swing" close to a Spidey movie, this is part of his core origin.

We don't need to see that Krypton exploded, but we need to know that Clark wasn't born here and his parents' last act of love is why he's here . We don't need to see the Wayne's get gunned down in bullet time, 4d, smellovision again, but we should see that there's a void in Bruce's life. He seemingly has it all and puts his body and life at risk each night and has an obsession. We need to indicate that he lost someone at the very least.

This isn't a costume detail, this is what is a driving force in his life. I fail to see how a mere mention of Ben bundled with some sincerity is a re-tread and something so offensive to the audience that it should be skipped over entirely to improve the experience. I mean, that's like saying that in order to make something new and fresh, they ditch Spidey's webshooters and switch back to the old web gun concept. Granted, we always see his webshooters, but Ben's presence is always felt on two fronts; he's a loved one who was taken before his time and he feels its his fault. He may not be mentioned every issue, but the result of his death is always a part of Spider-man. It's why he puts on the costume, it's part of why he fights so hard.

Again, like several of us have been saying, we don't want Ben to be the most important part of every Spidey MCU storyline, but something more realistic to show the weight of him could be done.

It's almost like the situation's being treated like Ben's a teacher who moved away, got old, and peacefully died in his sleep. Sure it sucks Pete wont see him again, but he'll get over it. Ben was murdered by his inaction, that's gotta haunt him.

My point is that you can still keep to the character origins and core while doing something new. You don't have to jettison or surpress core details to freshen things up.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm very much a to each their own type of guy, but there's a difference between showing the same thing in agonizing detail for the umpteenth time and still indicating it happened. I mean, this isn't fans pining over a random, disposable element not being in another adaptation like Batman disappearing before anyone realizes or wanting a "final swing" close to a Spidey movie, this is part of his core origin.

We don't need to see that Krypton exploded, but we need to know that Clark wasn't born here and his parents' last act of love is why he's here . We don't need to see the Wayne's get gunned down in bullet time, 4d, smellovision again, but we should see that there's a void in Bruce's life. He seemingly has it all and puts his body and life at risk each night and has an obsession. We need to indicate that he lost someone at the very least.

This isn't a costume detail, this is what is a driving force in his life. I fail to see how a mere mention of Ben bundled with some sincerity is a re-tread and something so offensive to the audience that it should be skipped over entirely to improve the experience. I mean, that's like saying that in order to make something new and fresh, they ditch Spidey's webshooters and switch back to the old web gun concept. Granted, we always see his webshooters, but Ben's presence is always felt on two fronts; he's a loved one who was taken before his time and he feels its his fault. He may not be mentioned every issue, but the result of his death is always a part of Spider-man. It's why he puts on the costume, it's part of why he fights so hard.

Again, like several of us have been saying, we don't want Ben to be the most important part of every Spidey MCU storyline, but something more realistic to show the weight of him could be done.

It's almost like the situation's being treated like Ben's a teacher who moved away, got old, and peacefully died in his sleep. Sure it sucks Pete wont see him again, but he'll get over it. Ben was murdered by his inaction, that's gotta haunt him.

My point is that you can still keep to the character origins and core while doing something new. You don't have to jettison or surpress core details to freshen things up.

Right, it's a driving force of his life. Which is why he is Spider-Man in the first place. For me, I would say him being in the suit at all is enough of a reminder how important Uncle Ben was to Peter. Like you said, he would not be in the Spider-Man suit without what happened to him. But where as you say that means we need to show the weight of what Ben meant to him, I think the opposite. He's already in the suit doing this everyday. That for me is enough weight to show how much his Unlce meant to him. I don't think think a mention is something that would ultimately ruin a movie or anything, but I just don't think they really need to do it at this point. Peter is Spider-Man at this point. We all know why he is Spider-Man. That is ultimately really all we need to know at this point. We've sort of moved into the phase of Spider-Man's tenure where we're now asking what does the mantle mean in a broader sense, so I think within the story, we've moved past that night with the burglar and it really doesn't need to be covered again. We just have to move forward with the story where it lies.

 

[Dark Raven]

Right, it's a driving force of his life. Which is why he is Spider-Man in the first place. For me, I would say him being in the suit at all is enough of a reminder how important Uncle Ben was to Peter. Like you said, he would not be in the Spider-Man suit without what happened to him. But where as you say that means we need to show the weight of what Ben meant to him, I think the opposite. He's already in the suit doing this everyday. That for me is enough weight to show how much his Unlce meant to him. I don't think think a mention is something that would ultimately ruin a movie or anything, but I just don't think they really need to do it at this point. Peter is Spider-Man at this point. We all know why he is Spider-Man. That is ultimately really all we need to know at this point. We've sort of moved into the phase of Spider-Man's tenure where we're now asking what does the mantle mean in a broader sense, so I think within the story, we've moved past that night with the burglar and it really doesn't need to be covered again. We just have to move forward with the story where it lies.

I don't think being in the suit is enough to show how much Uncle Ben meant to him. That in itself doesn't mean anything. Otherwise does that mean that Uncle Ben also meant a lot to Nicholas Hammond's 70s Spider-Man because he was also in the suit? Or did he mean anything to the Japanese Spider-Man, aka Takuya Yamashiro, a Japanese motorcross racer?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think being in the suit is enough to show how much Uncle Ben meant to him. That in itself doesn't mean anything. Otherwise does that mean that Uncle Ben also meant a lot to Nicholas Hammond's 70s Spider-Man because he was also in the suit? Or did he mean anything to the Japanese Spider-Man, aka Takuya Yamashiro, a Japanese motorcross racer?

Poor comparisons. We know Ben Parker existed within this Spider-Man's life, therefore inferring his origin played out closer to what we all know is not unreasonable.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

If you're nothing without that suit, then you shouldn't have it.

It seems the MCU version reinforced that Peter having the suit is direct influence of Tony. As it was the backbone of the lifting rubble scene... it was Tony's words to Peter that give him the clarity to overcome the obstacle. It's gotta be one of if not the greatest Spider-Man scenes in all of comics and they took the importance of that scene and gave it to Tony.

If Ben meant something to Peter they'd make a point of letting the filmgoers know this. If this was a college aged Peter I can see how enough time has passed for this to be less of an issue. But here Peter is what, like 6 months removed from Ben's death? And he's know Tony for how long?

Imo, it's wrong to change up this aspect of Peter by making Tony, Ben. I still haven't seen FFH, but based on things I've read, it would appear this isn't going to change.

To each their own I suppose. I don't agree with this change.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

And to follow up my post, I honestly feel like this sort of thing is getting a pass because it's the MCU. Which I feel is unfair to say cause it's robbing people who may love this version. And that's not my intent. It's just how I feel.

If they made this change in the ASM films would it still garner the 'new and different' its amazing approach? I gotta wonder. Cause in those films they actually made a point of bringing up Ben, showing his importance and then dropped him like a bad habit. Peter's parents, specifically his father, became the most important thing to him. And those movies caught a rash of s#@t for doing that. But now it's all of the sudden it's ok? And here they don't even show anything in terms of Ben and how he has affected Peter. It's swept under the rug entirely, completely skipped cause oh he's been Spider-Man for a couple of months and no need to talk about it. And who needs a Ben when you've got a Tony.

I never thought we'd come to a point where people talking about Spider-Man would be tired of seeing Ben. That they'd welcome a change where Ben is essentially replaced and that'd be just fine.

 

[Spider-Fan]

And to follow up my post, I honestly feel like this sort of thing is getting a pass because it's the MCU. Which I feel is unfair to say cause it's robbing people who may love this version. And that's not my intent. It's just how I feel.

If they made this change in the ASM films would it still garner the 'new and different' its amazing approach? I gotta wonder. Cause in those films they actually made a point of bringing up Ben, showing his importance and then dropped him like a bad habit. Peter's parents, specifically his father, became the most important thing to him. And those movies caught a rash of s#@t for doing that. But now it's all of the sudden it's ok? And here they don't even show anything in terms of Ben and how he has affected Peter. It's swept under the rug entirely, completely skipped cause oh he's been Spider-Man for a couple of months and no need to talk about it. And who needs a Ben when you've got a Tony.

I never thought we'd come to a point where people talking about Spider-Man would be tired of seeing Ben. That they'd welcome a change where Ben is essentially replaced and that'd be just fine.

I think the biggest sin that TASM movies made was adapting the Uncle Ben story and the parents in the same movie. I think if they it needed to focus itself in one direction or another. Since Uncle Ben sort of was a foot note, they may as well have just started the movie with Ben dead, him being Spider-Man, and then starting with the parents stuff immediately. Not that it would have saved it much since that plot was garbage, as well.

But by the same token, I think MCU Spidey gets away with not talking about Ben because TASM covered it a 2nd time, making audiences now sort of been there and done that to it. Without TASM series in the middle, maybe people would be more angry. Who knows?

 

[Dark Raven]

At the start of Far From Home

Spoiler

Didn't they say it had been something like 8 or 9 months since the blip? It certainly wasn't last week. It was the same amount of time since Tony's death that it would've been when Peter first met Tony in Civil War where it would've been about 6 or so months since Uncle Ben's death. And yet, people are saying in that case that it would've been enough time for Peter to get over his grieving for his uncle. If so, then why is he still grieving Tony Stark the same amount of time later or even longer (if they did say 9 months later)? Peter talks about how he missed Tony so much.

Does that mean that Tony meant more to Peter than Uncle Ben did and was more instrumental in his life in shaping the person he became?

 

[Mistah K88]

Right, it's a driving force of his life. Which is why he is Spider-Man in the first place. For me, I would say him being in the suit at all is enough of a reminder how important Uncle Ben was to Peter. Like you said, he would not be in the Spider-Man suit without what happened to him. But where as you say that means we need to show the weight of what Ben meant to him, I think the opposite. He's already in the suit doing this everyday. That for me is enough weight to show how much his Unlce meant to him. I don't think think a mention is something that would ultimately ruin a movie or anything, but I just don't think they really need to do it at this point. Peter is Spider-Man at this point. We all know why he is Spider-Man. That is ultimately really all we need to know at this point. We've sort of moved into the phase of Spider-Man's tenure where we're now asking what does the mantle mean in a broader sense, so I think within the story, we've moved past that night with the burglar and it really doesn't need to be covered again. We just have to move forward with the story where it lies.

To be fair, this version of Peter could simply have been inspired by Tony Stark and the Avengers. After acquiring super powers he wanted to be like the heroes he idolized. I will admit, that I don't think I would buy Holland's Spidey/Peter looking the other way when it comes to the Ben Parker murder...

 

[Schlosser85]

At the start of Far From Home

Spoiler

Didn't they say it had been something like 8 or 9 months since the blip? It certainly wasn't last week. It was the same amount of time since Tony's death that it would've been when Peter first met Tony in Civil War where it would've been about 6 or so months since Uncle Ben's death. And yet, people are saying in that case that it would've been enough time for Peter to get over his grieving for his uncle. If so, then why is he still grieving Tony Stark the same amount of time later or even longer (if they did say 9 months later)? Peter talks about how he missed Tony so much.

Does that mean that Tony meant more to Peter than Uncle Ben did and was more instrumental in his life in shaping the person he became?

I don’t remember anyone saying it had been that long since Endgame.

 

[Venom 1988]

I believe it was Betty in the student news video who said it had been 8 months since Endgame.

 

[Web-Head]

At the start of Far From Home

Spoiler

Didn't they say it had been something like 8 or 9 months since the blip? It certainly wasn't last week. It was the same amount of time since Tony's death that it would've been when Peter first met Tony in Civil War where it would've been about 6 or so months since Uncle Ben's death. And yet, people are saying in that case that it would've been enough time for Peter to get over his grieving for his uncle. If so, then why is he still grieving Tony Stark the same amount of time later or even longer (if they did say 9 months later)? Peter talks about how he missed Tony so much.

Does that mean that Tony meant more to Peter than Uncle Ben did and was more instrumental in his life in shaping the person he became?

Yep, exactly. I have no problem with them not mentioning Uncle Ben, but they should do a better job of showing he mattered to Peter, but the fact that he's still mourning Tony? C'mon.

I believe it was Betty in the student news video who said it had been 8 months since Endgame.

Yep!

 

[Dark Raven]

I don’t remember anyone saying it had been that long since Endgame.

It was definitely that in the broadcast at the start of the film. I couldn't remember if it was 8 or 9, but it seems to be 8.

Yep, exactly. I have no problem with them not mentioning Uncle Ben, but they should do a better job of showing he mattered to Peter, but the fact that he's still mourning Tony? C'mon.



Yep!

It certainly undermines the whole argument that by Civil War when we met Peter, months had passed so he would've been fully over the death of Uncle Ben and there would be no more need to mention him as he would've moved on with his life.

That all goes out the window with FFH.

After 8 months he shouldn't be mentioning or grieving Tony either.

 

[Marvel united]

Poor comparisons. We know Ben Parker existed within this Spider-Man's life, therefore inferring his origin played out closer to what we all know is not unreasonable.

That's fair but Jon Watts implied that Ben Parker may not even be dead. So who knows what they're cooking up at this point. A mention in pass tense would end this debate once and for all.

 

[samsnee]

It was definitely that in the broadcast at the start of the film. I couldn't remember if it was 8 or 9, but it seems to be 8.



It certainly undermines the whole argument that by Civil War when we met Peter, months had passed so he would've been fully over the death of Uncle Ben and there would be no more need to mention him as he would've moved on with his life.

That all goes out the window with FFH.

After 8 months he shouldn't be mentioning or grieving Tony either.

People grieve differently each time. Ben’s death was private and only something a few people knew about. Tony’s death was shared by the world, and Parker is constantly reminded of it and asked if he can fill that void and be the next Iron Man.

 

[spider-neil]

What exactly is it people want?

The origin again?

The awkward May Ben recollections?

Ben randomly dropped into conversation? 'Pass the salt, and, oh, wasn't Ben great?'

Too much time has passed now. We're three years past Civil War, which was 6 months past Ben's death. We've seen Ben Parker in 3 Raimi movies, one Web movie and a cameo on into the spider-verse. For me, that's more than enough.

It's also worth bearing in mind, May in the Raimi movie was much older and had shared a lifetime with Ben. The MCU May is younger, and whilst she may have had a long relationship with Ben she is still young enough to want to explore new relationships and move on. It has been years since Ben's death.

 

[samsnee]

“Pass the salt”
“Ben’s favorite seasoning was salt”

“Want to build LEGO Death Star with me?”
“Death.... Star.... Ben was my star, and he’s dead”

“Congrats kid, you’re an Avenger”
“Avenge... like what I couldn’t do for my Uncle Ben”

 

[Shockdingo]

What exactly is it people want?

The origin again?

The awkward May Ben recollections?

Ben randomly dropped into conversation? 'Pass the salt, and, oh, wasn't Ben great?'

Too much time has passed now. We're three years past Civil War, which was 6 months past Ben's death. We've seen Ben Parker in 3 Raimi movies, one Web movie and a cameo on into the spider-verse. For me, that's more than enough.

It's also worth bearing in mind, May in the Raimi movie was much older and had shared a lifetime with Ben. The MCU May is younger, and whilst she may have had a long relationship with Ben she is still young enough to want to explore new relationships and move on. It has been years since Ben's death.

The origin keeps coming up in these arguments, but the majority of us aren't ask for the origin. What do we want? Not gonna speak for everyone, but I'd say it's fair that we want some SINCERITY, some acknowledgement if Ben's importance.

Not in an arbitrary way like the salt example. Pete's growing up without Ben being there, facing milestones.

Having a moment like in Homecoming when he's getting ready for prom, in a realistic manner, seeing how Pete's grown up, but not having Ben there would hurt, especially if he used an old suit of his. Even if not, I could have seen a little scene with May, smiling a sad smile.

"He would've loved to see you taking on a brand new adventure like this, Pete"


FFH:

Spoiler

Pete has a suitcase that supposedly has Ben's initials on it, but it never gets more than a second of focus before the scene changes. Pete doesn't do much to show the significance of the case, not even a little extra long look at the initials before closing it and hurrying off. He later gets the case destroyed and doesn't have a reaction. I'm not expecting crying or anything, but acknowledging he lost something that belonged to someone important while in this movie he goes on about how EDITH is his last keepsake from Tony feels a bit off.

In the end, I get it, people grieve differently, but crap man, the mention of Ben in some way when it's the most impactful event in Pete and May's life should carry more weight narratively. It doesn't matter if it's been 6 months or years, something should be tugging their heartstrings in universe. I mean Pete didn't even show discomfort that Happy is taking Uncle Ben's place since he and MAy are dating. I thought that would've been a gag, but nothing.