Eh! Steve! Spider-Man: No Way Home

By Shamus Posted Friday Apr 29, 2022

Filed under: Diecast 55 comments

On Thursday night I sat down with Chris and Steve and we did a podcast on Spider-Man: No Way Home. 

For those of you who just want the health update: Surgery is over. I’m recovering nicely. If all goes well, then in about 2 weeks my health should really improve. I’ll have more details later.

I did this podcast because it was a nice low-effort way to produce some content and let everyone hear that I’m doing OK. In this podcast We talked Spider-Man, and I also give my 1-minute review of THE BATMAN.

 

 


From The Archives:
 

55 thoughts on “Eh! Steve! Spider-Man: No Way Home

  1. Chris says:

    Glad to hear everything went well. I hope you will feel a lot better in 2 weeks.

    1. John says:

      Likewise!

    2. Mistwraithe says:

      Ditto from me too!

      1. Zaxares says:

        Me three! Get well soon, Shamus! :)

  2. SidheKnight says:

    The Batman was a movie about how the “brooding bruiser”* Batman becomes something closer to the animated series Batman.

    *I wouldn’t call him a thug. This version of Batman is actually a detective (which I love), unlike pretty much all other live action movie adaptations of the character. I hope they keep the detective aspect for the sequels.

    1. RamblePak64 says:

      Unfortunately it turns out he’s a pretty bad detective when ya think about it. :D

      1. Vladius says:

        He’s an average detective. He’s still learning just like with everything else.

  3. Laserhawk says:

    Yay! Glad to hear you’re doing better Shamus! Sadly I’m boycotting Disney, but I look forward to non-Marvel content from you. Hope you feel better soon.

  4. Steve C says:

    “They gave fans what they always wanted. The monsters.”

    It’s pretty curmudgeon take. I don’t disagree with it. I just find it hilarious.
    Shamus as J. Jonah Jameson shaking his cane telling Spiderman to get off his wall/screen/lawn.

  5. Steve C says:

    @34min, The Avengers don’t trade lives. Dr. Strange absolutely does.

    Strange explicitly says it multiple times in Infinity War. He will willingly sacrifice other people for the greater good. Dr. Strange is also extremely arrogant. Always certain he is right. Far more so than even Tony Stark. Dr. Strange is demonstrated to be correct in this movie too by the outcomes. So he never learns.

    And yes. The movie only works if so many characters are exactly as dumb and exactly as smart as they need to be. I didn’t like that either. But these are also those character’s specific extreme flaws. Personally I can forgive it. Also you are right that Peter’s choices killed Aunt May. Just as Peter’s choices killed Uncle Ben. That was the point.

    1. Steve C says:

      I also disagree with the team vs solo theme as presented in the podcast. Or rather I had the opposite conclusion to the theme to you guys. That the through-line and takeaway was supposed to be Spiderman *does not* work in a team. That Peter works best alone and with fewer tragedies. It is reinforced with stories of friends turning evil and trying to kill Spiderman. Of dead girlfriends. Toby explicitly says it is rough going alone but he got through it. So I think the theme exists, just not with the conclusion you came to. The moral was the reverse.

      Which reinforces the conclusion of him walking away. Being reminded that MJ got hurt reinforces the theme that perfect is the enemy of good. Try for everything and get the worst of all worlds. That Spiderman can get a good end without MJ. But MJ cannot come to a good end with Spiderman.

      (And yes, that’s a bit unsatisfying. But it was supported by the rest of the story.)

      1. Rho says:

        I’m not entirely convinced by that argument. [Warning, I haven’t yet listening to the podcast as I didn’t realize it was on this week.]

        I do agree that Peter Parker/Spider-Man can’t grasp everything. One of the interesting traits that has really held up is a desire to be everything to everyone, which leaves him completely stretched until he (metaphorically or sometimes literally) drops something. Part of the issue is that it’s very dangerous for him to be too honest, but he also has some problems with trying to set boundaries even when it’s very necessary. For example, it would not exactly be that unusual to push back against a judgy Professor by saying that he has serious, personal commitments and is doing his best in class, but instead he may act like he’s just flaky since it’s an easy way to dodge any uncomfortable questions. Likewise, he can have Mary Jane Watson, but he has to be honest with her.

        In reality, Spider-Man even in his own titles is often not alone and he whenever he runs into significant threats, he often can’t defeat them alone. For good reason, he’s often portrayed as leader figure among the Avengers, and he can do that role quite well, owing to his quick reactions and clever ideas. That said, it’s a role he’s had to grow into, both in the comics and potentially in the movies, because his powers and abilities tend to incline him to thinking and acting on his own.

        As for how they might continue the story in the movies? I have no idea. Assuming Sony and Disney don’t get into another argument, I doubt they’ll just drop the characters entirely. However, the almost-literal Reset Button gives them a way to adjust the character dynamics and add all kinds of bizarre drama.

        Again, I am not saying you’re 100%. On the contrary, you’re 99% right, but that left over slice extremely important to he character of Spider-Man.

        1. RamblePak64 says:

          I think my issue that the lesson learned is to fly solo, is that the final conflict relies on teamwork in order to succeed. All three Spider-Men must work together as a team in order to defeat their opponents, who are working towards a singular goal but still working solo.

          Of course, this is assuming the final conflict is intended to reflect the film’s themes at all, rather than be a big fun spectacle.

          1. Steve C says:

            Yes and no. Thing is, that teamwork doesn’t quite count. It is multiple people. But it is still just Spiderman.

            It is Peter working with Spiderman/Spidermen. It is just him. Maybe he’s a bit older, maybe he’s focused on something else. But they are versions of him. What he could do. What he could be. The final conflict is Spiderman handling the problems he’s caused with no one else helping other than himself. Where Peter’s friends try to help, and/or try to stay out of it. They instead get dragged into a fight where they are a liability.

            Now that said, I’m only explaining what I see the film presenting. I’m not convinced it works on that level. It doesn’t hammer it home. Not compared to previous Spiderman movies that had that same moral at the end. And especially since it isn’t self-evident and we are having this discussion at all. (I’d guess there was something like that in the movie at one point that (rightfully) got cut due to being unsatisfying.) That pro-teamwork is what the audience wanted to see. But what was actually presented on screen was the reverse.

            I’m just saying that the film made the case that Spiderman should only involve Spiderman to solve problems. That anything else invites tragedy. While deliberately not claiming it stuck the landing to that theme.

    2. Daimbert says:

      Dr. Strange is also extremely arrogant. Always certain he is right. Far more so than even Tony Stark.

      Yeah, I noted in “Infinity War” that the combination of Stark, Strange and Star Lord ended up making Tony Stark look like the reasonable one out of them …

      1. Gndwyn says:

        It’s an odd version of the Marvel universe when Spider-Man is not even one of the top three snarkiest people in the room.

  6. DeadlyDark says:

    Take care Shamus! I hope for only the best for you

  7. Philadelphus says:

    Wow! I’ve admittedly never been in surgery, but I doubt I’d be feeling like writing even a single sentence for a blog post so soon afterwards. Hopefully that’s a sign it went well and you’re feeling better Shamus.

  8. pseudonym says:

    It is so good to hear you alive and well on the podcast. I wish you a happy and smooth recovery!

  9. Damiac says:

    Thanks for letting us know you’re ok. Hopefully everything works out as hoped for you.

  10. Liessa says:

    Very glad to hear your surgery went well!

  11. Lino says:

    I’m so relieved to hear that everything’s OK! I haven’t watched any of the new Spider-Man movies, so I’ll give this one a miss. But you sound much more energetic than before, and that’s always good to hear!

  12. Nick says:

    Really enjoyed the conversation guys. And very happy to hear Shamus is doing okay.

    Paraphrasing from 31 mins 45 secs in:

    This is what made me mad about the movie … Peter killed Aunt May … that’s Peter’s fault … that really bugs me from a storytelling perspective”.

    If I may offer an alternative viewpoint:
    The death of Aunt May for Tom Holland’s Spiderman is intended to fill the purpose of the death of Uncle Ben that otherwise occurs in the majority of other versions of Spiderman (including the other movie versions).
    Uncle Ben always dies under circumstances that make Peter indirectly responsible, when Peter prioritises his personal life ahead of his heroism. Ergo, Peter learns “with great power comes great responsibility”.

    So when Peter’s magic spell makes a mess because he attempts to prioritise his personal life, and becomes indirectly responsible for Aunt May’s death, his responsibility is the entire point of that narrative.
    Peter shows he has learnt this lesson at the climax of the narrative, when Peter chooses to sacrifice his entire personal life (literally) for the sake of the greater good.

    At the end of the podcast all three hosts wish for a simple Spiderman movie without the extraneous MCU baggage. It felt to me like the situation Peter Parker is in at the end of this movie was deliberately crafted to allow for that very thing for the next Spiderman movie. I guess we will have to wait and see.

    1. Vladius says:

      I didn’t listen to the show but it sounds like they didn’t get the point at all.

      It’s a deliberate reversal. Normally, Uncle Ben dies because proto-Spider-Man is being selfish. In this story, Aunt May dies because the established Spider-Man was being selfless. His temptation is to stop doing the right thing and give up on being selfless because it sometimes has serious consequences, which is what Green Goblin is trying to get across. Trying to cure and help villains instead of just beating them up or killing them left him vulnerable, especially to a real total psychopath like Goblin. Aunt May (and the other Spider-Men) want him to know that it was still the right thing to do.

      1. The+Puzzler says:

        Lesson taught by the original Spider-Man’s experience: “If you don’t apprehend petty criminals, they might kill someone you know.”

        Lesson taught by current Spider-Man’s experience: “If you try to help mentally ill people, they might kill someone you know.”

        The problem with the new one is, a person having an experience that doesn’t change them (temptation resisted) feels like less of a story than when person does change (redemption / fall from grace / gaining wisdom). Original Spider-Man learned responsibility. New Spider-Man learned to… keep trying to be responsible?

        1. Thomas says:

          Also, on a less deep level, I think it’s a bit BS that they decided to skip the origin story for Peter Parker only to cram it in awkwardly three films in.

      2. Gndwyn says:

        Aunt May is the one who made the decision to help Osborn instead of sending him back to his death. She works in a homeless shelter. She’s no stranger to the idea that helping people in need involves personal risk, and has clearly decided that taking those risks is the life she wants to lead. She would be pretty upset at everyone blaming Peter for her death. When Osborn claims Peter killed May, Peter should have said, “No, I was going to kill *you*, but May convinced me not to. Even though she’s dead, you still owe May your life.”

        1. Gndwyn says:

          These movies would never have an ending where Aunt May tells Peter being Spider-Man is too dangerous so he stops being Spider-Man. But somehow it’s okay for Peter to say to MJ, being my girlfriend is too dangerous, so you have to stop being my girlfriend.

  13. Aceus says:

    I had mixed feelings about *No Way Home* as well, but ultimately enjoyed it, despite its myriad of problems.

    Though, I disagree about a lot of what I took issue with to be “Fridge Logic”. (Aside: You can’t universally apply what flaws stand out during and after seeing something to everyone. What eludes you during a viewing was evident to someone else during theirs, and vice versa. One for me was Dr. Strange being inconsistent with his character and stupid with the whole spellcasting thing. He’s handed the Idiot Ball this movie to contrive the plot. Another was him not portaling Peter into a cell instead of entertaining a fight that he didn’t even want to have; which would have prevented the rest of the plot from happening. And so on. Besides, story issues are story issues. When we (personally) discover them is of little import. If I rewatch something I thought was great and uncover a heap of flaws that makes it lesser in my eyes, it doesn’t make sense for me to disregard them as invalid because I didn’t notice them the first time, or didn’t precisely know what they were and chose to ignore a feeling that something was off to try and enjoy the rest of the movie. I can choose how much I care about them, but acting like they’re negligible because I wasn’t paying attention and/or the movie was good at hiding them, seems weird to me.)

    Anyway, I think S.K.’s video sums the movie up nicely: It is ‘A Lovely Catastrophe’. (Great breakdown, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odg7Gdou0ck)

    1. Dreadjaws says:

      You can’t universally apply what flaws stand out during and after seeing something to everyone. What eludes you during a viewing was evident to someone else during theirs, and vice versa.

      I agree with this, but man do I find it supremely irritating. I see people give a lot of complaints about this movie and all I can think of is: where were these people when the previous film was released? That movie seemed to be universally beloved, I’ve seen people in this very website’s comment section call it “a masterpiece” even though every problem this movie has was already present in that one and in larger quantities.

      And I get it. I get that people were too entertained to notice. Shamus got angry at me for pointing this out in other comment, but the problem I have is not when people don’t react to a movie the same way I do. My problem is when they express their analysis of what they didn’t like in absolute terms. Something like “This shouldn’t have happened because Peter is doing something dumb even though he’s supposed to be a smart guy”. OK, sure, I agree, but why weren’t you complaining about him doing even dumber things in the previous film? It’s not like he wasn’t acting dumb before, is that in the previous movie you didn’t care.

      I don’t know how to properly explain this, which surely makes me sound like a nitpicker, but I wouldn’t be so upset if, to use the same example, the people who complain that Peter acts like a dunce in this movie also acknowledged that he did it in the previous movie, even if they claimed it didn’t bother them before for whatever reason. But when they go “Oh, this is always a problem” but they only complain about it sometimes it’s something that bothers me. Acknowledge a problem is there and that it sometimes bothers you and sometimes doesn’t, and there’s no issue. But when you act like the mere existence of the problem is bad and not just the fact that it bothered you in this particular instance is what grinds my gears a bit.

      For instance, you mention why didn’t Strange just teleport Peter to a magical cell instead of fighting him. That didn’t bother me in this movie even though it bothered me when Thanos didn’t just turn all the Avengers into noodles instead of fighting them in Infinity War (when it was established a few scenes prior he could absolutely do that). In essence it’s the same situation: a powerful character could easily end a threat but the story doesn’t allow them to do it to further the plot. The only real difference is how invested in the story I was in each time. But my point is: I recognize they’re both the same problem and that sometimes I don’t consider it bothersome. I don’t act like the mere existence of the problem is enough to destroy the plot.

      I don’t know, I surely wouldn’t be so bothered by this whole thing if the previous movie wasn’t so critic-proof. And by extension the entirety of the MCU. Most of these problems have nearly always been there, but if you said something bad about these films then you’d be labeled a “hater” or a “contrarian”. But now that they’re losing steam people are acting as if these issues are something new and not something that’s been there for years.

      1. Narratorway says:

        It’s because they don’t study film. They don’t have access to the language to explain why a movie does and does not work. Do they know what structural editing is? Do they know what makes a movie’s pacing work or not? Do they understand how camera choices communicate information? Have they ever heard of the Kuleshov Effect? Mostly likely not, but the thing is, it’s still going to effect their experience, even if they can’t explain why.

        “You may not have noticed…but your brain did.”

        Plot holes are one of the least important aspects of a good film, but they’re also extremely easy to make an objective statement on for people who don’t have the language to understand why a film doesn’t work. The Last Airbender isn’t bad because the editing is poor, the structure is weak, the performances wooden and the choreography amateur, but because they mis-pronounce Aang’s name. Pronunciation is the defining aspect of a good film. Everyone knows that!

        Chances are, if the plot/character criticisms of one movie can just as easily be applied to another and yet it was never brought up, it’s likely because that film was good enough to make the audience not care. It used its film language better. Yes, Thanos could’ve won every battle he was in with a literal snap of his finger, but the movie successfully characterized Thanos’ arrogance to imply he already knew that (and partly by the fact he wins anyway) and by going meta and directly pointing out how The Avengers (Thor specifically) could have won and failed to do so. It knew how to manipulate the audience in a way that would keep them from questioning it.

        Confused by what you mean about the previous MCU spidermen movies. From what I’ve gathered, they’re largely considered mediocre compared to the rest of the MCU and certainly not sacrosanct enough to be beyond criticism.

      2. Aceus says:

        Not to dig up a potentially heated debate, but I felt your comment earned a reply.

        I definitely don’t think this is the only MCU movie where characters were forced into idiocy or to do out-of-character-things, or the plot was only strung along due to contrivances and nonsensical decision-making. And to reiterate, I did mostly enjoy the movie and even got emotional during at least one moment, despite the parts that bothered me.

        As to why I personally don’t set out to make known all my complaints (and praises) with each film at the same time, this is simply a matter of brevity (staying focused on the main topic, which is usually the one film) and that I’d prefer to not grasp at foggy memory territory to show I’m not being (totally) unfair to one of the works in particular.

        I could probably just vaguely allude to similar things having happened in past works within the universe, and maybe give a passing remark as to whether it bothered me there or not and why, but like others, I am prone to moods and will sometimes feel the need for more elaboration and other times prefer towards keeping things short and simple. And it should be simple enough to clear up if a reader needs confirmation from me that I don’t think the issues (and perhaps even fine points) in one only exist there and not elsewhere with a single reply (although, misreading and miscommunication is always a possibility, and so may require more responses, unless it has reached a state of pointlessness, in which case I stop trying).

        I’ve learned it’s best not to worry too much about how people as a collective vocally express themselves or remain reserved with regards to how they perceived and felt about a story/work of art. We all have are days off when we’re not all that observant, across the years between releases of these movies we may have become less tolerant and more vocal of certain things because we learned to pay more attention and articulate our observations and opinions better, we may not trust our memory of something we watched years ago and will not direct criticism or even praise towards it (with certainty) because of that.

        It could also be we’ve gotten a better handle on our passions and emotions and can examine things more coolly now (not necessarily all the time, though), and are more open to looking at our beloved stories under a different, more focused and incisive lens. That could mean we’ll notice a lot of flaws and it goes down in our favour, or we notice them and they don’t damage our fondness for it much or at all; or it could mean that we find it to be even better than we remembered and uncover positively astonishing layers of thoughtfulness and care. I’d like to take my chances with the former if it means potentially gaining the latter, though, not with everything. (There is simply too much media now to feasibly experience, let alone re-experience, even just the stuff we filter into our own personal backlogs.)

        By and large, people tend not to care about something until they notice it. Does that mean it was better hidden in those previous stories, or that they were simply less attentive then? It could be either, or both. It could also be that one work was more adept at being distractingly engaging in good ways (for them) while the other work dropped the ball there, and so the flaws became more transparent (to them). I know people who are getting barked at for daring to criticize Winter Soldier and Civil War, applying the same standards that those very people claim to uphold. People are never 100% consistent with anything. We can work towards doing better, but we will inevitably make mistakes and fumble on our standards from time to time.

        I don’t have all the answers, and maybe I’m wrong about some things. I’m sure even after all that, there’s something I missed that might help illuminate matters of media analysis and discussion gnawing at you – they’ve gnawed at me too – but as of present I feel like I’m at my wit’s end and this seems like a good place to end my response. Hope that helps in some way. And have a good day.

  14. Dreadjaws says:

    I don’t understand the complaints that characters need to be stupid for the plot to work. It’s true, but this has been a staple of the MCU for quite a while and in particular in the Spider-Man movies. The entire conflict of Homecoming depends on Peter, Ned, Tony and Happy acting like complete idiots. Everything that happens in Far From Home only occurs because not only those aforementioned characters but also every single member of S.H.I.E.L.D. acts like a complete and utter imbecile. I’m sorry, but it’s way too late in the MCU to be complaining about that.

    Glad you’re doing OK, though.

    1. Shamus says:

      “I’m sorry, but it’s way too late in the MCU to be complaining about that.”

      You’re not the nitpick police and you don’t get to say when my suspension of disbelief fails.

      I’m fine with Happy being an idiot. He’s a goofball character. I’m also fine with the particular brand of foolishness that Stark exhibited in Homecoming: Generally careless, irresponsible, and distracted. He’s a smart guy, but his failings are in line with his character.

      I was NOT fine with the mess of Far From Home. Nick Fury is an idiot! Oh wait, it’s not really him! We can now make anyone behave out-of-character as long as we show them turning into a Skrull post-credits. AWFUL. Just… awful.

      I’m also not fine with Dr. Strange being this much of an idiot in No Way Home.

      * His foolishness wasn’t limited to a single scene / decision, but instead ran for most of the movie.
      * Dr. Strange doesn’t have that many character traits, but smart is one of them.
      * His foolishness wasn’t just a joke or a setup for some fanservice, but was a major driving force in the plot.

      That said, I didn’t HATE No Way Home. It had charming moments. I just think the series has been getting gradually more sloppy over time.

      1. Dreadjaws says:

        OK, sorry, I didn’t mean to sound rude. I understand different people have different levels in which they lose their immersion. I just find it a bit annoying when people constantly excuse this sort of thing in older films and for some reason they seem to think it wasn’t a real problem until now.

        I cannot agree in Homecoming. Tony is way too advanced in his career to be making this sort of thing mistake. His entire deal in the first movie was that he was learning to be responsible, yet in every new movie he acts like more of an idiot. At some point it feels less “that’s his character” and more “he refuses to grow”. Same with Happy. There’s a difference between “being a goofball” and “refusing to do the job he was assigned to only because he finds it annoying”. Tony should have really explained Peter the expectations of his deal and not just go with a line that was clearly written to be humorous and not to make sense like “Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do and also don’t do anything I would do”.

        And I still think Far from Home is worse. It’s not just Nick who’s an idiot. It’s, again, literally everyone at S.H.I.E.L.D. Some guy shows up saying he’s from a parallel universe long before those things were actually discovered and they all just… believe him? No one runs a background check? After having to deal with a trickster god and a woman with the ability to manipulate minds? No one has Stark employees in a separate database, knowing just how much they all end up turning into villains?

        Because honestly, I understand NWH has problems, but I hated FFH. It’s, to me, the worst movie in the entire MCU and I get a bit annoyed when people say that movie is fine but NWH is bad or mediocre while citing the exact same issues that I find far more prevalent in the former.

  15. Mr. Wolf says:

    Why does Spider-Man meet so many alt-universe versions of himself? It’s not like he has dimension-hopping powers or anything.

    Then again, the same thing happens with X-Men and time travel.

    1. Dreadjaws says:

      The comics actually have an explanation for it, regarding the bigger role of Spider-Man in the multiverse as some sort of guardian. It’s dumb and I feel it ruins the character, but it exists.

    2. Aceus says:

      Two is many? (Or are you including ITSV / MARVEL stories in general?) From what I gathered, it seems to be demonstrating the fact that the MCU operates on a law of there being a multiverse where other versions of characters exist. (I haven’t watched it, but in his TV show this is apparently the case for Loki as well, so it probably applies to everyone. As to why you don’t see another Iron Man or Thor (etc.) show up in NWH, I don’t know (Lucky timing? Somehow no other version of Spider-Man in the infinite sea of multiverse possibility has his identity known to The Avengers? They got teleported but were too far from the action to get there in time before it was resolved?), but it’s something I’m okay with shrugging off here, personally.)

      The question I have is why did Ned stop using portals to find more Spider-Men when they could be of a big assistance in dealing with the villains?

      Also, putting aside the obnoxious ease with which Ned somehow performs a spell that took Dr. Strange a great deal of harsh training to learn, why didn’t he keep opening portals to find the Peter Parker he was looking for after succeeding twice with the alternate universe ones?

      I get from a story perspective it’s to give us this moment of them finding him in a special place that means something to him, and it shows that they know him pretty well to be able to find him there, and for them to reunite for a soft moment of compassion. But from a practical standpoint, doesn’t it make more sense to just keep doing the portal thing in search of him, considering the staggering success rate they’ve had in such a short amount of time?

    3. Gndwyn says:

      Because Spider-Man is one of the few characters popular enough that there are multiple versions of the character that are sufficiently distinct that it might be fun to have a story where they meet.

  16. Olivier FAURE says:

    The “Why didn’t Peter explain his version to the public” part didn’t bother me.

    I don’t remember the exact details, but the way the movie was showing events, it felt like he did explain his version (at the very least, we can assume Matt Murdock did a press release), and most people believed him, but the kind of fringe crowd that watches J Jonah Jameson podcasts and throws bricks through people’s windows still went with the “Spiderman orchestrated the terrorist attacks and murdered Mysterio” conspiracy theory.

    And that kind of made sense to me. This felt like part of the point of the movie: that Peter needs his secret identity, because even if 95% of people believe he’s good, the remaining 5% can still ruin his life and be enough of a nuisance that the MIT doesn’t want to be associated with him.

    And, well… that makes sense. 1980s Spiderman had to deal with tabloids and an editorialist with a grudge. 2020s has to deal with internet cancel culture.

    1. Aceus says:

      Okay, but why didn’t STARK Industries (or SHIELD – both of which would have strong motive to expose Mysterio as a fraud) step in to help him after his identity-reveal? That’s a very significant and powerful company in this world and he is on really good terms with Happy, who is high up in the hierarchy of positions there. (Remember in Civil War how Tony just handed out free scholarships to a room full of dozens/hundreds of students?) And though Peter may never had any real direct moments with Pepper, she would be aware of his apprenticeship and son-like relationship with Tony, and I imagine she’d be wanting to help him, too. (Although it’s also kind of Peter’s fault for not contacting them immediately, especially when he has easy connections to them through his suit and/or phone.)

      Also, there was at least one helicopter camera (in addition to many civilian witnesses) that caught Spider-Man fighting the drones in the last movie. Cameras that wouldn’t be using any trickery to cover up the reality of how the Mysterio fight really went down, conflicting with Mysterio’s edited footage of Spider-Man (seemingly) murdering him. That was a live broadcast and ought to still be available to the public, but it’s never brought up in the movie. And it’s kind of absurd that the public would believe Mysterio’s (obvious) lie because his drones were only targeting Spider-Man, Happy, his friends, and Nick Fury (technically not the real Nick Fury, but the public don’t know that). Flash was even livestreaming being chased by drones with Happy and the others. This movie even shows the drones being recovered, and after examination the whole projector technology ought to expose the fact that Elementals were fake and Mysterio’s acts of heroism were all fabrications. It’s not that there wouldn’t necessarily be people who believe Mysterio’s narrative anyway (despite all the glaring contradictions in evidence), but that the story doesn’t care to address or acknowledge that at all (you know, by showing the reveals of such evidence and strong support from other members of the public, as a result).

      1. Dreadjaws says:

        I feel all of that would be pointless. The movie doesn’t need to dwell in those details. All the audience needs to know is that Peter’s out of legal trouble and most people believe him. The issue that kickstarts the events of the film, which is Peter’s friends not being accepted in college stems from him being too much of a public figure and the college just not wanting the attention. I really don’t see how the movie might be improved by adding all those explanations.

        1. Shamus says:

          Thinking about this more, I think fundamentally this comes down to not trusting the audience. The quasi-reasonable thing would be for Peter to clear his name in the public eye, but of course there will always be a few people who:

          * Are looking for something to be mad about.
          * Enjoy a good dogpile.
          * Don’t understand boundaries.

          We have this problem now in the real world, with people getting harassed and doxxed by small groups of extremists. It only takes a few people to make your life really miserable.

          You wouldn’t even need to change the movie that much. Keep the scene where some nutter throws a brick through the window, but don’t pretend that the whole world is out to get him. Suddenly the movie makes more sense, while also being slightly topical and grounded in real-world problems.

          But the writer wants to make everything as simple as possible, so the civilians of the world are an irrational angry mass that drive the plot despite being cartoonishly uniform in their behavior.

          If Peter’s plight made more sense, then Doc Strange’s decision to help him could be more pragmatic. Adding a dash of nuance to the background would do a lot to smarten up everyone involved.

          1. Dreadjaws says:

            To be fair, Strange does get angry at Peter when he realizes he didn’t go to him as a last resort. He assumed Peter simply had run out of options, which is a reasonable assumption to make. If you see a man begging for money on the streets you’d probably assume he doesn’t have any friends or family to help him and he’s only begging because he literally has no other options. If the guy told you he didn’t even think of asking his rich brother for money you’d be taken aback.

            1. Narratorway says:

              In defense of this part in particular – because it’s the one thing that I absolute sympathized with on Peter’s behalf – it’s the idea that it didn’t occur to Peter that he could negotiate with MIT…because it absolutely would not have occurred to me either. I have spent the majority of my adult life in world where being able to directly contacting anyone in a positions of authority for ANYTHING – warranties, finances, legalities AND education – has transformed from ‘difficult’ to near on an impossibility and I am a lot older than Mr. Parker! I have no problem believing HE was born into a world where the idea that you could just…make an institution change its mind to be only slightly less fantastical than the magic Strange uses.

          2. Syal says:

            We have this problem now in the real world, with people getting harassed and doxxed by small groups of extremists.

            The problem is that those types of people are real-life villains, and the proper superhero story conclusion to a group of villains picking fights with a superhero is for the superhero to track them all down and beat the stupid out of them. Making the world hate him might make this story stupid, but making the hero flee from the whims of bottom-tier villains will call the hero’s heroism into question and damage them permanently.

            1. Shamus says:

              I think it would be very on-brand for Spidey. Peter is always dealing with ankle-biting jerks. They cost him his job, or kick him out of his apartment, or get his friends addicted to drugs, or write lies about him. It’s a constant theme in Spider-Man that Peter Parker has all of these real-world problems that can’t be solved by Spider-Man.

          3. Gndwyn says:

            But that’s what they did. At least half the crowd watching Peter go to school were fans. Two of the teachers were fawning over him and just one was spouting Jameson’s nonsense.

          4. Narratorway says:

            One of Peter’s teachers tells him he made a shrine of Spiderman while another teacher chants how he’s guilty. It’s portrayal of the public’s reaction is uniformly irrational, but it’s not one-sided or even remotely unrealistic. If anything, the public’s reaction is the most grounded aspect of the entire film. Hell, JJJ’s rants are actually more subdued than the source they’re parodying and they didn’t change his character to do that!

            Not that it matters either way, the movie does everything reasonable to communicate to the audience Peter isn’t motivated by how the public views him, but by how that attention adversely affects those close to him. The inciting incident isn’t people throwing bricks at Peter, it’s watching his friends get rejected from MIT as a direct result of all this attention. That’s not subtext, it’s dialog in the movie.

            1. Shamus says:

              I didn’t really notice it until we started this debate, but it really ATE at me that Peter never got to articulate his point of view. Now, you can argue that this makes sense, because how boring would it be for a character to explain the events of a different movie? But even so, this created a constant sense of unease for me. SOMETHING was wrong.

              You saw the three teachers and saw that as representative of how the public saw Peter. I saw the angry crowds outside and saw THAT as the default public opinion. I saw the teachers as a different group. To me, the movie was saying, “Even among people who KNOW Peter, a THIRD of them think he’s a murder troll.”

              Sure, one of the teachers supports him, but since Peter never told his side of the story, what is that support based on? It’s not like this is a he said / she said debate. So to me it felt like one teacher hated him, and another teacher supported him out of blind parasocial fanboy worship.

              This created frustration for me because the first step to clearing something like this up is to tell your side of the story. After that comes the work of presenting evidence and winning hearts and minds. But we never get any indication that Peter did that, which created this sense of suspicion and unease with the storyteller. That feeling hung around even when the PR plot moved to the background to make way for the main plot of magical multiverse misadventures.

              1. Narratorway says:

                I saw the angry crowds outside and saw THAT as the default public opinion.

                And that’s the problem: You saw wrong.

                I’m not saying that as a slight, but as provable truth. There is specific dialogue explicitly pointing out who was in that crowd.

                REPORTER: The crowd has continued to grow here all morning long in the Midtown school of Sciences. They’re evenly divided between supporters of Spider-Man and protesters.

                You’re literally talking about an issue the movie is going out of its way to explain to you is not the problem, cannot solve the problem and is not connected to what motivates Peter’s decisions.

                Peter: It’s not about about me. This is really hurting a lot of people. My Aunt May, Happy, my best friend, my girlfriend. Their futures are ruined just because they know me and they’ve done nothing wrong.

                The attentions itself is the problem, not what kind of attention it is.

                1. Shamus says:

                  “And that’s the problem: You saw wrong.”

                  The fuck?

                  Look, I’m telling you how the movie made me feel and why it didn’t work for me. You can throw your little fanboy fit and complain I’m being unfair to a movie you like, but at the end of the day nothing you say here can retroactively change my first-time viewing experience. Get it? The point of this conversation isn’t to come up with some final judgement on whether or not the movie is good or bad. It’s just to talk about my reaction to it. And if you don’t want to hear my experience and don’t care what I think, then I don’t know why the fuck you’re listening to a podcast about That Very Thing?

                  Me: Here is how the movie made me feel.

                  You: Wrong!

                  You’re ridiculous.

  17. Josh says:

    So glad to hear your on the mend. Praying for your health shamus!

  18. Pink says:

    Marisa Tomei has died five times in movies and twice on tv(poisoned both of those.)

  19. tunnel rush says:

    It’s good to hear that everyone is healthy. Watching these videos makes me so happy.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Be nice, don't post angry, and enjoy yourself. This is supposed to be fun. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

You can enclose spoilers in <strike> tags like so:
<strike>Darth Vader is Luke's father!</strike>

You can make things italics like this:
Can you imagine having Darth Vader as your <i>father</i>?

You can make things bold like this:
I'm <b>very</b> glad Darth Vader isn't my father.

You can make links like this:
I'm reading about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader">Darth Vader</a> on Wikipedia!

You can quote someone like this:
Darth Vader said <blockquote>Luke, I am your father.</blockquote>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.