No Limits

If Palpatine has been every voice inside Ben Solo’s head, then what’s to say those voices inside Rey’s head as she lay there weren’t the Jedi after all, but Palpatine convincing her to get up and do exactly what he’d asked her to do, in killing him?

Just because he didn’t contradict force abilities, doesn’t mean he didn’t contradict character motivations.

Also are we going to forget that most movie goers are completely casual fans (nothing wrong with that) and thus he still needed to establish the ability and the price.

And not do that while it happens.

It’s not about racism it’s about us wanting the movies to be TRUE TO THE COMICS

Comics Aunt May: Is literally a skeleton constantly on the verge of death

Is being played in the movie by Marissa Tomei

First of all ‘fans’. 

Who are the fans?

I think you will find they are a humungeous group of people is a wide spectrum of opinions so referring to them homogeneously as ‘the fans’ groups them all together. 

You in effect say all or most of the fans feel the way the OP is pointing out. There is no hard data to corroborate this because we don’t even know how many Spider-Man fans there are, and that is before you break it down by movie fans, game fans, comic fans and areas of overlap.

To call a group of people racist is in my book no small accusation, so there better be some substantial hard data corroborating this specific accusation.

But there isn’t.

Put it to you like this, I’m a hardcore fan. Like I won’t lie it’s unhealthy. I know many other hardcore fans, people who could refer you to such and such a panel from such and such issue in 1967 or whatever. I and they do not feel the way the OP describes at all in regards to Zendaya/Michelle. And opinions on Tomei’s May Parker vary. The vague consensus seems to be she is good casting but the use and framing of her character sucks being both reductive to her as an actress, MCU’s Aunt May as a character unto herself and is insulting to the comic book lore, the mythology of Spider-Man.

We are fans no doubt but we don’t feel the way the OP paints us.

However I, and again many other people are concerned with comic book fidelity. As in respect the spirit  of the thing you are adapting, which is why I have issues with Tomei’s Aunt May. She could nail the character just fine but the script, the directing, the framing of her prevents that.

Zendaya has it worse. I wrote way back when she was cast and we only had rumours she was Mary Jane that she was a great casting choice. I respect Dunst’s MJ but Zendaya had the potential to be the most accurate take yet.

Instead her character has nothing in common with Mary Jane beyond her initials. It’s not about anything beyond that. The personality  of the character was adapted poorly.

Then again that goes for Peter Parker himself. Again, great casting. Holland could be the best live action Spidey. But he does’t get to play Peter Parker he plays this weird combination of whitewashed Miles Morales, Terry McGuinness, Robin and Iron Man Junior. 

That’s my objections, and they are concerned with fidelity but they aren’t to do with race, etc. And I’m far from alone in this. That’s how most Mary Jane blogs I’ve observed feel about the topic.

That isn’t to say there AREN’T racist shitheads out there who don’t match the above exactly, but there are even racist shitheads who hate MJ not being white and also hate Aunt May not being old.

But how big a proportion are they of Spider-Man fandom? I have no clue and neither does anyone in the above because there are goddam millions of Spider-Man fans even if you go strictly by fans of the comic books alone.

The above posts are unfair and disingenuous, Spider-Man fans do not deserve at all to be broadbrushed with something so toxic. 

Call out the racists sure, but don’t paint potentially thousands of millions of people with the same toxic light.

Of course I agree with the idea that trying to generalize a fanbase is hilarious because yes there are a variety of opinions, even among those agree.

But to take that a step further, it’s disingenuous to assume someone who likes to respect the spirit of Spider-Man comics,wouldn’t have a problem with Peter’s mother being played up as “the fun big sister.”

If you look at any critique of Homecoming not being a good Spider-Man film you’ll hear t3 things: Iron Man Jr doesn’t get the “with great power”prerequisite, Aunt May’s not much of anything,and “MJ” is laughable way to end off on.

Oh, great, we’ve had two Iron Man villains, why not make Spider-Man’s third bad guy one of Black Panther’s?

a) A complex character in her own right instead of a Disney Channel sitcom character 

Let’s break things down.

Yeah she was rescued in every single movie but this doesn’t work on a penalizing system. That is a negative aspect of her character but it’s also not like she was Fay Wrey in King Kong either where she did little besides be someone in need of rescue.

She had a character arc of her own across all the movies about dealing with feelings of inadequacy brought about via abuse from her Dad, of being valued by people just for her looks.* 

You can’t dismiss all the depth and development of her character just because she needed to be rescued. By that logic Pepper Potts shouldn’t have any fans because she needed to be rescued in every Iron Man movie (and technically most Avengers movies if you count them saving the world at large) on multiple occasions.

As for being jealous of Spider-Man being more famous than her…yeah?

Why is this a bad thing?

Spider-Man 3 has thing clear cut theme of forgivness running through it, the idea is none of the main characters are perfect, they make huge selfish mistakes, sometimes which then engender selfish mistakes in other people. Then they need to forgive one another for those mistakes.

Peter himself was incredibly selfish and insensitive when MJ’s performance bombed and she looked to him for support. He made it all about himself then kissed another woman right in front of her in the same way he first kissed her.

Obviously you see how sad that makes her in the movie, but in the novelization by Peter David we go inside her head and see how devastated she is in that moment.

I’m not saying she’s entitled to feel jealous, but it is a perfectly natural human emotion. 

If you were someone who grew up being told you ain’t worth shit (by your father of all people) and have a dream to be famous and appreciated and then you get your shot at your dream coming true only for it to crash and burn and your partner meanwhile is living the dream you wanted for yourself (even though it wasn’t even their life goal)  and is inadvertnatly rubbing it in your face…who wouldn’t feel upset or jealous about that.

It doesn’t make her annoying it makes her human and flawed which is to say…a good character.

If the heavy emotions aren’t your thing, I get it. Like how people don’t like the amount of crying by Tobey in the films.

But no one ever considers how logical it is for those events to happen. You’re not a fan of that kind of melodrama, sure. But every time Peter cried was when someone close to him died (His father, his best friend), and mutually MJ had to be saved from circumstances that directly involved her.

MJ was one of the people Peter loved most, so Norman targeted her, Otto did the same, and Venom is a huge dick so naturally he did that as well. The fact that she had to be rescued isn’t a flaw with the character, or the film. At worst you could argue it was overused, but there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

The same thing goes for her emotional struggles with Peter as Spider-Man (something that only happens in the third film, which is the worst of the trilogy), it’s completely logical that when Peter is full of himself and his fame, and brushing aside her actual problems when he should be helpful.

a) A complex character in her own right instead of a Disney Channel sitcom character 

Let’s break things down.

Yeah she was rescued in every single movie but this doesn’t work on a penalizing system. That is a negative aspect of her character but it’s also not like she was Fay Wrey in King Kong either where she did little besides be someone in need of rescue.

She had a character arc of her own across all the movies about dealing with feelings of inadequacy brought about via abuse from her Dad, of being valued by people just for her looks.* 

You can’t dismiss all the depth and development of her character just because she needed to be rescued. By that logic Pepper Potts shouldn’t have any fans because she needed to be rescued in every Iron Man movie (and technically most Avengers movies if you count them saving the world at large) on multiple occasions.

As for being jealous of Spider-Man being more famous than her…yeah?

Why is this a bad thing?

Spider-Man 3 has thing clear cut theme of forgivness running through it, the idea is none of the main characters are perfect, they make huge selfish mistakes, sometimes which then engender selfish mistakes in other people. Then they need to forgive one another for those mistakes.

Peter himself was incredibly selfish and insensitive when MJ’s performance bombed and she looked to him for support. He made it all about himself then kissed another woman right in front of her in the same way he first kissed her.

Obviously you see how sad that makes her in the movie, but in the novelization by Peter David we go inside her head and see how devastated she is in that moment.

I’m not saying she’s entitled to feel jealous, but it is a perfectly natural human emotion. 

If you were someone who grew up being told you ain’t worth shit (by your father of all people) and have a dream to be famous and appreciated and then you get your shot at your dream coming true only for it to crash and burn and your partner meanwhile is living the dream you wanted for yourself (even though it wasn’t even their life goal)  and is inadvertnatly rubbing it in your face…who wouldn’t feel upset or jealous about that.

It doesn’t make her annoying it makes her human and flawed which is to say…a good character.

If the heavy emotions aren’t your thing, I get it. Like how people don’t like the amount of crying by Tobey in the films.

But no one ever considers how logical it is for those events to happen. You’re not a fan of that kind of melodrama, sure. But every time Peter cried was when someone close to him died (His father, his best friend), and mutually MJ had to be saved from circumstances that directly involved her.

MJ was one of the people Peter loved most, so Norman targeted her, Otto did the same, and Venom is a huge dick so naturally he did that as well. The fact that she had to be rescued isn’t a flaw with the character, or the film. At worst you could argue it was overused, but there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

The same thing goes for her emotional struggles with Peter as Spider-Man (something that only happens in the third film, which is the worst of the trilogy), it’s completely logical that when Peter is full of himself and his fame, and brushing aside her actual problems when he should be helpful.

Three reasons why a hero might not kill:

1. They are not granted by their society a “licence to kill.” Many (not all) people accept that a soldier or a judge might need to kill a wrongdoer in the course of their duties. Those people (should) act under strict rules and processes to determine when a death is just. A society, to be peaceful, usually functions under a guarantee that people won’t on their own judgement decide to off people. Vigilantes don’t usually have state-sanctioned authority, but they do rely on public goodwill to be counted as heroes and not menaces or even villains. A hero, especially an independent, self-proclaimed one, may lack the authority or judgement to serve as executioner. Most just societies require a trial before delivering a sentence.

2. They don’t need to. Paradoxically, or maybe not so much so, the stronger a hero is, the less they need to kill. One of the most common defenses for a murder is “self defense,” the idea that the person making the plea was in so much danger from the deceased that killing them was justifiable. But once you’re a swordsman swift enough to cut bullets or a muscleman strong enough to lift trucks, who’s that big a threat? As your control over your power and your ability to master an opponent both increase (and barring completely wild or uncontrolled abilities, these two are very linked) the easier it becomes to hold back, to subdue with the minimal amount of damage and to render even the worst villains neutralized without going nuclear. 3. The power to kill is bad for their mental health. Not everyone can perform even a “just” killing with a clean conscience. A hero might fear the trauma of killing, and seek to avoid the damage. Or a hero might introspect, and realize that, should they kill today, tomorrow the choice will be easier. Killing an opponent, rather than subduing them, is often the easy way out, and a hero who comes to rely on that solution might find themselves killing more and more, Even if killing isn’t addictive, a hero might still fear that mindset.

Heroes are not responsible for the future actions of villains. There’s this really (in my opinion, fucked up) prevalent mindset in a lot of superhero franchises that if you, the hero, had the power to stop someone, and instead let them live, and they later caused harm, then it’s YOUR fault. And to me that’s just absolute bullshit. 

Heroes are not responsible for the actions of the villains that exist in their world. Even if the villain says, “I’m doing this because of YOU, hero!” they’re still not responsible. Villains have autonomy and the ability to make their own decisions. If they decide they’re going to be villains who run around murdering everyone, well–yeah, that sucks. And yeah, trying to get them locked up or into a hospital is definitely a good thing. But if the hero decides not to kill? That doesn’t make any subsequent loss of life the hero’s fault. The decision to take that life still falls on the villain. 

The idea of killing to prevent further harm– ‘preventative murder’ –is all kinds of complicated, morally speaking. It’s not as simple as, “If I kill you, I am definitely saving lives,” it’s “I am making the decision to kill you based on the assumption that you are likely to try to kill again” and that’s…well, like I said: complicated.

I hate to have to call on something so obscure, but there’s an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys where sidekick character Iolaus is being tormented by Dahok, a demon. He’s shown a vision of a man hanging from a rapidly-unraveling rope bridge over a deep ravine and is given the power to save him. He starts to do so, no questions asked. But then Dahok shifts the vision and shows a young family having a picnic not far away. He tells Iolaus that the man hanging from the bridge is a petty thief, and that if Iolaus saves him, he will happen upon that family and murder them for their belongings. 

Iolaus then decides to let the bridge collapse. The man plummets to his death in a ravine. At which point Dahok points out that Iolaus just murdered an innocent man who had not yet done anything wrong. Iolaus argues that he was just trying to protect the family, but Dahok tells him that trying to prevent a future crime doesn’t change the fact that what Iolaus just committed was murder. 

Trying to account for future crimes in order to justify taking a life is a moral quagmire. And killing because of past crimes is punitive revenge–something heroes generally try to avoid and leave to the justice system (which, in theory, is far enough removed from the situation to be impartial and make a decision based on facts, not emotions).

Condemning heroes for doing their best to stop as much damage as they can without stepping over the line into taking a human life is perhaps not as simple as “they’re wussies, haha.” It has to do with how much power over other life individuals should have, and frankly, heroes are already walking a pretty fine line when it comes to how much authority they have to make judgement calls outside the law (see also: Captain America: Civil War). 

I do think it is rather remarkable how dismissive both sides of the argument can be, and while I’m certainly biased in this regard, it is rather laughable to hear “heroes are bitches. weak and naive for not killing” or the reverse of “anti-heroes are morally weak for killing.”

I want to briefly go over the facts of the argument I feel are often ignored. Those being that super heroes are fictional, and the historical context of being within a fictional universe.

The most common compliant for why so and so doesn’t kill is that prisons in superhero universes are revolving doors. Inmates constantly escape and ergo any death or harm they cause is on the moral failings of the hero for not just killing their villain to begin with.

For this little break down I’ll use the Punisher and Spider-Man as our anti-hero and hero respectively.

Now the fact that villains constantly escape from prison is an obvious convention of the genre. A result of writers desires to use a character who is imprisoned, naturally they write them out and put them back in when they’re done.

If you look at older Spider-Man stories in the 60′s, characters would vanish and disappear for issues on end and when they finally did return they’d remark on how they were imprisoned for years.

The post modern idea of super villain prisons are just revolving doors is just that, a post-modern idea taking shots at the conventions of the genre.

Essentially you’re laying a writer’s choice at the feet of a fictional character and then blaming them for it. You’re not putting things into their proper context and not acknowledging the fact that the reason these problems exist in universe is because of our actions out of universe.

In a way you can see the anti-hero archetype, as Gerry Conway, Punisher’s own creator put it “The answer to a failed justice system.” Because of the logistical problems of a Rogues Gallery, the solution was a new kind of hero who understood the absurdity of their fictional universe and tried to impose order on chaotic universe.

While comics now a days are much more in your face about these post-modern ideas, the 90′s are the true birth of these ideas and where they were first implemented.

The anti-hero response to waves of evil-doers, the tired groans of hero on hero fights, all things the 90′s addressed.

Mutually just as out of universe we know why bad guys always come back, it also describes how murder wouldn’t solve anything.

In this fictional universe death is almost never the end. Look at all of the villains who have returned from the dead, Spider-Man actually had a mild mental break down during Slott’s run where he lamented how bad guys always came back to plague him but all the good people in his life were gone.

In universe Peter is dealing with an unfair system, practically conspiring against him. But out of universe we know someone has a villain they’d rather write about and if they have to return from the dead to do so, so be it.

Look at Wolverine for instance. An interesting point for this kind of idea because he started out as one of the most violent anti-heroes, and then slowly became someone who thought killing should be reserved the “more heroic” approach.

Wolverine despite his murderous ways has an extensive Rogues Gallery, and it’s not from lack of trying. He killed Victor Creed, he then went to Hell and killed his soul. Yet Sabretooth is still alive and well at the time of this post.

This is because, at the end of the day no villain is guaranteed to remain dead. Spider-Man could murder his entire Rogues Gallery with Punisher’s help and they’d all be back tomorrow.

Notice how every person Punisher kills is a no name, a random thug, a crime family. You’re not going to see the Punisher kill the Kingpin, the Green Goblin or even Electro.

He can’t be successful because these stories still need to be told, and for him to be the solution to a problem, he can never be the antidote himself. Only treatment.

Now I know this argument may be a cop out to some, rationalizing what should be an inane system with the mere fact that it’s fiction, but I always think we should look at the narrative to see the real source of controversy.

Of course you have the logistic arguments that have been laid out in this post pretty well, though I would like to throw my hat into the ring for the argument introduced by the OP.

The idea that we’re “just as bad as them” is about the individual. If you believe all human beings are indued with inalienable rights that cannot be taken from them, then you must respect that human life has value and you have no authority over it, neither moral or legal.

While an oversimplification, it calls back to the idea that making yourself the law. Not just taking it into your own hands but christening yourself as judge, jury and executioner you enter into the gray area where someone else’s moral failings put their life in your hands.

The idea that you can kill on a whim based on whatever arbitrary feeling you have in that moment, Well it borderlines on fascistic ideals.

Me as a Spider-Man fan in the second half of 2018:

They’re often either broad or bland. Bendis has more than once expliictely or implicitely defined Miles as being ‘just a good kid’…okay but what is that. 

With Superman or Goku that personality trait means a lot because it’s juxtaposed with their God like powers. Superman just being a nice kind guy (to the point where it might as well be a super power) is poignant when he can juggle mountains, it’s poignant when he just carried an airplane to safety and then goes on to use his gravity defying power to just save a cat from a tree.

Miles and all the Spider-People don’t have that level of power and the whole gimmick with them isn’t juxtaposing their great power with their nice personalities in a feedback loop wherein the power they could use selfishly or destructively is used for kindness thus making them look even more kind. The gimmick is juxtaposing normal life problems and personal flaws with the need to do good as defined by a central philosophy that their power obliges them to help others, even at their own expense.

In Miles and Peter’s case this was particularly poignant as it stemmed from being horribly confronted with the ramifications of them not  doing that.

But in Miles’ case, he got the blessing of Peter’s friends and family within like less than 2 years after he showed up and then the blessing of 616 Peter (who’s word carries at least  as much weight as Ult Peter’s, and even more from a meta POV) and even then got Ult Peter’s blessing anyway like within less than 5 years of his existence.

Shouldn’t there have been a longer time period for Miles living up to the legacy and the shadow cast by it, isn’t that what happened for Wally West arguably the quintessential legacy character?

Always.

But this is the biggest problem with Miles.

When I was younger I was a huge fan (as a kid I was easily roped in by Miles’ appeal of being “new”).

But in reality, Miles was the lowest risk new Spider-Man Bendis could’ve written.

Sure he made Miles a black character (Latino to, just in case the people who care are reading) but beyond that he made him near identical to his version of Peter (intelligent, well-mannered, socially awkward to everyone but a few people).

He didn’t really try anything new. And he even kept the main cast from Peter’s book actively involved.

It was a really poor attempt at a legacy, and a terrible start for what he intended for Miles to be.

The fact that you have to stretch to find character traits unique to Miles is pretty irritating. It’s a shame that this film has to be the thing to give Miles a personality and character all his own because Bendis failed to do so.

We’re going to end up with a Gwen Stacy situation where Miles has so little characterization that every new take on him is radically different and there’s no narrative cohesion beyond that his name is Miles Morales, he is half black/half Lantion and he’s Spider-Man after Peter dies (which we don’t even have in the comics now with his new terrible origin.)

Don’t believe diversity is political, then immediately remark that comics always have a level of politics hence it would naturally then have to some degree be political.

Also the initial statement seems to be conflating what are two unrelated events. Presumptions in every regard, and is just generally not well articulated in any conceivable regard.

Namely that in a Spider-Man comic book his normal life is at least as important as being a hero and is supposed to be relatively down to Earth so giving him a costumed heroine as his wife as opposed to a civilian messes with that hugely.

You also neglect how Peter and Felicia are two drastically different people. Peter is a hero out a sense of responsibility and has a strong moral compass. Felicia is a hero out of being a thrill seeker and she has at best a flexible moral compass.

Meanwhile MJ and Peter are a better balance for one another and truly kindred spirits because they get what it is like to live double lives driven by guilt and responsibility.

He was incredibly uneasy about fighting crime alongside her when he realized she didn’t have any super-powers. Not helped with how vulnerable she proved to be against even minor foes like Cobra and Mr. Hyde.

That’s not even addressing how poorly things went when she fought Doc Ock and ended up being hospitalized.

It was so bad that she had to get back-alley powers from the Kingpin. Leading to the bad luck powers that she’s famous for. This was an entire story-line and it’s surprising this isn’t being considered.

Unless the anonymous confessor is thinking that right now, now that she has bad luck powers she’d make a good crime fighting partner. But who’s to say the same problem from the 80′s doesn’t return and she endangers Peter actively?

And yeah, that’s just the crime-fighting aspect and how she like before would have a hard time keeping up with someone with super-human speed, strength and stamina.