"Touch"🌗 соmm

ellievsbear
Acquired Stardust

JBB: An Artblog!

Origami Around

blake kathryn
Misplaced Lens Cap

pixel skylines
styofa doing anything

Kiana Khansmith
RMH

Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
almost home

oozey mess
🪼
One Nice Bug Per Day

#extradirty
wallacepolsom
Xuebing Du

seen from Hong Kong SAR China

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from France
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from Ukraine

seen from Netherlands
seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from Germany
@wellalrightthen
"Touch"🌗 соmm

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Spider-Man by Dike Ruan
I want Peter to get hit by a self driving car
@teatitty and I were discussing the objectively funniest vehicle for him to get hit by and in my opinion it's one of those hop-on hop-off red tourist buses with the really aggressive salespeople who accost you in midtown. like just plow into him with one of those while australian tourists snap photos. he's sturdy, he'll be fine.
Remember that idea I had for a What If? story where peter is the one who gets shot and dies? Well i made a cover for that story if it ever existed :3
Without the crosshairs:
Your tags for this post are cracking me up “to be fair he did canonically eat her out afterward —-“
A man who eats!⭐️
Link: https://www.tumblr.com/traincat/817521618247172096/traincat-does-peter-actually-do-a-pepe-le-pew
"Now, "monsieur," what was that about... dessert?" (Amazing Spider-Man #298)
There was that whole debacle about whether Batman goes down, but we don't have to ask that question with Spider-Man. We know he does. He's enthusiastically said it on page. It's really funny because there are characters where you can go their entire history without knowing that much about their sex lives, and then there's Peter Parker.
The Venus butterfly mentioned here, which like, credit to Michelinie for getting this one into the pages, honestly, is an oral sex technique. Michelinie was probably inspired by an episode of LA Law that mentioned (though never described) this technique. The writer of that episode claims she made it up, but the Venus butterfly later appeared in the 1988 book The One Hour Orgasm, and had been mentioned previously in the 1969 book The Sensuous Woman. So, like. Good for Mary Jane.
"If you weren't so good in the sack you'd be completely useless." (ASM #606)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Wondering why Marvel is so obssesed with making Peter a teengaer/child to be protected while they have never give Johnny an opportunitiy to show his origin story as a teenager/ child being raised by his old sister
Yeah, I think there's a couple of reasons why, for both -- and not that I agree with these reasons so much as that I get why it happens, and it's not because Marvel hates me specifically. This time.
I think with Peter at least Marvel is, to some extent, always chasing that initial high of success. It doesn't matter that Peter only spent an initial 28 issues in high school and that Spider-Man has largely seen success as an independent, adult hero -- and that part of that fame comes from his very successful and popular romantic relationship with Mary Jane. What matters is that Peter initially became wildly popular as a teen hero, as a high school kid, and so I think Marvel continually traps themselves in that cycle where they need to revisit those high school years again and again.
And there's problems with that, because most of the popular Spider-Man characters weren't in that high school cast. So they reinvent MJ and Harry and Gwen and force them into boxes they were never meant to fulfill. You know, MJ has to become the literal girl next door, or a high school best friend. And I think it also ignores what made Peter so wildly popular as a teen hero -- that independence. Peter did everything on his own. That made him appealing to readers. He didn't need to be apprenticed to an adult, or follow in someone's footsteps as a sidekick. Spider-Man was always standing on his own two feet, without any help from anyone. That's how he broke that teen hero mold.
And I think you see that to a certain extent in how audiences are excited for the new MCU movie, because people want to see Peter stand totally on his own. I have no interest in the MCU, but I think it's interesting to see people commenting on that just from the perspective of seeing how fandom reacts to things. People want that independence from Peter. They want to see him as a solo hero.
Johnny, by comparison, is not a solo hero, and at least in 616 continuity really can't function as one on a permanent basis. He can have solo adventures, sure, but part of Johnny's character has always been a social animal. He's a heroic person on his own, but he's a spacefaring superhero adventurer because that's what his family does. Left alone, Johnny tends to spiral. But that's kind of beside the point. The point is, why, when Johnny's origin is just as rooted in his youth as Peter's, do adaptations consistently erase the age gap between him and the other three? Why do they always either age him up or age the others down?
(I'm not really clear on how old he's supposed to be in First Steps at the time of the accident, but it didn't look like 16.)
So I think in adapting the Fantastic Four, the original origin story always seems to present a problem. I think because, first, it requires the Fantastic Four to steal that spaceship. This is not a government-sanctioned flight. They stole that thing. Second because it requires Reed to be wrong.
Fantastic Four introduces us to the smartest man in the world and then it tells us that in his hubris, his first act is this terrible mistake that changes his family forever. Now what he does after that -- I think that really does show that Reed is a genius. But that's not the narrative movies want to go with, generally. They would rather skip the theft, save for Fant4stic, a movie that has a whole host of other problems. And even in Fant4stic, Reed and Sue and Ben are aged down closer to Johnny, and absolved of some of the responsibility of their actions because of that.
Basically, I think no one wants to try to explain why three smart, competent adults went "this is fine" and brought a 16-year-old on their dangerous space flight theft mission. There's other issues here. I think that nobody wants to make Johnny 16 for reasons besides that, like Fantastic Four (2005) and its decision to play up the skirt chaser reputation, or not wanting the team to look unequal. I think there is worry about the teen sidekick aspect always -- I mean, look at Batman adaptations. Peter, being a solo hero, I think largely escapes this, although it does make me kind of side eye some of the earlier MCU Spider-Man choices more, particularly in how they utilized Iron Man.
I think the closest we get to teen Johnny in a live action is the unreleased Roger Corman Fantastic Four film. You do see him there as a child while Reed and Ben are boarding at Johnny and Sue's aunt's house. (And there is a very cute scene in the beginning, if you've never seen it, where college Ben is playing video games with itty-bitty baby Johnny, and where Reed later picks him up.) The downside there is that they were leaning into Byrne's origin story, which aged Sue down considerably.
But I also feel like this is generally a problem where Marvel doesn't want to really dig into Sue and Johnny's backstory, and it's just kind of a shame. I think there's a lot to get into there that outlines who they both are as heroes, where Sue is used to shouldering immense amounts of responsibility, and feeling unseen, and Johnny is used to pretending like everything is okay, because he and his sister need to stay together. I would love a limited comics series about it, honestly, but I don't think Marvel would be interested in it.
This cutie popped up while I was reading Siege (2009) :) 🩵
Bonus Peter being so done with everything (and cursing because I like it when he does that):
Wha hey and you’re not gonna share with the class 😔?
woefully incomprehensive
💬 1 🔁 42 ❤️ 149 · Peter Parker swearing: · "Holy @$#%%" - ("Holy shit") (Amazing Spider-Man #597) — "@☆xxx%#@ bureaucrats!" - ("Goddamn/
Personally, I'm a big fan of "you selfish sonova -- bus!" (ASM #205)
And in TASM, Peter's go-to curse word is definitely "motherfucker." He cuts himself off from it once ("Mother -- Hubbard.") and you can see him mouth it in another instance.
Spider-Man by Lee Gatlin

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
russo brothers have confirmed that??? peter isnt responsible/doesnt blame himself for uncle bens death in the mcu??😭😭 thoughts
I don't know what to say, honestly. Like I don't even know where to start. If I opened my mouth all that would come out would be garbled screaming.
This is SO hard for me specifically to talk about because like. I called it. I called it from the start. I said it the whole time. Obviously MCU Peter was designed as a character who felt no direct responsibility for Uncle Ben's death, because they wrote him like that the whole time. I've been saying it for years and he just tweeted it out. The whole audience was booing and then Joe Russo stood up and said "she's right." I've been saying the whole time the MCU's characterization work makes zero sense if Peter feels responsible for Uncle Ben's death. And that was before they killed May instead.
Like, am I feeling vindicated? Or am I just experiencing impotent rage all over again? I can't fucking tell. I, like -- this is the kind of thing people take to the sea over. I need to go sailing. I don't even sail.
Okay, circling back to this now that the world's most thoughtful nuanced little hater (me) has had time to think about this beyond "I've said this for nine years and he just admitted it."
I'm not going to spend too much time rehashing the things I said in my Big Homecoming Criticism post, or link to it, because it's old and I would articulate certain things differently now. (You can find it if you want. It's online.) But this is the kind of stuff I've talked about before, where the lack of the origin story at the foundation has created these gigantic cracks and where MCU Spider-Man relies so heavily on the audience bringing their own interpretation to the screen that they refuse to do the actual work themselves, like establishing Uncle Ben's method of death and what that means to Peter, to the point where they had to essentially kill May off to provide Peter with that structure three entire solo movies in. (And even then, I think it's super interesting that May is killed by a villain from a different Spider-Man franchise entirely. Like, the levels of distance here are really fascinating.)
I think what we're dealing with here is kind of three problems wrapped up into one, where we've ended up with Joe Russo just flat out saying "we wanted to do this character but without the foundation that makes the character himself and informs all of his decisions and his worldview, because that would have been a different character."
The Origin Story Problem
The MCU doesn't know who Peter Parker is, and it doesn't know who he is because it has never established a clear, written in stone origin for the character. I hate saying this because it makes people who enjoy the MCU defensive, but the point of that statement is not a criticism Tom Holland's portrayal, or anyone's enjoyment of MCU Spider-Man's characterization. The point is that when Spider-Man stories neglect the origin story, they don't know who Peter Parker is, because there is no solid foundation for the character. With Spider-Man in particular, you need to know the details of Uncle Ben's death to understand the ways in which Peter thinks, acts, and navigates his world.
It's ironic that Russo is the one saying this, because Captain America: Civil War did actually hint, vaguely, at Peter feeling responsible for the loss of Uncle Ben, although in such a way that, in hindsight, it does sound like he could really be talking about anything. Still, it was an acknowledgment that its Peter, at the time of the film, felt some sort of responsibility over his previous actions, although stated very simplistically. I've said before that I don't think CACW is a bad introduction to an inexperienced version of Spider-Man brought into an established universe, and that line was part of the reason why. (To the anon in my inbox who brought up the What If issue, that the series has implied the opposite of Russo's statement several times -- I can't speak to that, because I haven't seen the animated What If, but I'm reluctant to hold it to a different standard than I would comic book What Ifs, which is that they are in relationship to the canon they're based on but not beholden to it, and vice versa. But that is interesting in that it implies at least some differences in thought in the creative room.)
But that thread was abandoned as soon as Spider-Man: Homecoming came out. The logic that was presented at the time was that, because everyone already knows Uncle Ben dies, it didn't have to be seen or spoken about, which was -- always a really shaky premise in my opinion, but sure, let's say that because everyone knows Uncle Ben died, we didn't have to dedicate a huge amount of time to the subject. Certainly not the nearly forty minutes it takes The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) to kill him off. (I'm a fan of the forty minutes to kill the old man approach, but it is a large chunk of the film. I can see why other people might dislike its slow approach.) So let's say you don't have to show Uncle Ben's death. Okay, I agree with that theoretically. The thing you can't do is gloss over it entirely because then you're left with a story wherein, essentially, Uncle Ben doesn't exist at all. Not in any way that matters.
The common comparison is Batman. You don't do a version of Batman whose parents are alive and well down at the country club. You don't do a version of Batman where there is any doubt his parents are dead, and that this is the defining moment of his origin. This does not mean you need to show the Waynes being murdered, but it does mean you have to keep that murder in mind in your design of the character of Bruce Wayne. You cannot let the audience be unsure that this murder happened, and you cannot depend solely on the general knowledge that Batman's parents were murdered to carry that element of your storytelling for you. Spider-Man works the same way.
You don't have to show Uncle Ben's death, but you do have to show the weight of it, and you have to acknowledge that the circumstances in which Ben died matter to who Peter is as a person and a vigilante. You have to know how it happened as a storyteller. Look at Spider-Man: Noir, which is a successful Spider-Man series that absolves Peter of the responsibility of his uncle's murder. It happens significantly before Peter gains his powers and there's nothing Peter could do about it. There are significant characterization consequences for Noir Peter because of this. Noir Peter has no compunctions about killing. Noir Peter uses a gun because Uncle Ben wasn't shot. There is a very clear cause and effect that happens because the origin was shifted. Because we don't know how Uncle Ben died in the MCU, we can't see the impact it had on Peter. With or without that responsibility, we can't see it because the filmmakers are undecided on what they want to do with it an entire four solo movies in. We can't see that impact because the MCU doesn't know what it is. It's missing that foundation and the building is shaking because of it.
2. The Uncomfortable Emotions Problem: Guilt and Responsibility
This one I think is less of a problem with the MCU and even Spider-Man in general and more of a storytelling problem right now -- but because Spider-Man is a story that is always being retold, obviously it's going to fall victim to it. The issue is the lack of a desire or willingness to let the audience sit with more uncomfortable emotions.
Joe Russo says, "[But] what Tom Holland is as an actor, if he blamed himself for his Uncle Ben's death, I think he becomes a very different character. So in our minds, no, he wasn't responsible for Uncle Ben's death. That would have been a different interpretation. A more intense interpretation of the character." And what he's essentially saying is that that "intense" interpretation of the character was undesirable, because of that emotion -- the weight of Peter feeling responsible for Uncle Ben's death.
When I talk about uncomfortable emotions here, I'm not talking about negative or "bad" emotions in general. There's a lot of fun in watching a fictional character suffer, or cry, or be hurt. We love to watch a little fictional person be sad. There's entire genres dedicated to that. It's a worldwide hobby to watch your little meow meow get whumped. And MCU Peter is allowed to be whumped, and cry, and generally experience things that let the audience feel bad for him. What he's not allowed to experience are the foundational emotions of Spider-Man, which is the responsibility and the weight of his own potential. It's not just that Peter has to be responsible in general. It's that Peter has to be more responsible than the average person because he has more power and the ability to both do more harm and do more good than the average person. And traditionally, 616 Spider-Man takes an extraordinarily personal approach to showcasing that -- both through Uncle Ben's death and through Peter's devotion to Aunt May.
This has always been a problem with MCU Spider-Man, right down to the way Spider-Man: Homecoming recontextualizes the scene where Peter is trapped under the rubble from Amazing Spider-Man #33.
"I must prove equal to the task -- I must be worthy of that strength -- or else, I don't deserve it!"
This scene is crucial to Spider-Man. It's not the origin of Spider-Man, but it is is like, the Bar Mitzvah of Spider-Man. This is him becoming a man, owning that responsibility. Where he failed to save one parent, he has to summon all his strength to save the other. It's very much a scene about his relationship to May and Ben, and about his relationship to his powers, and Ditko does it all without taking Peter's mask off, because we don't need to see his face to feel what he's feeling in this scene.
In Homecoming's version, Peter's mask is off. We see his face. The audience is allowed to wallow in his distress and panic. It's the definition of whump, which I think is why it worked for a lot of people. But there's no outside impetus here, there's no emotion besides Feeling Bad For Poor Peter Parker. Crucially, this scene isn't about Aunt May in the MCU, May who would later be killed off in the MCU's third Spider-Man installment. We don't need him to get up because he has something incredibly personal to do, because he needs to save May -- something MCU Peter will ultimately fail at in part because they never established him failing Ben and needed to replicate that with the only parental figure available. We don't need him to get up because he feels he needs to redeem himself for something he didn't do before. We only need him to get up because he's in pain, and small, and we feel bad for him. He needs to get up because he's the main character, not because he has to save Aunt May. It's a simple scene, with simple emotions. And I'm not arguing whether or not it's an effective piece of filmmaking -- clearly that scene hit a lot of people hard. I'm saying that it's an inherently shallower version of the original scene that removes the more complicated emotions. We feel bad for Peter, and feeling bad for fictional characters is very simple entertainment. We all love to do it. But we don't require him to own anything in the process.
Removing the notion that Peter feels responsibility for Uncle Ben's death works in similar ways. Guilt and responsibility are not fun emotions. I think it's really interesting that Russo says that he loves this character, and that he identifies that feeling of responsibility, the idea that you do this one thing in a thoughtless moment and your life is changed forever and it's your fault and you can't take it back and all you can do is let it shape you going forward, and he empathizes with it. But that it's too "intense." He pulls away from it. It's easier this way. And in pulling back from that responsibility, he doesn't let the audience experience it, either. I think that's really interesting, but it's also symptomatic of a bigger problem: when he says he loves Peter Parker, does he just love the image of Spider-Man, or does he love the character of Peter Parker with all of his flaws.
3. The "Do You Even Like Spider-Man" Problem
Peter Parker is a complicated character. I would say that he's sometimes a difficult character. He can be petty, mean, a jerk, angry, obnoxious, controlling -- and that's what balances how good he is, and what makes him such a great character. He's never been the gee whillickers type. He's always been kind of a bitch. He's a character deeply rooted in a region and a culture and he is not easily interchangeable. When he's called an everyman, it's because he has problems that are supposed to be easy for the average person to understand -- he's not a fabulously rich billionaire by day living a dangerous secret life under the cover of his socialite schedule. Those characters are good, too, and they serve a purpose. But Peter worrying about money and his elderly relative and how he was going to explain to his girlfriend why he missed their date serve a purpose, too.
(Amazing Spider-Man #50)
Peter isn't meant to be relatable in that he's just like you -- but he is supposed to have problems that the general audience can relate to, whether it's money problems, or the responsibility of older relatives. You know, it matters that he worries about Aunt May's bills and whether she can afford her medication and what happens if she gets sick. When you strip both the big and the little responsibilities away from Peter, you end up with a different character. Which is, apparently, what Russo intended, or at least that's what he's saying. A less intense version of Peter isn't Peter. It might be a good, enjoyable character, but it isn't the same one, and that's a problem.
I think, and I've said this before, that not every character needs to be for every person. There are plenty of popular characters out there that I just don't enjoy. It's not because they're bad characters, necessarily, but they just don't do it for me personally. But because Peter Parker gets identified as the Relatable Superhero, there's this idea of this sort of ownership of him. He has to relate to you, instead of the other way around. So if there are difficult things about his personality -- his sharp edges, or the devastating weight of the responsibility he feels -- then those have to be sanded down for a wider appeal. But when you sand down the character, you end up with just a mannequin. When you remove the responsibility, you remove the key facet of Peter Parker.
"So much responsibility. It's not fair." (Spectacular Spider-Man v2 #14) Longtime Traincat followers knew this reference was coming, but it's so key to understanding the character. It's not fair. It's never going to be fair. But when you overidentify with the character, you start wanting things to be easier for him -- to be gentler. But that's not who he is, and it's never going to be who he is, and trying to make it who he is renders him a different character entirely. People want to like Peter Parker, but without all the difficult aspects that make him Peter Parker.
"That would have been a different interpretation. A more intense interpretation of the character." The issue is always that people want the idea of who they want Peter Parker to be, and not the established character. The difficult, responsible, intense version. I think it's really fascinating, and it also makes me want to take to the sea.
sometimes you really just lounge around going "what if I reread all of Spider-Man from the beginning again."
idiot.
Johnny having lived with Ben Grimm since he was a teenager means he's the only one in Peter Parker's revolving stable of shiksas (gender inclusive) who doesn't bat an eye when Peter orders a tongue sandwich.
I don’t know how this appeared on my screen
Inspired by this and everyone’s favorite writer and graphic designer
we could go back to telegraphs instead of social media. send your mutuals unspeakable strings of morse code at 4:30am
.- …. …. …. …. …. / ..-. . .-.. .-.. / -.. --- .-- -. / .- -. -.. / -… .-. --- -.- . / -- -.-- / .--. . -. .. - … / - --- -.. .- -.-- / -.-- . --- .-- -.-. …. / --- ..- -.-. …. / -.-- --- ..- -.-. …. -.-.-- -.-.-- -.-.-- -.-.-- / … . -. - / ..-. .-. --- -- / -- -.-- / - . .-.. . --. .-. .- .--. ….
personally i prefer semaphore
so prefacing this with the fact that I know that the fun is sorta taken out of this by me translating, but not everyone will have the energy to look it up themselves, so I figured I'd help out.
Morse code: AEEEEE FELL DOWN AND TROKE MY PENIT TODAY YEOWCE OUCH YOUCH!!!! SENT FROM MY TELEGRAPH
Semaphore: NO NOT YOUR PENITS

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Grasshopper's Dream Cafe Located: Jeongseon, South Korea
BUG SEX HEADQUARTERS
how DARE you try to leave this in the tags