MovieChat Forums > Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019) Discussion > Does it bother you that the MCU differs ...

Does it bother you that the MCU differs so much from the comics?


For me it really doesn't, because I've always viewed the MCU as a seperate universe from the mainline Earth 616 comics universe. Within comics anyway there's loads of different iterations of characters as well as different universes. I learned today that the proper designation for the MCU is Earth 199999, which means to me that it's not supposed to follow the comics.

As long as they keep putting out quality movies, the changes still won't really bother me.

reply

It disconcerts me more that the Comics differ from the Comics (thus the need for Multi-verses, Alternate Dimensions, What-Ifs, re-imaginings, ertcons, etc, etc) than the MCU differing from the conglomeration of what is "Print Canon".

As a young reader of Marvel I was sometimes jolted by the change in Artists, Inkers, Writers, Pencilers on any given book. Not all artists and writers are created equal and there are times they want to do something different that could very much be out of some pre-conceived continuity or narrative out of exercising "Creative Freedom".

Long answer for, No it doesn't bother me.

With that said there are some story elements and narratives that have been changed from the print canon for the MCU that I was NOT happy with: Ant-Man and the Wasp NOT being founding members of the Avengers, Ultron NOT being a creation of Hank Pym. The Fantastic Four NOT introducing the Black Panther. A few more but I understood that was where the MCU could go given the limited access to their full catalog. In other words Out of Necessity instead of design.

Last, now that the Infinity Saga is complete I am ambivalent about all things starting and highlighted through the ego prism of Tony Stark/RDJ. Like Fox depending too much on Wolverine and DC depending too much on Batman. Marvel/Disney has invested TOO, TOO much in RDJ and Tony Stark at the expense of other characters.

It is great that Tony was rehabilitated from being the Problem or Quasi-Villain to becoming the ultimate Hero and Savior of the MCU but it is and was kind of a short-shrift of so many other characters. Great story arc for RDJ I must admit.

But.... https://funnyjunk.com/Thor+vs+iron+man+civil+war/funny-pictures/5427982/#645e53_5427538 👍

reply

If there are things in the comics that bother me it's them making the comics like the movies in recent years. Like making Eddie Brock's origin like Spider-Man 3. Or making the original Nick Fury become some superhero of the Universe so that the Ultimate one can take Shield over to be like the movies. I do wish Peter's peer group in the MCU could've been like the comics but it doesn't bother me that much. I can still enjoy them. Though still, comics>movies. That goes for both DC and Marvel.

reply

My main issue with Peter's class is Flash. He's not imposing at all as a bully and he gets sort of bullied himself. Not that we'd get it anyways, but I couldn't see this iteration of Flash having any compelling story arc where he ends up as one of Peter's best friends as well as someone he fights alongside.

reply

That bothers me a bit too. I don't see them becoming friends either.

reply

It's certainly a departure from the old-school meathead Flash, but in the context of a magnet school, and in the modern day when the sort of bullying Flash did is no longer tolerated, it makes sense. It did always seem that the physical threat of Flash Thompson was a joke to Peter, because he knew he could mop the floor with him, but the psychological aspect was what got to him. Flash made him feel small, and made the other kids laugh at him, which is about being cooler than your victim, not stronger.

Maybe it's also because Revolori is so great in the role, but I'm not bothered by the change. He's amusing, and brings a needed element of ironic humor to the film. I also like the quick moments where they went a little deeper into who he is, and how he may not be as happy inside as he purports to be on the outside. But yes, I can see where someone expecting a blonde, football playing dullard pushing Peter around and calling him Puny Parker would be thrown by the modern incarnation of the character.

reply

Despite not being a huge fan of it, I've actually had discussions as well about how he's that kind of bully because that's more of the type of bullies we get these days.

I guess it honestly shouldn't seem too out of place though, because I just started reading The Amazing Spider-Man from the very beginning, and Flash so far hasn't been a physical type of bully there either.

reply

He wasn't physical. He just liked making fun of Peter Parker in front of everyone. There is a story there when he's in highschool where Flash's girlfriend Liz Allen gets angry at him for teasing Peter and yells at the top of her lungs in front of everyone to get him to stop teasing him. He doesn't get what she sees in Peter. When he says that to her she actually says he'd never understand cause he's not very smart.

reply

Exactly. Flash in the '60s seemed genuinely dumb, but he's been written as having a lot more nuance and inner depth since, to the point where 2019 comic book Flash is virtually unrecognizable as 1963 comic book Flash.

reply

It was more that he was drawn as a burly jock, where the threat of physical violence is always there even if the reality of it never manifests. I do remember one issue.. was it #8?... where he and Peter do get into a physical fight and a teacher suggests they work it out in the school's boxing ring. Even as a kid in the '80s reading that in Marvel Tales (a reprint comic) the idea of a teacher putting the school bully in a boxing ring with the school nerd seemed foreign and far-fetched. I wonder if that was more a product of the '30s or '40s that Ditko included, of if in the '60s that would have been as normal as everyone in the comic seemed to think it was.

reply

What I think is the key to the success of the MCU is that they keep the important things the same, and only make minor tweaks. I understand that for certain things to work on screen, for an audience the majority of whom don't read comic books, certain things have to be adjusted. The new Spider-Man movies are a perfect example. They are the polar opposite of, say, the Raimi films. Raimi was careful to make things look just like the comic, but there was no sense whatsoever that the characters and stories were at all aligned with the comics. His films felt like generic Hollywood action films, and if the main character weren't named Peter Parker, and running around in a Spider-Man suit, you'd have never known it was a Spider-Man film. In doing so he created fun, but campy, films that had no real connection to the comics, and that haven't aged well. Homecoming and Far From Home stay absolutely true to the comics in all the important ways, and incorporate changes in order to avoid the campy ridiculousness that it's too easy to slip into in a comic book movie.

reply

I disagree
The Sam Raimi Spider-man movies were 1960s Marvel 100%
I know because I read those things.
Homecoming and Far From Home are a mix of silver age Marvel and modern politically correct style to appeal to the millennials.

reply

So yea... just like Stan Lee was trying to appeal to the baby boomer’s worst nightmare (millennials) back in the 60’s with his - what you would perceive as - PC preaching. How crazy and unacceptable that the new films honor this 🙄

Far From Home and its icky inclusiveness and UNpolitically correct millennial stuff that a certain crowd can’t tolerate>>> Raimi’s overpraised movies

reply

What?

reply

I read, reread, collected, and admired every comic Lee and Ditko wrote. I know parts of them by heart. I even noticed with some glee in Homecoming, the first time I watched it, that when Spider-Man was trying to get out from under the building, they even had the round doohickey with the triangular base just like on the cover of Amazing Spider-Man #33.

Raimi's films felt like a faked version of Spider-Man. Like someone who had never read the comics was shown pictures of the characters and given a 10-minute primer on the Green Goblin story, and then made a film. Nothing about the characters words or actions in any way resembled their comic book counterparts.

The two recent films feel like the Lee/Ditko stories come to life. They may not have focused on making the characters look exactly as they were drawn, but that's an utterly immaterial thing. How Flash looks, to use an example, doesn't matter one bit. What matters is that her adores Spider-Man and torments Peter Parker. Mary Jane can have red hair, blue hair, blonde hair, green hair-- who cares? That has nothing to do with who she is. Zendaya *acts* just like MJ, Dunst never did. And please don't even try to say that Tobey Maguire in any way, shape, or form acted even slightly like Peter Parker.

reply

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Raimi lived the 60s /70s comics and he admitted it numerous times. For me , Maquire is Spiderman.
Tom Holland sounds like an eight year old.

reply

I sure liked them when they were new, though at the time they felt kind of campy. Then again, all superhero movies back then were campy. Have you rewatched them recently? I find they have not held up well at all. There are some nice moments, but they pale in comparison to the recent films. I'm curious if you feel at all the same upon recent viewing?

reply

Spider-man 1, which is 17 years old, still reigns supreme ....for me.
All Marvel is campy , always has been and always will .
How can they not be?
It was originally created for preteens!

reply

The Netflix shows are much more adult. Actually better in most regards than the sillier movies...

reply

Agree with this. These new movies also felt like The Spectacular Spider-Man animated series as well which is one of my favourite adaptations of the character.

The Raimi movies I do enjoy but they aren’t entirely Spider-Man. A lot of the superhero elements are borrowed from Superman and Superman II with some Raimi camp thrown in. Spider-Man 2 has some fantastic Peter and Aunt May scenes and some great action as well as Danny Elfman’s score, it’s just far from the definitive adaptation of the character that a lot of fans think it is (in my opinion)

reply

It's SO interesting which parts of which movies people connect with.

For me, the differences (in tone And particulars) between the early comics and the Raimi movies were a dealbreaker for me. I had a conversation w/someone else in another thread, I'll summarize the thrust:
* Organic webbing. This is so incredibly bad on so many levels I have to resist writing an entire essay. I'll restrict it to two issues: Spiders DON'T "shoot" webs, and one of the most amazing things about Pete is that he was able to create webbing and a device to shoot it. It's a BIG part of his character; in a sense, the webshooters *are* another character. The creators missed the ball and did a tremendous disservice to the character, with this decision.
* Making MJ his love interest. I predicted to everyone who would listen that this was absurd, because Peter was All About Betty initially, then Gwen, THEN MJ. Again, a disservice to the character/story: they were *clearly* prisoners of the moment, simply because MJ was Peter's current partner in the comics. Again, I predicted that this wouldn't last in the comics, and that Marvel's decision would therefore not age well. This is EXACTLY what happened.
* Visuals: The Spiderman suit was cool, but the Goblin was so awful I've made a concerted effort to scrub it from my mind. Toby doesn't really look like Peter, What's her name doesn't look like Gwen, Willem Dafoe and Franco look NOTHING like the Osborns. (Interestingly, the peripheral characters are SPOT ON. Aunt May was good, Robbie was great, and JJJ was essentially peeled right off the page. Even Betty Brant was amazing piece of casting.)
* Villain: Again, they went obvious/greatest foe, instead of developing the story organically. ."
etc, etc. . .

reply

YMMV with the details, but for ME the Raimi Spider-Man’s captured the essence , atmosphere and nostalgia of 60s/ 70s Spidey.

reply

I've heard, Goliard, that Raimi actually planned to use Gwen in the first movie instead of MJ but that producer Avi Arad talked him out of it. Avi Arad thought it'd be too predictable to the comics fans in the audience to have Gwen in the movie and have her get killed by Green Goblin. He also felt in that regard Gwen was a pointless character since the main thing comic readers remembers about her is that she ends up getting killed by the Green Goblin. I think he also convinced Raimi by insisting it'd be too much on the non comcis fans for his girl friend and Uncle to both die in the same movie.

I wish this hadn't happened cause I think I'd have liked the movies more if Gwen was killed by the Goblin in the first and then 2 and 3 are about him trying to get over Gwen's death and meeting Mary Jane. There would've been so much better drama in that than the anger inducing stuff of Mary Jane's bad attitude towards Peter in Spider-Man 2 and 3. Also forgot to mention but Avi Arad is then a hypocrite for allowing Laura Ziskin to force Gwen into Spider-Man 3 after Norman had been killed off. And no I don't think Raimi would've done the story from the 90s where Norman Osborn turns out not to be dead.

reply

I've heard the same. My perspective then was the same as now: WHY RUSH THINGS? Bond is going on about his thousandth movie; this franchise could've developed things much more reasonably. There have been many important people in Peter's life; no need to smash the timeline together the way they have.

Ah well.

reply

Bother not so much but it can cause confusion.

reply