The Missing Center of the MCU’s Spider-Man
What makes an iconic character? More importantly, what’s so special about these characters that keep audiences and creators coming back to them over and over again? From the characters in old myths and folktales to our comic book superheroes, these stories continue to emerge generation after generation. One such character, and the reason I’m even thinking about this, is Spider-Man. The untitled third film in the Spider-Man: Far From Home series started filming recently, which made me and other fans wonder what kind of journey Jon Watts and the team of writers will take Peter Parker on this time. Pondering on this, I couldn’t help but think of the character journey Spider-Man has been through in the past 20 years of live-action films. First we had Tobey Maguire in Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man trilogy, then Andrew Garfiled in 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man almost-trilogy directed by Mark Webb, and now Tom Holland in the MCU. This last rendition of the character is interesting because it’s been under more than one director, unlike the previous two franchises. His introduction was in Captain America: Civil War in 2016 under the direction of the Russo Brothers, who also directed Spidey in Avengers: Infinity War (2018) and Endgame (2019). In between the last two films, Tom Holland had his first solo appearance as the character in Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) directed by Jon Watts, who has and will direct the rest of the MCU Spidey trilogy.
Even though these three are technically the same character, each version and director have taken liberties with the character to showcase different aspects of his personality and seek out new storylines. However, reflecting on them always leaves me with the same conclusion: the MCU Peter Parker/Spider-Man is missing something crucial, and I don’t mean Uncle Ben. Reboots of a character should be different, otherwise creators would simply copy off each other, but that doesn't mean that the core of the character changes. By core, I mean the central piece of a character that makes them who they are, and more importantly, who the audience can relate and empathize with. Spider-Man’s core is his sense of responsibility and the fact that he’s a regular guy whose life just never goes right; Peter Parker is painfully human in the most dramatic of ways. Just to give a few examples: he gets superhero powers, but his uncle dies; he finally gets the girl he loves, but he can’t be with her because of his powers and responsibilities as a hero; he saves the city of New York everyday, but him and his aunt can barely make ends meet. The list goes one, but the message is always the same. Peter Parker struggles.
One of these central struggles, featured both in the Raimi and Webb films, is Peter’s financial status. After the death of Uncle Ben, Aunt May is left to support the house and a teenage Peter all by herself. Peter pitches in whenever he can, primarily after getting a job at the Daily Bugle, but the Parker’s struggle, just as real people do outside the world of comic books and movies. This makes a character as noble and out-of-this-world as Spider-Man seem real, as if the guy next to you on the subway could totally have a secret crime-fighting identity despite the fact that he seems to be quite ordinary. This seemingly mundane addition to the character’s life makes him more relatable and accessible to audiences with similar struggles. More importantly, a character like Peter Parker is a beacon of hope for a better world with better people despite the current dysfunctional and unfair world. When heroes have perfect lives, it’s easy to say that their heroic actions come naturally to them since they have nothing else occupying their mind, like job instability or the next rent payment. Peter breaks that assumption because he is constantly struggling, but no matter what’s on his plate he puts the mask on again and again. What’s a better role model than someone who does the right thing, even when the world doesn't do the right thing for them?
Back to MCU Peter Parker/Spider-Man. While his financial struggles have been brought up briefly, there’s never been consistency with it. It’s also important to note that Peter and Aunt May’s struggles with money are really only portrayed in Civil War, which was under the direction of the Russo’s. This means that in his solo series, Peter Parker is missing something, and it shows. While in Civil War Peter is shown as a dumpster-diving computer nerd, this habit of his is completely dropped when we get to Homecoming. Other than that, the MCU’s wall-crawler seems to be doing just fine. Some may say that his monetary problems are not so prominent thanks to Mr. Tony Stark, who gave him his high-tech suit and items like EDITH. However, this only exemplifies the problem even more because it deviates from the reality of Peter Parker. The point of the character is that he manages to be Spider-Man, to be a hero, despite all of the things continually going wrong in his life. He doesn't get direct help from a multi billionaire because that just doesn't happen to an average Joe. Some people are lucky enough to receive that sort of help, but it feels more like a Cinderella fairytale rather than a dramatic story about an ordinary guy who simply does the right thing.
Taking away this aspect of a character’s life removes a core value, almost an infrastructure, of said character. I truly believe this is one of the reasons the MCU Spidey has become such a divisive subject among fans of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. By itself, without considering the cinematic history of the character, this latest rendition of Peter Parker is very likable and funny. And yet, reboots and adaptations seldom have the luxury of tearing themselves apart from the original or previous material. Doing this only frustrates longtime fans and creates a divide in a community, but more importantly, it creates a completely different character. I’m by no means saying that reboots and adaptations should all be exactly the same, following the original work word by word. However, I am saying that taking away a character’s core, what makes them who they are and who audiences can connect with, is a disservice to the character, its creators, and its fans. Finding comfort and solidarity within a character can mean the world to a person; it can get them out of bed in the morning or inspire them to simply be a better person, but that doesn't happen when you no longer see that character.
As a longtime fan, I was so excited to see a new Spider-Man, even more excited when Civil War portrayed him as a humble, geeky do-gooder who fought crime in pajamas because that’s all he could afford. But it was enough. However, I was quickly disillusioned when Homecoming rolled along and I saw a teenager trying to emulate the crime-fighting life of a billionaire with no care in the world about simple things like rent or money for a trip to Washington. And you can’t imagine my heartbreak at realizing that Peter Parker had lost all touch with reality when he went to Europe, without even implying or explaining how he got the funds to do so; or when he had a piece of high-technology given to him by Tony Stark like a magical glass slipper of mass destruction; or worse yet, when his luggage exploded (implied to be Uncle Ben’s suitcase) and neither Aunt May nor Peter said anything about what an emotional or monetary loss that was. This rendition of Peter Parker seems disconnected from the reality of a low-middle class teenager from Queens, a disconnect that the previous live-action Spidey’s could not afford. This change in core and story is detrimental to the character and to its faithful fans who could once look at Peter and see themselves, not because of radioactive spider power, but because of his painfully real struggles and his desire to still be better despite the hardships.
