Basically every Spider-Man movie revolves around a Peter's frickup, Miles isn't allowed to frick up ever >Peter lets the robber go and uncle Ben dies, Miles' uncle dies because he's a criminal >Peter makes a bad call and fails to save Gwen, Miles will save Gwen >Peter has a hand in making his own villains, Miles' (actually Peter's) villains make themselves and then arbitrarily assign blame to Miles
Refusing to kill someone usually doesn't result in your own death unless your criminal life led you to being in a situation where not killing someone you're ordered to kill, get you killed by your superiors. The point is that Miles is completely blameless in Aaron's death.
If Miles' uncle had been a librarian, chances are very fricking slim that he'd end up in a situation where he has to kill Miles or his coworkers will kill him.
Unless those are some REALLY hefty late fines.
no, he's spider-man. spider-man is a hero who is emotional rather than being solely logical. The other spider-mans are the ones who are being cold and calculating and out of character. they're acting like a group of octaviuses
>The other spider-mans are the ones who are being cold and calculating and out of character.
How are they being cold? They saw what happened to the universe Miguel went to and neither of them would want to risk being responsible for the death of an entire universe. They obviously don't like the situation, and Miles is risking his own universe. He will end up regretful like Miguel.
this. Having an entire Spider-Society just give up on trying and let people is the worst thing of this movie. They proved to be able to stop the theoretical catastrophes that can rise when breaking canon events, so why aren't they trying to save everyone?
Because the israeli writers want you to know just how much better and virtuous miles is than all white people put together. Hence why he’s going to save his father and everyone while EVERY peter is going to be known as an empty follower of a death cult surrounded by their own importance
Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit. If a story like this was written in the Silver Age it'd be considered a classic. The hero literally has the whole world and fate itself against him, and yet he still refuses to back down because sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else.
Yeah but if it was peter than the villains he’d be fighting would be empty OCs. Miles is being built up as THE best Spider-Man both literally and metaphorically for no reason beyond the propaganda is pushes anon. Why do you NEED peter to be an empty eyed follower of fate when the flies in the face of everything the character stood for? Why do people like you ALWAYS side with corporate decisions?
Peter literally let his clone sacrifice himself to save the multiverse in the 90s cartoon. And this was after him and Uncle Ben accepted him as family.
>make a Batman multiverse movie >Bruce Wayne dies so a new kid I get the royalties for can replace him as Batman >new kid is a billionaire whose parents died in a tragic alleyway pearl-related mugging who chooses a bat as his symbol for fighting crime in Gotham >he dresses like Batman, calls himself Batman, dates Catwoman, fights villains like Joker, Penguin, Scarecrow, has a butler named Alfred etc >make sequel to the movie >a multiversal council of Batmen tell new kid it's fate that every Batman ever shoots and kills Joker in his first year as Batman and that he has to shoot and kill his Joker himself or the multiverse explodes >there's a montage of previously existing Batmen from various media shooting and killing their Jokers >new kid Batman says he's going to do "his own thing" and not shoot his Joker, movie implies he's special and unique and the sole exception among all the Batmen for doing this
>Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit
Most people don't even think about it, the majority of ancient stories are like this. Only recently have writers flipped to support altruism, for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
>for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
That's bullshit, those "heroes" were not supposed to be role models, those stories were either mythological(people thought they were real) or they didn't focus on morality at all instead focusing on the character being smart or determined.
>Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit
Most people don't even think about it, the majority of ancient stories are like this. Only recently have writers flipped to support altruism, for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
If Peter did it you'd be calling it heroic.
Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit. If a story like this was written in the Silver Age it'd be considered a classic. The hero literally has the whole world and fate itself against him, and yet he still refuses to back down because sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else.
Why are there so many bendis gays on this board now?
>he defends something that has Miles in it >HURRR HE MUST BE THE BOOGEYMAN FROM MY HEAD!!!!
>Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit
Most people don't even think about it, the majority of ancient stories are like this. Only recently have writers flipped to support altruism, for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
Could you name some examples of old stories where egoistical heroes are praised?
Literally insane. Does Bendis even have to do anything with the movie's story?
>sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else
But he's fine with sacrificing billions of lives to save his dad?
No. Have you seen the movie? He's going to try to prevent any casualties.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Does Bendis even have to do anything with the movie's story?
He invented Miles, he's a producer on the movie, and is on Marvel's writing advisory board that has input on basically every game, show, and movie made about the properties. But the movie's creators glorifying his vision for Spider-Man would be enough even without all that.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>glorifying his vision for Spider-Man
Which is?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Spider-Man.. but black
9 months ago
Anonymous
I wonder if he's happy that people talk about Miles a good amount, or upset that no one calls him Spider-man when talking about him.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I think he's just glad Sony spent 300+ million and countless hours of thousands of artists' lives bringing his cuckold fantasies to life for the public to see
9 months ago
Anonymous
Miles really should pair up with Kitty
9 months ago
Anonymous
So you're going to connect everything Miles ever appears in to "Bendis' vision" even if Bendis had nothing to do with writing this particular story.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>if Bendis had nothing to do with writing this particular story
He literally had everything to do with it, he thought it was important that Spider-Man be black and made that Miles' sole feature, the movie creators were offered a Spider-Man movie and said no, then they said yes if it can be be about Spider-Man but black whose sole feature is being black, then everything about those movies was about pushing Spider-Man but black as the Spider-Mannest Spider-Man at the expense of everything else Spider-Man related only because he's black, literally Bendis' dreams made real.
9 months ago
Anonymous
So your assessment of everything in the movie goes as deep as >DUDE HE'S BLACK
9 months ago
Anonymous
see
Spider-Man.. but black
9 months ago
Anonymous
See most people who praise the movies. I don't even like them all that much, but most casual viewers who liked the movies don't make a big deal out of race like you do.
9 months ago
Anonymous
What does the audience's takeaway have anything to do with the creators' motivations, to them it's a Spider-Man movie about a Spider-Man doing Spider-Man things that they would've seen regardless of which Spider-Man got the spotlight, to the creators it's a movie they would only agree to make if that Spider-Man was the black one, since Spider-Man being black is as important to them as it is to Bendis.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Why do you care about the creators' motivations this much? That's not all a work is. You can keep this in mind but also assign your own meaning to the work and have your own observations.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I think the better question is why do the creators care about a character's skin color this much, I never thought about which race Spider-Man was or that his race was important until people like them started saying it was
9 months ago
Anonymous
They exist in their own liberal culture that prioritizes certain things. That doesn't mean the movie has to be looked only through the lens of that culture.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If the movie and its plot and themes wouldn't exist without them prioritizing race, then yes it does mean that. Would anyone have made this movie about Spider-Boy and how would it have been received then
9 months ago
Anonymous
Ironically, it probably would have been received the same way. Because most people don't care about that sort of thing as deeply.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Given that the Flash dealt with basically the same exact plot but was called stupid for it, I have reasons to believe that is not the case
9 months ago
Anonymous
If Flash was animated and looked as pretty, it would be received the same.
It's less about ego and more about "might makes right". Oftentimes they did things that don't match the more modern definitions of a hero.
Hercules was consistently portrayed as a dumb brute, he would sperg out and murder people regularly. He eventually ascends, becoming a god.
David in the Bible impregnates a married woman, then sends her husband into battle to kill him and marry her (David gets comeuppance later on, but even to this day he's seen as a good figure).
Sun Wukong acts like an edgy donut steel mc for most of Journey to the West, and gets the greatest reward at the end.
In stuff like romance, people often do dumb shit for love, like Lancelot cucking Arthur.
We still have stories like this. I think most people would agree MCU Civil War paints Cap's side in the better light, and he's the one taking the more selfish choice of not cooperating. Cabin in the Woods has the protags refuse to kill each other, straight up ending the world. There's that anime movie where a girl is causing Tokyo to flood, and in the end they choose to not sacrifice her, can't remember the name.
Even in real life, utilitarians are moronic and can't stay consistent. The followup to the trolley problem is a scenario where you have five sick people who will die soon if they don't get organ transplants, and one healthy person who you can kill to get those organs. Nobody supports the organ harvesting, despite that being a similar ethical decision as killing the one person in the trolley problem. Suddenly people get cold feet when there's an actionable solution to a real world problem that requires them to be selfless.
>for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
That's bullshit, those "heroes" were not supposed to be role models, those stories were either mythological(people thought they were real) or they didn't focus on morality at all instead focusing on the character being smart or determined.
This movie focus on morality.
How do you decide if one story focuses on morality and another doesn't? That's completely arbitrary.
Lancelot love for Genevieve is never represented as a good thing. At best it's a tragic impossible love than make them both suffer, or it's the sin than mark Lancelot fall from grace and why he can't ever find the grail.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I would argue that tragic selfish love where both people suffer is the kind that people romanticize the most. The power of love is depicted as stronger than logic or any other force. As far as I know, in later versions it's more critical of their relationship, but in earlier ones their forbidden love is shown as a thing to aspire to. If you disagree that's understandable, we can replace the example with something else. I was just watching Arcane, and though the romantic love there don't really fit this, the platonic love does. By the end of the series Silco loves Jinx as a daughter and refuses to hand her over to the cops even though she's a terrorist and doing so would achieve the goals that he and his compatriots have been striving towards for years. This is treated as a sympathetic moment, where he comes to recognize why Vander did a similar thing for Vi. Even Vi herself refuses to give up on Jinx despite said terrorism and murders and schizophrenia, simply because they're sisters. The one time in the story that Vi turns on and "abandons" her sister is depicted as a terrible thing, and Jinx's downward spiral is in large part due to that scene.
>How do you decide if one story focuses on morality and another doesn't?
Because Hercules stories were not told to teach people anything they were told because Greeks thought it was history, several greek historians and leaders talked about Hercules as a real person, if the story had Hercules doing something terrible they wouldn't change it to make him sound like a role model for kids to turn into great citizens, Hercules was a real person to them just like their kings and philosophers were. Miles in the other hand is clearly fictional and he's supposed to be in the right.
The myths regularly changed over time, there's multiple versions of every one of them. It was clearly not a historical retelling, people changed the stories to match their beliefs. Even if you want to treat them that way, we have records of people arguing about the morality of these characters. Whether or not they were treated as real is irrelevant, they can still be morally judged.
>but even to this day he's seen as a good figure
Because he begged God to forgive him. The cycle of David sinning then begging for forgiveness is also a metaphor for Israel as a whole whenever a king would turn away from God and lead the country into ruin or subjection, only for the new king to reverse course back to God.
It's been a while so maybe I'm misremembering, but doesn't that only happen after God kills his kid? I don't see how that makes David more selfless.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Familial love is a different can of worms altogether. But unhealthy selfish love where both people suffer is very thrilling, and a lot of people, especially women, love writing stories about it, that's for sure.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't see how that makes David more selfless.
David's obedience to God is what makes him admirable. Killing his son was a punishment for disobeying him but God was willing to forgive him afterwards, which David gladly accepted and went back to being his faithful servant
9 months ago
Anonymous
>he myths regularly changed over time, there's multiple versions of every one of them. It was clearly not a historical retelling, people changed the stories to match their beliefs. Even if you want to treat them that way, we have records of people arguing about the morality of these characters. Whether or not they were treated as real is irrelevant, they can still be morally judged.
the point is that those myths are not like fictional kid stories to teach them what is right, they were not about that, the greeks didn't told those stories to teach kids anything, it was part of what they thought was history, if Hercules won it's because he was the strongest not because he was right.
comparing this movie to mythology is just pointless, it's like comparing history to fiction
>How do you decide if one story focuses on morality and another doesn't?
Because Hercules stories were not told to teach people anything they were told because Greeks thought it was history, several greek historians and leaders talked about Hercules as a real person, if the story had Hercules doing something terrible they wouldn't change it to make him sound like a role model for kids to turn into great citizens, Hercules was a real person to them just like their kings and philosophers were. Miles in the other hand is clearly fictional and he's supposed to be in the right.
>but even to this day he's seen as a good figure
Because he begged God to forgive him. The cycle of David sinning then begging for forgiveness is also a metaphor for Israel as a whole whenever a king would turn away from God and lead the country into ruin or subjection, only for the new king to reverse course back to God.
>If Peter did it you'd be calling it heroic.
That's literally what happens in the PS4 game and people DID call him heroic for choosing to save the rest of NYC and letting May die
>Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit. If a story like this was written in the Silver Age it'd be considered a classic. The hero literally has the whole world and fate itself against him, and yet he still refuses to back down because sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else.
Based beyond belief
Miles doesn't want anyone to die, so he's looking for a third option i.e. "doing things his own way." Are you telling me the super scientist/engineer Peter from the PS4 game couldn't find a way to synthesize enough of the antidote to save May or at least keep her alive until it was ready?
Are you telling me if Miguel put two buttons in front of Miles one saving his dad but killing everyone else and the other killing his dad and saving everyone else, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Miles would press the first one?
>Are you telling me if Yoda put two buttons in front of Luke one killing his dad but destroying the Empire and the other not and letting the Rebellion die, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Luke would press the first one?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>anon has somehow never once seen a frick destiny/fate story.
>Are you telling me if Raava put two buttons in front of Aang one maintaining his pacifism but dooming the world and the other killing Ozai and saving the world, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Aang would press the first one?
>missing the point this hard
PS4 Peter was literally put in this situation, save May, or save the rest of the patients, you have 15 seconds to choose, he chose to save more lives, if he had more time he absolutely would've looked for ways to save everyone.
Miles ISN'T in this situation and has two days to figure something out, and not only is the spider society not trying to use those two days to help him find a way to save his dad, they want to detain him so he can't try anything during that time, after they spent a year+ not finding a solution, even when it was something as simple as getting the captain to quit his job as evidenced by Gwen's story.
The movie's plot is embarrassingly bad and people are trying to justify it simply because they associate the exploited animators' art quality with the entire product, when the schism between the art of Spider-Verse and everything else of Spider-Verse is probably the greatest of any Cinemaphile media ever.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, it's not like Peter ever had to quickly choose between saving a loved one and saving a bunch of people and instead tried to save both.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Exactly, and the movie pretends that every single Peter Parker would see Miles' situation and the two days of head start he has and still not even try to help him until they saw how a 15 year old kid really REALLY desperately wants to not have his dad die on him and how not helping him could be a bad thing, it's a travesty of writing and understanding Spider-Man.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Exactly, and the movie pretends that every single Peter Parker would see Miles' situation and the two days of head start he has and still not even try to help him until they saw how a 15 year old kid really REALLY desperately wants to not have his dad die on him and how not helping him could be a bad thing, it's a travesty of writing and understanding Spider-Man.
The movie never mentions Toby Peter. A lot of people give a shit about Toby Peter because they're nostalgic for his movies. So you could bet your ass that if Toby Peter appeared in the movie, he'd totally side with Miles and be a good guy. Now that's the hero I grew up with! All those other Spider-Men? Well I didn't grow up with them, maybe some comic book nerd did but not me, so they don't matter, they're all evil.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>durr ackshully i was talking about the OTHER spider-men in the movie and not miles
I'll admit it's a bit moronic that some of the Spider-Men wouldn't immediately jump to Miles' defense, but don't think you can just move the goalposts and automatically win an argument
9 months ago
Anonymous
What goalposts
9 months ago
Anonymous
You went from "Miles wants everyone to die so he can save his dad" to "Actually the other Spider-Men are poorly written for not helping Miles" after multiple Anons pointed out how moronic your first point was
9 months ago
Anonymous
The post I responded to said Peter let May die in the PS4 game to save the rest as if he wanted to do that and wouldn't try to save everyone if he had more time, I just replaced the names in that intentional misrepresentation of events to make it seem like Miles would also let everyone die to save his dad in ATSV, and you missed the point like I pointed out here
[...]
[...] >missing the point this hard
PS4 Peter was literally put in this situation, save May, or save the rest of the patients, you have 15 seconds to choose, he chose to save more lives, if he had more time he absolutely would've looked for ways to save everyone.
Miles ISN'T in this situation and has two days to figure something out, and not only is the spider society not trying to use those two days to help him find a way to save his dad, they want to detain him so he can't try anything during that time, after they spent a year+ not finding a solution, even when it was something as simple as getting the captain to quit his job as evidenced by Gwen's story.
The movie's plot is embarrassingly bad and people are trying to justify it simply because they associate the exploited animators' art quality with the entire product, when the schism between the art of Spider-Verse and everything else of Spider-Verse is probably the greatest of any Cinemaphile media ever.
Every Spider-Man would try to save everyone, PS4 Spider-Man would try to save his May and the patients, but his case can't be used as evidence for "durr Spider-Man would totally let people die for the greater good" argument given that he had 15 seconds to choose and Miles has 2 days to find a solution, the time being an important factor in making the two scenarios a false equivalence as I pointed out here
Are you telling me if Miguel put two buttons in front of Miles one saving his dad but killing everyone else and the other killing his dad and saving everyone else, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Miles would press the first one?
>Are you telling me if Raava put two buttons in front of Aang one maintaining his pacifism but dooming the world and the other killing Ozai and saving the world, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Aang would press the first one?
The story contrives a scenario in which Miles is the only one who want to do the "right" thing and will contrive a reason why everything's going to work out for him in the end.
OP is moronic but so are you.
Tom Holland got his bussy gapped by a black man, you wouldn't see a Miles Morales actor doing this, it's the canon event of every Peter JOBker too be homosexual cuckold while CHADles Morales gets real women and stability
>What's important is not standing by while allowing someone to suffer or die because you do nothing. If you don't get that, then you don't know the first thing about being Spider-Man.
This is why Miguel didn't recruit Edge of Time Spidey.
The plot will inevitably vindicate him. The problem is that it's a weird, dumb set up that walks back a sympathetic moment of shared trauma in the first movie into a whacky death cult.
Listen, sweaty. We both know that the issue isn't that you hate the idea of Miles wanting to save his loved ones at the risk of the world. We had that plot in Edge of Time and no one said shit.
The real issue is that you hate the idea that multiple Peters are going along with Miguel's death cult idea while Miles and Hobie are the ones listed as being in the right for being against the idea.
But Peter literally tells him not to worry about saving the whole world, that he should instead worry about saving one person in the first Spider-Verse (technically it was from a deleted scene but it was used in the first trailer https://youtu.be/TrNjMh4G4Hc )
Meta commentary is usually reserved for commentary on things that actually happened in real life, you can't do meta commentary on something you invented
It's honestly hilarious that they didn't want to choose different versions of Peter to fill out their cast but because that flew in the face of the shitty meta commentary they wanted to do they had to change everyone's backstory for it to work
It is, and the next movie is most likely going to reveal that Miguel was either lying or mistaken about why that other universe blew up, and that he's been operating under a false premise all along.
Also, and this might be an assumption on my part, but I got the sense that except for Gwen (who had basically abandoned her home 'verse anyway), Miles was the first person to be told about the so-called "Canon Events" without already having lived through his. Pavitr certainly didn't seem to know about them, and there might be plenty of others who are still unaffected. But, of the ones who did know, all of them had experienced tragedies, which probably made it easier for Miguel to convince them that it was inevitable and necessary.
Because it won't work out that way and you know it. The entire scenario exists because its going to play out in Miles' favor and he won't lose a fricking thing. (or at least something arbitrary WILL happen that just continues the status quo but in a different manner)
Either way i think people have finally caught onto the idea that this story was a fricking mistake and its only illuminating Miles has absolutely nothing to his story to risk everything rather than live up to the standards of peers he wanted for so long between movies.
It's okay, he's not Peter so he is in the right always
When was Peter ever in the wrong, you fricking homosexual?
Basically every Spider-Man movie revolves around a Peter's frickup, Miles isn't allowed to frick up ever
>Peter lets the robber go and uncle Ben dies, Miles' uncle dies because he's a criminal
>Peter makes a bad call and fails to save Gwen, Miles will save Gwen
>Peter has a hand in making his own villains, Miles' (actually Peter's) villains make themselves and then arbitrarily assign blame to Miles
>Miles' uncle dies because he's a criminal
I'm pretty sure he died because he refused to kill Miles, actually.
Refusing to kill someone usually doesn't result in your own death unless your criminal life led you to being in a situation where not killing someone you're ordered to kill, get you killed by your superiors. The point is that Miles is completely blameless in Aaron's death.
How many cops do you think Aaron killed? He was pretty steady handed when helping kill pete
He only killed white cops
I know that’s what’s israelites and blacks want, but it’s a bit on the nose
If Miles' uncle had been a librarian, chances are very fricking slim that he'd end up in a situation where he has to kill Miles or his coworkers will kill him.
Unless those are some REALLY hefty late fines.
Who cares about a million billion theoretical lives, anon. It's your dad.
and this is why miles will never be the real spider-man
Based. Sad to see Peter is given more love outside of comics than inside them.
no, he's spider-man. spider-man is a hero who is emotional rather than being solely logical. The other spider-mans are the ones who are being cold and calculating and out of character. they're acting like a group of octaviuses
>The other spider-mans are the ones who are being cold and calculating and out of character.
How are they being cold? They saw what happened to the universe Miguel went to and neither of them would want to risk being responsible for the death of an entire universe. They obviously don't like the situation, and Miles is risking his own universe. He will end up regretful like Miguel.
this. Having an entire Spider-Society just give up on trying and let people is the worst thing of this movie. They proved to be able to stop the theoretical catastrophes that can rise when breaking canon events, so why aren't they trying to save everyone?
Because the israeli writers want you to know just how much better and virtuous miles is than all white people put together. Hence why he’s going to save his father and everyone while EVERY peter is going to be known as an empty follower of a death cult surrounded by their own importance
My dude made a graffiti for his uncle that tried to kill him
If Peter did it you'd be calling it heroic.
Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit. If a story like this was written in the Silver Age it'd be considered a classic. The hero literally has the whole world and fate itself against him, and yet he still refuses to back down because sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else.
Yeah but if it was peter than the villains he’d be fighting would be empty OCs. Miles is being built up as THE best Spider-Man both literally and metaphorically for no reason beyond the propaganda is pushes anon. Why do you NEED peter to be an empty eyed follower of fate when the flies in the face of everything the character stood for? Why do people like you ALWAYS side with corporate decisions?
Peter literally let his clone sacrifice himself to save the multiverse in the 90s cartoon. And this was after him and Uncle Ben accepted him as family.
It was his decision. Did Miles' dad choose to die?
The problem with the story is
1. that it's in the Spider-Man IP
2. it's pretending it's the first time a Spider-Man rejected the trolley problem
It's not a unique or new or creative story in any way, and it shits on a beloved IP to tell it anyway.
>make a Batman multiverse movie
>Bruce Wayne dies so a new kid I get the royalties for can replace him as Batman
>new kid is a billionaire whose parents died in a tragic alleyway pearl-related mugging who chooses a bat as his symbol for fighting crime in Gotham
>he dresses like Batman, calls himself Batman, dates Catwoman, fights villains like Joker, Penguin, Scarecrow, has a butler named Alfred etc
>make sequel to the movie
>a multiversal council of Batmen tell new kid it's fate that every Batman ever shoots and kills Joker in his first year as Batman and that he has to shoot and kill his Joker himself or the multiverse explodes
>there's a montage of previously existing Batmen from various media shooting and killing their Jokers
>new kid Batman says he's going to do "his own thing" and not shoot his Joker, movie implies he's special and unique and the sole exception among all the Batmen for doing this
>Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit
Most people don't even think about it, the majority of ancient stories are like this. Only recently have writers flipped to support altruism, for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
>for most of history protagonists were selfish and were glorified for it.
That's bullshit, those "heroes" were not supposed to be role models, those stories were either mythological(people thought they were real) or they didn't focus on morality at all instead focusing on the character being smart or determined.
This movie focus on morality.
I can't refute this we'd ever call it based
Why are there so many bendis gays on this board now?
>he defends something that has Miles in it
>HURRR HE MUST BE THE BOOGEYMAN FROM MY HEAD!!!!
Could you name some examples of old stories where egoistical heroes are praised?
Yeah anon, you’re defending a story that supports bendises vision for the franchise, you support him as a writer and what he’s done to the industry
Literally insane. Does Bendis even have to do anything with the movie's story?
No. Have you seen the movie? He's going to try to prevent any casualties.
>Does Bendis even have to do anything with the movie's story?
He invented Miles, he's a producer on the movie, and is on Marvel's writing advisory board that has input on basically every game, show, and movie made about the properties. But the movie's creators glorifying his vision for Spider-Man would be enough even without all that.
>glorifying his vision for Spider-Man
Which is?
Spider-Man.. but black
I wonder if he's happy that people talk about Miles a good amount, or upset that no one calls him Spider-man when talking about him.
I think he's just glad Sony spent 300+ million and countless hours of thousands of artists' lives bringing his cuckold fantasies to life for the public to see
Miles really should pair up with Kitty
So you're going to connect everything Miles ever appears in to "Bendis' vision" even if Bendis had nothing to do with writing this particular story.
>if Bendis had nothing to do with writing this particular story
He literally had everything to do with it, he thought it was important that Spider-Man be black and made that Miles' sole feature, the movie creators were offered a Spider-Man movie and said no, then they said yes if it can be be about Spider-Man but black whose sole feature is being black, then everything about those movies was about pushing Spider-Man but black as the Spider-Mannest Spider-Man at the expense of everything else Spider-Man related only because he's black, literally Bendis' dreams made real.
So your assessment of everything in the movie goes as deep as
>DUDE HE'S BLACK
see
See most people who praise the movies. I don't even like them all that much, but most casual viewers who liked the movies don't make a big deal out of race like you do.
What does the audience's takeaway have anything to do with the creators' motivations, to them it's a Spider-Man movie about a Spider-Man doing Spider-Man things that they would've seen regardless of which Spider-Man got the spotlight, to the creators it's a movie they would only agree to make if that Spider-Man was the black one, since Spider-Man being black is as important to them as it is to Bendis.
Why do you care about the creators' motivations this much? That's not all a work is. You can keep this in mind but also assign your own meaning to the work and have your own observations.
I think the better question is why do the creators care about a character's skin color this much, I never thought about which race Spider-Man was or that his race was important until people like them started saying it was
They exist in their own liberal culture that prioritizes certain things. That doesn't mean the movie has to be looked only through the lens of that culture.
If the movie and its plot and themes wouldn't exist without them prioritizing race, then yes it does mean that. Would anyone have made this movie about Spider-Boy and how would it have been received then
Ironically, it probably would have been received the same way. Because most people don't care about that sort of thing as deeply.
Given that the Flash dealt with basically the same exact plot but was called stupid for it, I have reasons to believe that is not the case
If Flash was animated and looked as pretty, it would be received the same.
It's less about ego and more about "might makes right". Oftentimes they did things that don't match the more modern definitions of a hero.
Hercules was consistently portrayed as a dumb brute, he would sperg out and murder people regularly. He eventually ascends, becoming a god.
David in the Bible impregnates a married woman, then sends her husband into battle to kill him and marry her (David gets comeuppance later on, but even to this day he's seen as a good figure).
Sun Wukong acts like an edgy donut steel mc for most of Journey to the West, and gets the greatest reward at the end.
In stuff like romance, people often do dumb shit for love, like Lancelot cucking Arthur.
We still have stories like this. I think most people would agree MCU Civil War paints Cap's side in the better light, and he's the one taking the more selfish choice of not cooperating. Cabin in the Woods has the protags refuse to kill each other, straight up ending the world. There's that anime movie where a girl is causing Tokyo to flood, and in the end they choose to not sacrifice her, can't remember the name.
Even in real life, utilitarians are moronic and can't stay consistent. The followup to the trolley problem is a scenario where you have five sick people who will die soon if they don't get organ transplants, and one healthy person who you can kill to get those organs. Nobody supports the organ harvesting, despite that being a similar ethical decision as killing the one person in the trolley problem. Suddenly people get cold feet when there's an actionable solution to a real world problem that requires them to be selfless.
How do you decide if one story focuses on morality and another doesn't? That's completely arbitrary.
Lancelot love for Genevieve is never represented as a good thing. At best it's a tragic impossible love than make them both suffer, or it's the sin than mark Lancelot fall from grace and why he can't ever find the grail.
I would argue that tragic selfish love where both people suffer is the kind that people romanticize the most. The power of love is depicted as stronger than logic or any other force. As far as I know, in later versions it's more critical of their relationship, but in earlier ones their forbidden love is shown as a thing to aspire to. If you disagree that's understandable, we can replace the example with something else. I was just watching Arcane, and though the romantic love there don't really fit this, the platonic love does. By the end of the series Silco loves Jinx as a daughter and refuses to hand her over to the cops even though she's a terrorist and doing so would achieve the goals that he and his compatriots have been striving towards for years. This is treated as a sympathetic moment, where he comes to recognize why Vander did a similar thing for Vi. Even Vi herself refuses to give up on Jinx despite said terrorism and murders and schizophrenia, simply because they're sisters. The one time in the story that Vi turns on and "abandons" her sister is depicted as a terrible thing, and Jinx's downward spiral is in large part due to that scene.
The myths regularly changed over time, there's multiple versions of every one of them. It was clearly not a historical retelling, people changed the stories to match their beliefs. Even if you want to treat them that way, we have records of people arguing about the morality of these characters. Whether or not they were treated as real is irrelevant, they can still be morally judged.
It's been a while so maybe I'm misremembering, but doesn't that only happen after God kills his kid? I don't see how that makes David more selfless.
Familial love is a different can of worms altogether. But unhealthy selfish love where both people suffer is very thrilling, and a lot of people, especially women, love writing stories about it, that's for sure.
>I don't see how that makes David more selfless.
David's obedience to God is what makes him admirable. Killing his son was a punishment for disobeying him but God was willing to forgive him afterwards, which David gladly accepted and went back to being his faithful servant
>he myths regularly changed over time, there's multiple versions of every one of them. It was clearly not a historical retelling, people changed the stories to match their beliefs. Even if you want to treat them that way, we have records of people arguing about the morality of these characters. Whether or not they were treated as real is irrelevant, they can still be morally judged.
the point is that those myths are not like fictional kid stories to teach them what is right, they were not about that, the greeks didn't told those stories to teach kids anything, it was part of what they thought was history, if Hercules won it's because he was the strongest not because he was right.
comparing this movie to mythology is just pointless, it's like comparing history to fiction
>How do you decide if one story focuses on morality and another doesn't?
Because Hercules stories were not told to teach people anything they were told because Greeks thought it was history, several greek historians and leaders talked about Hercules as a real person, if the story had Hercules doing something terrible they wouldn't change it to make him sound like a role model for kids to turn into great citizens, Hercules was a real person to them just like their kings and philosophers were. Miles in the other hand is clearly fictional and he's supposed to be in the right.
>but even to this day he's seen as a good figure
Because he begged God to forgive him. The cycle of David sinning then begging for forgiveness is also a metaphor for Israel as a whole whenever a king would turn away from God and lead the country into ruin or subjection, only for the new king to reverse course back to God.
>If Peter did it you'd be calling it heroic.
That's literally what happens in the PS4 game and people DID call him heroic for choosing to save the rest of NYC and letting May die
>Hell, if a story like this was written a couple of centuries ago it'd be taught in schools as an example of the indomitable human spirit. If a story like this was written in the Silver Age it'd be considered a classic. The hero literally has the whole world and fate itself against him, and yet he still refuses to back down because sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else.
Based beyond belief
The opposite happened morono, he let May die to save NYC, unlike Miles who wants everyone to die so he can save his dad
Miles doesn't want anyone to die, so he's looking for a third option i.e. "doing things his own way." Are you telling me the super scientist/engineer Peter from the PS4 game couldn't find a way to synthesize enough of the antidote to save May or at least keep her alive until it was ready?
Are you telling me if Miguel put two buttons in front of Miles one saving his dad but killing everyone else and the other killing his dad and saving everyone else, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Miles would press the first one?
>Are you telling me if Yoda put two buttons in front of Luke one killing his dad but destroying the Empire and the other not and letting the Rebellion die, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Luke would press the first one?
>missing the point this hard
PS4 Peter was literally put in this situation, save May, or save the rest of the patients, you have 15 seconds to choose, he chose to save more lives, if he had more time he absolutely would've looked for ways to save everyone.
Miles ISN'T in this situation and has two days to figure something out, and not only is the spider society not trying to use those two days to help him find a way to save his dad, they want to detain him so he can't try anything during that time, after they spent a year+ not finding a solution, even when it was something as simple as getting the captain to quit his job as evidenced by Gwen's story.
The movie's plot is embarrassingly bad and people are trying to justify it simply because they associate the exploited animators' art quality with the entire product, when the schism between the art of Spider-Verse and everything else of Spider-Verse is probably the greatest of any Cinemaphile media ever.
Yeah, it's not like Peter ever had to quickly choose between saving a loved one and saving a bunch of people and instead tried to save both.
Exactly, and the movie pretends that every single Peter Parker would see Miles' situation and the two days of head start he has and still not even try to help him until they saw how a 15 year old kid really REALLY desperately wants to not have his dad die on him and how not helping him could be a bad thing, it's a travesty of writing and understanding Spider-Man.
The movie never mentions Toby Peter. A lot of people give a shit about Toby Peter because they're nostalgic for his movies. So you could bet your ass that if Toby Peter appeared in the movie, he'd totally side with Miles and be a good guy. Now that's the hero I grew up with! All those other Spider-Men? Well I didn't grow up with them, maybe some comic book nerd did but not me, so they don't matter, they're all evil.
>durr ackshully i was talking about the OTHER spider-men in the movie and not miles
I'll admit it's a bit moronic that some of the Spider-Men wouldn't immediately jump to Miles' defense, but don't think you can just move the goalposts and automatically win an argument
What goalposts
You went from "Miles wants everyone to die so he can save his dad" to "Actually the other Spider-Men are poorly written for not helping Miles" after multiple Anons pointed out how moronic your first point was
The post I responded to said Peter let May die in the PS4 game to save the rest as if he wanted to do that and wouldn't try to save everyone if he had more time, I just replaced the names in that intentional misrepresentation of events to make it seem like Miles would also let everyone die to save his dad in ATSV, and you missed the point like I pointed out here
Every Spider-Man would try to save everyone, PS4 Spider-Man would try to save his May and the patients, but his case can't be used as evidence for "durr Spider-Man would totally let people die for the greater good" argument given that he had 15 seconds to choose and Miles has 2 days to find a solution, the time being an important factor in making the two scenarios a false equivalence as I pointed out here
>anon has somehow never once seen a frick destiny/fate story.
>Are you telling me if Raava put two buttons in front of Aang one maintaining his pacifism but dooming the world and the other killing Ozai and saving the world, and told him he has 15 seconds to choose or everyone dies, Aang would press the first one?
>sacrificing people's lives is wrong and he won't stand for anything else
But he's fine with sacrificing billions of lives to save his dad?
nope, it would still be stupid and selfish
>If a story like this was written in the Silver Age it'd be considered a classic
You mean SILVER SURFER?
The story contrives a scenario in which Miles is the only one who want to do the "right" thing and will contrive a reason why everything's going to work out for him in the end.
OP is moronic but so are you.
There's an infinite amount of lives being ended by the spider society's refusal to save them for the sake of "Canon Events*"
*Latest fad
He clearly thinks the whole thing is bullshit, cause otherwise he would realize he wouldn't even be saving the one.
Cuz he's black
Tom Holland got his bussy gapped by a black man, you wouldn't see a Miles Morales actor doing this, it's the canon event of every Peter JOBker too be homosexual cuckold while CHADles Morales gets real women and stability
>What's important is not standing by while allowing someone to suffer or die because you do nothing. If you don't get that, then you don't know the first thing about being Spider-Man.
This is why Miguel didn't recruit Edge of Time Spidey.
Sorry anon, every Peter was there, the writers NEED you to know that you’re a bad person for liking peter at all
Edge of Time Peter BTFO Miguel in multiple universes.
He gonna do his own thing dawg
>plays rap music
>shows off sneakers
>chokes to death on a fried chicken(pollo frito) bone while rapping
That's literally what any superhero does when they dont kill their archenemy.
Source: Joker.
Miles is willing to risk trillions of lives for THIS?
Is he based or something?
Trans bussy isn't worth it
For this.
I prefer videogame rio
Worth it.
Isn't her suit made out of spiders?
Except that he tells her to frick off 2/3rds in the movie
Please, we all know for a fact that ain't gonna stick.
yes
I'm still not watching Into the Trannerverse
they're normalizing selfish behavior to condition you for mark grayson and monarchist propaganda
>Is he stupid?
That's racist, anon.
He's an african genius!
And as Latino as Trudeau... oh wait
Because the movie is stupid anon.
Because it's a shitty story from a shitty movie
Same reason Peter sacrificed his daughter and wife to the literal devil to stop his elderly aunt from dying
Boomer's inability to let go of their childhood?
The plot will inevitably vindicate him. The problem is that it's a weird, dumb set up that walks back a sympathetic moment of shared trauma in the first movie into a whacky death cult.
Because it's a stupid shitty movie and only paid shills try defend it here.
>Is he stupid?
He's literally half Black person
Listen, sweaty. We both know that the issue isn't that you hate the idea of Miles wanting to save his loved ones at the risk of the world. We had that plot in Edge of Time and no one said shit.
The real issue is that you hate the idea that multiple Peters are going along with Miguel's death cult idea while Miles and Hobie are the ones listed as being in the right for being against the idea.
But Peter literally tells him not to worry about saving the whole world, that he should instead worry about saving one person in the first Spider-Verse (technically it was from a deleted scene but it was used in the first trailer https://youtu.be/TrNjMh4G4Hc )
>implying anyone on here cares about watching the film content instead of reeing about Miles
He is homie
This movie feels like the writers came up with a bunch of "cool" ideas first, than wrote the story around it
The whole idea that every spider person has to go through the similar events is fricking moronic.
It's meta commentary, I guess.
Meta commentary is usually reserved for commentary on things that actually happened in real life, you can't do meta commentary on something you invented
It's honestly hilarious that they didn't want to choose different versions of Peter to fill out their cast but because that flew in the face of the shitty meta commentary they wanted to do they had to change everyone's backstory for it to work
It is, and the next movie is most likely going to reveal that Miguel was either lying or mistaken about why that other universe blew up, and that he's been operating under a false premise all along.
Also, and this might be an assumption on my part, but I got the sense that except for Gwen (who had basically abandoned her home 'verse anyway), Miles was the first person to be told about the so-called "Canon Events" without already having lived through his. Pavitr certainly didn't seem to know about them, and there might be plenty of others who are still unaffected. But, of the ones who did know, all of them had experienced tragedies, which probably made it easier for Miguel to convince them that it was inevitable and necessary.
Because it won't work out that way and you know it. The entire scenario exists because its going to play out in Miles' favor and he won't lose a fricking thing. (or at least something arbitrary WILL happen that just continues the status quo but in a different manner)
Either way i think people have finally caught onto the idea that this story was a fricking mistake and its only illuminating Miles has absolutely nothing to his story to risk everything rather than live up to the standards of peers he wanted for so long between movies.
He's being selfish as frick and Spectacular was 100 percent correct.
>When one person dies, it is a tragedy. When billions die, it's a statistic.
General commie think.