It'll be more than a trilogy, though?
There's some discussion about the recent character page split on the Characters page cleanup thread
- it may be worth adding it to that conversation?
My initial suggestion on that thread was to rename it to match the overall WesternAnimation.Spider Man Spider Verse page for the films.
Should we add a folder for Spectacular Spider-Man? He appears just as much, if not slightly more than Insomniac Spider-Man, who already has a folder, does.
This is a title.
'Twa a big edit, but I just cut a bunch of empty folders. We don't need folders for characters without tropes.
Per How to Create a Character Page "Remember: Each example needs to follow the normal Zero-Context Example guidelines. If a character does not have at least one non-ZCE trope, they should not be on the page."
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
EyepatchRaptor
do we really need all the superfluous alternate-self entries?
Eat bread, make sandwiches, know what I'm saying?
This page is getting pretty heavy and we haven't even got the sequel yet. When we do inevitably have to break it down into smaller sections, what headings should we go with? The comics already have "Spider-verse", so can anyone came come up with something that marks this as part of the animated films but isn't too long?
These entries got removed before for misuse:
- Adaptational Badass: This incarnation of Peter is pretty much Bruce Wayne, with a massive underground lair in his backyard that hosts a wall of alternate Spider-Man costumes, a computer system, fabrication equipment, and customized vehicles including a plane, all resources that Peter could never typically acquire (at least not to the extent this Peter has).
- Decomposite Character: He embodies everything that makes the comics Peter Parker cool and fun — in the prime of his life, has a good married, intelligent, upbeat, and happy both in his superhero and civilian lives. This contrasts him with Peter B. Parker, who gets the traits associated with Spider-Man as a pathetic loser.
- Decomposite Character: He embodies everything that makes the comics Peter Parker a pitiable loser — middle-aged, out of shape, divorced, has bad judgment, cynical, and bitter. The Peter Parker of Miles' world got everything that makes the comics Peter cool.
I don't see how they are misused though. The Decomposite Character entries explain that each of the two Peter Parkers represents distinct aspects of the comic book Peter, taken to extremes.
As for Adaptational Badass, the rationale given was in error - the user said the trope is for "a character in the source is simply a non-dangerous person but when adapted in the new medium suddenly becomes a bona fide bad-ass". However, the trope page itself says "Another possibility is that characters who were reasonably competent and skilled in their original incarnations had their capabilities and accomplishments elevated in their next depiction". So Adaptational Badass is still valid here because, as the entry notes, while Spider-Man is a badass in the comics, he's never had the level of equipment and resources that the Spider-Man of this movie has.
Hide / Show Replies
While these two tropes have their merits as you've pointed out, the "mis-use" is that those tropes focus on how a character is adapted from the story being told in one medium (like comics) into another medium (like a movie).
The challenge is that this movie isn't exactly an adaptation. It's taking the concept of the "Spider-Verse" from the comics and using it as the foundation for a story in an animated film.
In this film, the characters Spider Noir, Spider-Ham and Peni & SP//dr have their original depictions established in the comics. However, Blond Peter and Peter B. are unique characters created for the movie. They aren't adaptations from a comic version of Blond Peter and Peter B. into a movie version of Blond Peter and Peter B.
As such using tropes that focus on how they are "adapted" isn't really the proper use here since they aren't adaptations to begin with.
Edited by rva98014
Just because it isn't based on a specific story arc in the comics doesn't mean it isn't considered an adaptation of the comics as a whole. These tropes are used all the time for other comic book movies.
OK, let's look at this way. A Decomposite Character is the case where a single character in the source material is broken into two or more characters in the adaptation. It might be personality attributes or plot threads spread among the characters.
This isn't really what's going on in this film as Blond Peter and Peter B. represent two versions of Peter Parker that have had vastly different life experiences.
Blond Peter is The Ace, The Paragon, the most idealistic representation of Peter Parker. He's got blond hair, blue eyes, is rich, successful, beloved by the city, respected by the police and even the Daily Bugle likes him.
Peter B. is the worn-down, road-weary Peter Parker. He's been at the superhero game far too long and should have either retired or at least taken a long vacation to recharge. Now he's at the point where life has dealt him multiple emotional blows with the death of Aunt May and his divorce from MJ.
From a story perspective, Peter B. is what happens when life has knocked Spider-Man to the ground and he hasn't yet gathered the will to get back up. This is what makes him a good mentor for Miles because they both learn from each other and gather the strength to get back up again.
In terms of Decomposite Character, I'm not aware of any source version of Peter Parker that is as triumphantly successful as Blond Peter. So it's really hard to justify him a decomposite of Peter from the comics. Blond Peter and Peter B are unique creations for this movie and serve as foils for each other but not a decomposite of some comic source.
—-
As far as Adaptational Badass goes, I don't see Blond Peter as more skilled or more accomplished than the other Spider-Men. He's not more competent, he just has more stuff, a nicer home base, and more costumes.
Edited by rva98014
I agree with cutting Decomposite Character. It's less that they have split Spider-Man's traits, and more that they went on Divergent Character Evolution.
As for Adaptational Badass, I can see it being included. That "more stuff" does make him a more effective crime fighter (and the fact he has it indicates he's at least more savvy in some ways) and the fact he's The Ace in the backstory at least implies he's had fewer stumbles than 616 Peter.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Good point about Adaptational Badass, even though we never see Blond Peter using the toys in his Spider-Cave, they are there and would enhance his crime fighting ability so it makes sense to add that one back.
Edited by rva98014
Fair enough on the Decomposite Character, then. But I think Divergent Character Evolution can work for the basic idea of the two being the extremes of the usual Peter for the comics.
And, while I'll let the discussion on the above conclude before adding Adaptational Badass back, I think it can also be mentioned that, as Larkman says, the main Peter of this universe has a "more together" life than the comics Peter usually does (I'll not word it that way on the page, of course).
Edited by DrakeClawfang
Yes I agree that Blond Peter has a "more together" life.
The movie seems to go out of its way to show that he avoids every "bad parker luck" cliche of the comics... (he made money from being Spider-Man, the city loves him, the police respect him, even the Bugle likes him, etc).
In Blond Peter's "one more time" opening we see Ben give a very young Peter the "great power, great responsibility" speech before walking into the light.
This is purely my head-canon, but I'm convinced that this idealistic Blond Peter took that message so much to heart at such a young age that there was no need for him to have an "Uncle Ben moment" and his Ben simply died peacefully in his sleep.
Can't prove it, of course, but it does seem to fit Blond Peter's perfect Spider-Man.
So a few more thoughts on Divergent Character Evolution:
One is that a lot of the traits ascribed to B. Parker just aren't part of 616 Peter. Even factoring in Depending on the Writer, he's not bitter, overweight, cynical, and bad judgment is tremendously arguable. I'd say "bitter" is the only one that even comes close to fitting him and that's usually something resolved by the end of the comic.
So here's a potential writeup for Divergent Character Evolution:
- Divergent Character Evolution: In-Universe (or rather, universes): there's nothing to indicate that the Peter Parker of of Miles' universe and Peter B. Parker have entirely divergent backstories and by all rights seem to have started off in the same place. That said, their decisions and experiences have led to them becoming entirely different people, one being a pitiable loser — middle-aged, out of shape, divorced, has bad judgment, cynical, and bitter; the other being The Ace — in the prime of his life, with a good married life, financially successful, upbeat and happy both in his superhero and civilian personae.
I'd make a change to the opening line to draw it back more to the comics, which even if that Peter isn't like either of these guys entirely, serves as their basis. How about this?
- Divergent Character Evolution: The Peter Parker of of Miles' universe and Peter B. Parker have the same origin as Peter does in the comics - bitten by a strange spider, received superpowers, became Spider-Man and fought crime in New York. However, from there the two made decisions and had experiences that led to them becoming entirely different people. The Peter of Miles' universe is The Ace, with a healthy marriage to Mary-Jane, financial success he's used to help fund his crime fighting, and is upbeat and happy about his life and loves being Spider-Man; Peter B. Parker is a Knight in Sour Armor, a middle-aged loser who has divorced his wife, lost all his money in a failed restaurant, and is bitter and cynical but still keeps being Spider-Man in spite of it.
I'm questioning the "Parental Substitute" trope under Aunt May's section.
The world of Blond Peter was intentionally set up to showcase Blond Peter as the nearly-perfect representation of Peter Parker. So many of the problems that plague "our" E616 Parker don't seem to exist here. Blond Peter is rich, gets numerous merchandising endorsements, is beloved by the city, and is even praised by the Daily Bugle.
So, I'm wondering how much of the traditional E616 Aunt May qualities can we assume are still in play? In the movie, it seems like her relationship with Blond Peter is more like that of Alfred to Batman, than an old Aunt afraid for the safety of her frail nephew.
Do we even know if Peter's parents are dead in this universe? Is it fair to list her as a Parental Substitute? Can we accurately say "She was essentially Peter's mother in every way besides physically giving birth to him."
Is there any Word of God or All There in the Manual resources that give more detail to their relationship?
Hide / Show Replies
Some things about this version of the Ultimate Marvel Universe are different, sure, but speaking personally I assume the whole thing is designed to have us assume it is the same, unless shown otherwise. Just because things are different does not mean everything is.
Also, let me point out she can be an Alfred-type figure AND be a Parental Substitute, especially since it is occasionally implied that Alfred sees Batman as his son and that is why he helps him be Batman. The Parental Substitute trope is not about seeing someone as your child and worrying about them (which would be Like a Son to Me), it is about taking the role of parental figure in spite of not being their parent. She can raise him as her son without having to worry about him all the time.
If this is worded a little weirdly, I apologise. You may have noticed they still have not fixed the issue of quotation and apostrophe marks causing a backwards slash () in discussion pages.
Thanks for the reply.
Mind you, I'm not adverse to the Parental Subtitute entry. I just noted that for all the other entries in her section, I can point to a scene in the movie that fully supports the trope.
I realized that the Parental Subtitute entry actually requires more of an assumption that she's mostly like all the other Aunt Mays instead of having an exact scene that defines that as her role.
It gave me pause because Blond Peter is so out of alignment with all the other Peter Parkers out there (ie rich, blond, successful, etc). I wouldn't put it past the writers to have Uncle Ben be such a great moral teacher to Blond Peter that he instilled the "With great power...." mantra in him while he was still a kid and then went on to die peacefully in his sleep.
After all the movie does show Uncle Ben say "With great power" to Blond Peter as a young kid in his "one more time" recap.
I'm just wondering if there's any official Word of God or All There in the Manual references that define what Blond Peter, Aunt May and Uncle Ben's relationship are in this universe.
Edited by rva98014
Having just rerewatched it, I'd say it's safe enough to readd. It's slight conjecture, but the fact that in Peter B's montage he refers to burying Aunt May it has to be inferred that she's more significant than a regular aunt.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
The Parental Substitute entry under Aunt May was never removed, just reworded from its original "She was essentially Peter's mother in every way besides physically giving birth to him". In my opinion, this wording was a bit too flowery and hyperbolic given what we see in film.
I raised the discussion to see if Parental Substitute was even needed at all, and it seems the consensus is that it should remain. Which is fine, as I'm happy with the current wording of that trope entry for Aunt May.
Pet Sitter Extraordinaire
Is it a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing and/or [trope about secrets] that Dr. Octavius didn't tell Fisk about the cellular degeneration that the alternate dimension Vanessa and Richard would experience?
Regards, Comrade Mabby (they/them) Resident Smart-Alec & Know-It-All Hide / Show Replies
I think it's too much conjecture to say.
She may have had a means to counter it, Peter B. Parker didn't really go through the collider in the expected way. And/or maybe part of the reason she was going to observe and study his degeneration was to make sure that she could do so.
Too much open to interpretation.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I agree with Larkmarn, Kingpin's wife and son were going to be extracted via a controlled process using specific DNA to guide the search. The Spider-Gang were expelled by accident after Goblin shoved Blond Peter's head into the stream causing a massive explosion.
It seems more likely that the molecular degeneration is a side effect of a unplanned extraction than a flaw in the process that Doc Ock had designed and was fully aware of.
After seeing Kingpin's wrath on Blond Peter for saying "they're gone", I can't imagine the hell he'd unleash on Doc Ock if she pulled an alternate wife and son into this universe knowing they'd die again in agony in just a few days.
Edited by rva98014
So, I recently read through the Spider-verse comics, and I'm wondering if Adaptation Deviation applies to Spider-Ham. While he didn't have a big role in the comics, when he did show up, he was actually one of the more serious characters, and the art made him seem generally angry.
I'm hesitant to add it myself, as I haven't read any of the actual Spider-Ham comics. If someone more knowledgeable on the subject wants to weigh in, please do.
Regarding the trope Shipper on Deck being assigned to Miles. I don't feel this is supported by what's shown in the film. If you re-watch the film, Miles never actually knows that Peter B. has had relationship troubles with MJ that left him heart-broken. We, the audience, knows that because of Peter B.'s "one last time" recap and because we saw him make a fool of himself at Kingpin's party with the alternate MJ, but Miles doesn't know this. He only knows that his friend's life is in shambles and he has to go home and put things right. Miles never mentions MJ to Peter B before he drops him into the portal.
Troper "Revolutionary_Jack" countered my above statement by bringing up the scene in Mile's dorm room... "'But what about MJ', Miles says this when Peter B. ties up in that chair when he realizes that Peter B wants to sacrifice himself in that collider."
I realize my final statement wasn't clear enough... I meant "Before he drops him into the portal, Miles never mentions MJ as a reason for Peter B to return home." not that Miles never mentions MJ all all.
We know that Miles knows that Peter B. has an MJ and has feelings for her because he saw him looking at her photo in the "spider-lair" but nothing shows that Miles knows Peter has romantic problems with her.
His "what about MJ" line is open-ended and can easily mean "you can't die, if you sacrifice yourself here, what about MJ at home?" instead of "if you sacrifice yourself here, how will you reconcile with your wife?".
Peter B's response "Not everything works out,kid" can easily mean (to Miles) "When you fight the good fight and do what needs to be done, not everyone gets to go home".
I agree that Miles has Peter B.'s best interests at heart, doesn't want him to die and is encouraging him to go back and put his life in order. I just don't feel there's enough to make Miles into a full-fledged Shipper on Deck with regards to what the movie shows that Miles knows.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies
Honestly, Shipper on Deck seems a bit... extreme? It's a downplayed example at most, and relies on Audience Awareness Advantage because even though Miles doesn't know about Peter's run-in with MJ at the soiree, we do.
From a Watsonian standpoint, Miles was desperately trying to latch onto a thing in Peter's life that might have any meaning for the guy. Which is... very little. He knows he's a sad sack, that May's dead, and that he's not really Spider-Manning it up in his own world. It's a Hail Mary because it's literally everything he knows about Peter B.
Now, from a Doylist perspective, we know that Peter's pining over her and wants to make things right and reconcile which Miles does not.
I think Miles' point is that Peter still has something to live for in MJ, which is narratively a Distinction Without Difference to Miles thinks Peter should reconcile. Albeit a heavily downplayed example... "don't kill yourself, someone might miss you" isn't the same as "awww yeah, you two kids should get together."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
You summed up the issue rather well.
The main point I was trying to make is that from a Watsonian perspective, I don't believe Miles knows that Peter and MJ have divorced. That information was revealed to us, the audience, during Peter B's "one last time" recap which takes place while Peter B. is unconscious from Miles' venom strike so there's no reason to expect that Miles actually heard that story.
Miles only knows that Peter B. has an MJ and has feelings for her per the spider-lair scene. Since he knows that Blond Peter had a loving, supportive MJ in his life, it makes sense he'd assume there's a similar situation with Peter B.
My interpretation is that Miles is taking Peter B.'s relationship with MJ as a given and seeing her as a reason for Peter B. to live and not sacrifice himself. Miles motivation is to not let another Spider-Man die. I don't see Miles fulfilling the role of acting as a shipper trying to get them back together.
It's subtle enough to become a Distinction Without Difference and if it's only qualifying to be a "heavily downplayed example", then it probably should be removed.
Edited by rva98014
That's actually a great point... it didn't occur to me that yeah, from Miles' POV there's probably no reason to think Peter doesn't just have MJ as a wife. Especially keeping in mind that Peter B. acted like his universe was better and this one was messed up.
So yeah. At this point I'm leaning "too ambiguous to consider it anything" since it's entirely possible Miles was saying "hey, don't die, you have a wife" which isn't Shipper on Deck at all.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
It's been about a week and there's been no further activity on this thread. The general consensus seems to be that Miles' actions regarding Peter B and MJ are too ambiguous to say it's a definite example of Shipper on Deck so I'm goint to remove that entry and refer to this discussion.
So is this page "unmarked spoilers" or not? There are an awful lot of spoiler tags in play, including some examples fully enclosed in spoiler tags which is discouraged.
I vote we just make the page "all spoilers are unmarked" and revise the warning at the top of the page to make it clear.
Hide / Show Replies
Going Spoilers Off for something that isn't yet even on home media seems a bit early.
I don't actually care; personally I don't get why anyone would browse the character sheet of any one-shot work if they're concerned about spoilers, but I'm just saying it seems like an odd choice.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
At the very least certain FOLDERS need to be Unmarked Spoilers; Doc Ock and The Prowler obviously, because both are Walking Spoilers, but given that basically everything about Miles's universe's Peter and large swathes of Kingpin's character constitute end of Act 1/Act 2 spoilers, I would argue they might qualify as well.
I agree that it might be a bit early to go Spoilers Off, but for some reason, the characters page is overflowing with spoiler tags over plot details that don't really seem to need them. Yes, they are technically spoilers but they aren't major ones and many are resulting in whole examples enclosed in spoiler-tags which is discouraged.
I'd agree that these plot items should probably be spoiler-tagged: - Blond Peter dies - The female Doc Ock reveal - The prowler is Miles' uncle - Uncle Aaron gets killed - Kingpin's motivation for building the Super-Collider
But a quick review of the character page shows all these other plot items that are also spoiler-tagged (and this isn't even a complete list)
- Miles has extra powers and learns to control them at the end - Miles becomes the new spiderman at the end of the film - Peter B goes back to his own dimension - Peter B decides to have kids - Peter B is a jerk at first but decides to help Miles - Peter B gives his relationship with MJ another chance - Gwen takes on a leadership role in the Spider-Gang - Gwen allows herself to become friends with Miles - All the Spiders make it back to their home dimension - The SP//dr mech gets destroyed - The Spider-Gang beats up Scorpion
Since it seems to be difficult for the tropers that want to contribute to determine what is or is not a story-breaking spoiler, maybe going Spoilers Off is a good, straightforward, caveat emptor solution.
Feedback welcome.
Edited by rva98014
Since Spider-Ham was originally a spider that was bitten by a pig, should his unmasked image be of a cartoon spider?
Hide / Show Replies
I don't think so. His original form may have been a spider, but his current unmasked state is a pig.
I feel like we should either make Olivia's folder "unmarked spoilers", or at least make the spoiler tagging more consistent. As of right now, the spoiler tags are still up, but the big reveal and a lot of info surrounding her other identity is just out in the open. I don't know which of the two options you guys prefer, but it needs to be cleaned up in any case.
Hide / Show Replies
Make the whole page unmarked spoilers. Not just a section.
Remove all spoilers. Then put a big warning at the top of the page.
There are too many examples completely within in spoiler tags which is bad form.
This is a title.
I have pulled this Five-Man Band list from the Spider-persons general folder.
- Five-Man Band:
- Miles: The Leader
- Peter B.: The Lancer
- Spider-Man Noir: The Big Guy
- Peni: The Smart Guy
- Gwen: The Chick
- Spider-Ham: The Sixth Ranger
A: Zero Context Examples. B: Shoehorning. Miles is not The Leader. He did not assemble the Spiders for any great purpose, he is not the most practical, experienced, mature and neutral member of the group, not the most outspoken and outgoing, and he is certainly not the most feared, most skilled, most loved and respected, chosen by destiny, or the most personally invested in the team's goals.
Gwen is not The Chick. She no more encourages loyalty and teamwork than anyone else in the group, nor does she give them the courage or hope to unlock their true potential and she is certainly not a Token Good Teammate that keeps her friends from Jumping Off the Slippery Slope.
Spider-Ham is not a new character that joins an established cast, so not a Sixth Ranger.
All in all, Five-Man Band does not apply.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! Hide / Show Replies
Gwen used to be classified as The Heart, though if I understand the trope correctly that's mostly for male characters. Willy 2537 has proposed a slightly different list which tries to apply Five-Man Band to the Spider-Gang.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=WesternAnimation.SpiderManIntoTheSpiderVerse#comment-116019
Edited by SingingRain
Miles was there first, so he's not a new character that is introduced to an established cast (if it can be said the spider-gang is an established cast to begin with), and I don't believe his presence changes the group dynamic of the spider-gang.
Additionally, Spider-Ham can not be The Chick because, among other things, he is not female. If The Chick isn't a woman then it's not a Five-Man Band.
Edited by Eagal You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
Anyone else get some Black Panther vibs from The Prowler? Like beyond his Cat-like motifs. It feels like this depiction of give was trying to lowkey invoke the comparison. I am not saying its to the point of Shout-Out or Expy levels, but compare these two images.
and
and
Idk what is going on with the links, like idk why they are broken.
Edited by AstroLawyer Hide / Show Replies
If could get the links to work, they basically show both Prowler and Black Panther in similar poses at similar shot angles.
That's not enough. We might as well call Miles an expy of Black Panther by that logic.
Edited by RAlexa21th Where there's life, there's hope.
ITSV and Black Panther 2018 had overlapping production and post-production. The costumes have nothing in common. Black Panther's debut in comics preceded the appearance of Hobie Brown Prowler I...and the colors are different...black versus purple.
Suggestion to rename this page to "Spider-Verse Trilogy Characters"?
Eat bread, make sandwiches, know what I'm saying? Hide / Show Replies