Peter's Spider-Man identity

In the movie, Peter becomes Spider-Man out of a need for revenge, instead of becoming a superhero he becomes a vigilante, shouldn't that make his allegiance neutral? read this quote and return to me. " This was one of my major problems with how the movie decided to botch the origin story. In the comic book, Peter becomes Spider-Man, the heroic Spider-Man, out of a sense of loss and guilt. He realizes through the death of Uncle Ben that he has a gift and that if he doesn’t use that gift innocent people will get hurt. That’s a huge life lesson for a teenager, one filled with real power and emotional impact. One mistake made in the heat of ego will forever haunt Spider-Man and keep him focused on living up to the legacy of Uncle Ben.

In the movie, Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man out of vengeance. He’s incredibly pissed that Uncle Ben has been killed but rather than take that sadness to heart and try to be the hero Uncle Ben wanted him to be, he becomes a vigilante that would make his uncle ashamed. In the film, it was still Peter’s fault that Uncle Ben died but without rising above to become a hero, Spider-Man just looks like a big jerk. It also seemed doubtful that a kid that smart would beat up multiple guys who look like his Uncle’s killer just after it happened.

Spider-Man is a hero; he’s not a vigilante. Sending him out as one misses the entire point of the comic book. I can hear people saying, “Well jeez Iann they had to change it a little bit. Who wants to see the same story we’ve seen before?” Okay, well, then why include it at all. If you want to really “shake things up,” then start Spider-Man when he’s already the wall crawler. Tell his origin in brief flashbacks and get right on with the story. If not, if the filmmakers felt a need to retell the origin, then try to stay with the spirit of the comic if not the exact word. The spirit of Spider-Man is tarnished with this vigilante mess."

this quote proves Peter is a vigilante who has a grudge against the one who killed his uncle, Peter also proves that point by going after his uncle's killer.

here is what George Stacy when Peter is over at the Stacy's eating before George finds out the truth about Peter and Spider-Man. "I stand for law and order, son. That's what I stand for, okay? I wear a badge. This guy wears a mask, like know, like an outlaw! He's hunting down a bunch of criminals that all look the same, like he's got some sort of personal vendetta. But he's not protecting innocent people. Mr. Parker." Superior Spider-Man so tell me, why does this version of Peter deserve the title of hero/superhero? (talk) 13:46, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

The guilt of Uncle Ben dying at the hands of a criminal Peter had the chance to apprehend, and the subsequent realization that he had been granted an amazing gift that deserved to be used for good, is essentially the path followed by the overwhelming majority of the different versions of Spider-Man. The only reason people see this as vigilantism instead of seeing it as heroics like they have in the past is the Dark Knight effect. It's told in a gritty fashion, since that sells; and a gritty movie character can't be the true "bright and shining" hero of our parent's and grandparent's era, the have to be "vigilantes". Even the Tobey Maguire version of Spider-Man follows this path; you don't see anyone calling that goofy kid a "vigilante", do you? --Spencerz (talk) 17:31, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
Because he saved New York from being overrun by lizard people.
LoveWaffle (talk) 17:40, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

And even that was out of guilt, because Peter said "I have to stop him, because I created him." it means that Peter, despite saving New York is still a vigilante and not a superhero and all Tobey Maguire Spider-Man films came out before Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy and are unaffected by that Batman trilogy. --Superior Spider-Man (talk) 17:52, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

You must not know that superheroes are vigilantes, or that Spider-Man 3 came out after 2005. Or that The Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot, and has no connection to Tobey Maguire's films. Also, it's Spider-Man, so yeah, he's a superhero.
Also, he did save a child from falling off a bridge.
But really, that doesn't matter because your belabored explanation for why Spider-Man isn't a hero is in the extreme minority.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:13, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Love, I'm talking about this version of Peter from Earth 120703 only, you know that because you saw that movie, he went after that criminal and other criminals that look similar to the one that killed his uncle because he wanted revenge, that makes him neutral in my eyes, the only scene in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1 film that shows Tobey's Spider-Man possibly going down a darker path is the abandoned shack scene, and his rage only lasts a second until he sees who the "killer" is, Dennis then falls out of the window due to stumbling back/backing away and is killed, Spider-Man 3 came out in 2007 and not in 2008, which is why these two trilogies by Sam Raimi and Christopher Nolan are still seperate, you don't see Otto being heroic as Spidey in Dan Slott's Superior Spider-Man do you? that's because Otto is neutral. --Superior Spider-Man (talk) 18:36, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

If you're only talking about this Peter Parker, then there's no reason to bring up the Raimi Spider-Man. Also, you must not realize Batman Begins, the movie that started the "gritty reboot" craze, came out in 2005, or that Otto Octavius is not Peter Parker.
Your justification of this version of Spider-Man not being a superhero is belabored, poorly argued and puts you in the extreme minority. Spider-Man is a superhero, that's that.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:47, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • scratches head* I'm not used to arguing and explaining my opinions... *laughs nervously* I think I explained things pretty well, and Otto Octavius is Spider-Man since issue 698 of The Amazing Spider-Man comics. --Superior Spider-Man (talk) 19:07, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

This is derailing pretty fast. Bottom line: Spider-Man is a hero. Whether he is a hero out of guilt, to redeem himself, or any other reason, he's a hero. So no, he shouldn't be listed as "Neutral". --Spencerz (talk) 21:24, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Peter's use of glasses

I remember Peter used contacts, meaning he does need glasses, he simply prefers contacts throughout the film. --Superior Spider-Man (talk) 08:17, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:02, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Then why does it say this? "Despite wearing glasses when he was bit, this version of Peter Parker did not require them, in fact he only started wearing glasses after he received his powers." --Superior Spider-Man (talk) 19:13, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Peter's Christianity

There's a note that states that Peter is a possible christian because he says something when Uncle Ben's dying. I watched that scene again and he only said "Oh my God", really!?--Primestar3 (talk) 19:55, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I left in it because I figured it's pretty common knowledge that Peter Parker is Christian anyway. But, yeah, "oh my God" is just an expression, and it has nothing to do with one's beliefs. TheRazorSlash (talk) 20:06, February 23, 2015 (UTC)
I think we should remove that note.--Primestar3 (talk) 16:53, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Verse Movie

Do you think Andrew and Toby will reprise their roles as Peter Parker for a Spider-Verse movie?(Dragonfly31 (talk) 01:10, August 3, 2016 (UTC))

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+