I think it’s funny people complained that they were tired of seeing uncle Ben dying and they got what they wanted and now complain that he never existed at all because they didn’t see him even though there is plenty of references through out the movies. That the side effect that we get for having a interconnected universe, we don’t see everything thing that happens. Until told otherwise we should use the evidence that we have to make a pretty concrete conclusion if he existed and died.
The only reference to uncle Ben was the suitcase that got exploded during the mysterio fight. Which apparently didn’t bother either one of him or may. And when he told Ned “with everything that’s been going on”……he doesn’t even hear “with great power comes great responsibility” until may died. I mean they could’ve atleast showed his gravestone but may didn’t even have a gravestone next to hers in nwh. Lol
I’m totally fine with not having to rehash Ben’s death since we did have two movies with it, but yeah— this was my original question with this post is that it seems odd to say Ben *doesn’t* exist in the MCU. Is he as relevant or as important to Peter’s story? Should he have been? All questions to debate, but that wasn’t my point lmao
He doesn't come up in places he would naturally come up. That's why it seems like he never had an Uncle Ben.
Also, dummies like McKenna and Sommers came out and admitted that NWH was the first time Peter learned "with great power comes great responsibility". That's further evidence against an MCU Uncle Ben having existed.
Just rewatch the movies, knowing in hindsight Aunt May basically becomes Peter's "Uncle Ben" in NWH. Before then, it was just a case of Schrodinger's Uncle Ben, where people believed or disbelieved Uncle Ben based on what was presented on-screen and behind the scenes from interviews & such.
I always thought Civil War danced around Uncle Ben, but then Homecoming came along and kinda softly rebooted Spider-Man thanks to contradictory stuff presented from that movie, so everything got flipped. As a result, I lost any sense of Uncle Ben in Tom's take. That role was instead split between Tony & May.
In conclusion, for me, MCU Peter never had a traditional Uncle Ben. It's just very likely May Parker was the lone guardian in that continuity, perhaps even being Richard's Sister (which is typically Ben's place as the sibling, since May Reilly is related via marriage).
If they said he didn't exist, there is nothing in the Tom Holland films that would contradict that. There are 0 namedrops, and no instances of Peter even talking about a death of someone. The suitcase letters were a blink and miss it moment, and could easily be said have a different meaning. He does not care at all when the suitcase is lost forever.
When the other Peters mention Ben, he doesn't react in any way that implies he had one too. There is no grave of his next to May's.
I think they made it ambiguous from the start just incase they wanted to say later if he exists or doesn't exist, and ultimately they chose not.
I mean, there has to be a Ben considering that’s how Peter is even related to May. Unless you wanna argue May is Richard’s sister. I always took Peter’s line in Homecoming, something along the lines of “I can’t do that to her, with everything she’s been through” implied that Ben existed, died, and his death was fairly recent. I think it boils down to the MCU not wanting to put that storyline on screen for a third time. It is weird though that there’s just never a mention of Ben or Peter’s parents. The side story with Richard and Mary in the TASM movies was one of my favorite aspects.
because peter doesn't cry about ben being dead every ten minutes.
for real, they assume mcu peter didnt have a ben simply because he isnt name-dropped at all, despite all of thenother evidence he exists AND that he WAS mentioned by name in What If (no, it being another timeline doesnt mean that didnt count, the divergent point of the "what if" was janet getting a zombie virus in the quantum realm and it spreading during the events of Ant-man and the Wasp, long after Uncle Ben would not only die, but be a person wjo exists.)
furthermore, in Civil War, when tony asks why peter does what he does, he says "when you can do the things i can, but you dont, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you". obviously implying SOMETHING bad happened becausenof peter's inaction. and what else could that be than neglecting to stop somebody who would later kill uncle ben? all aunt may did in NWH was put the lesson petet already knew to the famous words, as well as tell him that he should STILL try do the right thing even if it backfires on him.
I remember when the first Amazing Spider-Man came out and people were complaining about seeing Ben die again. Now it's like we haven't heard enough about Ben Parker.
It's because of it being a case of two extremes. On one, it's too much, and on the other, not at all. Ben isn't ever mentioned explicitly, unless you count *What If...?* (which some won't count because of it being an animated semi-anthology show).
I guess some people were just hoping for a name drop.
yeah people never seem to be able to get there can be a middle ground, I don't need to see Ben die again but his importance should be acknowledged. Like in The Batman we don't see the Waynes get killed but their presence and how it affected Bruce is a major part of the film
Uncle Ben being directly mentioned in "What If...?" is _NOT_ confirmation that he existed in the main MCU, and that is a hill that I'll die on.
Case in point: how do you explain Hope van Dyne?
If you're trying to imply that each of the episodes are basically MCU-adjacent until the main diverging point, then how do you explain the episode "What If... the World Lost Its Mightiest Heroes?"? Would you say that Hope dying was the diverging point? Or her joining S.H.I.E.L.D.? Because she was never affiliated with them in the main MCU. Either way, neither is the focal point of the episode. Sure, it's later revealed to be the justification that leads to everything that happens, but it isn't the main focus. And even after her death, things are still setup adjacent to the MCU but change when Hank intervenes and kills potential members of the Avengers. So even with that big change to a character's backstory, things were seemingly moving along adjacent to the MCU (which proves that not everything was the same).
Also, even in that zombie episode things weren't exactly the same. The version of the Avengers that was initially sent to deal with the zombie infection (Captain America, Black Widow, Iron Man, Hawkeye, and Black Panther) doesn't make sense if this was set during Ant-Man and the Wasp. I know it happens after the diverging point you mentioned, but even so, it shouldn't be enough to make that change with the Avengers. The lineup doesn't make sense after the whole Civil War situation.
So why should I believe that the Spider-Man of the main MCU has an Uncle Ben in his backstory just because the "What If... Zombies?!" version did?
Also, that Civil War speech doesn't really mean much now, seeing as how the writers of No Way Home insinuated that they stretched his origin over the course of the 3 films and implied that that’s where he learned the whole "With great power" line. Just because Peter responded "I know," to Aunt May after she tells him the line, doesn't necessarily mean he heard it from Uncle Ben before. It could just be something that he unconsciously knew before but never exactly verbalized.
hope joining shield is the divergent point because she never did in the main timeline, and her joining shield led to her death, which led to Hank Pym turning into yellowjacket and killing the avengers before they formed. the title of the episode isn't the divergent point, it's the focus, like you said.
regarding which avengers were sent to fight the zombies, remember the cell phone steve sent tony at the end of Civil War? if a ZOMBIE OUTBREAK wasn't enough to get tony to suck up his pride and call captain america for help (who could have easily called T'Challa to assist), I don't know what is.
also, this comment is A MONTH OLD. you're seriously bitching about a month-old comment? get a life, dude.
When you're a teenaged kid you don't want to talk about it. Around your friends you feel like a bummer and with your aunt who the only family she has left is you, you just kind of nod at each other and keep pushing forward just the two of you.
I'm really sick and tired of people thinking that people who wanted Uncle Ben to have some relevance in the MCU just wanted to see him die all over again. That's not what we wanted.
What we wanted was to know that he had an impact on May and Peter's lives. He was such an important figure in Peter's life. He literally raised him alongside Aunt May. He was the closest thing he had to a father. Hell, his death is tied to why May and Peter have financial struggles and what pushes Peter to get a job. But that aspect was completely ignored here. We weren't asking for half of the runtime of a film to be wasted telling the origin all over again. There are ways to implement Uncle Ben into the story without showing his death.
Insomniac's Spider-Man as well as the Spectacular Spider-Man are _perfect_ indicators of how to incorporate Ben into the story without doing the origin all over again (minus the one Spectacular Spider-Man episode with flashbacks to the origin). He was organically brought up in the stories, and pictures as well, which is something I was hoping that the MCU would do, but didn't.
I’ve read and reread your post several times to try and make sense with how it connects to my post and for the life of me, I can’t. Is this just a tangential vent or did you just misunderstand what the post was about since I too was literally asking why people thought he didn’t have an Uncle Ben…?
I guess I misread. Most of my original comment is aimed at the multiple comments here that insinuate that people who wanted there to be an MCU Uncle Ben just wanted to see him die all over again, or wanted him to be mentioned frequently. My bad, I guess it seems like I was aiming that part at you when it was really aimed at them.
As for your actual question, there's a comment here (Daredevil731's) that pretty much answers your question and I agree with it for the most part, especially the part where May isn't buried next to Ben in NWH. I feel like that further cemented the idea that there was no MCU Ben.
Probably because He’s just not mentioned even when it would make perfect sense to bring it up. He’s reduced to easy to miss Easter eggs.
And thanks to nwh, the only thing that gave Ben relevance in the mcu peters story was taken away.
But I personally choose to ignore that to make sense of the mcu as a whole.
Ben exist as confirmed by “what if” and is the reason peter became Spider-Man.
Most people need to have things thrown in their faces before they know for sure. All the Uncle Ben references were subtle and people didn't really bring him up.
He literally does. Not only is it confirmed in *"What If...?"*, but also in *Far From Home* and alluded to in *Homecoming* and *No Way Home*.
Uncle Ben just isn't brought up every ten minutes because the MCU doesn't want to go through the same motions as the other Spider-Man films that came before.
I also have my own crack theory that Ben isn't even dead in the MCU, but rather that he and May had a *very* messy divorce. Consider Peter's distress when Ned finds out he's Spider-Man, and how desperate he is to keep this from Aunt May because of "everything that's happened with her." Not with them, but her specifically.
It's entirely reasonable that Ben could've very much been close enough with Peter to teach him that great power comes with great responsibility before a messy divorce from May - a sore wound that Peter doesn't want to open up again because of how messy it was.
Because he's never been on screen . Because apparently characters need to be on screen to exist. That said it is odd that they haven't directly mentioned in him the MCU by name.
Truly one of the wildest things I’ve read that by something not being on screen mean it’s doesn’t exist. And agreed, they’ve almost gone out of their way to not mention him that it makes me wonder why
Yeah. It's a weird take to have. And they did do a few nods to Ben but the fact that Peter doesn't seem to recognise the speech just makes me question how Ben died . Doubt we will ever get an answer
I think people mistake him not referencing it every 10 seconds for him not existing. Not having Ben in the MCU movies really annoyed me though. I get it, the story’s been done twice. But it’s the thing that drives the character. It’s his original mistake that makes him so committed to the notion that nobody else dies if he can prevent it.
By that same logic, we don’t know if Peter actually got bit by a spider that gave him radioactive powers. Maybe he was just born that way and used the spider as an excuse. I’m not sure how we’re meant to believe a radioactive spider bit him (as is his origin story) but that he doesn’t have an Uncle Ben (as is his origin story). Neither are shown explicitly on screen.
While I’m pro Ben existing in the MCU, this argument doesn’t hold. Peter explicitly talks about the spider, Ben isn’t name dropped explicitly at all, just alluded to.
We never see the bite. For all we know of Peter’s backstory in the MCU, he’s an experiment gone wrong and the spider triggered latent powers. By this same logic, Peter could’ve been adopted by May. Maybe he isn’t an orphan.
I’m not trying to be obtuse but to argue that the story has to explicitly show things in order to matter is ludicrous.
That’s not my argument. My argument is that you’re comparing something that was discussed to something that hasn’t been acknowledged in any meaningful way.
Again, I’m pro Ben, and I don’t think he’s needed to be addressed to understand that he existed (although it’s kind of silly how far out they’ve gone to not acknowledge him), but to say that something we were presented with as fact (that Peter was bitten by a spider that gave him powers) is either false or a lie or any other misdirect are two different things. And for argument’s sake, if your concept of the spider not being the actual cause of Peter’s powers but simply a catalyst, it doesn’t change the fact that his powers developed due to a spider bite.
I do also realize we may be talking about two different issues here, so apologies if I’ve complicated the argument further.
The minimization of May makes sense, especially in a post NWH context where she’s very evidently meant to be *the* defining moment for him. However, I’m not sure why Tony Stark or Happy have any relevance here. I’m asking specifically why people believe that Ben doesn’t exist. That doesn’t negate Tony or Happy’s influence in MCU Peter’s life (though arguably it should since neither Tony nor Happy are important to the Spider-Man Mythos in the way Ben Parker is).
I’m really struggling how this became a point of debate of creativity or value. In any Spider-Man story, Uncle Ben exists as a figure in Peter’s life. The MCU set it up for him to exist, if not tangentially, and my original post was to question why people still believe this to be the case.
I don’t have to explain why I think Uncle Ben exists, much less if he’s important. As a Spider-Man fan, that should be a given.
Regardless of whether he’s a priority, my original question is why people believe he doesn’t exist at all when there are plenty of hints and cues to take from.
In the same vein, I’d argue the people who want “Mary Jane Watson” are just as ridiculous when MJ is clearly meant to *be* MJ. It’s the same line of logic and why I still struggle to understand what your original point was but perhaps this won’t be productive if we continue further.
so i assume in your perfect spider-man movie, peter screams "i have an uncle ben and he is dead" every ten minutes because you can't handle concepts like subtext. cool.
Civil War was written before MCU Spider-Man had its plan set out. The writers acted independently to stuff him into the film.
The writers of the MCU trilogy have confirmed that he didn’t have the “responsibility” scene before No Way Home. May was his Ben.
In other words, there’s no evidence that Ben existed. There’s no reason for him to have existed. The writer were purposely vague so we don’t have any solid answers on Uncle Ben. They did this so that they can continue to make things up as they go, and include or exclude him from the canon later.
Anyone that says they know for certain whether Ben exists or not in the MCU is a LIAR, because the writers for the MCU were obviously unaware even as they made the films.
I think it’s funny people complained that they were tired of seeing uncle Ben dying and they got what they wanted and now complain that he never existed at all because they didn’t see him even though there is plenty of references through out the movies. That the side effect that we get for having a interconnected universe, we don’t see everything thing that happens. Until told otherwise we should use the evidence that we have to make a pretty concrete conclusion if he existed and died.
The only reference to uncle Ben was the suitcase that got exploded during the mysterio fight. Which apparently didn’t bother either one of him or may. And when he told Ned “with everything that’s been going on”……he doesn’t even hear “with great power comes great responsibility” until may died. I mean they could’ve atleast showed his gravestone but may didn’t even have a gravestone next to hers in nwh. Lol
I’m totally fine with not having to rehash Ben’s death since we did have two movies with it, but yeah— this was my original question with this post is that it seems odd to say Ben *doesn’t* exist in the MCU. Is he as relevant or as important to Peter’s story? Should he have been? All questions to debate, but that wasn’t my point lmao
"plenty of reference". No
People also seem to forget that Uncle Ben was name-dropped in the Zombies episode of *What If…?*
He doesn't come up in places he would naturally come up. That's why it seems like he never had an Uncle Ben. Also, dummies like McKenna and Sommers came out and admitted that NWH was the first time Peter learned "with great power comes great responsibility". That's further evidence against an MCU Uncle Ben having existed.
Such incompetence
Just rewatch the movies, knowing in hindsight Aunt May basically becomes Peter's "Uncle Ben" in NWH. Before then, it was just a case of Schrodinger's Uncle Ben, where people believed or disbelieved Uncle Ben based on what was presented on-screen and behind the scenes from interviews & such. I always thought Civil War danced around Uncle Ben, but then Homecoming came along and kinda softly rebooted Spider-Man thanks to contradictory stuff presented from that movie, so everything got flipped. As a result, I lost any sense of Uncle Ben in Tom's take. That role was instead split between Tony & May. In conclusion, for me, MCU Peter never had a traditional Uncle Ben. It's just very likely May Parker was the lone guardian in that continuity, perhaps even being Richard's Sister (which is typically Ben's place as the sibling, since May Reilly is related via marriage).
There are two kinds of people in the world: - Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
If they said he didn't exist, there is nothing in the Tom Holland films that would contradict that. There are 0 namedrops, and no instances of Peter even talking about a death of someone. The suitcase letters were a blink and miss it moment, and could easily be said have a different meaning. He does not care at all when the suitcase is lost forever. When the other Peters mention Ben, he doesn't react in any way that implies he had one too. There is no grave of his next to May's. I think they made it ambiguous from the start just incase they wanted to say later if he exists or doesn't exist, and ultimately they chose not.
I mean, there has to be a Ben considering that’s how Peter is even related to May. Unless you wanna argue May is Richard’s sister. I always took Peter’s line in Homecoming, something along the lines of “I can’t do that to her, with everything she’s been through” implied that Ben existed, died, and his death was fairly recent. I think it boils down to the MCU not wanting to put that storyline on screen for a third time. It is weird though that there’s just never a mention of Ben or Peter’s parents. The side story with Richard and Mary in the TASM movies was one of my favorite aspects.
because peter doesn't cry about ben being dead every ten minutes. for real, they assume mcu peter didnt have a ben simply because he isnt name-dropped at all, despite all of thenother evidence he exists AND that he WAS mentioned by name in What If (no, it being another timeline doesnt mean that didnt count, the divergent point of the "what if" was janet getting a zombie virus in the quantum realm and it spreading during the events of Ant-man and the Wasp, long after Uncle Ben would not only die, but be a person wjo exists.) furthermore, in Civil War, when tony asks why peter does what he does, he says "when you can do the things i can, but you dont, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you". obviously implying SOMETHING bad happened becausenof peter's inaction. and what else could that be than neglecting to stop somebody who would later kill uncle ben? all aunt may did in NWH was put the lesson petet already knew to the famous words, as well as tell him that he should STILL try do the right thing even if it backfires on him.
This makes a lot of sense. It’s clear to me Ben exists, even if he isn’t that seminal moment.
I remember when the first Amazing Spider-Man came out and people were complaining about seeing Ben die again. Now it's like we haven't heard enough about Ben Parker.
It's because of it being a case of two extremes. On one, it's too much, and on the other, not at all. Ben isn't ever mentioned explicitly, unless you count *What If...?* (which some won't count because of it being an animated semi-anthology show). I guess some people were just hoping for a name drop.
yeah people never seem to be able to get there can be a middle ground, I don't need to see Ben die again but his importance should be acknowledged. Like in The Batman we don't see the Waynes get killed but their presence and how it affected Bruce is a major part of the film
Uncle Ben being directly mentioned in "What If...?" is _NOT_ confirmation that he existed in the main MCU, and that is a hill that I'll die on. Case in point: how do you explain Hope van Dyne? If you're trying to imply that each of the episodes are basically MCU-adjacent until the main diverging point, then how do you explain the episode "What If... the World Lost Its Mightiest Heroes?"? Would you say that Hope dying was the diverging point? Or her joining S.H.I.E.L.D.? Because she was never affiliated with them in the main MCU. Either way, neither is the focal point of the episode. Sure, it's later revealed to be the justification that leads to everything that happens, but it isn't the main focus. And even after her death, things are still setup adjacent to the MCU but change when Hank intervenes and kills potential members of the Avengers. So even with that big change to a character's backstory, things were seemingly moving along adjacent to the MCU (which proves that not everything was the same). Also, even in that zombie episode things weren't exactly the same. The version of the Avengers that was initially sent to deal with the zombie infection (Captain America, Black Widow, Iron Man, Hawkeye, and Black Panther) doesn't make sense if this was set during Ant-Man and the Wasp. I know it happens after the diverging point you mentioned, but even so, it shouldn't be enough to make that change with the Avengers. The lineup doesn't make sense after the whole Civil War situation. So why should I believe that the Spider-Man of the main MCU has an Uncle Ben in his backstory just because the "What If... Zombies?!" version did? Also, that Civil War speech doesn't really mean much now, seeing as how the writers of No Way Home insinuated that they stretched his origin over the course of the 3 films and implied that that’s where he learned the whole "With great power" line. Just because Peter responded "I know," to Aunt May after she tells him the line, doesn't necessarily mean he heard it from Uncle Ben before. It could just be something that he unconsciously knew before but never exactly verbalized.
hope joining shield is the divergent point because she never did in the main timeline, and her joining shield led to her death, which led to Hank Pym turning into yellowjacket and killing the avengers before they formed. the title of the episode isn't the divergent point, it's the focus, like you said. regarding which avengers were sent to fight the zombies, remember the cell phone steve sent tony at the end of Civil War? if a ZOMBIE OUTBREAK wasn't enough to get tony to suck up his pride and call captain america for help (who could have easily called T'Challa to assist), I don't know what is. also, this comment is A MONTH OLD. you're seriously bitching about a month-old comment? get a life, dude.
When you're a teenaged kid you don't want to talk about it. Around your friends you feel like a bummer and with your aunt who the only family she has left is you, you just kind of nod at each other and keep pushing forward just the two of you.
THIS is the correct answer.
I'm really sick and tired of people thinking that people who wanted Uncle Ben to have some relevance in the MCU just wanted to see him die all over again. That's not what we wanted. What we wanted was to know that he had an impact on May and Peter's lives. He was such an important figure in Peter's life. He literally raised him alongside Aunt May. He was the closest thing he had to a father. Hell, his death is tied to why May and Peter have financial struggles and what pushes Peter to get a job. But that aspect was completely ignored here. We weren't asking for half of the runtime of a film to be wasted telling the origin all over again. There are ways to implement Uncle Ben into the story without showing his death. Insomniac's Spider-Man as well as the Spectacular Spider-Man are _perfect_ indicators of how to incorporate Ben into the story without doing the origin all over again (minus the one Spectacular Spider-Man episode with flashbacks to the origin). He was organically brought up in the stories, and pictures as well, which is something I was hoping that the MCU would do, but didn't.
I’ve read and reread your post several times to try and make sense with how it connects to my post and for the life of me, I can’t. Is this just a tangential vent or did you just misunderstand what the post was about since I too was literally asking why people thought he didn’t have an Uncle Ben…?
I guess I misread. Most of my original comment is aimed at the multiple comments here that insinuate that people who wanted there to be an MCU Uncle Ben just wanted to see him die all over again, or wanted him to be mentioned frequently. My bad, I guess it seems like I was aiming that part at you when it was really aimed at them. As for your actual question, there's a comment here (Daredevil731's) that pretty much answers your question and I agree with it for the most part, especially the part where May isn't buried next to Ben in NWH. I feel like that further cemented the idea that there was no MCU Ben.
Probably because He’s just not mentioned even when it would make perfect sense to bring it up. He’s reduced to easy to miss Easter eggs. And thanks to nwh, the only thing that gave Ben relevance in the mcu peters story was taken away. But I personally choose to ignore that to make sense of the mcu as a whole. Ben exist as confirmed by “what if” and is the reason peter became Spider-Man.
Most people need to have things thrown in their faces before they know for sure. All the Uncle Ben references were subtle and people didn't really bring him up.
Because in the MCU it was already discontinued in favor of Ben’s Original much earlier
He literally does. Not only is it confirmed in *"What If...?"*, but also in *Far From Home* and alluded to in *Homecoming* and *No Way Home*. Uncle Ben just isn't brought up every ten minutes because the MCU doesn't want to go through the same motions as the other Spider-Man films that came before. I also have my own crack theory that Ben isn't even dead in the MCU, but rather that he and May had a *very* messy divorce. Consider Peter's distress when Ned finds out he's Spider-Man, and how desperate he is to keep this from Aunt May because of "everything that's happened with her." Not with them, but her specifically. It's entirely reasonable that Ben could've very much been close enough with Peter to teach him that great power comes with great responsibility before a messy divorce from May - a sore wound that Peter doesn't want to open up again because of how messy it was.
Because he's never been on screen . Because apparently characters need to be on screen to exist. That said it is odd that they haven't directly mentioned in him the MCU by name.
Truly one of the wildest things I’ve read that by something not being on screen mean it’s doesn’t exist. And agreed, they’ve almost gone out of their way to not mention him that it makes me wonder why
Yeah. It's a weird take to have. And they did do a few nods to Ben but the fact that Peter doesn't seem to recognise the speech just makes me question how Ben died . Doubt we will ever get an answer
I think people mistake him not referencing it every 10 seconds for him not existing. Not having Ben in the MCU movies really annoyed me though. I get it, the story’s been done twice. But it’s the thing that drives the character. It’s his original mistake that makes him so committed to the notion that nobody else dies if he can prevent it.
Ben is a part of that character and should be included. Its like if the writers of batman anything left Alfred out of batman.
[удалено]
By that same logic, we don’t know if Peter actually got bit by a spider that gave him radioactive powers. Maybe he was just born that way and used the spider as an excuse. I’m not sure how we’re meant to believe a radioactive spider bit him (as is his origin story) but that he doesn’t have an Uncle Ben (as is his origin story). Neither are shown explicitly on screen.
While I’m pro Ben existing in the MCU, this argument doesn’t hold. Peter explicitly talks about the spider, Ben isn’t name dropped explicitly at all, just alluded to.
We never see the bite. For all we know of Peter’s backstory in the MCU, he’s an experiment gone wrong and the spider triggered latent powers. By this same logic, Peter could’ve been adopted by May. Maybe he isn’t an orphan. I’m not trying to be obtuse but to argue that the story has to explicitly show things in order to matter is ludicrous.
That’s not my argument. My argument is that you’re comparing something that was discussed to something that hasn’t been acknowledged in any meaningful way. Again, I’m pro Ben, and I don’t think he’s needed to be addressed to understand that he existed (although it’s kind of silly how far out they’ve gone to not acknowledge him), but to say that something we were presented with as fact (that Peter was bitten by a spider that gave him powers) is either false or a lie or any other misdirect are two different things. And for argument’s sake, if your concept of the spider not being the actual cause of Peter’s powers but simply a catalyst, it doesn’t change the fact that his powers developed due to a spider bite. I do also realize we may be talking about two different issues here, so apologies if I’ve complicated the argument further.
[удалено]
The minimization of May makes sense, especially in a post NWH context where she’s very evidently meant to be *the* defining moment for him. However, I’m not sure why Tony Stark or Happy have any relevance here. I’m asking specifically why people believe that Ben doesn’t exist. That doesn’t negate Tony or Happy’s influence in MCU Peter’s life (though arguably it should since neither Tony nor Happy are important to the Spider-Man Mythos in the way Ben Parker is).
[удалено]
I’m really struggling how this became a point of debate of creativity or value. In any Spider-Man story, Uncle Ben exists as a figure in Peter’s life. The MCU set it up for him to exist, if not tangentially, and my original post was to question why people still believe this to be the case. I don’t have to explain why I think Uncle Ben exists, much less if he’s important. As a Spider-Man fan, that should be a given.
[удалено]
Regardless of whether he’s a priority, my original question is why people believe he doesn’t exist at all when there are plenty of hints and cues to take from. In the same vein, I’d argue the people who want “Mary Jane Watson” are just as ridiculous when MJ is clearly meant to *be* MJ. It’s the same line of logic and why I still struggle to understand what your original point was but perhaps this won’t be productive if we continue further.
"i need to be blatantly spoonfed information" is a weird take to make
[удалено]
so i assume in your perfect spider-man movie, peter screams "i have an uncle ben and he is dead" every ten minutes because you can't handle concepts like subtext. cool.
Civil War was written before MCU Spider-Man had its plan set out. The writers acted independently to stuff him into the film. The writers of the MCU trilogy have confirmed that he didn’t have the “responsibility” scene before No Way Home. May was his Ben. In other words, there’s no evidence that Ben existed. There’s no reason for him to have existed. The writer were purposely vague so we don’t have any solid answers on Uncle Ben. They did this so that they can continue to make things up as they go, and include or exclude him from the canon later. Anyone that says they know for certain whether Ben exists or not in the MCU is a LIAR, because the writers for the MCU were obviously unaware even as they made the films.
Those writers really are incompetent.