And I really didn’t like a lot of it.
First, just to get it out of the way: I didn’t appreciate the deathism of Gwen Stacy’s speech. Death gives meaning to our lives? The shortness of our lives is what makes them precious? Fuggin’ Stockholm Syndrome. No. Just no.
I also did not approve of how even though Peter Parker’s friends were no younger than he was (and were perhaps demonstrably more capable of making smart decisions), he decided that he knew better than them and had the right to decide their lives for them. Gwen Stacy, you don’t get to make cost/benefit analyses and decide if a situation is too risky for you. Harry Osbourne, you don’t get to do that either, even though you’re going to die.
And why did Peter feel like he should shoot down Osbourne’s best chance at life?
At the beginning of their conversation Osbourne was rational. He was calm. He could have been reasoned with.
Here’s what Peter should have done: Told Osbourne that Spider-man would probably go through with it, but there had to be some ground rules to ensure both his and Osbourne’s safety.
First, it was clear that Osbourne had time before he died, so there is nothing to lose from taking, say, five years to test this stuff out. If Osbourne Senior was anything to go by then the kid had at least thirty or forty years ahead of him. So let’s be careful, Harry.
Second, steps have to be taken to keep Spider-man’s identity secret. Osbourne should be able to manage that, especially if we’re careful.
Third, set up safeguards all along the way so that if Osbourne or another test subject, I don’t know, turns into a giant spider monster that wants to turn everyone else into spiders (the only example of something going wrong in human trials is Dr. Connors, after all), then we can shut it down and take him out with the press of a button. No fuss, no muss.
How hard is that? Worst case, Osbourne dies sooner than he would have if he had made no attempt to combat his disease. But he’s an adult and he can make his own decisions. If Peter objects to this solely on the basis that he thinks Osbourne is taking too big a risk then while he has a legal right, certainly, he has no moral right to take Osbourne’s life into his own hands.
It isn’t about Peter’s right to control his body here because if all Osbourne had to do was press a button, with the same risks involved, Peter would have pushed Osbourne away from the button. That Peter would have to donate blood just clouds what Peter finds to be really the issue here.
And best case? Osbourne is cured. In fact, if it can work for Osbourne then we’re at least halfway to making it work for other people if we’re not already there. Boom! Everyone is cured. But hey, Peter Parker isn’t about saving lives, is he?
Peter Parker’s biggest problem is that his point of view is so limited in scale. With great power comes great responsibility? Please. He could hang up the costume and get into medical work and do more long-term good by figuring out how to replicate what happened in him. But fighting criminals is much more immediately satisfying, isn’t it? Every time he puts on the mask, Peter's fighting the guy that shot his uncle, and letting That Guy go in favor of doing anything else means, in Peter's mind, that he's indirectly killing his uncle all over again.
And what really tees me off is that the movie vindicates Peter. The narrative declares him to be right, because Gwen Stacy defies the Amazing Spider-man’s attempts to control her life, and then she dies. It may have punished Osbourne too, not just for failing to listen to Peter but also for trying to stave off his death in the first place.
The shortness of our lives is what makes them precious, after all (is what Gwen tells us in the beginning, and her recording tells us at the end). So shouldn’t the short Osbourne life be more precious than the longer life that Peter Parker will presumably lead?
Why did we need to kill Gwen anyway? Movies, cartoons, all these adaptations are so willing to play around with everything— Ultimate Spider-man even killed Peter Parker and replaced him (which I thought was great, actually)— but Gwen Stacy always, always dies, except in the odd What If?-style issue that is specifically about Gwen Stacy not dying.
Gwen Stacy’s death is not just common, it is practically a universal constant. 4 out of 5 doctors approve this message, and ninety-nine out of a hundred Gwen Stacys died to get us these battle station plans.
Also, it felt a little like she got fridged in this movie.
I did like the dynamic between Electro and Harry Osbourne, though, even if I was wondering why, of all the characters they decided to make black (which I have no issue with), they chose the one with electrical powers. It’s become a common trope, a whole bunch of black people with electrical powers, and… I don’t know. Why are we doing this in the first place? Because everybody’s calling back to Black Lightning?
If they want to add some minority characters, why not Osbourne? Gwen Stacy? MJ Watson, now that we’ve killed Gwen? Spider-man?
Hey, there we go. Why don’t we go and kill Peter Parker in the Sinister Six movie or the next Spider-man and get a movie about Miles Morales? I would be so down for that.
But I liked Electro and Osbourne. Here was somebody who did, legitimately, finally, absolutely, need Electro. Even Spider-man had been speaking hollow words (which is a lesson to us in never speaking untruths even when the situation seems harmless) but Osbourne… I liked it. A lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment