A review of Captain America: Civil War and my updated thoughts on Spider-Man joining the MCU

A couple of months back, I wrote a post explaining why I didn't think Spider-Man should be included in Captain America: Civil War. Simply put, I didn’t believe that justice could be done by including him as a secondary character in a larger story.

Having seen Civil War, I have been proved wrong.

"Avengers: Civil War"

Titling the film Captain America: Civil War is a little bit of a misnomer. Really it should have been called Avengers: Civil War. But I imagine Disney simply didn’t want to draw attention away from the upcoming Infinity War films. Besides, what would a cinematic portrayal of the Avengers be without Chris Hemsworth’s Thor or Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk?

This is, perhaps, the most mature film to have emerged from this series. Rather than dealing with cosmic entities and alien invasions, Civil War attempts to present a realistic approach to governments dealing with super powered beings. At the same time, the film does not become trapped by the seriousness of this premise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has always effectively balanced realism, plot, and entertainment without being bogged down in any of them, and Captain America: Civil War is no exception.

The movie has some major plot holes, and in many places one can clearly see characters being guided by the writers’ omnipotent hands. Some of the action scenes are over the top, and I find it hard to believe that Iron Man’s armour only would only begin to show damage when it provides the most dramatic effect. Martin Freeman’s American accent is about as believable Tom Cruise playing a Nazi colonel.

I refuse to take Falcon seriously as a member of the Avengers.

Yet, despite the number of things one could say was wrong with this movie, it does something very right. As with all of the MCU’s films to date, the undeniable problems with Captain America: Civil War are eclipsed by some intangibly endearing quality. Unlike many comic book adaptations that attempt to transcend the genre, Civil War succeeds because it firmly embraces the best aspects of its source material. In its aesthetics, its narrative, and its action, Captain America: Civil War thrives as a comic book movie.

Civil War’s combination of entertainment value, quality casting, and pure heart allows – no, demands – that the viewer simply forget its problems and embrace its better aspects. In its ability to do this while tackling mature and realistic themes, Civil War is arguably the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s best film yet.

Also, there’s an undeniable pleasure to watching our favourite superheroes duke it out.

But what about Spider-Man?

As some of you may recall from my previous post, I was rather skeptical about whether Civil War could do justice to Spider-Man’s MCU introduction. Among so many top notch characters, how could the directors accurately capture the heart of what makes the character so uniquely endearing?

Apparently the Russo brothers understood these concerns, as the film seemed to consciously address them. The choice to cast Tom Holland as a high school Peter Parker, true to the original source material, was an effective method of distinguishing his portrayal from those before him. This Spider-Man’s age is very apparent in his actions and his dialogue. Though his screen time is short, the banter he engages in with other characters is incredibly amusing, one of the film’s most endearing aspects.

The choice to make Spider-Man so distinctly innocent, a kid who’s stumbled into this world of super powers and epic battles, gives him a huge degree of relatability, which has always been Spider-Man’s best quality. As an admirer of the Avengers, just as the viewer is, this Spider-Man finds himself thrust into the middle of battles he is only just beginning to understand, forced to engage in combat with people he admires.

The best depictions of Spider-Man embrace the character’s coming of age story, and I’m willing to say that this seems like no exception. Skipping the origin story did little to hinder his introduction – though I’d like to see the loss of his uncle dealt with in the upcoming standalone film – and Tom Holland provides a unique performance to distinguish him from previous portrayals. Visually and stylistically, the character fits into the tone already establish by the MCU.

I really love the paternal relationship introduced between Peter Parker and Tony Stark. The two actors have some great chemistry, and I think there’s some great potential here. I’d love to see many more “I’ll call Aunt May” jokes.

At the same time, this dynamic lends another layer of thematic significance to the film. As I noted, Spider-Man is young and impressionable, a teenager struggling to come to terms with his new identity. Tony Stark, arguably, takes advantage of this, as Captain America notes during the film when Spider-Man insists that he “has to impress Mr. Stark.” Tony Stark uses the young Parker’s admiration to compel him into a fight where he has no real stakes. This situation poses some questions about the morality of manipulation, an added layer of significance to a film that already questions the extent that one should go to do what is right.

Overall, I was highly impressed with Captain America: Civil War. The film’s ability to handle mature themes without losing entertainment value gives it a rare place among the ranks of comic book movies. Spider-Man’s introduction exceeded my highest expectations, and I’m really looking forward to seeing his follow up movie, as well as that of Black Panther.

Some of the action sequences are predictably over the top, and there are a few big plot holes, yet the film embraces its comic book heritage in a manner that one can’t help but like. Arguably, this is the MCU’s best film yet.

I’ve never liked arbitrary numerical ratings, yet I know that many people do.

8/10

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and why I’m not “Feeling the Bern”

I’m not an American, yet I believe we should all have a vested interest in the upcoming presidential election. As the political, economic, and cultural hub of the western world, what happens in the United States directly affects what happens throughout the rest of the world.

When I tell people I’m not a supporter of Bernie Sanders, the reactions range from “That old guy? I saw a post on Reddit about him” to “How could you?! You’re a disgrace to the very nature of liberalism!”

Basically, most Canadians either don’t care about the presidential election, or they actively support Bernie Sanders. This is, admittedly, better than supporting Donald Trump, though a small part of me is surprised that there aren’t more Harperites proclaiming their admiration for Trump or Ted Cruz. Seriously. In terms of ideology, their policies aren’t all that different. They only vary in extremes.

I digress. “Why?” people always cry as I tell them I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president. “He wants to bring free education, put all those Wall Street crooks in jail: he’s going to change things! What’s not to love?”

Americans are understandably wary of Hillary Clinton, given her representation of the political establishment they feel no longer serves them. Bernie Sanders is noble in his quest to reform this establishment and, in a perfect world, he’d make a great president. Ideologically, I certainly align with him as much as Clinton, and I always admire a revolutionary.

Why, then, would a Sanders nomination be a disaster?

Sanders backers like to point out that he has held office far longer than Hillary Clinton in terms of years, which is certainly true. But the positions they held were quite different from one another. Sanders has slowly made his way up the ladder, starting out as mayor of Burlington and eventually making his way to the Senate. Over the last two decades, Hillary Clinton has made a career distinct from her husband. She’s been a Senator and has worked in the White House both as First Lady and as Secretary of State.

Ostensibly, the difference between their careers isn’t too drastic. But if one reads between the lines, the gaps begin to widen. Sanders has spent the better part of four decades championing the poor and working hard to fight the “establishment.” Yet his political record actually shows very little to distinguish him from the average left wing politician. Much of his career has been based on rhetoric, as he has continually marketed himself as a unique entity unaligned with either of the major parties. He continues to use this tactic in his presidential campaign, basing it largely on rousing speeches of his self-styled “socialism.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist. Where Bernie schmoozes and impassions his voters, Clinton works within the system to bring about effective change. As First Lady and as Secretary of State, she has built working relationships with many world leaders ranging from Angela Merkel to Dilma Rousseff. She’s a tireless feminist and has pushed for women’s rights the world over. She has the name, the reputation, and the skillset to be an effective president on the world stage as well as in Washington.

Is she a natural on camera? No. Her smile sometimes reminds me of a china doll. But is she a practical and effective politician? Yes.

“She’s a member of the establishment,” Bernie lovers say. “She’s everything that people are frustrated with.”

Yes, Hillary Clinton is very much a part of the Democratic establishment. She’s been a member of the party for a long time, and is a name people like to jump to when discussing politicians who fail to serve their interests.

But is this really the case? As I said, Clinton is a pragmatist. She works incrementally with an end goal in mind. It’s all well and good for Bernie Sanders to repeat the same mantra for forty years, but such sweeping statements rarely bring about the permanent change they call for, least of all in an environment as inhospitable as the American politics.

Rhetoric needs to be backed by practicality. Once the desire for change is infused into the public consciousness, practical and realistic leaders are needed to make ideas become realities. In doing this even the most effective politicians can struggle.

Look at Barack Obama. Hopes were high in the wake of his 2008 inauguration, as were his approval ratings. Over the next year or two, both plummeted and are only now beginning to rise again.

Despite being a smart politician, Obama was elected for what he represented. He was the first African American to win the presidency, he was going to fix the problems of the Bush era, and he promised to end the wars in the Middle-East. Since 2009, he helped America weather the Great Recession and has repaired much of the diplomatic damage done by George Bush. In addition, he’s pushed for gun control unlike any of his predecessors, laying the groundwork for someone else to finish the job (though notably not Bernie Sanders). By all reasonable measures, Obama has been a relatively successful president.

Despite this, he continues to face criticism. Why? Because his actual term in office did not live up to the hype of his campaign. The sad reality is that idealism very rarely brings about long term changes, particularly in the court of public opinion. While American liberals are “feeling the Bern” now, it’s hardly likely that their blind passion will continue when faced with day to day politics. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, a President Sanders will inevitably face the same fate as President Obama.

“So what?” people say. “Bernie stands for something bigger than one election.”

Really?

To be sure, his campaign started out that way. A year ago, I could almost feel the Bern tickling at my political inclinations simply for hearing a refreshingly different voice. I could almost begin to believe that Bernie Sanders cared more about his ideals than winning an election. Here was a politician who cared about the issues under discussion rather than the politics of a single campaign.

Sadly, though Bernie supporters continue to insist otherwise, he has not been able to maintain this level of integrity. I don’t blame him. Politics is a nasty business, and it’s easy to resort to attack campaigns when the going gets tough. But what does this say about the kind of president he would be, if he can’t even uphold his main selling point throughout the primary season? If his issue oriented idealism can’t even make it through the road to candidacy, how could he ever hope to maintain it in office?

Nobody is denying that this election has shaken up the routine of American politics. For better or for worse, Bernie Sanders has ignited a fire in many hearts, and the need for change has blasted its way into the public consciousness. Now that the fire is lit, it is time for a seasoned and intelligent pragmatist to use the system for the good of those who are, justifiably, frustrated.

What continues to amaze me is the number of women who are so adamantly against Hillary Clinton. People seem to forget how revolutionary it would be to have a female president. If people want rhetoric, here it is: in a world that continues to be incredibly male dominated, putting a woman in the oval office would be an unprecedented step towards true gender equality.

I have to admire Clinton for largely avoiding this kind of rhetoric. If anyone has “stuck to the issues” in this campaign, it’s been her.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones season six and the fate of THAT character

Well, now I’ve finally caught up… it’s time to talk about Game of Thrones! Warning, this review will contain spoilers for season five of the television show, as well as book five in A Song of Ice and Fire, so if you haven’t gotten there yet, don’t read on! There will also be a section with spoilers for the first two episodes of season six, but I’ll flag it before we get there.

The debate over Jon Snow’s fate has raged for months now, as anyone who has been in contact with social media over the past few months knows. Furious arguments have been made for both sides, with Kit Harrington’s haircut and presence on set being used as supposed proof of his still being alive. Generally, I fell into the “dead is dead” camp, to echo D.B. Weiss’ words in the wake of the tragic onscreen death, despite the fact that I am certain he is alive in the books..

I came to this conclusion after a lot of thought, expending far more mental energy than one ought to expend on a fictional character in a fictional world. I knew the death was coming, yet my initial reaction was certainly one of heartbroken denial (why, Ollie, why???); however, I came to revise that prediction after a little bit of back and forth. While Kit Harrington’s presence on set and his refusal to cut a haircut he purportedly hates are certainly compelling evidence, I simply couldn’t bring myself to believe he was still alive.

Fuck you, Ollie.

 Perhaps this was just the pessimist in me. But with the actor and the show runners insisting so fervently to the contrary, how could the character be alive? With all the anticipation of the season, no manner of bringing Jon back to life could possibly live up to the hype. Furthermore, the show is beginning to branch out farther and farther on its own. This season consists entirely of new material that did not originate with George R.R. Martin’s novels. Showrunners David Benieoff and D.B. Weiss have big shoes to fill on this front. Given the relative certainty of Jon’s return, in one form or another, in the novels, killing him permanently on-screen seemed like the best way to boldly distinguish their adaptation as a unique entity.

I was open to the possibility of my being wrong, but expecting to be proved right. As far as I could tell, this was the smartest direction for the show to take.

Sunday night, we found out the truth…

SPOILERS AHEAD. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ THEM!!!!!

Seriously, stop reading.

Now.

Look, I’ll even leave you a massive gap in the page.

What happens from now on is your own doing.

Apparently I was wrong, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, I leapt for joy like everyone else as Kit Harrington took that frantic gasp and became more than just an on-set cadaver. Yet I had very good reasons for believing he would remain dead, and thought it would be the best thing, artistically, for the show, despite the pain.

I let out an exclamation of joy, just like everyone else.
But was this really a good idea?

To the credit of the writers, they seeded the idea of resurrection as far back as season three with Thoros of Myr’s resurrection of Beric Dondarrion. That Melisandre witnesses this, not to mention continued references to her otherworldly powers, mean that the eventual manner of Jon’s resurrection is not out of place in the show.

My worry is that just because they can do something does not mean they should. On some levels, this decision feels like a bit of a cop out. As I said, Jon’s death would have been an effective way for the show to distinguish itself from the books moving forwards. I think they might have missed an excellent opportunity, and I can’t help but wonder if, perhaps, they simply capitulated to common demand. The show’s writers had an opportunity to include the ultimate red herring while enforcing the brutality of their world.

That said, I do think the manner in which the resurrection was handled was pretty good. I can’t wait to see where they go with Jon, how the process changes him. How will he wrestle back control of the Night’s Watch and fight off the impending march of the White Walkers? People have often complained that Jon is not an interesting character, too close to the archetypal fantasy hero. While I have to agree with this, I have never thought it a bad thing. It is grounding for the viewer to have a character who is intrinsically good in a world with so much ambiguity. Jon’s coming of age story is relatable, and he provides someone we can constantly root for even as Tyrion, Arya, and Daenerys dabble in shades of grey.

Also he has great hair.

Basically, the writer inside me says the showrunners made a mistake while the fanboy inside me is crying tears of joy.

As for the rest of the season, I’m interested to see where Melisandre goes from here. What effects do all these events have on her? If Arya’s storyline stays true to the books, it’s sure to be a fun one. Where will Sansa go from here? Whose head will Robert Strong crush next? Can the writers salvage the Dornish clusterfuck they’ve set in motion?

I’m excited to see where this season goes. Do I think that reviving Jon Snow was the best decision? No. Do I think the writers can pull it off? I hope so. I’ll be sure to share some more of my thoughts as the season progresses, so stay tuned!

As always, thanks for reading J

Toppling Televisions and Falling Furniture: More Dangerous than Refugees

In the years since 9/11, Americans have been statistically as likely to be crushed to death by falling furniture as they are to be killed in terrorist attacks, yet we do not see constant news coverage on the subject of toppling televisions and falling furniture. There is a paranoia surrounding the threat of terrorism that other far more pressing issues do not receive.

Consider the horrendous attacks on Paris in November of last year. A total of 130 people were killed, sparking fear and paranoia, specifically involving the flood of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa. However, a Eurostat study suggests that nearly three times as many people die of cancer each day. While cancer certainly garners more public attention than falling televisions, it fails to rouse the same extreme level of paranoia as terrorism.

This stems, largely, from media coverage. Terrorist attacks are large scale events, specifically engineered to garner attention and inspire fear (hence the name). In the age of the internet and twenty-four hour news services, media outlets play right into the hands of the attackers, stoking the fires of fear with constant replays of panicked crowds, plumes of smoke, and, ironically, public officials urging people to remain calm.

For news organizations in the 21^st century, terrorism has become a commodity, paid for in the public’s fear. ISIS, the so called Islamic State, has dominated the news for the past two years, with the recent wave of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa comprising the latest act in the ongoing saga. The common fear originating from this coverage is that extremists are hiding among the refugees flooding across the European continent, waiting to obliterate us freedom-loving westerners. In Canada, people oppose providing asylum to refugees out of the belief that there is no way to screen these terrorists from the actual refugees.

This fear is understandable, given the media’s constant juxtaposition of images of war-torn Iraq and Syria with images of refugee camps in southern Europe. Without any other context, it is natural that the general population is afraid.

However, upon examination, this fear is rather absurd. Not only is Canada, of all places, hardly a major target for Jihadist extremism, the actual likelihood of any “terrorist” making it through the entrance process is negligible. The refugees being settled in Canada are not the young men that groups like ISIS tend to radicalize. The people being settled in Canada are families, women and children who are, arguably, the most innocent in the conflict. In addition, these individuals are forced to go through rigorous screening processes by the Canadian government and the United Nations camps from which they are being selected.

But what about Europe?

Certainly, Europe’s geographic location allows for easier access from the Middle-East, while the EU’s porous nature allows for easier travel within the continent. But the likelihood of terrorists entering the continent with the flow of refugees remains low to the point where it is practically nonexistent. Consider the fact that the suspects in the two major terror attacks to have occurred in Europe over the past year – first Paris, then Brussels – were exclusively born-and-raised Europeans. Are critics of resettlement efforts arguing that legitimate migrants and refugees should be left in horrific conditions because of Europe’s inability to contain the radicalization of its own citizens?

Many would argue that such conclusions are harsh and unfair. Those same people often argue that the west should not devote its attention to outside aid until internal problems (such as poverty) have been dealt with. Simply put, many opponents of resettlement argue that the refugee crisis is “not their problem.”

Unfortunately, this is blatantly untrue. For centuries, the west has meddled in the affairs of other countries and regions. Though the United States is arguably the greatest perpetrator of this meddling in the modern era, they have simply inherited a role previously held by imperial Europe. The rise of the Islamic State and other radical groups – and the resulting refugee crisis – can be traced directly to US-led mission to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. To be sure, the west cannot be blamed entirely for the turbulence in the region; many of its causes are deep rooted and ancient, resulting from a centuries of division. But for westerners to entirely wash their hands of blame is immature and dangerous.

Over the past year, the west has become increasingly closed to measures that might help resolve the increasingly dire refugee crisis. The fear created by attacks such as those in Paris and Brussels only serves to heighten this reluctance to act. Indeed, this fear results in mistreatment and closed mindedness towards those who are in genuine need of help.

Due to a recent agreement, the EU now holds the power to deport illegal migrants from Greece back over the border to Turkey in exchange for the resettlement of refugees residing in Turkey. In short, one refugee will be settled in Europe for every one that is kicked.

Aside from the fact that this deal unashamedly uses human lives as bartering chips, it simply does not offer Europe a realistic solution to the problem. Indeed, it fails to even function as it is supposed to. Just days after its implementation, there were reports that the deal had resulted in the wrongful deportation of several refugees seeking asylum in Greece. The quick failure of the deal would be comedic if the situation were not so dire.

The United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has called Syria the “most dangerous place to be a child;” the current situation in the Middle-East has resulted in the “biggest refugee and migration crisis since the Second World War.” The issue cannot be ignored. It is selfishness of the highest order that people in the west – both in North America and Europe – can argue for inaction. It is not melodramatic to suggest that this is “the world’s” problem, as it were; the west, including Canada, must take responsibility for the situation by acknowledging our role in the solution.

The fear of terrorist attacks continues to be a major holdback for many western citizens. This fear is misplaced, particularly given the homegrown nature of most terrorist cells. The statistical risk of terrorism is smaller than countless activities we do every day, while the horror faced by those seeking refuge is an everyday reality.

The Internal Monologue of a Frustrated Lifeguard

You. Yes, you, with the bottled blonde hair and the fake breasts. I’m sure that your new husband has something profoundly interesting to say, though you do seem paying more attention to his bare pecs than his words, and I understand that parenting 24 hours a day is hard. You’re seizing the time with your new meat while little Timmy is distracted by Frisbees and water guns, taking what moments of respite you can. I respect that, and I wish you whatever rest you can get.

However, I feel the need to inform you that little Timmy is, in fact, drowning.

Now, please don’t look at me like that. I know you’re trying to teach him independence. “That’s how they did it in my day,” you’re thinking. Difficulty what growing up is all about. Challenge builds character. Toss him in the deep end, let him figure the rest out, and he’ll be all the better for it.

Unfortunately, I can’t let that happen. While I’m all for challenging kids in their learning, there are limits. You see, at no point as he is learning to swim should little Timmy be thrashing about in the water like a seizure victim, screaming bloody murder like a death metal rocker. This behaviour does not mean he is learning to swim. Rather, it means he is drowning.

I see your expression has not changed. Very well. If the threat of your child dying in his sleep due to residual inhaled water in the lungs, perhaps I can appeal to your pragmatic side. You see, we are reaching a point where I am legally and ethically obliged to intervene. Not only do I wish to avoid the hassle of laundering my shirt, I imagine neither you nor I have any desire to spend time completing the paperwork involved with these sort of incidents. Your time, and mine, is valuable, best served on more useful activities. Please, don’t waste it.

Still the look of disgruntled disdain. I’m impressed at your ability to sneer so well with your head that far up your own ass. Can you not see the terror on little Timmy’s face?

No?

Fine, we’ll do it your way.

I suppose I could do with a swim.

Macbeth

Last night, I went to the Calgary Shakespeare Company's production of Macbeth at the Vertigo Theatre with my mother. It was fantastic! Opening night, and the acting was polished and well performed. The theatre is small and intimate, with everyone seated only feet from the actors, and the directing was superb. Haysam Kadri is superb as Macbeth, and there are many standout scenes. He really captures the madness of the character. I haven't seen Macbeth live before, but I imagine it will be hard to follow after this.

This is the second production I've seen by the Calgary Shakespeare Company, after I saw Othello a year and a half ago. Macbeth was, if possible, even more impressive. If you're looking for an entertaining way to spend an evening over the next few weeks, tickets are available for shows right through to April 16th. But buy them quickly, because they're selling fast. I promise you won't regret it!

My Problem with Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Fair warning, this is one for the nerds (if you hadn’t already gotten that from the title).

When Disney gained the distribution rights to the Spider-Man character last year, I was quite torn about the web-slinger’s impending introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Simply put, I am not excited.

                                     

I don’t claim to be a superhero expert. I’m only loosely familiar with the comic books, and much of my Spider-Man knowledge is based off of the old cartoons. That being said, Spider-Man holds a special place in my heart, as he does with many people, young and old. Seeing the latest trailer for Captain America: Civil War and noting the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, I began to think more closely about why exactly I love the character so much.

Spider-Man is, arguably, Marvel Comics’ most successful creation. Since his introduction in 1962, he has entered popular consciousness more than any superhero except for perhaps DC’s Batman and Superman. He’s appeared in countless television shows and cartoons, three separate movie franchises, and innumerable action figures. There’s a Spider-Man ride at the Universal Studios theme park, and the character has appeared as a balloon in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Eminem once stated that he was one of his favourite superheroes.

But why is Spider-Man so popular? His powers, while incredibly cool, are not terribly original (strength and agility, flight-like abilities, projectile “weapons”); his costume is striking, yet objectively no more notable than any other colourful comic book heroes such as Iron Man or Wolverine.

Spider-Man’s success comes from the man behind the mask. Peter Parker is the quintessential high school nerd, bullied and lonely, an archetypal character who is incredibly relatable for so many readers. Whereas most other super hero alter-egos (Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, etc.) are confident – often famous or affluent – adults, Peter is a high school student struggling with all the normal challenges of adolescent life. Spider-Man was one of the first comic books to feature a teenager as the lead hero, which helped it to resonate with the primarily young adult audience. He dealt with real life issues – bullies, relationships, grades – in addition to his crime fighting escapades. Young people could see their own imperfections and insecurities reflected in a lead character who rises above them to become a hero.

In addition to his relatability, Peter’s motivations for becoming Spider-Man are simple yet compelling. When he first acquires his powers, he is largely concerned with using them to make money through wrestling. His reaction is immature, yet it reflects the innocently self-centered knee jerk response many adolescents might have when given the opportunity for quick cash. Likewise, when Peter ignores a fleeing burglar because it wasn’t “his problem,” the seemingly harmless selfishness resonates with the readership. Only when this burglar goes on to murder his Uncle Ben does Peter begin to mature into his abilities, realizing he could have (and should have) stopped the criminal and prevented the senseless death of his uncle. Like so many people as they grow up, Peter comes to realize that his choices have consequences. In this case, his choice not to act resulted in the death of the man he loved most. The effect that the tragic preventability of Ben’s death has on Peter is echoed in the signature line: “with great power, comes great responsibility.” If you can help others in any way, you should. This moral message has been a big part Spider-Man’s popularity, helping him to appeal to so many people for so long.

Which brings me back to my feelings about his joining the MCU. The franchise began in 2008 with the release of Iron Man, and most of the films are currently distributed by Disney. Up until recently, the studio was unable to include Spider-Man in the franchise as Sony held tight to the distribution rights for their own Amazing Spider-Man series. However, a deal made between the two companies last year has given Disney the ability to include the character in their films, hence his appearance in Civil War.

Introducing Spider-Man to an already well established (and quickly wearing out) franchise is a mistake, as it does not give the writers enough to room to flesh out the character’s backstory. Civil War has an ensemble cast that includes almost every major character to have appeared in the franchise up until now. It is simply impossible that Spider-Man will be given a fitting introduction when he is dwarfed by those around him. By throwing him in as an excess character simply because they can, Disney and Sony are sacrificing any chance of properly introducing his backstory and motivations. Consequently, they are sacrificing the richness of the character.

In general, reception to this latest trailer seems to have been strong. People like the decisions that have been made. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take all the Spider-Man I can get. But if there is going to be yet another incarnation of the character, I’d like to see it done right. I wasn’t a fan of Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man movies. As much as I love Andrew Garfield, I don’t think he was right for the role, and the films couldn’t seem to establish what sort of tone they were going for. Yet they at least attempted to include the moral backbone that makes the character so compelling.

A solo Spider-Man film in the MCU is slated for a 2017 release, but the damage will be done by then. The way the character is being introduced represents a blatant money-grab on the part of the studios. Everything about the marketing represents an attempt to get as many people through the box office as possible. I think this is a tragedy, as it compromises the rich appeal of the character.

As always, thanks for reading! Also, I've added an email bar to the side of my website, so if you would like to follow my posts, feel free to add your email address!