tabttbat

I don't understand why fans are so hostile to a new animation.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. Judging from the two episodes released so far, the quality is no less than that of Spectacular Spider-Man in 2008 and the Spider-Man animated series in 1994.

This is a Spider-Man story in a parallel universe, not a traditional Spider-Man story.

From the perspective of the play, the thought and ingenuity put into the first episode made the first episode so outstanding. It almost covers all the elements of Spider-Man adaptations.

Telling the story of Spider-Man from the perspective of a friendly neighbor gave me a big surprise. I like that Spider-Man gave the thief a second chance after catching her. I like Peter's daily life as a high school student. I like the interaction between Aunt May and Peter. I like that Lonnie is still strong in such a chaotic neighborhood.

The title cover of each episode is different. The arrangement of the music in the performance makes me very happy when watching Spider-Man swinging in city.

The second episode is about how Peter, a newcomer, balances heroism and daily life. The firefighting plot is really a classic in the Spider-Man story, and the screenwriter can still play new ideas in the classic.

The fight in the pet store is really interesting. Rescuing dogs, pet fish and birds really makes this character a lot cuter.

In short, I really think this is going to be a great Spider-Man show. When I saw the imdb rating, I was really confused by the low score. It deserves a higher score.

Spider-Man: No Way Home

It has been three years since *Spider-Man: No Way Home* was released. This is a great film.

The story can be summarized in one sentence: "Spider-Man saves people." The theme of "with great power comes great responsibility" has always been an eternal topic that can be explored in Spider-Man movies. Its core meaning is "do your best to help others." The "others" include both good people and villains. In the film, Peter faces such a choice: whether to help these "villains" alleviate their suffering, turn them back into ordinary people, and change their fates.

Some say, "This is being too merciful; why should Spider-Man decide if these villains live? Does it mean those killed by them died in vain?"

This question made me think for a long time, and I eventually came up with a simple answer: "Because the act of providing aid is inherently good, and the nature of this goodness does not change because of the recipient's past wrongdoings."

"Doctors do not refuse to treat you because you have done something bad before. You cannot morally coerce a doctor into giving up treatment based on the patient's past misdeeds." Spider-Man does not need to take responsibility for those killed by the villains. He helps the villains because he encounters them and has the ability to provide assistance. He does not exonerate the villains; he is simply saving lives, nothing more.

The original trilogy and *The Amazing Spider-Man 2* handled the villains' endings more towards "moral justice," where characters like Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Electro did not die through legal trials or procedural justice. Perhaps when the villains return to their universes, their Spider-Men will give them a chance to face legal justice. At least, the MCU's Spider-Man gives them this possibility.

Regarding the actions of the villains, Spider-Man does not need to take any objective responsibility for what the villains do after coming to the MCU. Of course, I'm talking about objective responsibility, not the subjective sense of duty Peter feels ("with great power comes great responsibility"). Spider-Man and the villains are strangers, not family, nor do they have a contractual relationship. Peter originally had no responsibility for the personal actions of the villains. The villains were originally dying people who, due to Dr. Strange's spell and Spider-Man's involvement, were brought into the MCU and thus survived-a second life already saved.

After arriving in the MCU, did anyone force the villains to commit crimes? No. Their criminal acts were choices they made themselves.

When caught and imprisoned, knowing they would die upon returning, the villains were given a choice by Spider-Man to help them at Happy's apartment. They had the option to not commit crimes, not escape, not kill Aunt May, and quietly accept help.

In the final battle, Green Goblin had a choice; he didn't have to snatch the box and stuff a bomb inside, causing a multiverse crisis. No one forced the villains to do these things.

Spider-Man feels responsible for the villains, which is his own moral standard, but his decision to save the villains is not wrong. He doesn't need to take responsibility for what they do.

"The rescuer does not need to be responsible for the future actions of the rescued."

An old man (villain) falls on the street, and a passerby (Spider-Man) helps him up. The passerby does not need to be responsible for the old man's subsequent actions, even if the old man causes trouble afterward. The act of helping does not change its inherent goodness because of the recipient's later misdeeds. One should blame the wrongdoer, not the person who offered help; the good person should not be held accountable.

Concerning nostalgia, this is the biggest success element of the film, and how it handles nostalgia is very clever. Unlike *Spider-Man 3* and *The Amazing Spider-Man 2*, whose multi-threaded narratives caused confusion, *No Way Home* tells only one story, introducing characters during development and creating chemistry among them, ensuring the story remains coherent. The smartest thing about handling nostalgia is that it does not retell the origins of the old villains but directly uses their character arcs from previous films. Of course, there's a threshold-you need to remember the previous Spider-Man villains' characters, stories, and endings.

The climax involving all three Spider-Men elevates the story further. Without the setup in the first two-thirds of the movie, pushing MCU Peter into a predicament, this nostalgic climax would not have been possible. In handling this climax, I see not only a response to the history of Spider-Man over the past 20 years but also a new possibility for the character's future. Nostalgia is cleverly woven into the story, becoming part of it without needing to be set aside.

Many moments in the movie, such as the three generations of Spider-Man in the same frame, Peter and Aunt May's final conversation, the Green Goblin's betrayal, Peter and MJ's final kiss, etc., all made me feel so lucky to have such a Spider-Man movie.

I am very grateful to have such a movie, which summarizes Spider-Man's 20-year history and creates new possibilities for Spider-Man's future.

A very good spider man storyFinally, we saw a high school version of spider man He showed the story of spider man Want to do bigger things from the beginningLater, I recognized my ability and decided to be down-to-earth This is the growth of a teenager From the beginning, the dependence on battle clothesLater, he defeated the vultures completely on his own This process is extremely important for PP This is also the first of the new trilogy A perfect start.