Life with EFAP number 45? Can you believe it? Unbelievable. Yes, we're back. Hopefully it separates out. I swear to God, if it doesn't, I'll be upset. I've got to add Wolf's channel into the description. But yeah, once I'm doing all those boring things, I don't have to do that. I literally, by law, have to do that. It looks like, I don't know. The Word of World. It looks different. I thought the chat was the same as it was before. I think it might not change. I don't think chat does change. Like it doesn't refresh. If not, it'll be a really long stream. Stream health is looking OK. Is everything working? Let me look at my welcome people. We're back. We've returned and we've gained a person. Say hello, Wolf. You're massive. You guys went for so long that I was actually able to make it after work. And one of the first thing he says when he comes and joins this is he lays down one of the most atrocious statements I've heard in a while. Repeat it, Wolf. Do it. Repeat it. Alita Battle Angel is kind of terrible. OK. So, so, I want to give you the rundown of my opinion of Alita or my history with my opinion of Alita because it's changed multiple times. So I watched Alita Battle Angel shortly after making my Aquaman video.  That's a terrible movie. And I was kind of on a hate high when I made that. So yeah, we'll call it a hate high. So after that, I went to see Alita and I was like, man, I could totally rip this movie apart. And I started thinking about it and I was like, it's not really rip apartable. It's more just like bland and doesn't do anything even remotely interesting. And then I read the manga and now I hate it more than anything. It's like literally anyone that has told you that it is a good adaptation is lying to you.  This is this is hilarious because I feel like you're basically in the exact position. You just flip the e-fap around now. Oh, no, I'm the receiving end. But I'm actually more than open to acknowledging that if the comic like the manga is so much better than the movie, that by nature readjusts the point of comparison.  And so it's harder for me to actually get something greater. But if there is a version that's so much better and this doesn't match up, that honestly means that it is of less quality than what it could have been because there's a higher point of comparison.  My analogy that I gave is that is with records, world records in sport and stuff. And something is only the best until someone else beats it. And when it's beaten, the thing that used to be the best is by nature redefined as not the best anymore. And in actual fact, if that world record gets surpassed to the point where it's more than twice as fast as the original record, that record that was once great can be objectively bad, even though its time did not change because we're now looking at it from a new point of comparison. So interesting. I would highly suggest the Alita manga. And I need to read the manga now. Because I've watched the anime. And the anime, I thought the movie was. Yeah, I thought the OVA. Well, yeah, I mean, it's kind of dated, but it's also nothing like the manga. I don't like that one either. But I dislike it also because the animation's just kind of, it hasn't aged very well as compared to other animes. But that's a different subject altogether. I kind of forgot most of the OVA at this point. But yeah, I mean, if I look at Alita Battle Angel, the movie objectively, it's like really dull for the most part in its world building is the biggest issue I have. And the world building of the moguls. I loved her vulnerability. Yeah, I loved her vulnerability. She's a Mary Sue, though. See, no, I got it because she fails and she needs help and everything. And the only time she failed, she got it.  I think that's simplifying it a bit. She gets trash like in the one on one when it was just her and him, she gets ripped apart into pieces and then she's crawling away and she's about to get stomped on and crushed and then she's literally killed him without any limbs aside from no, no, no, she wouldn't have been able to do that if Edo hadn't came in, come in and stopped him from crushing her. So only after that because that was going to be game over. So her life was legitimately saved and she legitimately lost at that point. And I was only after that that she then and this is interesting because it's kind of like the whole Spider-Man homecoming thing when it's crushed on the thing where she fails and then she regains her strength again and even only having one limb, she pulls out that huge move and just right through the eye. I love that part. All right, yeah, it was visually cool, but character wise. Thematically, emotionally, that that that was brilliant.  You know, it's really actually sad as a gruish guy actually has a character in the manga. And it's easy. I didn't like I'm happy to make that as a way to improve him. Like he serviced the purpose that he was filling in the in the movie from my understanding and stuff. And so I like I didn't really need it anymore. They ruined his character. It's like the biggest character assassination I've seen aside from Luke, probably. Oh, ouch. It's kind of terrible because he's actually got a lot of depth in the manga, whereas he's just he's evil because he's evil in the movie. Oh, well, that is a good time. He's not a complex character in any way. You did it. You did it on Cosmoronix. You haven't done it here, so you can actually like talk about it. But as someone just said, but in the manga. So it's like, oh, do you want to clarify your position on adaptations for the for the audience? Dan and I already said that objectively it's like dull, but I'm talking about my position on the manga as opposed. On the adaptation, rather. So do you want to be clear about how how you separate them? Or do you just want to leave it there? So I will, you know, let me think. Oh, right. We'll just use the shining because that's always when I go to example. The shining is a horrible, insulting adaptation of a far better book, but it's still a really great movie. Subjectively, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to watch the shining movie because I'm too attached to the book. But I will still admit that it is an objectively good movie. It just kind of depends. It's a we got to go movie by or adaptation by adaptation. It's kind of subjective, depending on what I'll actually like, like the movie from 2017. I really liked it, but it also changed a lot from the book. Could you say like, is there one that you could say is better than the other when it comes to the shining? I personally feel the book, even though, like. Yeah, the book is better. The book is way better, infinitely better. So we'll see that that's interesting, because then I like. Well, I don't have a point of comparison, so because I've heard people love the movie better than the book. So I can't really comment on it then. That's hard to say. You should read the book. It's really like, like does it change the source material so much that it's it also does a huge character assassination assassination. Sorry, Dick's character is nothing in the movie. Whereas in the book, there's an actual reason for him being there. Other than just. Well, that stuff really ticks me off when like a good character is just butchered in an adaptation. And my my opinion is that you can legitimately have that reflect on the overall quality of the film, not just as a separate adaptation. I feel the adaptive quality is an essential part of the overall quality as well. And you can critique subsets. But if you're trying to say, is the whole thing good? I feel its effectiveness as the adaptation informs that judgment. And so yeah, I mean, look, like I said, you're not going to hear me calling The Shining a bad movie. It's a really good movie. But I don't like it because it insults a book I really love. See. Because if the movie was done on something that I loved and like betrayed certain carries and everything like that, I would be more inclined to say it was bad. Even if other elements were good, I feel if it really like underperformed to what it was supposed to be, which is essentially a good adaptation, that's a part of what it's supposed to be. That is a big, you know, influence on the quality that I would give it. So I disagree with that. I think it can still be objectively good while disrespecting the material, which is like I said, it's what The Shining does. Yeah, I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying that the effectiveness of its adaptation influences. It's a it's a part of your judgment of it. And like if everything else is brilliant and like really, really good, well, that can overcome its flaws and its adaptiveness. It's always a balance. You know, I try and try and figure it out as a whole. Yeah, I mean, like I said, my I can't really make a scale for how I'm going to like a movie that's that differs from its source material. It's really subjective. It depends on a lot of different factors as long as it stays true to the characters, the world and the story and thematic elements, then I'll be fine with it, which is what it did. It's very true to the spirit of the book. See, this is like that's kind of my issue with the Spider-Man stuff as well. Being true to the character, even the spirit and everything like that. Those are the important elements that I want to see translated accurately in a Spider-Man adaptation. And I'm open to certain experimentation and variance, like, you know, but if it changes too much and betrays certain things about the character, that's when I have an issue with it, which is why I had an issue with Far From Home. I don't like it's average for me. Look, I didn't get to say it because I wasn't part of the the homecoming debate. But I don't mind if someone makes that argument of adaptation, you know, if they don't like it, if they don't like Spider-Man Homecoming because they think it's insulting to the Spider-Man comics, then, yeah, I totally I'm totally OK with that. That's fine by me. Oh, I also feel that there are other element issues in characterization and plot that make it a worse movie as well, which means it's a poor adaptation and a poor standalone movie just considered independently. Yeah. Well, I'm sure people don't want us to get into too much of that, since he already did a five hour stream all about. I thought I was interested in the chat.  I thought you said they were intrinsically tied together. They are intrinsically tied, but you can judge things like you can judge subsets of it separately, right? But just to say something is good because it is consistent, doesn't discount the other elements that can that can be used to judge its overall quality characterization. I feel is a very important one and it's adaptive quality as well. And so even if you say something is brilliant in its consistency and its plot and things, if if also graphics, if the special effects or just filming, you know, quality is junk, making it unwatchable, doesn't matter how good the plot is. It's a terrible film still. I think that the plot and stuff is more of a significant factor than like, i.e. this film is shot like garbage. The sound design is crap, but the writing is awesome. It's like, well, the film can be good, even if the rest of it is bad. Whereas, no, if it's if the filming and sound quality is so bad that it's unwatchable, oh, yeah, right. But what I mean is it's bad, but not unwatchable. Then it's still a good movie. But there's a level where it becomes unwatchable. That's my point. And so, oh, yeah, yeah. So there are there are external elements that you can look at a film in judging quality separate to, you know, story plot at a thing that absolutely inform your overall assessment of the quality of the movie as a whole. Right. But I guess it's whether or not we're pulling from other sources or you can use other sources as a standard, like a great example is you use a film that has excellent graphics as the standard to compare the filming quality of another film. And in this instance, you could even use it as an example of the graphics. I have an interesting point now. Films age, so does it get worse because of that? You know, yes, I could. Yeah, what I mean is yes. So we look at we look at like, well, that's age. Well, yeah, exactly. See, because there are some films that had what about. So sorry. What about Citizen Kane? I haven't seen it. But there are some films that use what they had available so well that even in in the modern day where we have CGI grass and everything, they still hold up. And that's my point to be like, OK, let's take a video game, like Crash Bandicoot.  But it's not like the game got worse. The game is as good as it was when it came out. It just looks worse relatively. See, I don't know, like the same. A good example, Baldur's Gate series loved it to death, one of my all time favorite games now or was right. When I like, I just that was drugs for me, loved it. I can't play it anymore. Like the graphics are too jarring for me. The fact that I have to read everything and there's no voice over takes too much effort because I've experienced something that's so much better, so much more immersive, takes less effort to enjoy. It's now restructured my opinion of the original Baldur's Gate games. Still love them. I can and I can still say that they were so great for their time. And when I experienced them, but compared to what's available now, there are better games, much better games.  It is. My point of reference, my point of reference, the thing I'm comparing it against has changed. And because there's so much better, I can't think I can't actually say this is one of the greatest games period ever ever made because graphic quality and immersion, all these other things need to be considered that are done better because technology has improved. Yeah, but I guess the difference would be that technology is different to plot and story. Like Odysseus doesn't age, in a sense, because it's just a story. Well, no, it does. It does like the structure of prose and everything like that and what people are familiar with and how easy it is to absorb. And the story of Odysseus, like the story can't age. What do you mean when you say age? It can't get worse. Well, the thing is, because when we say age, we mean it appears worse relative to other things as time progresses, but the plot itself is not susceptible to wear and tear or looking worse graphically or visually or in sound design or something like that. And like, if semantics or words had to be updated to understand them, like just just a word that's not used anymore versus one that's now, so someone could translate it for you. Technically speaking, the story never changed. I agree with you there. But I mean, that's why Shakespeare still holds up today. You're able to change the language and still make good adaptations of the work. Good adaptations, yes. But my point is, yeah, going back to the original thing is that when a higher standard is created that you can judge it against, it ultimately does affect where that sits in comparison to what you're comparing against. It hasn't changed, but if you're trying to say what if a good movie is a movie that is in the top 50% of movies made, okay? And a movie was made that reached a 10 out of 10, so it's in the top 50%, but suddenly if that rating now jumps to 100 and certainly a 10 out of 100 is now on the bottom 50% because there's such a larger pool to compare it against, it now becomes one of the worst movies ever made. It didn't change. Right, but the film itself isn't worse. Like it's the same. Because you can only judge what is good and bad based on a point of comparison. And if your point of comparison is better and greater than it was before, it can become worse without changing. Just an example, just to see if I can maybe poke a small hole. So like game mechanics are being hit boxes. How well can I judge a hit box? So like in DS2, I rip into them for like 20 minutes for how awful they are. And my standard would be how close is the hit box to the model. And so if someone was to create a game in 1995 where the hit boxes are tied directly to the model to a T, like there's no mistakes whatsoever. There is no time where those hit boxes can age to be worse. They will be that good forever because there's no standard that can get higher than that in terms of the standard of hit box matching model. Do you sort of mean in that case? Yeah, I agree in that instance, absolutely. Okay. But see, where in the story have we been out of defined perfection definitively? I don't know if I would say it's so like, a story that was written in like the 1900s could feasibly have been written tomorrow. There's not necessarily, you haven't lost the ability to write. Obviously I'm not including stuff like, say I wanted to write a medieval story. I feasibly could theoretically I should be saying come up with the same story as a guy living in the medieval times because if I'm only drawing from the limits of pen and paper, if you understand what I mean, like making my mark, it would be the languages would be a different story as we've already highlighted, but the storytelling itself, I don't know that we as a society age to the point where a story... You're right, I do believe objective standards exist when it comes to storytelling, but I will absolutely agree that those objective standards can change based on culture and many, many parameters. And so ultimately it's impossible to have a perfect fuller story if the standard you're trying to determine by which it is perfect is changing. So obviously that's impossible. Sorry, I just tried to drink something. Either way, would everyone like to discuss far from home? It's been so long and we finally be able to do it. Before we do it, I have two things to say. Oh no. First thing, Shad, I'm like a halfway through, a little over halfway through your book. Ooh, ooh. I'm like Paige, I think I'm at like two nineties, something or other. I don't think I'm quite at 300 yet, but I'm closing in. That's awesome. It's like the... Oh. Is it anything else or it's just, that's... Well, I feel like I kind of want to read the book to completion before I make any definitive statements on it. Yeah, it's a good plan. Yeah, because I mean, some of my criticisms right now might be remedied by the end and I don't want to say something that will be like completely false. Oh, well, yes, let's hold off on that. I don't feel like having a nice step through my heart, right? But I will say... Be gentle, sir, okay? This is trading on some very vulnerable ground. This isn't some video essay talking about Spooderman. We've got to be careful, okay? Well, I want to say that of the objective statements I can make thus far is your world building is immaculate. Oh, thank you, that means a lot. I would say, well, of all the self-published books I've read, yours is definitely the best I've read so far. Granted, that's only like nine or 10, but you know, of the nine or 10, it's the best and your world building is really good. Have some criticisms of how it's conveyed, but it's still good. Yes, I can be a bit expository and I did actually struggle over deciding to be briefer in certain instances and stuff like that and I had to make a call and ultimately it was if I enjoyed what was there and so that does kind of come to a subjective again thing, like, you know, and so yeah, I did struggle over those elements, I fully admit, but hopefully it doesn't distract people from enjoying the story.  Awesome, thanks, man. Oh, I can't wait for you to finish it. You got some very exciting things to come. Yes, I will try to finish it as soon as I can, unfortunately got a heavy work week ahead, so I probably won't be available for the next D-Fap, but you know, and the second thing is for anyone in the chat, that's a corn fan. You'll never find me.   It's awesome. All right, thanks for reading the book, man. That means heaps, I really appreciate it. Well, yeah, I mean, I think I've bought like every book written by a YouTuber I like. Well, you're just gonna stop a book for every book. Okay, well, I think Jesus Christ, if you saw the bookshelves behind me, then you might actually think that. But yeah, I bought recently, well, before you, do you know who the YouTuber Hello Future Me is? Oh yeah, and I'm good mates with him actually. We chat on Discord on the occasion. And yeah, his book, How to Write Fantasy and so on. I think it's just on writing and it's about world building specifically. I haven't read it yet, but I mean, as soon as he posted that he wrote a thing, I was like, well, gotta get it. And then I saw that you wrote a thing and you said you're Brandon Sanderson and Robert Jordan fan and I was like, well, I definitely am obligated to get it now. So, and I definitely see the inspiration, you light-blinded fiend. That's a naughty word. You can't say that on the stream, it's naughty. Thank you for giving it a good justification, using light, because at first I was like, oh God, I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way. Cause when it first, when I first started reading it and I noticed characters using light, I was like, oh shit, people are gonna think he's just plagiarizing. I know, I know. And this is kind of my issue when it comes to that. I know, sorry if we get a bit off topic chat, we'll be brief here is, if I come to a decision regarding the world or plot or anything like that naturally on my own, that this is the most natural results of the world or what would happen. Even if it was done in another story, I don't like letting that detract me from what, you know, I should have the freedom to implement just because that makes the most original sense and stuff. And so there's actually a couple of word choices that are the same in certain other books. And it's not because I'm copying, it's just that was the best word for the situation and stuff here. Yeah, I've come to like it because I don't remember exactly what page it was actually justified on, but you make the distinction of what light and dark means in the specific world with like the difference between a normal night and the night or the four nights that have happened. Exactly. And I don't remember exactly what the insult was, but you said shade something or other for another insult. And I was like, oh, that's the distinction. That's kind of neat. Now I don't have any problem with it at all. Awesome. Yeah, so I'm actually, I'm impressed that you were able to take an insult from something you were inspired by, give it a different justification and context and still make it work. See, this is how you appropriate other people. You're appropriating George, what would you call it? Jordanian culture, we'll call it that. Wow.  We didn't even... Yeah, I will try to get through the book as fast as I can and I will have a conversation with you about it. Oh, man, let's do it on EFAP. I can't wait. I'll just sit back and listen like, Well, you know, Mola, the book is available. I really, if only you'd made a movie or TV show or video game. I have made an audio book. Just putting that out there. Oh, Chad, trust me, I've been trying to get him to get into things for a while. I tried to get him to read or to listen to the Expanse audiobooks and he won't do it. I tried to get him to read Watchman and he won't do it. He doesn't. I don't do much reading.   I got like a whole bunch of recommendations. It's OK. You got a friend to read. All right, that's awesome. You've exposed me. I can't read. You happy now? Yes, I will. Honestly, though, it's more. There's no book I'd be more considering. I was like, I do like Chad. Good enough for a reason to read. Oh, God, even Jay said even I've read Watchman, but does that count for anything? Really? Well, Mauler, the other day, he he's read a thing that you haven't. He hasn't watched something. He probably hasn't watched like. But here's the thing. You can't allow him to experience something that you haven't because then we can't keep the meme going. Oh, you can. He's he's watched things that we haven't for sure. He's probably seen movies that we haven't because of that rip off of Fern Gully. How did they know?  That's a deep meme from one of my streams. How about Mauler read us the book? I spent it at EFAP just reading his book.  The illegal troll. Yeah, I probably would, actually. So, yeah, does everyone want to talk about the Far From Home? Remember that movie came out? Yeah. Yeah, I remember that movie. So that movie. Why don't we we take the most polarized opinions on it first? I reckon that'll be Fringian Shad. Oh, what do you want me to say? What I think of it. Sure, you can go first then Shad, I guess. Hold on. I'm trying to mull over. Far From Home is good. I think it's very good. It's not it. I don't know if I'd say it's as good as homecoming because homecoming is really solid. But I think Far From Home is good, albeit there are some contrivances and some iffy things, some questionable things, like questionable decisions and stuff like that. My view on it is that it seems like a logical next step to see where Spider-Man is going. Like, I'm just trying to think of a way to explain it. Oh, yeah. I think it's a natural escalate, a natural progression from where he left off after homecoming. National geographic. What? What? National geographic. Is that is that what I said? Yeah, Wolf was trying to make a joke, and so it's now just confused you. Well, then Wolf, job on. The reason why I'm trying to mull it over is because I don't want to say something that I'm like, oh, whoops, that was wrong.  I mean, it's all right to be wrong. You're right. Yeah, we're just going to be scrutinizing you mercilessly, though I am. I'm not going to be wrong. I take issue with the sentence that you just said, Shad, I want to scrutinize it.  Yeah, I'd say so. Far from home, like homecoming is kind of a great example of cause and effect in action because things always keep, you know, there's a consequence of things that happen and then there's a progression of things that happen. And there are enough subtle hints and build up to certain decisions that are made in certain important character moments that it never strikes me as odd or out of left field. Like, sort of the reason why, you know, he's why Peter is likely to befriend Mysterio and then obviously kind of get fooled by him as well as his progression towards figuring out how he needs to be a hero. Like, if Moore said that the homecoming is the why, then far from home is the how, you know, like, because he feels inadequate. He doesn't feel like he's good enough. And these are things that would have been reinforced by past events. And there's just a vacuum there, not only in his life with the loss of a mentor figure, but also in the world with the loss of Iron Man. And so it's very much about him coming to realize what his role will be in the world. I'm sure more things I like will become apparent as we talk about it. But yes, so are you criticising it or saying why? How did you you only said nice things about it? I don't. All right. I thought I thought you introduced more or as the one more and maybe we're going to say things we disliked about it. No, I said, Fringy and you were probably going to have your Fringy the polar opposite takes. So sorry, I meant Fringy when I said more before. OK, yes. But yeah, I mean, if you want to explain what you think, then because I probably, yeah, that's probably enough for now. I'll figure out more when we talk about it. OK, so biggest thing I disliked about it was Peter Parker's, I guess, whole character. So I just mean, I got my sorry, my daughter's here. So there might be some background noise. I apologize. Yes, I think there are many of them. I I really felt the portrayal of his character was a contradiction on the established Peter Parker, you know, character that exists in all the works and so not all, but most of the works and stuff. And not only was that a failure in its adaptive quality, but also it was a more unlikable character just comparatively.  A lot of the plot is based on just trying to fix a mistake he made. He is actively trying to avoid helping people and saving lives, which I found selfish and unlikable. And and so, yeah, there was a lot of elements about his character that I really didn't like. I felt there was a lot of plot hole. Well, enough plot holes to be annoyed at in regards to elements in the plot. I really didn't like the glasses. I thought it was dumb that Peter had them in the first place for many reasons and and then his use of them. And I didn't like Mysterio. He rung very true on a couple of levels. Like he seemed like a villain that was up. Like I know I'm characterizing him and you can try and go into a bit more depth. But it came across like he was a villain because Tony Stark called his project bath and that sent him down the track where I was willing to take lives and everything. And yeah, so in terms of feeling for his justified motivations, that felt very flat for me as well.  I feel the film was average. I give it a five out of 10. So when I say I dislike it, that's not me saying I hate it. But I do kind of fall into the dislike, even though I still my rating is still five out of 10. I kind of fall into the dislike camp with the additional souring in my mouth of the the failure as the as an adaptation of Spider-Man as well on top of that. So that kind of makes me dislike it a bit more. Can I come back on the Mysterio thing? Because now I'm thinking about that again. I think Mysterio is a good villain. I'd say he's a pretty great villain. He's not as good as Vulture, but I think he works really well. He's it's another sort of example of a well integrated villain into the MCU. He's a little bit more closely tied to Tony Stark, more so than than Vulture was. But he's still very much opposed to like Peter Parker in the story. I think I think the I mean, Mysterio is a cool villain in general. The idea of using illusions to trick people and convince people. And that's part of the reason why it works well that he was able to trick Peter, you know, not like in terms of manipulating him. You knew exactly what things to say. And there are a lot of hints that he's paying close attention to what's happening, so that he knows what to say. Don't apologize for being the smartest person in the room or your hijacked his holiday. Just want to have a time with his friends of it. You know, you just want to be with your friends and stuff like that. And it's just paying really close attention and saying the right things to coax Peter towards doing what he wants. And then it also demonstrates how well thought out he is in terms of the way that he uses this technology as well. Like we see him planning out his attack like or I double the damage, do the projection like this. And this is something we noticed as well. Like, you know how MJ picks up the hologram and then it starts playing the projection. And of course, the immediate thought is like, well, that's convenient. But what I realized was they were testing their technology at the same time. And the the hologram that was missing was part of the relay. The only thing that would be convenient about it was how much information it showed when I only should have shown fragments. But it's just that kind of well thought out some of the details. It's like, you know, when a film gets that precise and is really thinking out these details well, it's generally going to be leaning towards a good film. So what details specifically impressed you? So you know how how when Peter is fighting, you know, in Prague against the lava one and then the projector goes missing and MJ picks it up. Like when she is talking to Peter, it starts projecting the information that they need to figure out Mysterio was a villain to which you would go, that's convenient. But it's projecting the footage of the London monster because at the same time, Mysterio was testing out. He's preparing. He's doing his rehearsals for the London one. So what comes across as convenient actually makes a lot of sense in context because he's testing it and it's still part of the relay, which is how he figures out that it's gone missing. That's like, you didn't have to do that. I don't know, that doesn't that doesn't really impress me. That just kind of strikes me as, well, of course, they would want to at least do that because that's what you would it would exist consistently just with what's. Yeah, but it's just a lot of movies don't do that. A lot of movies will just. Isn't that a more negative indictment on the state of film rather than a positive thing this movie? Perhaps, but it's something that it did well anyway, because they there was an explanation for it, which is a positive, even if it is convenient, the information that it really. I don't know. See, explaining conveniences logically should be a standard we would hope to accept. Then you actually get credit for doing it. So I guess that didn't impress me because that was kind of my reaction. It was all like, yeah, OK, OK, well, that's fine. Then it's still a thing, though, that was good and not bad.  Wait, Wolf, is gay, good and straight bad, or vice versa? I don't know. This is a good. Listen, this is a good Christian broadcast. Oh, I see. Well, I mean, we don't accept the gay here. What about the hella gay? Not that either. I'm not hearing noes. Oh, damn, he said no. Well, I don't know if we just I didn't mean to interrupt there. If anyone, if that old friend was saying, I guess the topic is my stereo because mysterious seems to be a topic now. So maybe we want to break break him down a bit and see. So do you feel his actions were justified based on what we know from his passing character? Like, would that logically tip someone over to the point where they were to murder to get what they want? Like a good comparison is Vulture, like because Vulture is a man who loves his family. And we can understand this, we can relate to this, that he feels his family is threatened and that the tipping point was, you know, the shocker thing where he threatens his family and stuff. And he didn't even know that it would kill him. But after he died, shocker, he wasn't phased about it. And he was pushed to that action to protect his family. That's a relatable, understandable thing. We can we can see that progression. How are we? The thing is, right, the stereo, the shocker. Being insulted, that his wife's work was called bar. To the end of the earth. I'm just trying to make a point. I'm just saying it out. This is so funny. Take it away by thunder. Well, I had to get in on that. I'm sorry. So good. Yeah, like being insulted. That his work, you know, life's work was called barf.  Yeah. Are you. It didn't really didn't ring true to me. Like, I admit there are cases where people who get fired can be pushed over the edge. Well, it's more than know that he's clearly he's. Yeah, he did. He's definitely insane. Like his actions, like his actions, I don't know.  Right. Right.  He's more unhinged than our. Yes, see, see, to me, that just strikes me as the whole moustache twirling villain. I mean, I don't believe I don't think he's moustache twirling. There are still places where I don't see any justification for him being he wants to be an Avenger.  That's like, that's him. He's the smartest person in the room and he's got nothing to show for it. You know, he's intelligent. He created this illusion tech for the only way to be recognized for your achievements in the MCU was seemingly to fly around shooting lasers in a cape.  No, he's talking to me. Your poll is confusing. Nobody's we can't be friends anymore because of this. You I'm sorry, your poll made no sense. And I felt bad for the chat.  Perfect sense. Mine makes more sense. Look at the career. Carry on. I'll be if I'm right. Yeah, being recognized for, you know, your work and an aspiration to be the next Iron Man is not a direct equivalent to leading someone to be like, no, he was insane. He was insane. And then I like he's more established as a normal person who had a job. He got insulted. He got ticked off and then he decides he's a psychopath, which means that he's good at lying case in point. He tricked Peter. What's a cliche villain? Because that same argument applies to a cliche mustache 12 and yes, evil because they're evil. Is it? Well, what do you mean cliched? What? He's not evil because he's evil. He's that he wants to he wants to be presented as a hero. Like this is why vultures are good villain because the regular person and we can see how a regular person can be pushed to that extreme. I can also see. I can also see how a mildly unstable guy could become a little bit more messed up if he spent years developing something, another rich guy took credit for it and then fired him. Like it's people getting fired. Like it's not exactly a great thing to have. So there are ways to sell that villain archetype. They didn't execute it well in this way because they didn't do the backstory. They didn't show how they did the backstory. No, no, they didn't show he was invested. He said he was invested in it. Saying it isn't showing it. If they if they went through like if they went through and showed him working on it and how much he invested in how much he sacrificed to do it. Did he lose the idea after being in love once to achieve this great thing of achieving this life work and then it being belittled. But even being belittled doesn't really rob him of the success of building what he wants. They think Tony Stark made it and he wants recognition because he made it. That's why he that's why he's Mysterio. He wants to be the next Iron Man in terms of status. That's why he was after the drone so that he could do his Avengers level threat. So everybody would be like, look at me, I'm Mysterio. Look at our great arm. And it worked because it worked in Venice and it worked in our Prague. He got as far as he can tell Nick Fury. Like he was working. It was an effective plan. I don't like his plan. We'll come back to his plan. I mean, his plan worked. All right, well, how so? Do you mean like the drones or something? Now I'll say that his plan worked but it seemed, I don't know, it didn't seem very believable to be honest with you. Well, like the illusion tech? Well, I mean, the illusion tech it definitely worked because in that regard but how did he know Peter was going to suggest he or have the glasses by? Well, there's a couple of narrative issues with his plan that, and yeah, this is the first one. How did he... I feel like this is Zima will live her again, honestly. What do you mean? Where people are like, well, his plan was like this whereas remember how he, his plan was to keep doing this anyway. It just accelerated things. He even said, well, that was easy or like, well, you know, that makes it easier. He was building up to, he had drones. He could still do smaller stuff but he wanted the massive drone so that he could do his Avengers thread. It was only a matter of time. If not, he'd just keep making more drones. This actually comes to... Oh, and you went the glasses work because one of his staff members said that she found out about the glasses because she worked for our stock industries. Yeah, see, this comes to some fundamental issues I have with the movie overall. I don't think the glasses make sense. I think they create plot holes in the MCU just by their mere presence. I don't buy the fact that Tony Stark would have even given them to Peter. Like, I think that's an irresponsible move. He's obviously not ready for him. And that causes that this like Peter Parker having access to, you know, a worldwide information net and death drones. This is where the, you know, argument can be made more fully that it undermines certain narrative beats that you can achieve with Spider-Man's story by his limitations. That now undermined by the fact that he has such a power in his... Well, I mean, as in the film, he is more powerful than the drones. He beats the drones. They... No, like, if the whole drone army was set on to Spider-Man to kill him... They were! ...we would expect that they would be able to kill him. But they didn't know he beat him. No, because, like, if you, what? A thousand drones around him, all pointing at him from, say, 50-metres distance where he doesn't have enough, you know, range to jump to and fight him and they just shoot him... What do you mean? In the movie, the drones were chasing after him constantly. They did a lot of damage, but they didn't get him because he was Spider-Man. Yeah, but that's not being... That's not being realistic to the actual power at Firepower that the drones have, OK? Well, I mean... That's just an issue with the fight scenes. But hang on, hang on. We don't want to get derailed because, going back... No, I kind of don't want to skip this now that you brought it up. Like, he gets the drones. OK, if I was controlling the drones, then I could just fight him. Let's put it this way, right? The drones are like... What are the utility of the drones in certain instances? Like, because as it was shown, Mysterio uses the illusion tech. He created it, he has it on his wrist, and he has to plan that ahead. So illusions aren't necessarily something that are going to work for Spider-Man unless he learns how to use it. But it's not really... Yeah, just the firepower, the guns, the distance, the range. What if he doesn't want to kill people? Like, Spider-Man doesn't want to kill people, so the drones aren't going to be useful. I thought we were talking about that the drones are way overpowered and undermined. Yeah, but what you're saying is they're undermined him because he can use them, but he doesn't... Yeah, he has access. Sorry.  Doesn't he? The dogs, the space dogs don't... Oh, you said that. I don't know. I don't know. Like, if he's fighting Norman Osborn and he has access to all these drones, yeah, let's just send a few thousand drones. Yeah, but look at the collateral damage that the drones cause. I don't think he would use them. I think he would. I don't... Why would he? If there's... They can be very precise and just say, yeah, go kill Norman Osborn, the green goblin. Right, and then when he's dodging all those bullets in London, if there were people around, they'd be dead. OK, so drones, wait until Norman Osborn is further away from collateral damage and kill him. Well, what do you mean wait? He just won't. He was just bunking. Right, so there's no point in which Norman Osborn would be vulnerable to... I mean, if he knew that the drones were there, why would he just... Worldwide surveillance technology on top of this. Where's Norman Osborn? When is he vulnerable? OK, he's vulnerable. Then go kill him. It is worthwhile to note that there's a good chance that Spider-Man would think that he still shouldn't use them anyway. I don't know. He gets pushed to the point where he will be more than happy to kill someone to save his loved ones. I don't believe that. I don't believe that he would... Even Tom Holland says Spider-Man wouldn't kill people. He only said the space dogs. Tom Holland, no, but like... Yeah. I'm not sure if we look to Chad if we can try an instance where Spider-Man might be willing to kill someone. I feel that there are instances. And probably more importantly, even if there aren't instances, I don't think it betrays the core of his character to be willing to do that. So it doesn't betray the core of his character to kill people, but it betrays the core of his character to have drones that he can use to help him out. It undermines the limitations that has served his character very well to create conflict and to overcome. So... It undermines the limitations that he has to deal with conflicts. No, no, this is important. Oh, hey, hey, hear me out. This is important, right? So characters, when you're creating a character and what they can do if they have superpowers, especially, what they cannot do is actually far more important. And I'm referring to Raina Sanderson's laws of magic here. Like he's actually written several papers that go into how to employ magic and Spider-Man's powers are a magic system, essentially, into a story. And what they cannot do is far more importantly than what they can do. This is the problem with Superman, because Superman is so overpowered. You run into narrative limitations with what you can do because of his powers. So the more power you give a character, the easier it is to overcome problems. Well, now Spider-Man has just been given a huge lot of power, right? Which will undermine the likes of the world. Well, hey, Mr. Iran had it, and he still beat him. So evidently, the drones aren't...  If I had the drones or if Spider-Man uses drones, because this is the thing, right? To try and create the conflict for instance, Mysterio had them, had the drones, and he failed. The only way that they were able to make him fail with him is because he wasn't using them very smart. No, no, no, Mysterio very nearly killed Spider-Man. As far as he should have known, the train would have gotten him, and that was pretty smart.  So you do then agree. So hang on, by that logic, you then agree that the drones could kill Spider-Man, that they're overpowered.  Yeah, that was Mysterio, not the drones. Mysterio knows how to use the drones. So if the drones are used effectively, they are extremely overpowered, and they could kill... They're not overpowered. They're sufficiently powerful for the villain. No, no, because Spider-Man has them now. That removes so many of the narrative conflict and limitations that serve good plots by him possessing them.  So Spider-Man didn't want to kill Bolshevik.  They... Look, you could even use the drones to incapacitate Green Goblin fairly effectively. So even by saying that he wouldn't use them to kill, he would definitely use them, and by him... In fact, he has such a powerful tool, this one, and this is separate to the Spider-Suit, because with a Spider-Suit, he has enough limitations. It's not overpowered. This is overpowered. And it hamstrings what you can use in his plot to give him appropriate limitations for the villains he usually faces. If I can just... I just want to jump in, okay? And then I'll jump right back out. But my take on the drones is that they are most effective when Mysterio is able to use them illusion-style, and apparently he needs to be within the vicinity of Peter and understand his up-down, left-right, you know? While he's on the bridge, he seems to just send them after Peter. Now, our understanding of the drones is they can shoot bullets, they can fire pulse shots, they can probably throw a flamethrower or something, and so even when they're in their hundreds, they're still pretty droney, and we're dealing with a Spider-Man who is very talented, and the film does, from what I can tell, make a pretty good effort to show Spider-Man pulling off some pretty crazy moves to collect them all up and damage a lot of them at the same time, if you know what I mean. Man, I don't even really care about Spider-Man. Easier for the rollercoaster. LAUGHTER It's like, I have so little to add to this. I've just listened to you guys. See, yeah, sorry. Like, the fact that the drones weren't fully sicked on him at the beginning of it, he was able to sneak in and do his taser webs to take out a good number of them, or good. I'm on board with that, OK? But, and I agree that, of course, Spider-Man is not going to lose in his own film, so you're going to structure the fight scene in such a way that it's going to win. I feel that is robbing some of the, like, realism that could actually happen if you were to say, OK, Spider-Man can do this. These are his strengths, these are his limitations. The drones can do this, OK. If the drone's just rounded him at a 50-meter distance and, you know, Spider-Man isn't going to get cover and he can't reach them to take them out and they just shoot him, he's not going to be able to do much to stop them. Can you say, like, well, you know, if the U.S. Army just set up right in the middle of a desert and there was no cover and it was a broad daylight, you could probably beat them. It's like, yeah, but you don't put yourself in a situation where that happens. Spider-Man is in cities and in dense areas, so the drones aren't particularly useful in that setting because he can swing around, he can go into places. Of course they're useful. He's more maneuverable than, yeah, they're useful in a sense, but, like, Spider-Man has an advantage in not only that he's superpowered and that they're drones, but he's more maneuverable, he can move more quickly. So, so, hang on, hang on. You're arguing the point that Spider-Man can fight against these drones and even though... Well, he can and he did. I'm not, I'm not on board with that just on a realism logical sense, but that's not my main issue. My main issue is that he has the drone, so... Does he? The hope doesn't... Does he? And this, and that they're too powerful to undermine the narrative that you want to explore with the Spider-Man count. Look, you know how, like, when a soldier goes to war, they're not necessarily going to bring RPGs with them. They might, they'll bring, like, their assault rifles and their pistols and knife, but they're not all going to bring RPGs and, like, 10 grenades. Unless they knew the villain they were facing and that if RPGs were needed against that villain, of course they'd bring him with them. Unless it's a call due to match and rust. Well, the point I'm making is that, you know, as, I mean, the fact that he doesn't use the iron spider suit, like, he doesn't take it with him on his trip, would tell us that Spider-Man recognises that his suits are tailored for different purposes. No, I just thought he wouldn't be able to get it through customs. Um, what? Oh, and the fact, sorry, and the fact, and the fact he didn't want to be Spider-Man. Yeah, no, no, no. But what I mean is, like, what I mean is, you know, if he's working on his suit and he's like, OK, I'm going to go up against drones. I'd probably want to use my iron spider suit or something like that. But in a different situation, like, he built his suit knowing that he had to fight the drone. So he must have thought that it was better for him to not be using iron or really hard things so that he could get around and be quick. No, no, no, no. He just he didn't have access to the nanotech. I'm sure the nanotech was available. Did he not have the nanotech on the ship?  I think I agree with that, actually. OK, what if there was nanotech or whether he would take the nanotech? Thinking about it against drones, he probably would want the iron spider suit. Yeah, so I assume he didn't have that option. But we were we were shown him declining the iron spider legs on the phone. Yeah, I'm a problem there. OK. So when he was choosing his suit, it shows the iron spider legs and he like he like sort of sways it away like I don't want them. So implying that the iron may have been an option. In which case, yeah, he probably shouldn't use that. That's a bit of a problem. And if someone made the argument that he's not dexterous enough, I'd be like, he's pretty dexterous in Infinity War when he's grabbing everybody. Exactly. Now, a question I have right is, does he have Edith at the end of the movie or does he only use Edith to turn it off? Does he does he have it the tech or did he? You know, I thought he did. I don't know. I guess nobody else to give it to. We don't know what he's done with it exactly. I mean, he's shown himself irresponsible with it. And so he tried to get rid of it to Mysterio. And again, I didn't like that. He started trusting me to serious or easily. But he tried to get. So OK, can make sense by the end of it that he might have given them to someone else. My issue with the glasses is their very existence, I feel, is a bit of a plot hole because the only time in which Tony Stark could have decided to give them to Peter is during the events of, you know, end game, essentially. And that means that they were in existence during end game. So why the hell isn't he using an army of drones? Would it be useful during that time? That's a good point. Yeah, I agree. And so I have an issue with that. I have an issue that he decides to give them to Peter Parker. I mean, Peter Parker is a teenager. You're going to give him a teenager an army of death drones. No, even Tony Stark is responsible, but he's not that irresponsible and he's already shown himself that is going to be hesitant giving things to teenagers by the fact that he asked for the suit back. That could say that he has a measure of trust for Peter Parker. But does he have that much trust to give an army of death drones, especially when the true successor, the lot like this thing, thematically from a meta example, you like, OK, Peter Parker can might be the type of successor you want for Iron Man. But in the world, it's the no, it's the no way would he be chosen as the successor. I'm a rowdy war machine. Yeah, I mean, that was that was where my mind first went to. I mean, if anyone was going to receive those glasses, it would have been war machine. Is war machine smart enough to really handle the time? I think we'd have to concede that he's a much better choice than Peter Parker at this juncture. I don't recall war machine being quite as smart in order to like really get things work. I think I'm the idea is saying that because he's black. I think it's going to do with him being responsible. Roadies, roadies probably high up there on the responsible ladder out of all of them. I say so. Well, do you necessarily have an issue more with Peter getting given the glasses? But what I like, like, supporting evidence for why you would have them is that Tony would trust that Peter would know who to give the glasses. I kind of like the sentiment of that, like Peter recognizes the goodness in people or something. Ironically, he fucks up with Mysterio. But I do take issue with the idea that Tony would give Peter what is essentially the power to like almost destroy cities. So to the greatest degree, I'm trying to think of what they could do. I guess the thing is, is was so that the illusion tech is integrated into the drones, which means that Tony must have been aware of the illusion tech, right? Yeah. OK, right. That makes it a little bit because it was like, oh, when Mysterio gets the drones and then he messes with the drones to make them like that, it would be another thing. But they were fully equipped. No, I know. That's what I'm saying, because in the in the London part, they just get deployed straight from our from space and do exactly what they need to do straight away. So, yeah, that makes it a that's a, yeah. That's and that is what the entire plot seems to hinge upon, essentially, well, especially the last big, you know, fight and everything. It's all about getting the glasses. And so the glasses mere existence is an issue for me. The fact that he gives them to Peter Parker is an issue for me. The fact that Mysterio, how would would did Mysterio to get out of this crew that knew about the glasses? The film does. One of the women. See, that one is very convenient for me. I can just like, all right, yeah, but yeah, still don't like it. Well, I mean, is it is it unbelievable that he still has connections within Stark Industries? And people would have to be involved in Starks estate in terms of the liquidation of the spread of whatever things to whatever people. There's going to be a, you know, a line of. So, so what did he have written down? These glasses will go to Peter Parker or these glasses will go to Nick Fury to give to Peter Parker? Possibly. I don't know. Yeah, I guess. See, why would he choose to go through Nick Fury? Why couldn't he just why couldn't he send war machine pepper pots or whatever to go through? Hey, Peter, you know, Mrs. Byger Stark, he really loved you. He wanted to give you these. I don't know. I don't know. Well, I don't know. I don't know that it's a bad choice. Well, the thing here is that Mysterio, the only reason he tries to get chummy with Nick Fury is so to get to get the glasses essentially be there when Nick Fury gives the glasses to Peter. And so, yes. And he and also we know that a lot of other avengers are sort of out of commission at the moment. Fury is the network of heroes. There's a lot of adventures that could have been far better. Well, no, no. I don't know what I mean. It's like so we know that the only one that I think would be Skull at which is questionable where she is. But the ones that are the most effective, they explain like Thor is not available. Captain Marvel is not available. Doctor Strange is available. I don't see what Falcon or Bucky could do. War machine. What could he do? You should. War machine. Are you kidding? Well, what about the water one? You just shoot bullets at it. What about the wing one? You shoot bullets at it. Like it's just going to go through it. Well, no. If you if he did a spray of bullets into those things without even knowing, he will actually end up hitting one or two. Wait, yeah. Well, that's exposed the entire, you know, you're arguing from. This is the thing that we're arguing. Why would we bring War Machine in? What? Like when you start?  Nick Fury, all he needs to do is make a phone call. That's what he did with Spider-Man. And it would be far more effective. Like if you're asking what could War Machine do, you really need to be asking what the hell could Peter Parker do? Spider-Man from Nick Fury's perspective will only be able to punch and hit what? A giant water monster? The lava monster is able to pack parts, like materials into it that degrade its power with this web. So War Machine could have done that, Scala, which could have done that. I think Falcon and what's his name, the armed guy, you know, our winter soldier could have done that as well. Well, it is worthwhile to note that Scala... It's worthwhile to note that Scala... It is worthwhile to note that Scala, which has a bad track record, she created Ultron. She screwed up in Lagos. She's unwieldy. And when there are people around, it might be dangerous to have her around. I don't know. Do we know where she is right now as well? Like, it's a... There's like, what I'm trying to say here... No, no, no, no. Is that Mysterio would have had no way to know that Tony Stark would have called Spider-Man for help by establishing these monsters. In actual fact, it would have been far more logical to expect him to call any number of heroes because did Mysterio know that Thor was offworld? Where did he get that information? Did he know that Captain Marvel wasn't available or Mysterio? In actual fact, from his perspective, he should expect that any number of the Avengers that are still around would have been a point of call before Spider-Man. I have a quick question. How much, and this is another thing on its own that we'll probably get around to, but how much of this can we attribute to the fact that that's not the real Nick Fury? What do you mean? Probably a decent amount, because he's not as savvy as the real Nick Fury. Yeah, like making poor choices, apparently a consistency for Talos in this movie. But the thing is that would only have anything to say on regards to Mysterio's expectation of what Nick Fury would do if Mysterio knew that this was a fake Nick Fury. I think from Mysterio's perspective. He didn't know, but it would have been. Well then, Mysterio wants to get the glasses and his plan was to make monsters to get Nick Fury involved to then call Spider-Man to come along to be given the glasses to then chummy up to Spider-Man to get the glasses. Like, what the hell? Considering that Mysterio knew about the Edith glasses, he already knew that they existed and he knew that they were meant to be given to Peter Parker because of the person on the inside. So there's a lot of reason to think that he'd be able to twist things into Nick Fury like that. Wouldn't have he gone straight to Peter Parker then? Like, he actually tries to recruit Nick Fury first, which means... Yeah, because Nick Fury's got the Edith glasses, like Nick Fury's group gives the glasses. And then he is gambling massively to think that Nick Fury would go to Spider-Man. He is gambling.   Is it dumb necessarily to have a plan that might not go up well? I think it's the best plan he's got, though. Like, what else can he do to try and get access to those glasses other than wait with Nick Fury until the day that he gives them away to Peter? Well, presumably, that's the purpose of him having the glasses, so... Oh, he needs authorization, remember? He has access to invisible drones already, not a huge number, but enough. And wouldn't they have been effective just to observe Nick Fury until he passes off the glasses? If he knew that his Nick Fury's intention was to give the glasses, just wait until he does it and then approach Peter Drone. Well, the thing... Yeah, but then the whole point is he needs to win the Lover, so they need to know.  Yeah, but he needs authorization from Peter to wear the glasses. He needs to get Peter to get into him. So once Peter has him, he could then have established the whole monsters in New York. Well, I think it would be a little... It would be very convenient that the moment he gets the drone glasses, suddenly all of these attacks start happening. No, no, no, that's not convenient because bad guys appear in the MCU all the time. That wouldn't be... Right, but what I mean is, like, I think it's like... Because the way that the plan worked, had that drone not been lost, Peter would have been none the wiser. Whereas if Peter got approached by Mysterio, gave him the glasses and then, like, later on, a bunch of these attacks happened to be like, huh, interesting that, huh? As Andrew May just highlighted, in fairness, so this trip is taking place where Peter is gone to Venice and then... Oh, yeah! The idea is they generate a water monster in Venice. That's a bit convenient. It's almost like Mysterio's doing that on purpose to push Spider-Man into the fray. Yeah, but that's already taking into the fact that he approached Nick Fury first with a monster previous to this. Well, he's got to establish his hero presence regardless and Nick Fury's the network of heroes on Earth. Sorry, it was luck that he did this... No, I'm saying that he's got to do that regardless, but then he finds, oh, he's just heading on a trip at this time. Okay, how can we make this way? Venice, oh, we can make the water a tunnel, oh, elemental tin up there. So, I don't know. So you're saying he was watching Peter Parker and learned of his trip to Venice before he decides to launch... All he has to do in terms of the elemental since he's in control of them is he defeats one in front of Fury and Hill, and then he can wait as long as he wants before he generates the next one. And he finds out, oh, Peter's going to blah, blah, blah. It was already pretty established that we know where the monsters are appearing, like he had their coordinates all the way. Yeah, he tells them that. Told them where they are. So he would have set it up in Venice. It seemed to have been established that he had already told them previous to Peter Parker, even meeting them. Well, it's worthwhile to know that the trip would have been planned ahead of time. I don't think this is addressing that he could guarantee in any measure that Nick Fury would have gone to Spider-Man as the first person to get to help in this situation. I would imagine that he would go to him in the... If he's in Venice, which is where he is. All we know is the actual time, so you'd have to look at dialogue exactly how long ago did the rock one happen? Didn't Nick Fury try and contact Peter Parker before he even left? He did? Yeah, he did. Yes. So the fact that Peter Parker's on his way to Venice, even if they knew that the next monster was going to be in Venice, does not in any measure make it that he would be more likely to contact than any of the other number heroes, especially if this is a teenager who's supposed to be in a class trip or whatever. Wouldn't you think a dedicated person whose full-time job is doing this be a better person to contact, like War Machine, like the Scarlet Witch, like Winter Soldier, Falcon. Contacting him moments before he goes on his trip to Venice would still fall in line with the idea that he knows he's going to be in Venice. Because he calls him the day before he leaves. Yeah, but again, I don't think that discounts the thing that there's a whole number of heroes that he really would. Mysterio would not have been out of guarantee that Nick Fury would have contacted Spider-Man. It was met like it's a plot hole. It's like met a knowledge. Hey, what about Spider-Man? I wouldn't call it a plot hole. I think it's silly that they didn't call more people in as well, but I don't see why you wouldn't call Spider-Man. Well, it just seems dumb to me. I think there was a whole number of more convenient ways to be able to ensure getting these glasses from Peter Parker than a lot of things where there's a lot of chances for it to go wrong, which makes it feel contrived and convenient that it goes the way that Mysterio had planned and stuff. They're all still in the foot mist that you did wrong, but... Sorry, guys, I really got to go to the toilet. We've been doing this for hours already, but I'll be back in a sec, okay? Did, according to Rads Parker, it says Fury did say you're all we've got. Did he say that? Well, I just remember that there was that scene where they were talking about, you know, all these people are unavailable, and that's why they were coming. I mean, I got to imagine that there are other things going on that make it difficult to get other heroes. I mean, the three most important ones being... Well, the three most powerful ones, Thor, Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel all had explanations for why they weren't available, and those were obviously the first people they would have gone to. And again, I think the skull at which you could just say, we're looking in the past, we bring our into civilian populations and look what happens. She's too unwieldy to have in this setting by comparison to Doctor Strange, who's quite in control of what he can do and things like that. Like I said, I won't settle for the idea that Nick Fury wouldn't call upon Spider-Man. I will settle for the idea that he probably should have called in a few others that we know should be available. We're gonna have to get reasons for why they were, I guess. Yeah, yeah. Especially because as much as skull at which may be dangerous, it's like, well, if these things are potential world enders, then... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I got you. I don't think it's a plop haul. That one line that he gave when he asked about Captain Marvel and said, do not invoke her name. That was, I felt like a double meaning.  And I also wonder if that was like a subtle nod to like, please don't talk about Captain Marvel. Actually... Could have been pretty cool for War Machine to actually have been fighting it and not being confused as to what exactly it is and maybe get a bit more character for him especially being that it's a recovery from Iron Man's death movie. I think it'd be suitable for him to be in it as well. Yeah, I'd be okay with him being in it. Now, I know what Mysterio should have done. He should have kidnapped, is it Ned, Peter's friend? Yeah.  No, he should have kidnapped Ned and got Ned to hack into the Edith system to give him full access like he did with Peter's suit. Problem solved. I gotta imagine that hacking into Edith is a bit of a step up from hacking into a suit. I don't know. They seem to be able to hack into whatever the plot needs and you'd think that there would be good protection on a suit that has an instant death mode to be able to prevent a teenager getting access to it before they're ready. The thing is like, I see the suit as not only do you have access to the physical suits you can make changes to the suit while you're there is a bit different to trying to hack into a satellite. Hey, we don't know how good Ned is at hacking but well, he knows pretty good already, so. Yeah, we know he's pretty good but I guess the thing was said that he should hack into it. I know I'm being a bit facetious here, right? But I'm just trying to point out that there are a lot easier ways for Mysterio to get access to this army of drones than the convoluted way we see him far from home in my opinion. I mean, I think it's partly to keep in mind that the plan is to establish his reputation as a hero. And so to do that he needs to show himself doing heroic acts and the escalation makes sense too because he gets in with a fury firsthand when he shows what he does with the Sand Monster. He gets Peter involved when he defeats the water one and plus all that is important for him to convey to Peter I'm a hero, I'm trustworthy. Cause for all Peter knows he has no reason to doubt this guy. As far as he can tell, he's said as well. This is the other convoluted thing as well even though there's another issue that I wanna bring up. I mean, how could he be so confident that he would be able to convince Peter to give him the glasses? What if he just said, no, I'm keeping him? Because Peter is... No, no, no, like if I was an outside observer knowing that, okay, this is this father figure to this character, he is passing on a very significant, you know, heirloom to this character that he's gonna cherish. And I think I'm gonna be at a walk up and through a few conversations and convince him to give them to me. No, that doesn't follow logically. It makes much more sense for him to just try and steal them off of Peter or off of Nick Fury. No, because how is he then meant to get authentication? He needs to earn his trust and you can see in the conversations that he has he very deliberately does things and the film demonstrates things that draw parallels between him and Tony. When he puts on the glasses, it's like, yeah, he sees Tony in Mysterio. That's why he gives him and that's like the final push he needs to give him to him because as far as he can tell, Mysterio was a hero who was just saved the world. Mysterio was like the only person in this group, like with Nick Fury and stuff who's actually friendly to him and acts like he understands his problems. And still, how would he know that Peter Parker would have given the glasses? He doesn't know that. He didn't know that he would. Like it's so much to gamble on. And not only, this isn't a 50-50. This is like, it would be so unlikely that an outside observer would think that someone would pass on a cherished heirloom given from someone of importance to them that they just received. Like, if you think about this logically from an outside observer, I find that very hard to believe that someone would think, yeah, I'm gonna try and get them. Gotta consider context heavily here. And by the way, I wanna also contest the idea of like, there's some kind of risk. What's the worst thing that happens if he doesn't fulfill the plan? Okay, he carries on being recognized as a worldwide hero on smaller scale. All getting the glasses does is fast-forward his plan. It doesn't enable his plan. He wanted to get an Avengers-level threat, which means he needed more drones. And I think considering we can see he has these drones already, it's just gonna be a matter of time before he has enough, assuming he can make them. I think that's a fair assumption. So would you then consider that by recruiting another superhero to be very close to him, right? Just increases the risk of failure? Like, wouldn't he want to get the attention but in the most assured method, sorry, the method that has the greatest assurance of success? I mean, it is worthwhile to know that Mysterio is very ambitious and driven to be an next Avengers. By the context of the film has been waiting for many years already. What's it just another year? How's it been waiting for many years? Yeah, ever since Iron Man, no, ever since Civil War, at least. No, I think... Well, it depends on where you're drawing his staff. Did he get snapped? Yeah. Because if he got snapped, then it's like... Yeah, we don't...  You know, we don't know how long he's been enacting this plan exactly. Yeah, like maybe what he was doing in those years was creating drones or finding ways to get access to drones and building up his drone army bit by bit. Yeah, to support like... Why would Peter give him the glasses? It's like, well, number one, Peter's got immense pressure on him right now that Mysterio's more than aware of. Mysterio is trying to get an immediate connection of like mentorship. He's telling him, like, it's gonna be okay. You are smart. You're a good guy. You know what's up.   He's like, hey, you're doing great. You're all right. And you know, Peter says it's like, it's great to have someone to talk to about superhero stuff. He's like already connecting to him immediately. The fact that Peter sees that this guy died almost killed himself to save the world, which is something that someone else did recently. The idea that Mysterio comes from this world has been destroyed. I mean, sorry to interrupt, but like, couldn't another likely outcome be to him showing Peter that he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the world, be that he inspires Peter to live up to his full potential to keep the glasses? Yeah, potentially, yeah. And to be like Mysterio to show, so then what is doing is dumb to try and ensure the outcome when it could easily evolve the other way. Whatever plan you think he should enact, I would say would probably be better as a backup plan to the one he's trying to do here where he gets it voluntarily versus doing something coercive. I don't know, that I disagree with because this plan has so many options of failure. It even has a chance of pushing Peter in the opposite direction to what he wants. And so I feel if this is a guy who has any measure of brains and he wants a plan that has the highest chance of success, that's the way he's going to go. Well, we're done. Honestly, like get the glasses, steal them when they're on the coffee table, something and just hack into the system. Like with enough concerted effort, with the resources, with the people who, with the people he has access to inside, you know, former employees of Stark Tech and all that stuff, surely someone would be able to hack into this. Well, that's the problem. Your plan just assumes you can hack into it. Yeah, of course. But the current one assumes that you can't Well, no, no, no. So I'm as much as I am critical of the idea that you can hack into them because I don't think that's necessarily true. Even if it is, that's the backup plan. Then if it doesn't work, if Peter doesn't give up the glasses, just keep a drone on him until he puts the glasses down and take them. I can go into Peter to get access would be the backup plan. The first point of one is to try and hack into it because it has less risk of failure.  Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You don't see that they'll be able to detect it. So stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. If you use an army of drones that are not authorized by Peter Parker, something's going to be up. No, no, no, no. I'm saying I thought you would say someone be able to detect inside the system that they be able to. So there's a chance of failure to that one then. So that conclusion is arbitrary as they're not being detected because that's the way they choose to do the narrative. The reason both are as valid. So your point doesn't contradict mine. The reason why we would suggest plan A, B attempt to convince Peter to give it willingly is that Mysterio can use them whenever and however infinitely. If he hacks into it, the second he starts using them, they'll be like, what the fuck? Who's doing this? And then a lot of action is going to be taken. The purpose of the hack was to give him full access. But that wouldn't have been authorized. That's an arbitrary, that's kind of an arbitrary assumption. No, no, no, it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be authorized. So there's a problem. The government's fury, Spider-Man. Find the code. If you can hack in, find the code and get full access as if you are the master user, there's no detection. There's no problem. They're able to do it. What do you think that they will think is happening when the drones are being used? So hang on. You're assuming that someone is monitoring the use of the drones. That's already established that no one is.  Is there like an army of them that launch out of space? Yeah, that's not even present in the movie as is. No one's watching the use of the drones already. No, I mean, so the idea that they'll eventually be used, there's down the line. No, they are monitoring it because remember Nick Fury knows that he authorized a drone strike on the kid in class. So that's what we're doing. He knows, but he didn't take the glasses off him. He had no power to stop the use of the drones. He had no access to the system. No, but what I mean is like, if somebody knew that, then surely if somebody hacked into the system and then launched like a thousand drones, they would be able to find that out. And if they, by monitoring it, registers as Peter Parker is launching a full drone because if they have full access and they're able to access it as if Peter Parker is doing it, that's what they would see it as. Right, and all they have to do is ask Peter if he did it. He'd be like, no. At which point they'd be like, okay, so so much infiltrated our drone network and at the same time, Mysterio. So hang on, hang on. But that's what they could have done already when Mysterio had them and launched heaps and stuff. But Mysterio was on the inside. And he had access. At that point. Yeah. Yeah, so launching the drones isn't a suspicious thing as established already in the film. Now, no one would have questioned it. What you mean at the end when he launches all the drones to attack London? Yeah, no one questioned the fact. Well, again, they are on the inside. Well, do you remember how in the scene like the scientist just takes 500 drones and then he takes like a USB disk or something then? So like they have some sort of inside access to the drone network. Which would be- Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. I just want to say, even though I'm sounding very impassioned about, this is just because I'm enjoying the argument. Yeah. I love you guys, all right? Oh, yeah. This is like, this is enjoyable for me.  You love us. I love you guys. So that's the big- Oh, God.  The gays infected him already. Well, yeah, let's move on, man. Well, I was going to say, so the overall purpose of this point is the feasibility of his plan. Shad, you think that he should have hacked it. I think his plan as it stands was probably the best gamble and that he could just do your plan as a backup. Yeah, and I understand that. But yeah, good to know. I feel like this is a point I think we won't be able to see eye to eye, but we have voiced our reasons quite adequately, I feel. Yeah, yeah. I agree. So we talk about the plans. Oh, sorry, I don't want to interrupt you. Do you have a thing? Well, I mean, we still, I still don't think there's plenty of movie to talk about. So pluses and cons. My biggest issue is Peter Parker's characterization that he is selfish, unlikable. He is actively trying to avoid responsibility at the legitimate risk of many lives. And that sucked. That was, it didn't impress me. It didn't make me like him as a character. It didn't make him appealing. And it was also, so not only was it bad on those levels, but it contradicts the Spider-Man character quite strongly on top of that. Would anyone like to... Yes, anywhere. Any thoughts on that? I've already talked about it a decent amount. Maybe Mola wants to rebut that one. Well, let's put it this way, I've probably talked third most. I want to make sure we got two other people here. Do they want to talk now? Yeah, I was going to ask you to repeat the point because I had a bit of a work emergency. I had to quickly... And sorry, my question was, who is currently dying of radiation sickness? I can't pay attention to this now. What? That's a valid reason. That's a valid reason. Oh, okay. I'm interested in hearing how Mola would contextualize my viewpoint in this, because sometimes that just is instructive to know on how you have people understanding what I'm saying. What specifically? What I disliked about Peter Parker. Well, if you're going to... You're saying, like, how would I convert it into an issue that I might hold? No, no, I guess it doesn't matter. I was just because I've been speaking a lot. I was like, Mola, you can share... I like listening to you, so... I mean... We'll start from the beginning. It'll be me and you, all right? So, present problem, and I will move from there. Selfish, unlikable, and actively avoids responsibility at the risk of many people's lives, which is not an endearing heroic attribute in any measure. And so not only are these all negative character traits that you can just look at independently, but it is also a big betrayal of the Peter character that's established by all the works of Spider-Man. All right, so my take from Homecoming, as we've sort of discussed, do we do an eFap about that? I don't remember, I think that might have happened. So the idea being that he's... That was cute. Oh, God, the shuffling's back. Oh, hang on, hang on, sorry, yeah, keep talking. Okay, I feel bad now in case he misses it. So Homecoming, doing the why, but the big lesson being the whole, you're supposed to pick your battles, do it properly, don't just rush in, don't do what other people can take care of it. Homecoming, there are some battles Spider-Man is not supposed to be involved with, just like every hero to a degree, not to say that there is... Hang on, hang on. What standard are you referring to when you say that there are some battles is not supposed to be involved in? Usually, and this is the standard that exists with the Peter Parker character, it does not matter if someone's life is at risk, he's gonna run in and try and help no matter what. Absolutely, and with the ferry, I think that that would follow through the idea of trying to help people, prevent bad guys from doing bad things, but it doesn't work out too well. And as you typically would be understood, we could draw a lot from the FBI, the idea that they would have had the sting perfectly down, if not for him. For lack of a better word, activating or making the bad guys aggressive early before the FBI could put them in a position, like Vulture gets to his suit before the FBI may have been able to lock down that van and they also think Spider-Man's a bad guy, he distracts the hell out of them, so Spider-Man being there made everything worse is kind of what I'm getting at. And then if you take the lesson of you're supposed to go, you're supposed to responsibly not only pick your battles, but also fight them in a specific way, maybe not just, you know, just go, that's bad guy, string him up, easy. Like I think that that's pretty well executed with the whole guy Rob trying to break into his own car.  He's like, no, I'm not. I'm trying to get into my own car. And like, it's just that it's not as simple as it may seem on the surface. Combine that with the traumatic experiences he had in Infinity War and Endgame. I don't think he thinks- Can I just interject here? Because the whole point about his experience on the ferry was overcome by his experience defeating Vulture. And so to me, that would reinforce his understanding and desire to jump into the fray and help even when he is so outclassed because he didn't have the fancy suit to help. He only had his own abilities and that's all. And he had to try and beat someone flying in this jet high in the sky where if he drops no matter what, he's gonna die. That seems to establish like the character type quite strongly that he is gonna help. And there is no reference at all that he has any traumatic, you know, negative feelings from the Endgame in Infinity Wars to make him not try and help people or be Spider-Man in any measure. That's not mentioned a bit. I mean, he's sorry Tony Stark died and he's dealing with that, but nothing should be changing his motivation in such a drastic way like this. So in Hong Kong, when he does that, hang on. I've been trying to say something. So on the ferry, the idea being that this is something that Tony was aware of. It's a weapons trade with Gargans to Gargon deal or whatever. It's something that people are aware of. The FBI are involved. Vulture stealing with the high altitude seal is something that he's made aware of in that moment. And as far as he's aware, no one else knows. So it's on him to decide whether or not he's gonna prevent this thing from happening.  It's like, there is no one else here. Spider-Man's the only one that can act upon this. Now, when it comes to completing Homecoming, I see it as him being like, yeah. So there are times I'm supposed to act and times that I won't. Or times that I'm not supposed to. Or times that I can make things worse while his philosophy in Civil War was just help people when you can because helping people good while Homecoming is... Yeah, sorry to interrupt. I don't mean to, but before you keep going, you might go on to a different point that from the one I want to address about, are there times in which I shouldn't get involved? That is so contrary to the Spider-Man character for one, but it's also a less satisfying hero than one that's willing to help no matter what, even if I'm outclassed. And on top of this, he had no idea what the threat was when Tony Stark was trying to call him. All he knew, Tony Stark was trying to call him, which would imply that there is something bad happening that he wants Spider-Man's help with, and he didn't even want to talk to him at that point because my trip, you know, going overseas. Do you mean Nick Fury's calling him? Yeah, Nick Fury was trying to call him. He was trying to call him. Was it Tony? I was getting really confused. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I get Nick Fury and Tony Stark. It's all good. Yeah, yeah. So that's... Right. I can't counter-argue that it's more endearing or more investing or more engaging story.  I don't know. Is some of the guy... No, no, no. I think this is based on some important objective character traits that make a good, likeable hero like this. And like these selfish choices that Peter Parker is making does not come across as noble, as heroic, as even like it comes across as selfish. Now, could it have been executed in a way where it was more believable or more likeable and more in line with not only his motivations in other Spider-Man works, but the motivations in the previous movie. I mean, I haven't gotten to far from home yet. I'm still stuck on homecoming. I can't move across. Really? I'm still trying to get there. I'm talking about his dodging of Nick Fury and not wanting to get to the frame. Yeah, far from home. That's even contrary to what's established in the MCU, Spider-Man. I disagree. Why? Because that's what he learned from homecoming. Well, Shad, if you let me talk about far from home. Okay, sorry. Go over all that. If that's what he learned from homecoming, that there are fights that he should be in, fights that he shouldn't be in, based on important context, then we have Infinity War and Endgame where he's killed, brought back to life and then placed into this enormous war where he's rescued by Captain Marvel, after nearly being beaten to death because he loses his spider legs and he's bleeding all over. And then the beginning of far from home, he's presented with Tony's dead. Who's next? Is it you? It's like, whoa. He just went from being told that he maybe shouldn't help a fairy to trying to save the world nearly dying to are you the next guy who's gonna be protecting everyone from Thanos-level threats? It's like, I don't know. What? Since when was it? And then you get the nice moment with the photos where he has like a PTSD style shockwave of just like, I need to get out of here. Like, I can't take this pressure. This is insane. He doesn't know if that's who he is. Is he supposed to be Iron Man? I don't know. And then Nick Fury, the only reason he would call him as happy, I think, points out is like, he's clearly got a new mission for you. He's clearly gonna be an important one. He's just like, that's not, I wanna, I wanna have a life, which is a big part of homecoming as well. The fact that he doesn't actually enjoy his life being sacrificed by Spider-Man. So yeah, he just wants to have a trip. He doesn't even know what the danger is. He just doesn't want anything to do with it right now. He wants to have his life back after he just saved the world, which is pretty reasonable. Then when the threat is put right in front of him, he acts. I don't think so, because the very most basic assumption of Nick Fury calling him is that people's lives are at risk. And so by him choosing to go on the trip because he just wants a life is a choice where it's a contradiction of the very concept of Spider-Man. That, you know, may be our great responsibility and that he is always gonna try and help people out even at the detriment of his own convenience where this is exactly the opposite of that. The other thing is that, I think there was an assumption in what you made there in what he learned from homecoming that there are some, you know, fights in which he needs to step out of. I think the exact opposite is established in homecoming that no matter the fight, he's gonna go in and try and help. Like, I think that was quite strong. I don't know where you're getting this different interpretation. How could you possibly conclude that from the fairy? But how could you, because it's overcome by the end of it? Like, my argument is the fairy has a context, wait, wait, the fairy has a context in which he's not needed. Tony told him right from the beginning that these are police level threats. They're not Avengers and that he should be sticking close to the ground. Vulture at the end, no one knows about it. So it's on him. And it's a time sensitive problem too. Well, not really because the way that Tony flippantly mentioned that, yeah, I mentioned the FBI, his belief was that no one was helping out in the fairy situation either. And then that was proven wrong when people were. And so based on that, he could actually still rightly expect that the authorities are gonna deal with Vulture, especially with Tony Stark saying, give me the suit, you're not ready and all that stuff.  And so he should rightly expect that the big boys are gonna handle Vulture in this instance as well. The big boys aren't aware of what Vulture's doing at the end. He didn't think anyone was aware of the fairy thing either. He was told they were. No, but, his weapons deals. Yeah, but he was sitting in a flippant way and he didn't think it was being taken seriously and it wasn't. His belief was that no one was dealing with that issue. And we're not actually considering. He was telling my fury to do it and happy. And the other important was. He felt no one was dealing with it. That's why he was dealing. He felt he needed to. And then he was proven wrong. And that's the same kind of approach to the final fight with, with Vulture. And it's not. In the final fight with Vulture, he tried to contact our happy Hogan to let him know and he hung up. Yeah. He's a Hogan. You got me shit, man. That's absolutely true. But I don't think it undermines the point that could Tony Stark have been on point to deal with it or. I think it does undermine that entirely. I'm not sure it does because what? If he called happy in the boat situation, happy would have fobbed him off just as easily. And so, but there we go. There were still people there ready to. Remember, Spider-Man is trying to ignore calls. He's actually upset that Tony call gets through on the ferry. The point you were making is that happy's disregard of Peter seems to establish then that that means no one was there ready to help. And if he did that with happy at the boat situation, I think happy would have passed him off by saying I'm busy just as much and yet still people were there to help out. So I don't see the through line that that proves that Peter could have been absolutely sure that no one was helping in that situation. In fact, by the, if you're going along the reasoning, because people were there on the ferry contrary to his expectation, ready to help and stop the bad guy, that would generally set a stronger precedent to expect someone to be there. And so I phoned them. Only happy. What do you mean only happy? He asked it, he called. He's arrived at the problem by the time happy is declined. Yeah, but I think isn't that the only contact he has? If you remember, Tony says you don't have direct contact with me. It's happy. Happy's your point, man. Yeah. So he has Ned contact happy. Happy ghosts them, which leaves them with no choice. I mean, we are getting bogged down but I still think this point is solid what I'm making. But let's go back to the actual core of what we're saying is that what Peter learns from this experience, that it's not mentioned anywhere that to my knowledge, that he decides there are certain fights I need a step out of. In actual fact, I feel that's contrary to Spider-Man's character. And again, I think the events of end game pointing to the opposite that no matter what, he's going to try and do his best to help regardless of his limitations. I think that would come entirely with the concept of being responsible with your power. You don't just abrasively approach every single situation. I think that's what civil war is heavily trying to compliment as well. You don't abrasively approach but you do approach and always try and help. Is that what you're saying? Not necessarily. Like, can the Hulk help a situation like Lagos? Maybe. You'd have to be very careful about that. While... The context is would Peter try and help? And the answer is yes. I don't see anything established, even in the MCU that would say no. It sounds like you want a reason to have Peter be sure that whoever may be in trouble is going to be helped. And he says several times, too happy and then to Fury, there's a whole slew of heroes that are going to be used for this. I don't think they need me. I'm the neighborhood guy. I mean, they make sure to use that dialogue in the earlier parts of the film as well. Oh, see, because if that's why you feel Peter Parker was dodging Nick Fury at the beginning of Far From Home, I know that doesn't that doesn't ring true because the very fact Nick Fury is trying to contact Peter would obviously infer that this is a job that he needs Peter Parker's help for. Yeah, Nick Fury, I assume from the dialogue that Nick Fury calls are like willed ending calls. That's how he sees them. And he's not that guy.  Can you beat them up? They're still in the bikes or something. And I'm pretty sure Peter does... Clearly, it's going to be some type of exceptionally bad thing where lives are at stake. That's obviously a given, absolutely. Yeah, and he suggests that he shouldn't be the one who's called for that. He's the neighborhood guy. Well, not to mention... That's what he says. Yeah, and not to mention it's like the guy died like for five years. He lost it with Liz and like he saw just a whole ton of things just go passing him by over the course of five years.  He wants to make it with the girl that he's interested in now because he lost it with Liz and he fought with like an entire army of Avengers. It's not like, you know, it's not for him to think that there's plenty of people. I think there are some assumptions made there just assuming that because he fought with the Avengers that will make him more reluctant to try and fight that level of events. You could say... He describes... No, because he fought with the Avengers and succeeded that could or should more... That's a fair interpretation. But he says in the film, his brush with death and space was an accident. When did you say that? I'm trying to remember. It's when Nick Fury says, bitch, you've been to space. And he says, that was an accident. So you think that justifies his reluctance to help out in whatever situation we're in? I think it highlights that Peter is unready to become the hero of the world and he thinks that he's got loads of people prepared for that. I mean, the main arc of the film, I think, was about Peter sort of coming to grips with what his place is in the world and what kind of hero he is because... Like in the first movie, it's funny because it's kind of the inverse of what happened in the first movie. In the first movie, he's so concerned with being a big hotshot. And then he realizes, like, maybe I need to stay on the ground, look out for the little guy for a while. And in this movie, it's like you're being called upon to be the big hero. You need to step up. And he's just scared, obviously, and not sure of his... Yeah, and scared is fine. It's how you... No, no, no, no, no. It came across as cowardly, selfish, and therefore unlikable, and a worse version. Right, that's fine, that's fine. Wait, wait, wait, wait, that's fine. We first got to decide if it's consistent with this character from Homecoming and Civil War. Once you, if you agree to that, I'm happy to move on to whether or not it's a bad character trait to have. I think you need to take too many leaps to reach that consistency that on things that are not explicitly shown that way in the movies themselves. So I think you're giving the plot a little too much concessions to reach that consistency that you have. I think if you were to go with, like, Arkham's Raise is the most logical thing so the resultant stuff from the way that I view the films, I feel this is contrary to what the character's gone through previously. And because there are multiple ways into, like, you know, the fact that he fought with the Avengers, this big world thing and came out on top and they won, that could just as well have given him confidence for huge fights like that. He's got a really fancy suit to help him fight bigger, harder things. And that he was already being tested in a situation where he tried to go insert himself into a situation where he wasn't fully prepared for and he made a mess of it, but then he did it again with more confidence, less, you know, things on his side and everything like he didn't have the suit. And he won in that instance, that sets him up to be even more confident, more prepared to actually help no matter what. And so I would say this is also a logical consistency. Two results could happen and we're referencing dialogue pieces that support the alternate. Which are the dialogue pieces? I just... So for which part? Because, like, for example, him going to space considered an accident. He's in Infinity War, he says I should have stayed on the bus. Okay, so that going to an accident. So that's him trying to reinforce the fact that he can't help in this situation. I would absolutely suggest that considering he's convinced by Homecoming and Tony that he's the guy who helps the little people, the idea of him defending the world is quite a lofty concept. But once he's absolutely got to commit to it. Okay, yes, yes. He didn't know the world was at stake when Fury was calling him. Only that he needed something that, according to Fury, required Spider-Man's help. Yeah, and his logic in the film is that Fury doesn't call me, he calls all the other heroes that protect the world, not me. Isn't that an assumption though, that an ungrounded one, that what if this is something perfectly suited to his skill? But if the dialogue is inconsistent with his character, that's what I'm trying to find out. Heroism is assuming that it would be a bucket. I'm not saying dialogue is not present in far from home to establish the way he's acting. I'm saying that those dialogues specifically are inconsistent with what was being established before this. I thought you said that it was equally possible that he would be bolstered by these events, and I'm saying, yeah, so you have- I was saying these events. Right, so you have two outcomes that are possible and the film has taken one route and it has dialogue supporting it. But that's inconsistent with what we saw in the previous films, that's my point. What specifically? Well, that he would be so willing to let people's lives be at risk to, you know, he doesn't think they're at risk. He thinks that the other heroes will be in line for it. So, I mean, how far do you want to take this logic? Like, if there's anyone in trouble all over the planet, he has to go for them and save them? That seems to be, well, that's certainly the Spider-Man character type and it's a better character type. There's no way. There's no way any Spider-Man does that. If there's any way in which he can help save lives, he's going to try and help. That's what I'm referring to. At some point, you have to factor an opportunity cost, though. Like, okay, I go off here, but who's going to be here in the neighborhood now? You know what I mean? Like, when he says, you know, I can't be a friendly-hate neighborhood Spider-Man if there's no neighborhood. It's like, yeah, so, you know, if the world ends, then yeah, there's no neighborhood. But if there are other heroes around who can help out, I can stay in the neighborhood. I can still help in the neighborhood. I'm still helping people, but I'm in a place where I'm better suited. At least that's what he thinks in part, I would say, just based on the discussions and the dialogue. Do we have any neighborhood questions and stuff like that? So the question is, is that perspective established in Infinity War, you know, his movies and stuff? Well, in Infinity War, yeah, when he goes up onto the ship, it's like, that was being willing to take on a galactic level threats regardless of his own safety and everything. Well, yes, but remember that Tony thought he didn't think it through.  Yeah, but in nowhere, in Infinity War, no, but in nowhere in Infinity War, does he say, yeah, I was a mistake to try and help. He said, I should have stayed on the bus. He said, I should have stayed on the bus. When he gets onto the ship. Yeah. Oh, okay. That's a point in your favor, I grant that. Not to mention in Infinity War, he was with other Avengers. He saw them fighting at the same time. So he, at least we had some backup where he knows in Far From Home, he has none. Cause he even asks, is anyone else available? And no one is. So hang on, that's in Far From Home, you mean, yeah. Except for Mysterio, basically. Except for Mysterio, he's on time. Yeah, Mysterio is the only one. Okay, so when he says that, you know, I should have stayed on the planet. Look, I'm not sure that means he feels that I'm not gonna try and help in situations where people's lives are at risk. It could just be an admission of the situation is in. It's like, now I'm in space and this might have been a mistake, but it doesn't contradict his desire or willingness to help people when lives are at risk.  Cause he has no idea what Nick Fury is trying to try and ask him to help out with. There's no guarantee that he thinks there's gonna be someone flying into space. Are you concerned that he's not specific about why he doesn't wanna answer the call? Wouldn't it make more sense, even with his character that's been established in the MCU to at least find out why Nick Fury needs him to then determine if he wants to help or not. If you're going with the logic that he feels it's outside of his, you know, capacity. For all he knows, it's perfectly within his capacity and by him dodging them without even knowing what he wants, it's basically saying whatever it is, whoever lives are at risk could have been MJ for all he knew. I'm gonna put my own preferences, my own comfort, my own convenience before using my abilities to help people when I have the ability to help. Like I just, I'll be repeat myself. He sees Fury as someone to call in willed events that other heroes are supposed to take care of cause he's a neighborhood man. Like Fury wouldn't call him in to defend New York cause he's in New York. It would be a very bizarre scenario. So he's assuming- What precedent does he have to have that opinion? Nick's never called in before. Exactly. So why does he then think that it's world ending? Nick Fury was basically the guy who assembled the Avengers. So he deals in the big, he doesn't deal in the small. It depends on scale because- Well, what do you mean? Like has he ever, has I ever been- There was a village in New Mexico that got leveled that he went to try and find out what happened. Yeah, cause the circumstances were bizarre. It's not a world ending event.  Well, at that point, he wasn't aware that it was a world ending event. Well, there was a lot of dialogue about what he said. That it's like a world ending event. But also remember there were weird accounts cause he said that apparently people saw faces in the wind. It's like, huh, that's odd. Maybe we should take a look. That just means general super villain, not world ending. Oh, he doesn't know that yet. Well, it's something strange that could be a problem, but there's no evidence to say this is a world ending event. And so the assumption or the assertion that Nick Fury only deals with the really big stuff. I'm not sure is actually supported by the movies as established. He deals with anything that's a worry, even a hammer in the middle of a desert that no one can pick up. So he's not going to call in Spider-Man for that. He doesn't call in any heroes to go and deal with a hammer in the desert. Well, what are the issues in which he is called heroes in to help with? The Tesseract. Yeah, the Tesseract. And then he did it for Hydra trying to take. And that's an issue with Winter Soldier. It's like, why didn't they call Iron Man? Yeah, Winter Soldier. Like, that's kind of a problem. He helped with Ultron. He was there. He assembled the crew for Ultron. Then we didn't see him for a while. And then, yeah. He's going to call them in for the three main instances. Infinity War then as well. What previous knowledge does Peter Parker have of Nick Fury as well? Well, I mean, he would know that he is the guy who assembled the event. Yeah, he's essentially boss of the world's heroes. So if he's calling you directly, then something big is going on. And you would assume that with so many lives at risk, he would be willing to help. Which is why Peter says, if you don't call me, you call all of those other heroes, including Captain Marvel, the most invincible or some power thing in the world. Why would you need me? Still feels very inconsistent that response. But look, even if we want to move on from if it's consistent or not within the MCU, my larger issue with is that it's unlikable and that it's selfish. And even a bit cowardly, you might call it. So I got a question for you. So you said unlikable quite a lot. How do you objectively grade that? Selfishness, OK? Is generally a trait people find unlikable. And yes, there are instances in execution. Sure, we can say that people find it unlikable, like absolutely. But I mean, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it. Joe Abercrombie's the first law trilogy. Have you ever heard of that? OK, can I just hold you up? Because if you are going to give a specific instance where an unlikable character is either done perfectly well and everything, I fully admit that can be done. The issue is, if they did it in this specific instance with Peter Parker, and I would say no. Well, why? OK, in what way is his selfishness likable in this instance? What's can you give me an example of selfishness? Yeah, yeah, there's a number of ways in which a character's selfishness or even whininess, right, can become likable, like House, MD, the TV series is almost entirely structured around a selfish, whiny character who complains. But his complaining nature is directly in response to his competence because he sees problems that other people don't see and therefore is able to save lives as a result. And so his complaining and also part of his selfish nature is a mechanism to save lives. Ergo, it creates a good positive character. There are ways in which you can make a selfish, even whiny character likable for comedie effect. If you guys have watched Stargate Atlantis, I forget his name, but there's a character who's really cowardly, selfish, whiny and everything. And he's my favorite character in the series. So in execution, absolutely, it can be done, but it has not been done effectively in this movie at all. It comes across as very unlikable and there's very few redeeming qualities adjusted by itself. But can you give me a specific example from far from home where he was selfish that wasn't reconciled? Yeah, yeah, he wants to go on a holiday instead of potentially save lives. That's it. That's a pretty, that's a pretty significant one, I'd say. Shad, wait, wait, wait, just one thing. And I want you guys to continue, I really do. But Shad, you know, what would you say if I was to draw up a poll right now asking if he was likable or not in that film and for people to vote yes or no? If the vote comes out, let's say, in a way that doesn't support the idea that he was generally unlikable in the film, what would you, what happens then? I would probably restructure my wording to say he possesses more or significant unlikable characters which makes a worse heroic protagonist than either previous films and established Spider-Man and that could have been better. And carry on. I was just asking that. I, before we go on, I just want to ask a quick question because I don't know how Shad feels about this because I don't want to project any opinions onto you that you might not have. So I know that in the debate with NerdRotic and World Class Bullshiters, yeah, they said something to the effect of Spider-Man never has to deal with his personal life and being Spider-Man. Would that not count as being a part of that? Would you agree with that argument that in Homecoming he never has to deal with that? No, of course, he absolutely needs to deal with his personal life in all the movies, like, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I just want to make... Yeah, yeah, that's not what I'm arguing. I was saying that these negative character traits that he has in Homecoming make far more potential for him being perceived as unlikable than better versions that have been made. And my, and then if you do want to add a subjective view on it, I found him far more unlikable and even stupid in a lot of instances in this movie that did not impress me as a protagonist or hero in the overall movie at all. Oh, I'll take you up on that if you want. My thing that I was thinking is... Because it's sort of explained as a rule, but I find that there are too many exceptions to that rule for me to consider it a rule. I can just think of so many protagonists who don't have... who have negative traits but work, like too many to the point that I don't accept it as a rule. Specifically selfishness. So even those characters, though, even those characters that you're thinking of, would you agree that if they were given more negative traits that didn't serve a purpose in the plot or even the appeal or anything like that, that they would reach a point in which these negative traits make that character genuinely unlikable? I mean, Spider-Man's does serve a purpose in the plot. It's part of the plot, so I don't think that that works.   I mean, what you call selfishness, it's like that feels like a logical progression for him, but it's part of the plot that I guess nothing is un- No, no, no. The plot, if the plot is him needing to go to France or whatever it goes to, that can absolutely be done without the selfishness, where he answers, you know, Nick Fury's calling, Nick Fury says, we've got an issue. It's just different, though. Whatever. Yeah, so your point that, you know, it services the plot and therefore is necessary, I disagree with that. No, it's just because you said that doesn't serve a purpose. Sometimes things can service the plot, but I guess my point is if they are in lieu of something better, that's a weakness in the run. Well, I guess I could just keep going through this. Rick for Rick and Morty has a lot of bad traits, more so than good traits. Courage the cowardly dog. He's a coward, but he's the protagonist of that show. And I hated that character too, by the way, for the anyway. Dexter's lab, Dexter is very neurotic and self- and harsh and stuff like that. Johnny Bravo is a self-assessor. There's a lot of hard characters you can see, but yeah. We could go through these run for days. You're right, you're right. We could go through them, but then we can try and list off and explain the reasons why is this character. Oh, yeah, there are reasons why it works. There are reasons why it works, but what I mean is like... What you need to argue, then, is why does his selfishness work in homecoming? Why does he need a partner? Well, here's the thing, right. Like, I feel like some of the positive traits, some of them are obvious. Some of them are a perspective, though. Someone could look at Captain Marvel and go, well, she has principles. She has ideals that she has. And I could be like, she seems headstrong. They're both two interpretations of a character who has principles and acts on them. Headstrong is negative. I actually think you could argue against her principles quite effectively. Well, yeah, but what I mean is... You're not gonna hear any arguments in the film. Exactly, this is what I mean. You're not gonna hear any arguments for that. But yeah, that's what I mean as well. It's like, oh, character's principle. That's good.  You know what I mean? Like, some of the positive traits, like, imagine one where it's like, oh, you're compassionate. And someone says, he seems docile or unwilling to stand up for himself. And someone says, yeah, but that's good. You don't wanna tread on people's... Like, what people find likable does vary. It depends on what people's interpretation is of the traits and how they're presented. And the execution of it, and that's my issue with homecoming, is the execution of the selfishness, the cowardice. Well, I don't... The stupidity. Like, those are three fairly big character flaws that... Well, I mean, I guess my thing... Really run against an effective, good hero protagonist. Well, my thing would be, concern for yourself does not necessarily mean yourself. It's like, if you went back out to your car when it was at the shopping center and the guy who parked next, you just swung the door open and slammed it into your car.  And he goes, oh, but dude, I'm gonna be down money if you do that.   You know what I mean? It's like, self-preservation is not necessarily selfish. But you're bringing up a point of reference to determine selfishness. And yeah, that's absolutely right. To determine how selfish your character is, to determine how selfish your character is, is to compare it against someone you would find to be unselfish. And that's how you get the comparison. And the comparison we have in this instance with this Peter Parker is a previous Peter Parker on the previous film. It's quite a man as a whole. Yeah, I figured I was going to go with it. Yeah, exactly. And when you make that comparison, he is a far more selfish cowardly character in this movie quite considerably compared to other, you know. I guess my thing is, it depends on, so let's compare Superman to Deadpool. Deadpool is far more compelling than Superman. Superman is noble, he's courageous, he's caring, he's compassionate, he's smart. He's got all the good traits, all the good traits that you would want.  I don't know, wait, wait, wait, wait. Superman can be very compelling, but you need to write in the story that caters to the specific structure. The point of this is that it also very much depends on what the story is meant to be. By the very fact that this is a Spider-Man movie. No, exactly. And we talked about in this last stream, by the very fact that it is a Spider-Man movie creates an expectation, a point of comparison that we will be judging it by. And one of the ultimate conclusions are is that this character is more cowardly, more selfish.  Quite considerably, and they're not counterbalanced effectively enough by positive traits. Does it need to be counterbalanced by positive traits? Cancel them. Absolutely, like your example with Dexter's laboratory, even Houston and things like that. If they didn't have anything appealing to counterbalance these negative character traits, we would have hate them, okay? But they are appealing in some measure because of the counterbalance, thank goodness. Frankly, I would find them unappealing if he was just a complete Mary Sue like that. Oh, he's 15, but he completely has himself entirely figured out and he completely just throws his entire personal life completely out the window to save people all the time.  I will be back. No, no, I think you're swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. And it's a slight straw man because I'm not saying make him a Mary Sue, but I'm saying that these negative character traits make him a less appealing, less effective hero overall. Okay, and the thing is, and if you want to say the more established noble self-sacrificing character of Peter Parker as a Mary Sue, I would disagree with that because it's counterbalanced by the fact that he does still fail and he does still struggles and stuff like that. But in terms of his moral character, he is pretty darn solid. He is one of the more aspirational noble heroes in all of comics. So what about the rainy films where he quits? Well, good example, okay? Because that is of course a very significant kind of, he has to go through a lot to get there first and foremost. And the whole point of him quitting re-establishes his initial first motivation, which is if he has the power to help, he's going to help. And this scene that does that is the fire scene. He doesn't even have his powers. Yet someone's life is at risk and he is gonna run into every risk his life really so because he can't rely on his powers now to save even one life if possible, which just reaffirms this essential, most important character element of what Peter Parker Spider-Man is. And then after that scene is on the stretch or whatever and they say that there was someone on the top floor that died and that hits him hard because he knew if he did have his powers, if he didn't abandon his powers, he would have been able to save that person who died. And so this is a great example of even an instance where what looks to be a betrayal of this character reinforces it so much more. Nothing like that is reinforced in Far From Home in any sense. Not even in the third act where he takes on the entire army and beats Mysterio himself. Let me think about it. Nowhere near to the point of Spider-Man 2, first and foremost. I mean, if it's- Okay, so- Because it's not to the point of Spider-Man 2. All right. The thing why Far From Home doesn't work is that the cause, the thing that pushed him to that point is nowhere near as- It's like, you can understand why Peter Parker does this in Spider-Man 2.  His life is pretty darn rough and it's justified so much more.   Oh. Five years of his life passed by and his father figure died. It's like, come on. He can't pass his girlfriend and go outside and act later? Was it? I am being harsh. I fully admit that. When I was watching it, it felt like he wanted to go on a holiday and that came across as very- Chad, does it matter to you that when the water monster attacked even without his suit, he began trying to protect people? I'm glad he did. No. No, no, no. Let me hear me out. The fact that he was even avoiding it to that point, okay, is an issue. Like, that doesn't redeem me. But you just said that Spider-Man 2, it's fine that he avoided it because he came through with the end. No, no, no, because what justified him to make that, to get him there to where he makes the decision to not be Spider-Man? Where I don't see anything pushing him to that point to, especially where it confronts his core character identity to make him betray that and say, I'm gonna go on a holiday instead of, you know, help people out when their lives are at risk because, you know, Nick Fury's- And Spider-Man 2 is not even a holiday. It's literally just, well, Spider-Man powers are not really working because I'm not really sure if I am Spider-Man. I'll just let it go. I need a weird way to watch it because it's been a- I love Spider-Man 2, but he literally gets like a mental block and loses his physical powers. It doesn't make any sense. No, but like, it's explained because his life is going down a toilet as a result and is really struggling with it. So much so that even like, it seems like his subconscious is trying to betray him before he's willing to do it himself. Do you remember when he doesn't help the guys in the alleyway? The guy who's getting mugged? He just ignores it, he keeps moving. I don't know, yeah, good point. See, that guy seems to be way too long since I've seen it, so... But this is the thing. Highlighting these things for me is actually fine because it's in line with like a strong journey, just like homecoming to far from home, but it seems that you have a problem with there's like a line that's being crossed in that scene and in far from home. Yeah, that's not only, okay, so my problem isn't that it's crossed. I feel that it's not justified or set up properly, not even nearly well enough. I don't know, I guess I disagree. He's really young, he's just died, his father figure's just died, the world wants him to take over as the world protector. He just wants to pursue a crush. Get back to work, Pussy. No, no, but see, he doesn't say that, like... What do you mean? Yes, he does. Like in the film, in the context, yeah, yeah, yeah, in the context of the film. So I'm just trying to remember far from home because he wants to be the... In this film specifically, he wants to be the local Spider-Man and he doesn't feel ready to, you know, do the larger fights and everything. And so, all right, logically justified, I can agree with it, okay? I'm not fully on board with the fact that it's best that it's in line with his character in the other films, but if you were to just look at this film, is it justified? Okay, I think I can go with that. Does it still come across negatively and also is unlikable in the sense that these are negative character traits that make for a far less appealing character? That's still an issue I have, definitely. I don't think he was unlikable at all. He was very relatable. He was so... His relatability is what... So over on the EFAP crew, we're stuck, me, Wolf and Fring, you're all like, well, isn't that down to each individual person, whether or not you like him? We can't really do anything with this. Yeah, I know. I mean, I do like to try and argue that there are certain objective character traits that you could say that are more negative and make for a worse character. And that you'll need to balance them against or execute them correctly to be able to have a good character with these traits. See, the balance thing is I just... I find that there are too many examples of characters with more negative traits than positive traits or great characters. Yeah, but I don't care about the... Yeah, yeah, I don't care about the other characters. I care about this one in this instance. Like, you would need to explain how these characters... This character's negative attribute traits are... Yeah, but the thing is, is the framework that's been established is... So likability is determined by positive and negative character traits and the better characters are more noble, more courageous, more selfless as just a rule. And it's a rule that I don't prescribe to. No, no, no, no. I'm certainly saying a better Spider-Man is defined by the nobility aspect and stuff. That's I'm definitely saying, but not to all characters everywhere, absolutely not. But you said the hero archetype, so it seems like you're applying your role as a hero. No, no, no. There are, of course, subsets the hero archetype and Spider-Man is fulfilling a very specific, defined role. I guess it depends. Are we defining a hero as protagonist or hero as something separate to protagonist? Because... No, no, I'm defining Spider-Man like... So defining Spider-Man, how he is more generally defined in all his works and stuff and how much of a solid, good character that is. The fact that if I'm using that as a point of reference, this one falls very short of it. There's no end here as good. The thing is, I see that more as a valid argument for the strength of the adaptation rather than a rule that you can apply to the quality of the character necessarily because it's just... No, I think you can. Like, no, I think you can. If you were to break down, this character is good for XYZ and this character doesn't have XYZ, but it's fulfilling the exact same purpose and role in the story, it's pretty easy to define. But then has other attributes like A, B, and C? What are the other attributes? Well, I mean, what would you say are the attributes that's spiked? Because you said, okay, he's selfish. It's like, okay, that's an attribute. That's another attribute that gets added to it. Sorry, I'll give you... Yeah, no, that's fine. That's all good. It's just, yeah, the better or worse, I guess. The problem for me is that like, likeability, there's so many elements, like, even the actor. I mean, yeah, and a lot of people like characters that I think are suck. All right, no, no. Likeability was my, you know, you could say a personal reaction to these negative character traits. I'm not trying to say likeability to determine if he... I'm just saying the character itself is worse. He is an inferior character for what the character is supposed to fill in the context of the story and plot and represent. Okay? That's... Sorry, if the... His character... Yeah, like his character, I didn't like Peter Parker's character for XYZ reasons. What I mean is if the director said, okay, so my goal with this Spider-Man is to make him a much more relatable and sympathetic character in the sense that he has very similar wants and needs to everybody else. He's still a hero. He still wants to help people. He's still aspirational, but he is more grounded in the sense that he is... He has human wants and needs. So that means that this Spider-Man would be achieving that objective. So would he... No, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait. Like the attempt, I would say, okay, interesting all power to you. I would want to... I would need to see the result to determine if you were successful at that. And if this is a more, a better character as a result of this attempt.  And yes, which makes him more like a normal person. Hence why it's good. I'm saying hence why it's good based on th