[TV] She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (*SPOILERS*)

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

How many Uncle Bens must die to satisfy your blood lust!?

There's never enough.

[PrimiOne]

I mean, have you seen No Way Home yet? If not, for the love of bacon don't click the spoiler tag and ruin it for yourself, go watch the film. Aunt Mae takes Ben's role in the MCU, creating an entirely different context for Spider-Man in the process. There's still the "with great power, great responsibility" angle, but where in the comics, that's a "you've got to get involved if you've got the power to make changes" kind of deal, in the MCU the message looks a lot more like "if you've got the power to make changes, you're responsible for the collateral damage of those changes, especially to friends and family", which is MUCH darker but also a lot more adult. Which hits way harder because Parker's still a kid when he's forced to learn this. I could see being annoyed leading up to NWH by this gap, but IMO it's worth it for the gut-punch of that outcome. Aunt Mae [i]is[/i] the Uncle Ben, here, in terms of narrative purpose.

I agree that the update of Spiderman mythos is one of the key factors of "No Way Home" sucess but that's not my interpretation of the message although I don't see it as exclusive: maybe multiples perspectives are valid

"With great power comes great responsibility" states , as explicitly told by Peter in the - not praised enough - Homecoming, that if you don't do the right thing ,if you get to choose the non moral option you are directly responsible of the consequences. If you could stop that train and choose not to you are responsible of the passenger's deaths...if you choose to not stop that thief running because you are upset at the wrestling manager ,that did not pay you the agreed ammount ,maybe then that thief end up killing your uncle and it's all your fault.
The classic one tell us :"I you don't do the right thing bad things will happen" and we can see a form of utilitarism in it ( multiple times criticized) because in the end the problem of not catching the running thief is the consequence ( Ben's death) dissociated from the direct moral decission.Was that the wrong decission because in the end Ben died or would have been wrong on itself even if the thief never met Ben but thiefs deserve to be catched?

In No way Home we can see a complete redefinition. Peter take a decission : that decission is saving the villains life that Strange has already set on a course for death. Peter take that decission because see it as the right moral option and as a consequence of that May dies.

It is still the moral option,the right one: that's the heartbreaking aspect of No Way Home , well apart from Marisa Tomei nailing the character, that's the devastating issue for the viewer, that May died because Peter took the morally right option. That completely separates the ethical decission from its unexpected consequences ( no utilitarism) and creates the "new" Spidey narrative: Right is right no matter if bad things happens.Right is right EVEN is bad things happen.

That transition from "If you don't do the right thing bad things will happen" to "If you do the right thing bad things could still happen but that doesn't change the fact that right is still right" seems to me the great achievement of the movie: that the moral options are that on themselves and should be taken even if the consequences break everyone's heart.

[JDL49]

You know I thought the Toxically Literal Man was an urban legend. But now, to see one
come alive in my lifetime, well words can not do justice to the feeling. I have now seen
it all, the end must be nigh.