The content below may contain spoilers for the new movie, Spider-Man: No Way Home. Do with this information what you will.
I am a fan of the web-head. I have been a fan of the classic Peter Parker since I was in middle school. And as such, I have consumed a lot of Spider-Man content over the years, from television shows, to comics, to live action movies (yes, all eight of them.) I very much enjoyed the latest installment: Spider-Man: No Way Home.
Apparently, I’m not alone. According to The Daily Wire, Spider-Man pulled in $253 million dollars domestically on opening weekend alone. Which, thanks to Covid, hasn’t happened in a long time.
In my perusing the internet after watching the movie (mostly to validate my own feelings towards it), I came across an article by The Daily Wire (yes, that same article that I referred not two sentences ago) that made me pause. It suggested that the reason the webhead made so much money was because it wasn’t woke—no LGBTQ+ stuff, no racial politics, etc. While I don’t tend to watch “woke” movies, I did find this assertion odd. I think it displays a remarkable misunderstanding of the webhead, the MCU, and the fanbase, so, in true “me” fashion, I decided, “Hey, why not pick this article into oblivion?”
So, let’s take a walk through this article, refuting it point by point. I will be taking quotes from the article: “‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ Suggests Movie Fans Are Fed Up With Woke Propoganda.”
I’ll start with the premise of the article, which cites Breitbart as its source: ““Newsflash: If you make a decent movie that seeks to entertain and move — instead of lecture and shame — we will show up,” John Nolte wrote. “‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ does precisely that. You will not only have a great time at the movies again, but there’s no gay, transsexual, or racial nonsense. This movie is about only one thing: Delivering the goods.””
Premise: This movie is “good” because there is no “transsexual, gay, or racial nonsense.” Okay, fine. Let’s see how they back this claim up.
Their first point: “Black Widow bombed because of overtly feminist themes that superseded the central narrative. Eternals had a similar issue because audiences saw the extraordinarily politically correct agenda and rebelled against it.”
I’d like to disagree with the claims made about these movies, and I will briefly point out this article seems to make a logic flaw. If these movies “bombed,” it does not necessarily mean that if you do the opposite of what these films do, i.e. “be woke,” that you will end up with a successful movie. But given that this is the point the article makes, let’s look at why these two movies in particular didn’t do well. Given the fact that all of these movies (Black Widow, Eternals, and Spidey) were released at differing stages of the pandemic, it’s good to take a quick look and see how Covid was doing for each of these.
Black Widow was released on July 9, 2021. This was around the time life was “getting back to normal.” Which theoretically means that if people really were excited about this movie, they could have gone to the theater maskless and watched Black Widow as if it were an entirely normal experience, and the movie should have been a smashing success. Assuming “bombed” means “did poorly at the box office,” then the article would be correct: Black Widow made $80.4 million on opening weekend—less than half the revenue Spidey cashed in at the end of his debut, which seems to indicate that fans weren’t willing to spend their money to watch this movie in theaters.
But this movie wasn’t just released in theaters. This movie was released on Premier Access with Disney+, which meant that if you wanted, you could pay $30 for a month to watch the movie as many times as you liked. Disney didn’t delay the release of Widow on Disney+, either—both the streaming service and the theatrical release were simultaneous. Typically, if fans want to watch a movie multiple times before the DVD or streaming service release, they have to go to the theater, paying the ticket price over and over again rather than a one-time fee, and this spending adds to the overall gross of the film (though in all likelihood would not affect the bottom line on opening day). With the streaming service, as everyone knows, you pay a one-time flat fee and the movie is yours forever (well, yours on the “cloud,” whatever that is). My guess? People mooched off the one person they knew who had a Disney+ account and was willing to splurge for the $30 Premier Access streaming fee. The streaming release affected the film’s box office performance to the point that Scarlett Johansson, the title actress, sued Disney over the fact that she wasn’t able to get the bonuses associated with said box office. (And that situation is a whole different can of worms.)
Now, to the actual point they’re making about feminism: I actually don’t really know what they’re talking about. I watched this movie—while it is a “girl power” movie, meaning there is a fair amount of women handing out unrealistic beatings to men, I didn’t necessarily think anything was “overtly feminist.” Honestly? I thought it was kinda cute. So we could safely say that Widow didn’t bomb because it was feminist, it most likely bombed because of the circumstances of the release.
Eternals faired even worse at the box office: $71.3 million on opening weekend domestically. Why the poor turnout? Well, there could be several reasons for this one—one could be that the film was released November 5, 2021. It is during cold and flu season, so the more cautious among us may have felt the desire to stay indoors. The reason The Daily Wire is implying it did poorly? Eternals features a gay couple kissing.
While it’s entirely possible that some people boycotted this movie for that reason alone, the more likely reason is they have no desire to watch yet another Marvel movie for characters they know nothing about. If we’re honest, absolutely no one knows who the Eternals are. They are a very niche group of heroes, and most casual comic-book fans (which is currently the majority of the MCU’s audience) would know them only tangentially at best. Marvel has turned some obscure superhero groups into box-office hits (Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6), but those were marketed as fun summer blockbusters with goofy jokes. No one knew who the Eternals were, no one cared to know, and they don’t affect the main MCU storyline we’ve already invested one-and-a-half decades working on.
Also, this might just be me living under a rock, but I saw zero ads for this movie. I didn’t know it had come out until after the conservatives were freaking out about gay characters onscreen. Marketing left something to be desired for this one, if you ask me.
Last, the article makes this point: “No Way Home has Peter Parker (Tom Holland) visit Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) with the request that everyone forgets he’s a superhero. But our leading man quickly learns that actions have consequences. Peter Parker makes mistakes, but the movie also includes a place for second chances and redemption. Plus, there are nods to American pride in the film, which is virtually nonexistent in the rest of Hollywood.”
The point I assume the article attempts to make is that because there are brief moments of American pride, and Peter Parker doesn’t treat himself as a victim, this movie did well at the box office. I’m not entirely sure what “nods to American pride” the article is referencing. There is a fight on the Statue of Liberty, which has been recently renovated to hold Cap’s shield (in honor of his sacrifice? I didn’t know and didn’t care). I’m assuming that’s what this means. Oddly enough, while this article praises the “American pride,” I actually found it startlingly lacking—for a Spider-Man movie.
Spider-Man movies typically have heavy American imagery. In most movies (including ones with Holland, the MCU’s pick for Spidey), he’s seen posing with a flag in the background. This might appear to be an odd choice, considering Captain America would be considered a more appropriate character for American pride, but it was a very deliberate decision made in the first live-action Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire.
You see, Spider-Man was released in May of 2002. Nine months prior to the release of the Raimi movie, America experienced 9/11. Two planes deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center, murdering thousands and shattering the illusion that America was untouchable. In the months following that attack, national American pride was at an all-time high, and countries all over the world were showing solidarity. Spider-Man also found a way to support the U.S.A.—there flags everywhere, yes, but some of the most iconic shots feature the webhead clinging to a flagpole flying the American flag. He’s from NYC, after all. Ever since then, American flags dot Spidey’s background. The movie has “nods to American pride,” because at this point, they’re basically required; it’s not because the webslinger is responding to woke Hollywood.
So, to recap, The Daily Wire basically says that No Way Home did well because it wasn’t woke like Widow or Eternals, and has a few American moments in it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Pitting Spider-Man against any hero is unfair—box-office wise, at least. Spider-Man is the most popular superhero globally, which is an impressive feat considering his competition is Superman, Batman, and Wonder-Woman, three iconic characters from Detective Comics created decades before the web-slinger. The U.S.A. crowns Spidey as its favorite hero—above Captain America, Iron Man, and Batman. Spider-merch sells—you really think a child is going to want an Eternals happy meal toy when he could have a pair of cheap webshooters? (Fun fact— we did get a cheap pair of webshooters in a happy meal once, and I also got an Eternals toy much more recently. The webshooters were cooler.) A fairer comparison would be pitting Spider-Man against the Nolan Batman trilogy—perhaps they aren’t on the same cinematic playing field, but The Dark Knight did end up making $1 billion dollars in the box-office worldwide (not on opening weekend, but still an impressive number.)
What makes Spider-Man such a beloved character is Peter Parker, his alter ego. He has been such a massive success as a character because his personal life is a complete mess, but he still tries to do the right thing and use his gifts to the best of his ability. The Spider-Man costume is one of the few in the MCU that hasn’t completely succumbed to the “battle-chic” aesthetic, which makes him bright and interesting to watch. Even if there was an entire cast with a diversity quota and a gay romance subplot, I would be willing to bet Spidey would still get quite the showing on opening night. Obviously, there would be people who boycott it, but most people just love Spider-Man and would be willing to forgive quite a bit just to watch him swing across the city.
Oh, and one more thing: this movie has had rumors flying around it for months. With the release of shows like WandaVision, rumors had started that this movie, perhaps, was going to attempt to introduce a “multiverse”—all three Spider-Men in one movie working together. The trailers only amped up the excitement for fans, who haven’t seen Molina on the screen as Doc Ock in over a decade. No one wanted this movie spoiled, so they tried their damndest to see this movie the night it opened.
And to be fair, it was worth going to see on opening night. Watching Andrew Garfield walk through that portal—I haven’t had that much fun in a theater in a very, very long time. The cheers that came out of everyone when Tobey waved made me smile.
Spider-Man didn’t get views because he’s not woke. Spidey got views because he’s Spidey. Stan Lee created an icon, and he’s not going to be going away any time soon. Does it help that there wasn’t a bunch of propaganda in this film? Of course, but I guarantee that’s not why he’s rolling in dough.
The best part about Spider-Man is that anyone could wear the mask. It’s just that Peter Parker wears it very, very well.