Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Spider-Man: No Way Home offers a multiverse of redemption instead of revenge
Spider-Man: No Way Home offers a multiverse of redemption instead of revenge
Apr 26, 2026 4:20 AM

Needless to say, spoiler alerts galore!

Read More…

In superhero movies, it’s a given that the good guys will try to save innocents from the bad guys. Sometimes they save individuals, sometimes they save cities, and all too often—especially in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)—they save the entire planet or, increasingly, the entire universe. (Once you’ve raised the stakes so high and swatted them back down, every subsequent threat on that scale seems less threatening because more unreal.)

But what if the good guys tried to save the bad guys from themselves?

That’s the question raised by Spider-Man: No Way Home, the first COVID-era blockbuster, which not only brings the current Spider-Man trilogy to a satisfying close (while leaving the door open to future movies, of course), but unites all three of the live-action Spider-Man movie franchises—and in the process tries to redeem some of their villains.

Spider-Man: No Way Home isn’t entirely breaking new ground here; the potential for redemption was always there in the other films. Unlike the power-hungry General Zods or the nihilistic Jokers of the Superman and Batman movies, the villains in Spider-Man films have tended to be tragic figures whose good intentions went awry. In some cases—Doctor Octopus in 2004’s Spider-Man 2, Harry Osborn in 2007’s Spider-Man 3—the antagonists have even switched sides in the final act and sacrificed their lives to help Spider-Man and his friends.

In the new film—and for reasons plicated to get into here—several of these villains are yanked out of their worlds and deposited in the MCU, where Spider-Man, aka Peter Parker, is now a high school student played by Tom Holland. Peter has to send all the villains back to their worlds, but when he learns that most of them were yanked out before they died—effectively, they were yanked out of the middle of their respective movies—he decides he has to save them by “fixing” the chemical, electrical, or cybernetic accidents that brought out their darker sides. He won’t just leave them to their fates.

One or two of these characters e the chance to be “cured.” But Norman Osborn, aka the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe, who finally gets to let his face and not a mask do the menace-projecting), fights back and persuades most of the others to fight back, too. And because Peter got some of his moral inspiration from his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), who works at a charity for the homeless, the Green Goblin makes a point of killing her. “You tried to fix me,” he tells Peter before striking the fatal blow. “Now I’m going to fix you.”

And so the film raises questions that go even deeper than the basic redemption theme, namely: What is the source of our morality? Is it something programmed into us, whether by nature or nurture? Or is it something we choose, for better and for worse?

While the Spider-Man movies have featured the occasional villain who actively chooses to be evil—Spider-Man 3’s Eddie es to mind, and he is noticeably absent from the proceedings here—they have always played heavily on the idea that villains are “made” by external factors: a pound that increases aggression, a puter chip that allows “smart” robot arms to override a person’s higher brain function, and so on.

Sometimes the films have underlined the idea that those darker impulses were always there, that the potential for evil lurks within all of us, and that the external factors simply made it easier to give in to those impulses; even Peter Parker succumbs to Venom’s influence in Spider-Man 3. Sometimes the point is made that people like Norman Osborn and Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), aka Doctor Octopus, were blinded by hubris when they invited these external factors into their lives.

But still, given how these movies have tended to portray villains as victims of outside forces, it makes sense that this movie’s Spider-Man talks about “fixing” those villains, as if to say that basic goodness is a person’s natural state, being bad is not something a person would choose, and all you have to do to make someone good is remove that outside influence.

But not so fast. The Green Goblin challenges this line of thought by asserting that Peter Parker’s goodness is, itself, the product of an outside influence. He says Peter has been “trapped” in Aunt May’s “holy moral mission,” but now he’s going to free Peter from that trap.

The question that hangs over the rest of the film is whether Peter will respond to the death of his aunt the way the Goblin expected, or whether he can prove the Goblin wrong by actively choosing a higher moral path. And it’s at this point that Tom Holland’s Peter Parker is visited by the Peter Parkers of the other films (played by Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield), both of whom have had to deal with grief and loss in their own ways, and both of whom agree to help the Peter Parker of this universe save the bad guys from their universes.

So one Peter Parker gets moral support from the other Peter Parkers. But this just raises yet another question: Where does any Peter Parker get his morality from?

In the Tobey Maguire films, it was strongly implied that he got it from his Catholic upbringing; Parker himself professed no faith, but his Uncle Ben and Aunt May quoted the Bible, said their prayers, and thanked the angels (or statues of angels) that came to their rescue. What’s more, director Sam Raimi set key scenes in or near churches, which lent a religious dimension to his morality tales. (Not for nothing does one of the other Spider-Men say Maguire’s Peter Parker is dressed like a “cool youth pastor” in the new movie.)

The Peter Parkers played by Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland are less clearly defined, and they seem to have had more difficulty ing their darker sides. Garfield’s Parker says, in the new film, that he got bitter and angry and stopped pulling his punches after his girlfriend fell to her death in his last film (the fact that he saves Holland’s Parker’s girlfriend from a similar fate in this film is another of the second chances that the film gives its characters). And while Holland’s Parker doesn’t blame any of the other villains for his Aunt May’s death, es very close to killing Norm Osborne before Maguire’s Parker intervenes.

In the end, Holland’s Parker makes the right choice, gives Norman Osborn the stuff that brings him back to his senses, and sends everyone back to their worlds. (Which of course leaves fans to ponder all the various plot holes—like, if the villains were yanked out of the middle of each movie but the Spider-Men were yanked out of their universes years after their movies ended, are the villains and the Spider-Men who saved them being sent back to the same timelines now?)

And if I may get deeper into the MCU weeds for a minute: If Holland continues to play Peter Parker, the issue that future Spider-Man films will have to deal with is how his Spidey es a hero in his own right. Holland has now played the character in six films—three solo efforts, two Avengers movies, and the Captain America movie that first introduced him in the role—and in all of them, he has either lived in Iron Man’s shadow or, in the new film, found his strength by teaming up with the Spider-Men that came before him.

Still, it’s remarkable how this film offers something quite different from the usual us-versus-them triumphalism. There’s a scene in the new film where the Spider-Men are going about their plans and M.J. (Zendaya), the girlfriend to Holland’s Peter Parker, says, “We’re going to kick some ass.” To which one of the Spider-Men replies, “Cure. We’re gonna cure some ass.” Now that’s a sentiment to lift all our spirits.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Transforming Lives in Nashville
NASHVILLE – The event was billed as an “appreciation” for the volunteers at the Christian Women’s Job Corps of Middle Tennessee and the theme for the evening was set by St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: Let us not e weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up (Gal. 6:9). By the time the program wrapped up, everyone in attendance was reminded of the plain truth that making...
Capitalism and the Common Good: The Ten Pillars of the Moral Economy
Sirico: No moral conflicts with rooting for the Tigers On Friday afternoon, Rev. Robert A. Sirico addressed an audience of Acton Supporters at the Detroit Athletic Club in Detroit, Michigan. His address was titled Capitalism and the Common Good: The Ten Pillars of the Moral Economy, and we are pleased to make it available to you here (10.5 mb mp3 file). I would be remiss if I failed to note that the event took place on the eve of the...
Power
Zenit published the following this weekend, mentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa on this Sunday’s liturgical readings (Isaiah 53:2a.,3a.,10-11; Hebrews 4:14-16; Mark 10:35-45). Well worth the read. After the Gospel on riches, this Sunday’s Gospel gives us Christ’s judgment on another of the great idols of the world: power. Power, like money, is not intrinsically evil. God describes himself as “the Omnipotent” and Scripture says “power belongs to God” (Psalm 62:11). However, given that man had abused the power granted...
Not as Sick as You Think
In a column yesterday, George Will coined a term that deserves widespread use: economic hypochondria. He criticizes the way in which the media—and many of us, even though relatively “healthy,” financially—pounce on every bit of news that might be interpreted as indicating economic hardship. Will’s column has a certain partisan bent to it, but one needn’t be a Republican to see the larger point. As liberal writer Gregg Easterbrook observed in The Progress Paradox, even the poorest Americans enjoy a...
Stossel and Symmetric Information
Jim Aune, blogger-in-chief at The plained yesterday about his health care treatment. He says, “I have been in constant pain for 36 hours. I actually used a cane to go to the office yesterday for some meetings. The problem? I have a trapped nerve in my abdomen from a double hernia repair a year ago. I got shot up with steroids about 3 weeks ago, and that worked for about 5 days, but I still can’t walk without a ripping...
Moyers/Beisner/Akin Kerfuffle
As noted here, last week PBS ran a special by Bill Moyers’, “Is God Green?” examining the “new” trend among evangelicals toward stewardship of the environment. Arguably what is “new” about this move is its coherence with liberal/leftist environmentalism. As also noted previously, “The munity for 5,000 years or more has taken its responsibility for the environment seriously. The whole concept of ‘stewardship’ is one es directly from sacred texts.” Stewardship isn’t new. Perhaps the method for stewardship proposed is....
From Edwards to Darwin, Abraham to Jesus
Two quick items: First, in unrelated projects, the works of Jonathan Edwards (HT: Reformation21) and Charles Darwin (HT: Slashdot) are set to be digitized and accessible online. Looks like the Darwin set plete, and the Edwards works are in public beta, with only the Miscellanies and sermons available as yet. And second, I’m headed to the exhibit, “From Abraham to Jesus,” tonight, called “the largest touring exhibit of sacred text, biblical art, and artifacts in history.” The tour opens in...
Beisner Responds
In the latest Interfaith Stewardship Alliance newsletter, dated Oct. 21, Cal Beisner passes along his response to the letters sent by Bill Moyers’ legal counsel (background on the matter with related links here). Here’s what Beisner says as related through his own counsel: Your letter of October 18, 2006, to Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and your letter of October 19, 2006, to Dr. E. Calvin Beisner have been sent to me by my clients for reply. I have carefully examined the...
Faithfulness in Biblical Interpretation
I ran across the following quote from Søren Kierkegaard recently (HT: the evangelical outpost): The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say,...
The Catholicity of the Reformation: Musings on Reason, Will, and Natural Law, Part 4
As promised in Part 3, this post will begin a discussion of natural law in the thought of the Reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), but first I want to touch on the broader issue of natural law in the context of Reformation theology. More than any other Reformer, John Calvin is appealed to for his insight on natural law. This is probably due to the stubborn persistence among scholars to single him out as the chief early codifier of Protestant...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved