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
Oct 30, 2025 2:36 PM

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
Video: Michael Matheson Miller Critiques Celebrity Poverty Campaigns
Acton Institute Research Fellow and Director of Poverty, Inc. Michael Matheson Miller made an appearance on Fox Business Channel last week to discuss how his documentary addresses the issue of celebrity efforts at poverty alleviation, noting that often, such campaigns can do more harm than good. You can watch the interview below. ...
Explainer: Puerto Rico’s Financial Crisis
The monwealth of Puerto Rico is struggling under a massive $72 billion debt and a decade-long economic recession. Here is what you should know about the ongoing financial crisis: How did the debt crisis happen? During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s the U.S. military invaded the Spanish-owned island of Puerto Rico. After the war ended, the U.S. retained control, making the islands an unincorporated territory and the residents U.S. citizens. In 1917, Congress passed the Puerto Rican Federal...
Explainer: Supreme Court Punts on Little Sisters Religious Liberty Case
What just happened? The Supreme Court avoided issuing a major ruling today in bined religious liberty case, Zubik v. Burwell. In a unanimous decision, the justices wrote that the Court “expresses no view on the merits of the cases” but were instead sending the case back down to the lower courts for opposing parties to work out promise. What is this case, and what’s it about? The case, Zubik v. bines seven challenges to the Health and Human Services’ (HHS)...
4 Theories About the Business Cycle
Expansion. Contraction. Repeat. For almost 200 years, we’ve recognized this boom-and-bust pattern as the business cycle, the downward and upward movement of gross domestic product (GDP) around its long-term growth trend. But while we all know what it is, we don’t always agree on what causes the business cycle. In the following series of four videos, economist Tyler Cowen briefly explains four different theories —Austrian Theory, Keynesian Theory, Monetarist Theory, and Real Business Cycle Theory —and highlights some of the...
Audio: Samuel Gregg on God, Profit, and the Common Good
Acton Institute Director of Research Samuel Gregg joined host John Harper on Relevant Radio’sMorning Air on Friday morning to discuss his latest book,For God and Profit: How Banking and Finance Can Serve the Common Good.Banking and finance are vitally important institutions in a free and prosperous society, and ordered properly contribute a great deal to mon good. The real question of the day is whether or not our banking and finance systems are properly ordered, and if they have gotten...
Don’t Politicize Transgender Issue
I want to be very clear from the outset that moral concerns surrounding transgender identity are not unimportant. But in the likely event that we e to any national consensus on that question any time soon, it is important not to overlook other moral and social concerns that are far more pressing. In particular, there are legitimate concerns regarding safety and privacy, no matter which side one favors, but resorting to the force of law will leave some real victims...
The Power—and Danger—in Luther’s Concept of Work
“MartinLuther probably did more than any Protestant to establish thetheology of work many Christians embrace today,” says Dan Doriani. “Like no theologian before him, he insisted on the dignity and value of all labor.” Doriani highlights many of Luther’s positive contributions to the theology of work, but warnsthat it can lead to confusing “work” and “vocation”: There is occupation without vocation. One can earn bread as a cashier, cook, nanny, or salesperson without hearing a call to that life. A...
ICCR’s Rules for Radical Nuns
What is it with nuns crusading against corporate lobbying? This fad of recent years has grabbed headlines as orders such as the Sisters of Mercy and the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia gravitated toward political actions as members of shareholder activist group the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. Seems there’s nothing alternately cuter pelling than a nun “speaking truth” to corporate power as the ICCR nuns do each year in their campaign against lobbying and donations to nonprofit organizations such as...
The Regulatory State Adds ‘Ten Thousand Commandments’ Every Year
In the Old Testament there mandments. Apparently,God deemed those to be enough to regulate almost every aspect of the lives of his people for thousands of years. You could read all of them in less than 30 minutes. The American federal government, however, is not so succinct. There are over 1 million restrictions in the federal regulations alone (i.e., not counting the statutory law). And thousands more are added every year. Each year the Competitive Enterprise Institute puts out annual...
Sisters’ ExxonMobil Resolution More Gaia Than Catholic
Divination, bearing false witness and pantheism are three no-no’s of Christianity. You could look it up. I know from personal experience that many of my fellow pewsitters in the Catholic tradition fail in their attempts to obey the strictures of the faith by seeking out tarot cards, Ouija boards, horoscopes and the like. Many of us are guilty also of spreading deceit, bald-faced lies or even plete and unsettled facts as ontological truths. This has been a problem for some...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved