With the announcement of Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe and being rebooted again, does this mean The Amazing Spider-Man series will be forgotten in the future? Whether you liked them or not, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was clearly the more influential series to the superhero genre and with the immense success of MCU, wouldn't Webb's films just be forgotten as they were right between the two? This was just something I was thinking about the other day.
My guess is that while they'll always have their fans, they'd be probably the least discussed incarnation of Spider-Man by the general public. Garfield would likely become the Timothy Dalton of the franchise, meaning that he'll have a cult following among fans, but won't necessarily be iconic in the role.
What do you think?
Discuss...
Quote from: mrrockey on Mon, 2 Mar 2015, 02:12
With the announcement of Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe and being rebooted again, does this mean The Amazing Spider-Man series will be forgotten in the future? Whether you liked them or not, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was clearly the more influential series to the superhero genre and with the immense success of MCU, wouldn't Webb's films just be forgotten as they were right between the two? This was just something I was thinking about the other day.
My guess is that while they'll always have their fans, they'd be probably the least discussed incarnation of Spider-Man by the general public. Garfield would likely become the Timothy Dalton of the franchise, meaning that he'll have a cult following among fans, but won't necessarily be iconic in the role.
What do you think?
Discuss...
I think you're right mrrockey.
I'm glad that the franchise will once again be rebooted because although I liked both Andrew Garfield films I thought TASM 2 was overstuffed and thus I wasn't really that keen on seeing this particular franchise continue (my main issue with TASM 2 was that the relationship between Peter and Harry was as rushed and contrived as the origin story for Venom in the similarly maligned Spider-Man 3 from the previous franchise - at least Sam Raimi made
two coherent Spider-Man films before it went pear-shaped). I also look forward to finally seeing Spider-Man incorporated into the same Marvel Universe as the Hulk, Captain America and Daredevil, and by extension one of his best foes, Kingpin (I hope Marvel Studios finds some way to have Spider-Man and Netflix's Daredevil characters cross paths).
All that said, it's a shame that we'll never get a satisfying resolution to the Garfield franchise. Peter won't track the man who killed his uncle, he'll never get to discover the full story behind his parents' death and Harry Osborn will never get his revenge against Parker and assemble the Sinister Six (although I've read mixed reports as to whether 'The Sinister Six' is still on - surely it can't be now that the franchise is being rebooted and we're to be introduced to a new Spider-Man). At least Raimi's trilogy, whether it was intended as such, tied up all its lose ends, with Parker ending up with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn finally coming good and risking his life to save his best friend. The final shot of Parker and Mary Jane on top of a skyscraper looking out at a beautiful sunset does, in retrospect, honour the very opening line of Raimi's first Spider-Man film where Parker tells us "this story is about a girl [Mary Jane]" and so by accident rather than design we ended up with a coherent three-act franchise with a clear beginning (Spider-Man's origins), middle (everything going bad for our hero with him facing doubts about his destiny and falling out with his best friend) and end (facing off against his toughest foe, Venom, reconciling with his best friend and apparently set to be together with Mary Jane for the rest of their lives).
As far as Mark Webb/Andrew Garfield's prematurely ended franchise goes, that's the risk you take with a sequential narrative; that if one of the films fails to do adequate business or someone drops out the series will end in a infortune place. That's why I'd separate TASM films from Timothy Dalton's short stint as James Bond. Although I'm sure Dalton (incidentally my favourite pre-Daniel Craig Bond) was no doubt intended to return for more than a couple of Bond films at least each of his movies, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill, are self-contained stories (albeit ones that make some occasional oblique references to previous Bond films starring other leads), similar to Burton's two Batman movies. One can feel cheated that we didn't get more Dalton-headed Bond films or Burton-directed Batman movies, but the integrity of TLD and LTK, or Batman and Batman Returns, isn't compromised by the absence of any follow-ups. By contrast, TASM franchise will always seem somewhat incomplete due to the dangling plot-threads left unresolved by the end of TASM2.
Truth is, there were many against the Webb films long before they were released, namely bitter Raimi fans. Then there are those who just didn't like them as they came out and hoped that the film rights would go back to Marvel.
I for one liked the two Webb films a bit more than I liked the Raimi films, so I won't forget them, but it's clear to see why Raimi and the future Marvel Spider-Man are preferred.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 28 Mar 2015, 08:38
Truth is, there were many against the Webb films long before they were released, namely bitter Raimi fans. Then there are those who just didn't like them as they came out and hoped that the film rights would go back to Marvel.
I for one liked the two Webb films a bit more than I liked the Raimi films, so I won't forget them, but it's clear to see why Raimi and the future Marvel Spider-Man are preferred.
Bingo. Also there wasn't a craving for a reboot of Spidey. Not too many people were happy about a reboot in 2012, Raimi fans were upset and hated it from the getgo, other fans (myself included) would have preferred a fourth film instead. Also plenty wanted spidey in the MCU.
Now if you ignore every thing else with the exception of the comics, you'd be hard pressed not to enjoy them. The acting is quite strong and the love interest was excellent. They found a way to make spidey cool without sacrificing the character. The smart ass spidey was captuered well (though I think can be done better). The unresolved cliff hanger will be a negative, I guess similar to the ending of Batman and Robin, we're left to believe that the hero's job is never done as there will always be bad people.
I think it depends on what happens next. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were heavily panned for a good 10 years or so but Nolans fans really divided batman fans and some preferred the more fun and campy approach Schumacher took. Nolans films were polar opposite of Schumachers but those who didn't like the Nolan films can have more of an appreciation for Joels. So for instance if Spidey doesn't come off as intelligent or the love interest isn't handled well, there might be favourable comparisons to what Webb got right.
Yes they will probably be forgotten to a degree. The biggest problem with the Webb movies is that there's no real sense of identity with the movies.
The first one tries to aim for that grounded more realistic tone that made Nolan's Batman movies popular, and the second tries to be more like a MCU movie and has a lighter tone.
I agree. In my opinion, they haven't dropped the ball with any of the Spider-Man films. The first three are the best, even though SM3 will always have a cloud hanging over it for some people. TASM is my least favourite, but I don't hate it. It's probably a 7/10 for me. TASM2 has developed a bad reputation, but I genuinely enjoy it. However yes, the Webb films are destined to fade into the background. Raimi is still considered the king, and rightly so. I have my fingers crossed for the new MCU version. I just hope Holland is good, and stays in the role for some time. The franchise needs stability. No more reboots.
I like the first two Sam Raimi films and TASM, but I think they dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3 and TASM2, where they stuffed each film with too many villains and too little backstory. I have faith that the MCU will do justice to the character and build each story and conflict organically, as I feel they have done so far with the vast majority of their movies (AOU is the only one that arguably felt overcrowded, and in that instance that was more to do with the heroes than the villain, seeing as there was only really one main villain).
Upon revisiting the five films from 2002-2014, Spider-Man 3 is the only one I don't like. I wish Webb had the chance to give us a conclusion to his series.
Both series have their strengths and weaknesses but both are good overall, save for Raimi's third film. I felt Raimi had had the better written villains and coherent stories in his first two than Webb, while Webb had a better romance and Peter Parker characterization more to my taste. And I actually like TASM2 quite a bit.
TASM is probably the one I like least looking back, but it's still not bad. Interesting to see where Marvel will take the character.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 15:25
Upon revisiting the five films from 2002-2014, Spider-Man 3 is the only one I don't like. I wish Webb had the chance to give us a conclusion to his series.
Both series have their strengths and weaknesses but both are good overall, save for Raimi's third film. I felt Raimi had had the better written villains and coherent stories in his first two than Webb, while Webb had a better romance and Peter Parker characterization more to my taste. And I actually like TASM2 quite a bit.
TASM is probably the one I like least looking back, but it's still not bad. Interesting to see where Marvel will take the character.
I actually found TASM2 very entertaining when I saw it at the cinema. But it's one of those films I ended up liking less the more I thought about it. It's highly watchable but the need to squeeze in so many characters and contrivances (like Peter and Harry's friendship which came straight out of nowhere and sadly didn't add anything to the story, in contrast to the poignant dynamic between the pair in the Raimi movies) ruins it for me. :-\
And I think 'coherence' is bang on. The reason why the (first two) Raimi films work better than Webb's movies is that the earlier films had a more coherent structure/narrative. I hope that in devising the new MCU-integrated reboot the filmmakers have coherence at the front of their thoughts.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 15:52
Quote from: Max Shreck on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 15:25
Upon revisiting the five films from 2002-2014, Spider-Man 3 is the only one I don't like. I wish Webb had the chance to give us a conclusion to his series.
Both series have their strengths and weaknesses but both are good overall, save for Raimi's third film. I felt Raimi had had the better written villains and coherent stories in his first two than Webb, while Webb had a better romance and Peter Parker characterization more to my taste. And I actually like TASM2 quite a bit.
TASM is probably the one I like least looking back, but it's still not bad. Interesting to see where Marvel will take the character.
I actually found TASM2 very entertaining when I saw it at the cinema. But it's one of those films I ended up liking less the more I thought about it. It's highly watchable but the need to squeeze in so many characters and contrivances (like Peter and Harry's friendship which came straight out of nowhere and sadly didn't add anything to the story, in contrast to the poignant dynamic between the pair in the Raimi movies) ruins it for me. :-\
And I think 'coherence' is bang on. The reason why the (first two) Raimi films work better than Webb's movies is that the earlier films had a more coherent structure/narrative. I hope that in devising the new MCU-integrated reboot the filmmakers have coherence at the front of their thoughts.
I didn't have the problem you had with TASM2, but I've been hard on the Raimi films for a long time because the protagonist and the romance weren't done to my taste, they're actually good films in most areas. I hope the Marvel film(s) combine the coherence with the comic book accurate characterization to give us the best Spider-Man thus far. :)
Quote from: Max Shreck on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 15:25
I felt Raimi had had the better written villains and coherent stories in his first two than Webb, while Webb had a better romance and Peter Parker characterization more to my taste.
I agree with that. The Emma Stone/Andrew Garfield combo is the TASM series' main strength. And while I liked Dunst just fine, the TASM romance was just better. But indeed, in terms of basically everything else, especially the villains, Raimi was superior in my eyes. I wish Raimi had the chance to do his fourth, but that's history. Webb's two weren't all that bad.
Glad to see people accepting different versions. I have a feeling Webb kept quite a few tricks in the bag; it seems very obvious he had bigger plans for Norman and Harry Osborn in future films. Sadly with nothing left to come, they basically become pointless characters (other than killing gwen, you could honestly remove the Osborns entirely from the films without losing plot).
One area where comic book films can fail is making the villains the main characters. None of the spidey films so far have done that, if anything some of the villains have been underdeveloped (Venom and all 3 in ASM2). For instance all the batman films get criticized to some extent at not focusing on Batman enough but nobody makes this argument for spidey films. One thing Webb accomplished as well was making entertaining films while using second rate rogues; another argument that he may have saved his best for the untold future are that Doc Ock and venom went unused.
NO doubt though even the biggest critics would have to concede that the Gwen/Peter dynamic was handled excellently. I guess the best way to view the Webb films is as they are; ignore Raimi, ignore the MCU, ignore the unresolved cliffhanger. Enjoy them for what they are and assume that Spider-man will have more adventures to come.
Marc Webb discusses the scrapped plans for Amazing Spider-Man 3http://www.darkhorizons.com/webb-talks-scrapped-amazing-spider-man-3/
Quote"They were going to make a 'Sinister Six' movie before we did the third [Spider-Man movie]. Chris Cooper was going to come back and play the Goblin. We were going to freeze his head, and then he was going to be brought back to life... [Norman Osborn] was going to be the main villain. He was going to come out and lead the Sinister Six. We had talked about Vulture a little bit too, actually.
And then there was that character called The Gentleman. We had some notions about how to do it, but I think maybe we were thinking too far ahead when we started building in those things. But it was a fun exercise. I look back very fondly on those days."
To be honest, and even though I can't say I was a zealous proponent of the ASM franchise (though Marvel's
Homecoming has made me appreciate the first ASM alot more now), this might have been interesting to see. If even just to see how Chris Cooper would have been like as a full-on active Norman Osborn Green Goblin.
With the Sinister Six, I can't say Gobby being the leader of the Sinister Six does anything for me, I guess I could have rolled with it since adaptations often play loose with the source material, but I would assume that Sony's hope of Matt Damon as Doc Ock for the Sinister Six movie would have assuredly had him leading the team in the actual Sinister Six movie. I can only guess that signing Damon up for just one film, rather than two, would have been a much easier argument on Sony's part, and Ock would have been killed off by the conclusion of the Six film, thus leaving the door open for Norman Osborn's resurrection and subsequent leadership of the Six for ASM 3.
People ridicule the idea nowadays. But Spider-Man of all comic book characters has a ton of potential for spinoffs and something akin to a shared universe. It isn't a crazy idea.
...
I want my Spider-Man 2099 movie, dammit.
From what I've heard, TASM2 seems to be a much better film than Homedumming on paper.
TASM2 got grilled for downplaying Uncle Ben's importance. Hey, at least we saw him in the first film, and he was mentioned by name in the sequel. Homedumming apparently flat out IGNORES Uncle Ben. It's all about Tony Stark as the male role model. Aunt May (who has never, ever been depicted as a young woman) does not even remotely seem to be a widow who has lost the love of her life via murder. She just seems to be handled as a one-note hot mom sidejoke. Gotta say, I get they wanted to do something different, but that just sucks. Emotional depth? Gone.
TASM2's Peter fights crime because he wants to protect the city from danger. Homedumming's Peter only stopped crime to impress Tony Stark and get a starring role with the Avengers. And this happens long after Uncle Ben's supposed death (if it ever happened). He should've been way past this mentality.
Homedumming characters like Flash Thompson don't remotely look like their comic counterparts.
Young Peter retconned to appear in Iron Man 2? Get out of town.
Homedumming's computerized suit takes away a lot from the character's own skills and ingenuity in my opinion. Spider sense? Hah. Who needs that when you have a computer telling you everything. Web combinations? The computer will figure that out. This is Iron Man tech applied to Spider-Man and that doesn't sit well with me. Sure, Marvel has again tried something new. But I feel an integral aspect has been lost and I'll never back down from that. For Spidey, more so than any other character, the suit should just be a costume. The powers come from HIM, not the suit.
That's all I can really say without having seen the film.
#tobeyforlife
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 01:55TASM2 got grilled for downplaying Uncle Ben's importance. Hey, at least we saw him in the first film, and he was mentioned by name in the sequel. Homedumming apparently flat out IGNORES Uncle Ben. It's all about Tony Stark as the male role model.
Tony is barely in the movie and the whole story for Peter is not looking to others and being his own hero. Tony likely benefits more from this experience than Peter does. More than anything it's a tale of humility for Peter, of realizing his friendly neighborhoodness is what makes him who he is. It's the worst part of the movie unquestionably, that Ben isn't mentioned by name or talked about. But he's not ignored outright. Peter alludes to the Ben situation in Civil War and in this says that he doesn't want to upset May after all she's been thru. It's poor canon wise, but not ignoring.
QuoteAunt May (who has never, ever been depicted as a young woman)
If that's a complaint, it's a weightless one.
QuoteTASM2's Peter fights crime because he wants to protect the city from danger. Homedumming's Peter only stopped crime to impress Tony Stark and get a starring role with the Avengers. And this happens long after Uncle Ben's supposed death (if it ever happened). He should've been way past this mentality.
He's only been spider-man mere months and he was fighting crime before Tony even found him. Peter literally verbatim says in Civil War that he does what he does to help the little guy.
QuoteHomedumming characters like Flash Thompson don't remotely look like their comic counterparts.
The way they look isn't important for characters that barely matter to the story. It means literally nothing how Ned Leeds, Betty Brant, Liz Allan and Flash Thompson look. The ideal situation is that at least half looks more like their canon versions, but it's very minor that they don't.
QuoteSpider sense? Hah. Who needs that when you have a computer telling you everything.
He has spider-sense. We saw it in Civil War.
QuoteFor Spidey, more so than any other character, the suit should just be a costume. The powers come from HIM, not the suit.
Peter made the webbing, shooters, has spider-sense, strength, agility and wall crawling all on his own. Honestly I'll take this over the version that stole or bought his web from oscorp. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 02:42
If that's a complaint, it's a weightless one.
By your standards it is weightless. I'm not using your standards. My complaints about May are more than just the fact she's never been depicted as a young woman, which I don't like. Aunt May is a massively important Spider-Man character and I say she's been bungled.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 02:42
Peter alludes to the Ben situation in Civil War and in this says that he doesn't want to upset May after all she's been thru. It's poor canon wise, but not ignoring.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 02:42
He's only been spider-man mere months and he was fighting crime before Tony even found him. Peter literally verbatim says in Civil War that he does what he does to help the little guy.
This talk is hilarious coming from you. Colors and myself get slapped down for bringing up Man of Steel when discussing Dawn of Justice, but you bring in Civil War when talking about Homedumming.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 02:42
The way they look isn't important for characters that barely matter to the story. It means literally nothing how Ned Leeds, Betty Brant, Liz Allan and Flash Thompson look. The ideal situation is that at least half looks more like their canon versions, but it's very minor that they don't.
Again, your standards not mine. Homedumming made a deliberate politically correct, diversity point with their casting decisions. The look of the characters was a big deal for Marvel. Flash looks nothing like Flash. 'MJ' doesn't look like MJ. That's just a fact. Just slapping on the name doesn't work for me. Emma Stone at least looked like Gwen.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 02:42
He has spider-sense. We saw it in Civil War.
Again, you bring up Civil War in a discussion about Homecoming. But if we bring up Man of Steel in a Dawn of Justice debate, it doesn't apply for some reason.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 02:42
Peter made the webbing, shooters, has spider-sense, strength, agility and wall crawling all on his own. Honestly I'll take this over the version that stole or bought his web from oscorp.
Every single incarnation of Peter Peter has strength, agility and wall crawling on his own. TASM2 isn't a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, but in comparison to the new canon's concepts, I think it's better.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 03:30By your standards it is weightless. I'm not using your standards. My complaints about May are more than just the fact she's never been depicted as a young woman, which I don't like. Aunt May is a massively important Spider-Man character and I say she's been bungled.
If it's more than that, it doesn't apply to my comment, just the looks part.
QuoteThis talk is hilarious coming from you. Colors and myself get slapped down for bringing up Man of Steel when discussing Dawn of Justice, but you bring in Civil War when talking about Homedumming.
DOJ, like Homecoming, doesn't make anything matter more in the previous movies. HC has forward momentum. The situation you're bringing up I think, was trying to use the sequel to justify the first movie. Forward momentum doesn't work backwards.
QuoteAgain, your standards not mine. Homedumming made a deliberate politically correct, diversity point with their casting decisions. The look of the characters was a big deal for Marvel. Flash looks nothing like Flash. 'MJ' doesn't look like MJ. That's just a fact. Just slapping on the name doesn't work for me. Emma Stone at least looked like Gwen.
Michelle MJ doesn't look like Mary-Jane Watson because she's not. It's dumb, but that's a different issue. Flash is still bully of sorts. Batman can be played by Idris Elba for all I care, as long as it's the character. Needless racechanging is pointless and dumb, but minor.
QuoteAgain, you bring up Civil War in a discussion about Homecoming. But if we bring up Man of Steel in a Dawn of Justice debate, it doesn't apply for some reason.
CW is before HC. DOJ is after MOS.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 01:55
From what I've heard, TASM2 seems to be a much better film than Homedumming on paper.
TASM2 got grilled for downplaying Uncle Ben's importance. Hey, at least we saw him in the first film, and he was mentioned by name in the sequel. Homedumming apparently flat out IGNORES Uncle Ben. It's all about Tony Stark as the male role model. Aunt May (who has never, ever been depicted as a young woman) does not even remotely seem to be a widow who has lost the love of her life via murder. She just seems to be handled as a one-note hot mom sidejoke. Gotta say, I get they wanted to do something different, but that just sucks. Emotional depth? Gone.
TASM2's Peter fights crime because he wants to protect the city from danger. Homedumming's Peter only stopped crime to impress Tony Stark and get a starring role with the Avengers. And this happens long after Uncle Ben's supposed death (if it ever happened). He should've been way past this mentality.
Homedumming characters like Flash Thompson don't remotely look like their comic counterparts.
Young Peter retconned to appear in Iron Man 2? Get out of town.
Homedumming's computerized suit takes away a lot from the character's own skills and ingenuity in my opinion. Spider sense? Hah. Who needs that when you have a computer telling you everything. Web combinations? The computer will figure that out. This is Iron Man tech applied to Spider-Man and that doesn't sit well with me. Sure, Marvel has again tried something new. But I feel an integral aspect has been lost and I'll never back down from that. For Spidey, more so than any other character, the suit should just be a costume. The powers come from HIM, not the suit.
That's all I can really say without having seen the film.
#tobeyforlife
Do you think audiences would have preferred to sit through Ben's death a third time? Just like how they didn't show the spider bite because they figured the general audiences know or have seen this stuff by now, they want to see something different. If you haven't seen the film, it makes sense why you would think Tony Stark plays a big role but the reality is that Jon Favreau got more screen time than Robert Downey Jr. The movie does deal with the source of Peter's powers being his own vs. the suit.
And if you haven't seen it, you can't possibly refute this point: Michael Keaton's Vulture blows away ANY of the previous spider-man villains.
Quote
And if you haven't seen it, you can't possibly refute this point: Michael Keaton's Vulture blows away ANY of the previous spider-man villains.
Sorry, but I disagree with this. I like Keaton like everybody else here, but I saw nothing special about the Vulture.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 05:45
Do you think audiences would have preferred to sit through Ben's death a third time?
Where did I say I wanted this? The answer is I didn't.
From what I know, Uncle Ben is NOT mentioned by name at all. Civil War doesn't mention Uncle Ben by name either. That's a stone cold fact that cannot be denied. He's simply not an important person in this universe, if he even exists. A line or two with his name would've sufficed, ala TASM2, but it seems we get
nothing. I don't care if Tony Stank is in the film for one minute or one hour. Peter looks up to the guy with admiration and gets handed a fancy suit which he then keeps. In the complete absence of Uncle Ben or Uncle Ben's ghost, he's Peter's male father figure. Don't show Uncle Ben's murder again - fine. But at least mention him a couple of times. He's a huge part of the Spider-Man mythos and I think ignoring him is a travesty.
Civil War is used as evidence Peter has spider sense, even though HC doesn't show this feature at all.
Civil War is used as evidence Uncle Ben could exist, even though HC doesn't mention him at all.
We have people trying to use the CW to justify the sequel's complete and utter absence of these aspects. But I'm sure if this was MoS/BvS, we'd be told a film should be able to stand alone as a piece of cinema, regardless of what transpired before it.
As expected, we get more spin and double standards.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 06:40From what I know, Uncle Ben is NOT mentioned by name at all. Civil War doesn't mention Uncle Ben by name either. That's a stone cold fact that cannot be denied. He’s simply not an important person in this universe, if he even exists.
Him not being mentioned by name is a far cry from not being important, because that's simply not true. He is. He's Peter's motivation for his heroism. Should it be stated outright? Yes. Is it the movie's biggest problem? Yes. But he's not ignored and is important.
QuoteA line or two with his name would’ve sufficed, ala TASM2, but it seems we get nothing. I don't care if Tony Stank is in the film for one minute or one hour. Peter looks up to the guy with admiration and gets handed a fancy suit which he then keeps. In the complete absence of Uncle Ben or Uncle Ben's ghost, he's Peter's male father figure. Don't show Uncle Ben's murder again - fine. But at least mention him a couple of times. He's a huge part of the Spider-Man mythos and I think ignoring him is a travesty.
You're ignoring the whole point of the movie, which is actually a similar one to Raimi's, and that's that the tech cool father figure Peter looks up to as a hero, he shouldn't look up to. Tony isn't a real father figure. He's a cautionary tale for Peter. Him keeping the suit is honestly the easiest way for us to get the classic eye moving look, which I'm fine with. The point is he rejects being Iron Man and becomes his own hero.
QuoteCivil War is used as evidence Peter has spider sense, even though HC doesn't show this feature at all.
Civil War is used as evidence Uncle Ben could exist, even though HC doesn't mention him at all.
We have people trying to use the CW to justify the sequel's complete and utter absence of these aspects. But I'm sure if this was MoS/BvS, we'd be told a film should be able to stand alone as a piece of cinema, regardless of what transpired before it.
Whenever you have a movie that's building on a previously established foundation, the story may be standalone, but the whole canon should be taken into account. Homecoming won't retroactively change anything about Civil War though. All Homecoming can do is build upwards from what Civil War established. Just like all DOJ can do is build on MOS, not the reverse. Unless we're dealing with prequels. No one's saying these things shouldn't be established more efficiently in this movie though. They should. There are problems with the movie. It's more flawed than Raimi's initial movie. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
I just think these criticisms are too harsh.
Yes I can confirm that through Civil War and Homecoming there has been no reference to Peter having an Uncle or the name "Ben", the closest is the implication that May has recently suffered loss in her life. We all know how important Ben is to Peter within the mythology of the character but you just can't recapture with dialogue the chemistry we saw between Tobey Maquire and Cliff Robertson and then Andrew Garfield and Martin Sheen. I just don't feel a few Ben references would have improved the movie, it does an adequate job expressing Peter's motivations and we can't ignore the fact that unlike Maguire and Garfield, this version of Peter Parker would have grown up in a world where superheroes and villains exist in his neighbourhood so in a way, becoming Spider-man solely because of a responsibility to Ben isn't as effective, in fact it borders on silly for a teenage boy to feel HE needs to protect a city already protected by the Avengers. It makes more sense for him to want to become an Avenger. Also it's not as if they can't circle back and address the Ben character in a future film.
Wit respect to the spider-sense, let's call a spade a spade here. EVERY spider-man live action film has been inconsistent with the spider sense and had moments where Peter didn't sense things he shouldn't. The movie also addresses the suit aspect. He became spider-man on his own, making his first suit which he later dons in Homecoming. The Stark suit does help him but he does go without it on occasion. The trailers don't show much of it but in the third act once Tony takes the suit back and that is the point. Peter was relying too much on the suit, once it was taken away he had to rely on himself. Peter states he's nothing without the suit so Tony takes it away and forces him to become something without the suit and he does. The door is now open for us to see different spidey suits and I for one am excited about that.
I wonder if the fact that their father figures were recently killed will help bring Peter Parker and Peter Quill together?
That's main objective with ALOT of this movie; to be different.
It's like Disney really wanted to make a Miles Morales Spider-Man movie, but wasn't brave enough to pull the trigger.
Hence all the "In Name Only" supporting character's such as goofball High School BFF Ned Leeds, Liz TOOMES, Michelle "MJ" Jones, Eugene "Flash about as menacing as Daniel Larusso" Thompson, "Hot" MILF Aunt May. ect
In a nutshell, it's lazy writing. Rather than being demanding of yourself to remain reasonably within the confines of the source material, it's clear as day that Disney decided dramatically changing characters (in more ways than just appearance) to suit their MCU interests was more important. It's the same old song; the characters being made to serve the agenda, instead of serving the needs of the characters.
As far as a writer goes, that's what's known as "a challenge". Not a reason to change the characters and dynamics.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 06:40We have people trying to use the CW to justify the sequel's complete and utter absence of these aspects. But I'm sure if this was MoS/BvS, we'd be told a film should be able to stand alone as a piece of cinema, regardless of what transpired before it.
As expected, we get more spin and double standards.
Don't you know? They're totally different. Because anything that isn't the exact same must be the exact opposite. They're not exactly the same which means they're total different, don't you get it? :D
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 23:11Don't you know? They're totally different. Because anything that isn't the exact same must be the exact opposite. They're not exactly the same which means they're total different, don't you get it? :D
Whenever you have a movie that's building on a previously established foundation, the story may be standalone, but the whole canon should be taken into account. Homecoming won't retroactively change anything about Civil War though. All Homecoming can do is build upwards from what Civil War established. Just like all DOJ can do is build on MOS, not the reverse.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 23:11
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 06:40We have people trying to use the CW to justify the sequel's complete and utter absence of these aspects. But I'm sure if this was MoS/BvS, we'd be told a film should be able to stand alone as a piece of cinema, regardless of what transpired before it.
As expected, we get more spin and double standards.
Don't you know? They're totally different. Because anything that isn't the exact same must be the exact opposite. They're not exactly the same which means they're total different, don't you get it? :D
Via digging, I know Homecoming retroactively shows Peter was video blogging in Civil War, right before he jumps out to reveal himself at the airport. If showing another side of past events is a crime, Homecoming and the MCU Spider-Man is guilty too. But y'know, this is completely different to showing another side of the Metropolis attack in BvS. Just as Marvel retroactively made Iron Man 2 Peter's first canon appearance. BvS builds upon MoS as well, because uh, it's a sequel. But all we get is double standards and semantics.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 12 Aug 2017, 00:52Via digging, I know Homecoming retroactively shows Peter was video blogging in Civil War, right before he jumps out to reveal himself at the airport. If showing another side of past events is a crime, Homecoming and the MCU Spider-Man is guilty too. But y'know, this is completely different to showing another side of the Metropolis attack in BvS. Just as Marvel retroactively made Iron Man 2 Peter's first canon appearance. BvS builds upon MoS as well, because uh, it's a sequel. But all we get is double standards and semantics.
Neither changes anything about their previous movies. Homecoming doesn't change anything about Iron Man 2. And BvS changes nothing about MOS. It's all the same. The vlog thing hurts Homecoming and nothing else. It changes nothing about Civil War.
I think shoehorning Peter as the kid from Iron Man 2 is silly for the simple reason that we KNOW that couldn't have been the intention back then but I don't fret about it because it has never been stated in any film that the kid was in fact Peter. I have no issue with either BcS or Homecoming showing part of a previous film from a different perspective. This concept has been around since "Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" showed an alternate form of Hamlet (which Disney also incorporated into a Lion King spin off with Timon and Pumba) both films managed to pull it off without contradicting previous films.
The tough thing with a shared universe is the inevitable question "what was this hero doing when this was going on?" So now we have answers to why Batman never showed up when superman fought Zod or what Peter was doing during the Civil War before Tony recruited him. Wonder Woman did the same thing too and expanded on BvS and since we've already seen bits and pieces of them already, I wouldn't be surprised if Justice League gives a similar treatment to Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman. If DC can keep pulling this off, this may give them a leg up on Marvel since this further connects their shared universe and gives people a reason to watch every individual film.
You guys know I don't like to take a side in the Marvel vs DC debate but consider the following: half the phase two films could be skipped over completely without losing any continuity; Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 didn't really add anything to the MCU continuity and it's taking 3 years and two films for any aspect of Guardians to cross over into ANY of the other films. On the DCEU side though, even Suicide Squad which is the most stand alone of its films is well connected; Batman and Bruce Wayne are in it, the Flash makes a cameo, the death of Superman is addressed. Suicide Squad may actually end up being a key cog in this plan, most people would admit that one of DC's biggest advantages over MARVEL is a better rogue gallery of villains so this is a better way of showcasing them and even giving us films from the bad guys side. Marvel just doesn't have the lineup of villains to pull this off, their best answer is the sinister six and those are all Spider-man villains.
Honestly, I don't think any of the Spider-Man films are bad. Some are better than others, but I think even the weaker entries are average at worst.
I watched Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance for the first time the other night. Now
that's a bad superhero film. Abrupt night-to-day transitions, inconsistent colour temperature, unmotivated camera movements, overuse of Dutch-angle shots, horrible overacting (especially from Cage), dreadful CGI, flagrant disregard for the 180-degree rule, obnoxious overbearing soundtrack, predictable storyline, insipid action scenes, cringey humour, emotional disconnection between the characters, overuse of low-angle close-ups and bizarre framing of the lead actor's face (either the directors filmed it open matte and didn't realise where the black bars were going to go, or else they shot is anamorphically and deliberately framed each close-up to crop out Cage's receding hairline). It's a 3/10 at best. I mean... just look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-iCSo5_sv8
This came out in 2011. Those effects. 2011! :-[
But the Spider-Man films? Even the worst entry is worth a 5 or 6 out of 10. They're all competently made on a technical level. And I can honestly say I've enjoyed all of them. Even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which objectively is probably the weakest entry, has a lot going for it. I've watched it a couple of times lately and I still enjoy it. Rather than list all the things wrong with that movie (and there are quite a few), I'm going to quickly mention a few things I like about it.
Garfield is a great Spider-Man. He's not my favourite live action spidey (that would be Maguire), but I can see why many fans like him best. He and Stone are both excellent and have tremendous chemistry together. Garfield's costume in TASM2 is also a massive improvement over the one he wore in the first film.
Fox and DeHaan deliver interesting takes on their respective villains. The similarities between Electro and Schumacher's Riddler didn't bother me. I thought he was funny and sympathetic in the early parts of the film and actually quite intimidating in the later scenes. Certainly not the best Spider-Man movie villain, but I enjoyed Fox's Electro a lot more than Giamatti's Rhino or Ifans' Lizard.
There are some strong action scenes. The battles between Spider-Man and Electro are particularly good. They're also sufficiently different from the action scenes in Raimi's films that they don't feel recycled.
The soundtrack. TASM2 has the best spidey score outside of the Raimi trilogy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6UZfZx3ChY
The movie has dramatic weight. Gwen's death is genuinely sad, and the scenes between Peter and Aunt May are touching. The relationships built upon what was established in the previous film, and consequently the emotions the characters are expressing feel earned.
Come to think of it, I might actually prefer TASM 2 over its predecessor. TASM is a better film and has fewer obvious flaws, but the second movie has more rewatch value for me.
I never really grasped why the fans hated TASM2 so much, and continue to do so. I found the first TASM movie bland, even though I wouldn't call it a bad movie. It was TASM2 that got me fully on board the reboot. For the first real time (and I say this as a Raimi fan) Spider-Man was depicted as a mouthy quipper who saved the city and had fun at the same time. The heart and funky soul of Raimi was still there - Spidey wearing a beanie and sneezing at the corner store anyone? And the obvious strength of Emma Stone. That's what Raimi and Webb both had - strong female leads we cared about.
Hans Zimmer did an amazing job with the score in my opinion. He took something that absolutely belonged to Elfman (and still does) and made it his own. He did the same thing with Superman as well. In that regard he deserves a round of applause.
Cold War is as Spider-Man-y as it gets. It's a young, rock n' roll ball of energy that's simply fun to listen to. No Place Like Home is the conclusion of the two-part track and ends things in a really poignant way. Zimmer created a very simply but hummable theme that could easily be integrated into action sequences. I Need To Know is like Inception dipped in superhero jelly. I could go on, but needless to say I think Zimmer did a great job.
I agree. Zimmer reached down deep for the ASM2 score and went pretty far outside his usual wheelhouse. The result is a powerful score with melodic, emotional lows and truly epic highs.
I think the objection a lot of people have against ASM2 is that it's a textured character piece when people wanted an action fest. More Spider-Man, more quips, more swinging around the city, more fist fights, all that stuff.
I wouldn't be the first to compare the Webbverse to Ultimate Spider-Man while Raimi was more in line with the Lee/Romita era. But I think it holds true. Zimmer's score works well paired with Ultimate Spider-Man comics while Elfman's stuff is a good accompaniment to a lot of the late 60's-early 90's Spider-Man.
In hindsight I think the problem was that Webb and co. had perhaps kept too much in the vault for the 3rd film we never got. I prefer the 2nd ASM film because that's really when it gets its legs. The first film kind of gets bogged down retelling a story we saw on screen ten years prior, the 2nd film is entirely fresh new material for the big screen.
I agree there's no bad Spider-man film, every one gives you a reason to re watch it later. The only villain to be duplicated was the Harry Osborn goblin which wasn't in either film for long. Like Batman, this character has proven that it can be interpreted differently along the dark/light scale.
In the same way Raimi has a trilogy that he didn't fully intend because the plug was pulled, I think the same can be said of Webb. Garfield's young love dies and he will continue fighting crime to honor her memory. That's a clear beginning and end for the arc that began in TASM. This is his life now, and it's never going to end. Sure, the story was set up to continue with the Sinister Six references. But the story always goes on. Just as Spidey dispatched Rhino early on in the film, only for him to return bigger and badder later on.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 14 Aug 2017, 05:12
In the same way Raimi has a trilogy that he didn't fully intend because the plug was pulled, I think the same can be said of Webb. Garfield's young love dies and he will continue fighting crime to honor her memory. That's a clear beginning and end for the arc that began in TASM. This is his life now, and it's never going to end. Sure, the story was set up to continue with the Sinister Six references. But the story always goes on. Just as Spidey dispatched Rhino early on in the film, only for him to return bigger and badder later on.
That is basically the mindset that you need in order to enjoy ASM 2; just enjoy the film and don't focus on what may come next for the character. I guess we're just led to believe that Gwen and Harry inspired Peter to become a better and smarter hero going forward. The difference though is the Raimi series didn't leave plotlines unopened, the initial plan for that series was to do it as two trilogies with the 4th entry opening up new plotlines to start the second phase for the character. It was an appropriate send off for that character. In hindsight it's a good thing we got the final scene of Spidey preparing to fight the Rhino, otherwise we'd be left to believe he may have retired after Gwen's death. It would have been cool to see Paul Giamatti play the villain in part 3 but the Rhino is not exactly spideys arch nemesis, the unresolved cliffhanger we got with that character isn't a huge deal.
Watching all the Spider-Man films again recently, I was struck by how bittersweet the endings to both Maguire and Garfield's final outings were.
Raimi's first two movies end with Spider-Man swinging through the city while the score swells triumphantly. Spider-Man 2 adds a darker twist by cutting to a shot of MJ looking anxious, hinting at the complications that lie ahead for her and Peter. But both movies have mostly upbeat endings. By contrast, Spider-Man 3 ends with a very sombre scene of Peter and MJ holding each other. MJ's had to give up her dream of being on Broadway, Peter's lost his best friend, and his and MJ's relationship may never fully recover from the damage its sustained. There's a note of hope, but also regret. The final shot of Maguire in the role is a close-up of his face bearing a solemn and introspective look. Then it fades to black. Even the choice of music on the end credits reflects the sombre mood.
Similarly TASM2 ends on a hopeful but sad note. Peter's lost Gwen, he's broken his promise to her father and must live with the guilt of what happened, his former best friend has turned to the dark/green side, and he spends five months wallowing in grief with only Aunt May for comfort. His life is completely derailed, and the one thing dragging him out of his slump is the city's dependency on him. The final shot of Garfield's Spider-Man is heroic, but also tainted by sadness. I hope when Holland makes his exit he'll go out on a happier note than his predecessors.
In retrospect, I think it's probably a good thing Raimi's fourth film was never made. I was really looking forward to his second trilogy at the time, and I felt betrayed when Sony opted for a reboot instead. But looking back on the situation, I expect Sony would've screwed those movies up anyway. Spider-Man 3 isn't the perfect ending to the trilogy, but it does offer closure. The Osborn storyline is concluded, Harry's dead, all the major villains have been defeated, and Peter and MJ are back together. It was a good place to stop. Besides, I doubt Malkovich's Vulture would have been anywhere near as good as Keaton's.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 12 Aug 2017, 00:52
Via digging, I know Homecoming retroactively shows Peter was video blogging in Civil War, right before he jumps out to reveal himself at the airport. If showing another side of past events is a crime, Homecoming and the MCU Spider-Man is guilty too. But y'know, this is completely different to showing another side of the Metropolis attack in BvS. Just as Marvel retroactively made Iron Man 2 Peter's first canon appearance. BvS builds upon MoS as well, because uh, it's a sequel. But all we get is double standards and semantics.
I'm less annoyed about retconning moments and events than I am by the way the MCU has included Spider-Man into the franchise. The way it's been handled has been unbelievably flimsy and it reeks nothing more but a blatant cash grab.
As I've said many times before, Spider-Man didn't need to be in Civil War. There's no reason why Tony Stark would need Peter Parker in the hunt for Bucky, never mind the fact Parker has no business in the dispute between the Avengers. But perhaps the biggest flaw with Spider-Man's appearance in Civil War is it undermines Tony Stark's arc. Despite burdened with guilt over the death of a young American kid who died during the Avengers' battle in Sokovia, here he goes recruiting a teenage kid for a dangerous mission. What's even worse is Parker didn't even understand what the mission was even about, because the retconned phone footage in Homecoming revealed he wasn't even briefed what was going on. This is played for laughs, but it makes Stark look like a complete, irresponsible jackass. Why would Parker even have any ambitions to join the Avengers in the first place if the group is under heavy government scrutiny, I have no idea. His lack of awareness may prove he's a dumb kid, but again, it paints all the adults around him a bad light.
I can imagine fans would defend this by saying Spider-Man is more than capable of taking care of himself, but it's Stark's philosophy that's an issue here. It's so irresponsible, it goes against him taking any accountability in Civil War, in my book.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 14 Aug 2017, 01:39
I think the objection a lot of people have against ASM2 is that it's a textured character piece when people wanted an action fest. More Spider-Man, more quips, more swinging around the city, more fist fights, all that stuff.
"More quips"...it seems that's all what people care about nowadays, even if it's to the detriment of the story. In the past, characters making long-winded monologues used to be "epic". Now, characters making dumb jokes every five minutes is "fun".
They're all idiotic pop culture trends, if you ask me.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 12 Aug 2017, 00:52Via digging, I know Homecoming retroactively shows Peter was video blogging in Civil War, right before he jumps out to reveal himself at the airport. If showing another side of past events is a crime, Homecoming and the MCU Spider-Man is guilty too. But y'know, this is completely different to showing another side of the Metropolis attack in BvS. Just as Marvel retroactively made Iron Man 2 Peter's first canon appearance. BvS builds upon MoS as well, because uh, it's a sequel. But all we get is double standards and semantics.
That's just a fun reference. It doesn't mean much of anything to the movies. People generally like the opening of BvS Metropolis scene as far as I know.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 29 Apr 2018, 06:49I'm less annoyed about retconning moments and events than I am by the way the MCU has included Spider-Man into the franchise. The way it's been handled has been unbelievably flimsy and it reeks nothing more but a blatant cash grab.
As I've said many times before, Spider-Man didn't need to be in Civil War. There's no reason why Tony Stark would need Peter Parker in the hunt for Bucky, never mind the fact Parker has no business in the dispute between the Avengers. But perhaps the biggest flaw with Spider-Man's appearance in Civil War is it undermines Tony Stark's arc. Despite burdened with guilt over the death of a young American kid who died during the Avengers' battle in Sokovia, here he goes recruiting a teenage kid for a dangerous mission. What's even worse is Parker didn't even understand what the mission was even about, because the retconned phone footage in Homecoming revealed he wasn't even briefed what was going on. This is played for laughs, but it makes Stark look like a complete, irresponsible jackass. Why would Parker even have any ambitions to join the Avengers in the first place if the group is under heavy government scrutiny, I have no idea. His lack of awareness may prove he's a dumb kid, but again, it paints all the adults around him a bad light.
I can imagine fans would defend this by saying Spider-Man is more than capable of taking care of himself, but it's Stark's philosophy that's an issue here. It's so irresponsible, it goes against him taking any accountability in Civil War, in my book.
Peter wouldn't be in danger. They're not trying to kill eachother in that scene.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 30 Apr 2018, 01:11Peter wouldn't be in danger. They're not trying to kill eachother in that scene.
Was that enough to save Rhodie from nearly dying in that scene?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 1 May 2018, 22:13
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 30 Apr 2018, 01:11Peter wouldn't be in danger. They're not trying to kill eachother in that scene.
Was that enough to save Rhodie from nearly dying in that scene?
That was friendly fire. Your argument may be that for Tony to not think about that is reckless in and of itself, but I'd say that that's not OOC for him.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 2 May 2018, 04:03
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 1 May 2018, 22:13
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 30 Apr 2018, 01:11Peter wouldn't be in danger. They're not trying to kill eachother in that scene.
Was that enough to save Rhodie from nearly dying in that scene?
That was friendly fire. Your argument may be that for Tony to not think about that is reckless in and of itself, but I'd say that that's not OOC for him.
Friendly fire? Rhodie would've been just as dead as if it wasn't friendly fire. Peter didn't get killed or seriously injured mostly by luck.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 2 May 2018, 21:55
Friendly fire? Rhodie would've been just as dead as if it wasn't friendly fire. Peter didn't get killed or seriously injured mostly by luck.
Exactly, and it overlooks the fact that War Machine got permanently crippled because of the Avengers' reckless infighting. Never mind the fact they caused tons of property damage to the rest of the airport, but who cares about accountability in a comic book movie, right? Even though this movie was the one that brought it up in the first place.
There's no other nice way to put this, but this version of Spider-Man is an avatar to the die-hard, childish fanboys who imagine how cool it would be to live in the MCU.
Does any remember the rumours of the Oscorp Tower building from The Amazing Spider-Man movies was supposed to appear in the first Avengers movie?
Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/15/a-spider-manavengers-crossover-almost-happened
It does make me wonder how Marc Webb's films could've tied in with the rest of the MCU. Maybe TASM2 could've been rewritten as Peter assumes permanent retirement following Gwen Stacy's death, and then Andrew Garfield would make his third movie appearance in Civil War, and Tony Stark helps Peter to deal with his guilt and encourage him to become Spider-Man again. Maybe the direction could've been Manhattan has become such a violent hellhole ever since Spider-Man has disappeared, and Stark, knowing the Avengers can't sort out crime in every metropolitan city, convinces Peter to return.
Mind you, I still don't think Spider-Man being introduced in Civil War make a lot of sense, and quite frankly, I think it's a little ironic that people were criticising for a Spider-Man reboot five years after the third Raimi movie but suddenly began to look forward to the character joining the MCU. But if I had to choose, I would've just continued the Webb series.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 13 May 2018, 02:18
Mind you, I still don't think Spider-Man being introduced in Civil War make a lot of sense, and quite frankly, I think it's a little ironic that people were criticising for a Spider-Man reboot five years after the third Raimi movie but suddenly began to look forward to the character joining the MCU. But if I had to choose, I would've just continued the Webb series.
We're probably in the minority but I would've done the same. I didn't have any major problems with TASM2 and I honestly find it more memorable than Homecoming.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:07
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 13 May 2018, 02:18
But if I had to choose, I would've just continued the Webb series.
We're probably in the minority but I would've done the same.
Now we're three.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:07
We're probably in the minority but I would've done the same. I didn't have any major problems with TASM2 and I honestly find it more memorable than Homecoming.
The Webb films have their own faults, such as retreading on familiar ground with the origin story and ordinary villains, but its biggest strength was the pairing between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. The chemistry between the two was great.
I got to be honest, I like Keaton as everybody else does on this forum, but I didn't think there was anything special about his portrayal as the Vulture at all. I thought he was a cliche Spider-Man movie villain, i.e. experiences some sort of injustice which motivates to become the villain, commits crimes for the sake of looking after his family, and has some redemptive, humane quality about him to make him sympathetic. We've seen this already in the Raimi trilogy and TASM1. There's nothing particularly new about this character.
As a matter of fact, the Vulture's story does retread a lot of material from Willem Defoe's Green Goblin:
- Getting screwed over by people in a position of authority - Norman Osborne gets voted out of his own company, Adrian Toomes's job to clean up the city taken away because of Stark starting up Damage Control.
- Like Osborne, Toomes figures out Peter is Spider-Man.
- Toomes tries to convince Peter from his point of view.
That's off the top of my head. One can say that Defoe was over-the-top sometimes, but I thought he was much better as the villain than Keaton. The MCU might not have a great list of villains, but is the bar really set that low to nominate Vulture as one of the best, if not THE best? I'd nominate Obadiah Stane, Killmonger and even Aldrich Killian better than him.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 6 May 2018, 05:48Exactly, and it overlooks the fact that War Machine got permanently crippled because of the Avengers' reckless infighting. Never mind the fact they caused tons of property damage to the rest of the airport, but who cares about accountability in a comic book movie, right? Even though this movie was the one that brought it up in the first place.
Rhodey got crippled because of Vision being emotional about Wanda, nothing else. Property damage doesn't mean much in this movie. It' about lives lost via collateral damage from avengers fighting villains.
QuoteThere's no other nice way to put this, but this version of Spider-Man is an avatar to the die-hard, childish fanboys who imagine how cool it would be to live in the MCU.
That's not true as you describe it. People just find him entertaining to watch.
TLF is dead right, and again, Dagen is dead wrong. This overrated Spider-Man was all about impressing Tony Stark Raving Mad. He was saving people and fighting crime just so he could join the Avengers. This young punk didn't have the words of wisdom of Ben in his mind...and Ben wasn't even mentioned, which was a big mistake. He's just all about being selfish. By that point in his career he should've been well and truly over that. But he wasn't.
I won't be seeing the film, but Hollandman 2 should film in London. No need to hire extras either.
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/croydon.gif)
"You found my weakness, it's small BIG knives."
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 3 Jun 2018, 00:04
TLF is dead right, and again, Dagen is dead wrong. This overrated Spider-Man was all about impressing Tony Stark Raving Mad. He was saving people and fighting crime just so he could join the Avengers. This young punk didn't have the words of wisdom of Ben in his mind...and Ben wasn't even mentioned, which was a big mistake. He's just all about being selfish. By that point in his career he should've been well and truly over that. But he wasn't.
I won't be seeing the film, but Hollandman 2 should film in London. No need to hire extras either.
Peter was saving people before that. It wasn't about Stark. Peter in the movie did want to join the Avengers, but that was more an ambition thing in being a bigger and better hero. The movie seems to be more or less about humility and wants to portray Peter as someone who becomes a peace with his limits. It wasn't being selfish. Ben was mentioned. In the original comic Ben didn't give words of wisdom and died, with Peter taking in that lesson. That's likely what this was, because Peter was shown to have the responsibility lesson in CW.
I don't remember if this was ever discussed on this forum, but a year after TASM2 came out, it was revealed another version of Gwen Stacy's death was filmed. In this version, Green Goblin snapped her neck and Peter retaliates violently, but stops short of killing him.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/xjLZhVYpleArlbMjzoG4xb0Js2xs-2qM_bKntoSVXpw.jpg?width=540&auto=webp&s=8ea27fbe10f391880eb6204da77c48fd105d98f5)
The video below covers the description of the scene in full detail:
https://youtu.be/ahTKAPqbKes
There are lot of deleted scenes for this movie, but this particular one was never released, apart from the photo stills. I hope it gets to see the light of day. I'm very curious to watch it.
My mind has been jumble with so many fandoms racing around competing for my brain time.
I'm here for this content from the first TASM movie. It has the heart and soul that all the best Spider-Man incarnations have. With the cranes, we perhaps get the best demonstration ever that each web shot has to be precise for Spider-Man to move about the city. Spider-Man himself is weakened but still has the pride and defiance to perform acrobatic stunts midair, during the best rendition of Horner's main hero theme (3.28 to 3.50). The silence of just the wind rush as he swings by is also fantastic (3.14)
Inspiring stuff all round. The community rises to the occasion and so does the hero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_JzihiWvlQ
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 6 Jun 2020, 05:16
My mind has been jumble with so many fandoms racing around competing for my brain time.
I'm here for this content from the first TASM movie. It has the heart and soul that all the best Spider-Man incarnations have. With the cranes, we perhaps get the best demonstration ever that each web shot has to be precise for Spider-Man to move about the city. Spider-Man himself is weakened but still has the pride and defiance to perform acrobatic stunts midair, during the best rendition of Horner's main hero theme (3.28 to 3.50). The silence of just the wind rush as he swings by is also fantastic (3.14)
Inspiring stuff all round. The community rises to the occasion and so does the hero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_JzihiWvlQ
Powerful scene. Spider-Man had become pretty embraced by the city in ASM2 and scenes like that believably show why that happened.
Plus, it's always moving when a hero struggles against his own limitations or an injury or something to save the day. Spider-Man often delivers on that. It's one of the character's best features, if you ask me.
Apparently Jamie Foxx is in negotiations to reprise his role as Electro in the third Tom Holland Spider-Man film: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-3-jolt-jamie-foxx-returning-as-electro-exclusive
It sounds like they're going the Multiverse/Spider-Verse route. There's been some online speculation about Tobey returning in Doctor Strange 2, but perhaps he'll show up here first? If I could nominate one Raimiverse villain to appear alongside him, it would have to be Molina as Doc Ock. I know he's dead, but then so is Electro.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 22:01
Apparently Jamie Foxx is in negotiations to reprise his role as Electro in the third Tom Holland Spider-Man film: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-3-jolt-jamie-foxx-returning-as-electro-exclusive
It sounds like they're going the Multiverse/Spider-Verse route. There's been some online speculation about Tobey returning in Doctor Strange 2, but perhaps he'll show up here first? If I could nominate one Raimiverse villain to appear alongside him, it would have to be Molina as Doc Ock. I know he's dead, but then so is Electro.
Aside from the Waynes and Uncle Ben, it's hard to think of too many characters who ever stayed dead. Mortality is no object in comics so why should it be in movies?
When I first read this is was baffled. So out of left field. But if it means the best Spider-Man of all time, Tobey Maguire, gets to reprise his role, I'm for it. But I reiterate: all of this is so weird. Characters from films you thought were a distant memory are now front and centre again.
Maybe Michael Keaton's Batman can show up in this, too?
Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 23:24
Maybe Michael Keaton's Batman can show up in this, too?
Haha!
CW had their dry run, and now we have the DCEU and MCU going full blast with the multiverse concept.
I bet Gardner Fox would have got a kick out of this.
I've seen some people on the internet saying Electro's defeat in TASM2 might be a good way to retcon him as getting lost somewhere in the Marvel multiverse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ved5IPmHypU
Jamie Foxx has now confirmed he will play the role again.
Quote
Tell Spidey let's run it back!... super excited to part of the new marvel Spider-Man new installment... can't wait for y'all to check the new one. And I won't be blue in this one!! But a thousand percent badass!!!
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2556062/jamie-foxx-confirms-electro-return-for-spider-man-3-and-more
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 13 Aug 2017, 20:14
The soundtrack. TASM2 has the best spidey score outside of the Raimi trilogy.
It's so true. Hans doesn't get enough recognition for this score.
Take this track from the complete recording sessions which I've been listening to recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb7sV7MTgb0
As good as anything from the Man of Steel soundtrack, as far as I am concerned, and absolutely appropriate for Spider-Man. Of all the composers so far Hans nailed the youthful energy of the character, while still providing poignancy. The man can bring so much emotion with those piano notes of his.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 25 Apr 2021, 13:46
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 13 Aug 2017, 20:14
The soundtrack. TASM2 has the best spidey score outside of the Raimi trilogy.
It's so true. Hans doesn't get enough recognition for this score.
Take this track from the complete recording sessions which I've been listening to recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb7sV7MTgb0
As good as anything from the Man of Steel soundtrack, as far as I am concerned, and absolutely appropriate for Spider-Man. Of all the composers so far Hans nailed the youthful energy of the character, while still providing poignancy. The man can bring so much emotion with those piano notes of his.
I agree. The Raimi movies had good scores. But none of them grab me the way Zimmer's ASM2 score does. The electronic/dub step thing was a good way to musically update the character for modern audiences. "I Need to Know", "The Rest of My Life/You're That Spider Guy" and "Cold War" are probably my favorite tracks on the whole score. Zimmer delivered the goods a thousand times over with this music.
The guy knows how to meet the occasion with big budget pressure cookers. He's proven himself to me in that regard.
I'm eager to hear his score for No Time To Die. That's yet another iconic character under his belt after Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and Spider-Man. And not forgetting his work on Mission Impossible 2. There's a score sample which was extracted from a No Time To Die podcast called 'Back To MI6'.
The best way I could describe it would be 'Why Do We Fall?' from TDK Rises but Bondified. He helped with the Billie Eilish melody and you can tell. The piano work is there, and he's going to be using it throughout the score. I think it's going to be great. He bought Jonny Marr back to provide "lots of guitar". Anyone who enjoys the Inception and TASM2 scores has to be excited about that.
Check out the complete TASM2 recording sessions if you enjoy the score.
Keep an ear out for these tracks:
Logos
The Opening
Spidey Logo
Truck Chase
Graduation
Flying Montage
Peter Visits Harry
Peter Distracts Oscorp Security
You're My Boy
Roosevelt Station
I Love You
Power Station
Electro Showdown Part 2
Planes and Power Grid Restored
Rhino Returns
First I've heard about the Recording Sessions. Appreciate the tip, my friend.
#MakeTASM3 has suddenly been buzzing on social media.
https://entertainment.inquirer.net/430708/maketasm3-fans-clamor-for-a-third-amazing-spider-man-movie-with-andrew-garfield
It's nice to see more people showing a new found appreciation for Garfield's Spider-Man. If they keep this up, I'm sure Sony is going to take notice. Unlike those dickheads currently in charge of WB, Sony wants to keep making money, and they've earned a lot of goodwill on all things Spider-Man lately.
I just hope if Garfield does come back, he doesn't get mixed with Hardy's Venom. I saw the 2018 movie last year, and thought it sucked.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 21 Dec 2021, 11:40
I just hope if Garfield does come back, he doesn't get mixed with Hardy's Venom. I saw the 2018 movie last year, and thought it sucked.
Despite my own disappointment with
Venom: Let There Be Carnage, and generally how Sony has doubled down on having Brock and the Venom symbiote as a comedy duo, a Garfield Spider-man vs Tom Hardy Venom scenario would provide the necessary
double whammy that Sony probably would be looking for with a proposed ASM3. Kraven is off the table, and Garfield's Spider-Man battling a Webbverse Vulture or Mysterio is just too much of a repeat. Given the good will Andrew's Spider-Man has received from NWH, it does make me wonder if Sony is, once again, considering that proposed Sinister Six movie now? Andrew could easily be slipped into that project, with a ASM3 being the concluding chapter to the Sinister Six arc.
Personally, I don't believe another Spider-Man vs. Venom movie will happen unless it's Holland's Spider-Man battling Tom Hardy's Venom. Probably with Brock returning to the MCU to reclaim the piece of the symbiote left behind. There's too much money to be had for something like that to not happen.
Holland's universe can keep Venom, as far as I'm concerned. They seem to be a perfect match for each other. I believe had Venom 2018 made it clear this had ties to the MCU, it would've been embraced, instead of being panned.
Meanwhile, I read #MakeTASM3 trended on Twitter with over 500K tweets. I'm very convinced Garfield will return in some shape or form.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 28 Dec 2021, 03:02I'm very convinced Garfield will return in some shape or form.
I'm not.
HOMEcoming, Far From HOME, No Way HOME, blah blah blah. Marvel's Spider-Man branding should be obvious. That suggests to me that Satan will need a parka and a heating pad before Marvel allows Sony to regain their footing with their own version of Spider-Man.
The sad reality is that 2021's Sony Pictures is not 2004's Sony Pictures. They were strapped for cash
before the pandemic. They desperately needed a hit and no hits were forthcoming. It's not like the intervening time has radically changed their fortunes. It is true that I rather enjoy both of Webb's Spider-Man movies. But wide audiences plainly did not. ASM1 was lucky to do as well as it did while ASM2 didn't do well at all.
Compare that to MCU Spider-Man. Putting aside our own personal preferences, there's simply no denying the fact that the MCU has handled the character far more successfully than Sony has since 2007.
And this is all before we starting considering the dirty pool that Marvel/Disney is infamous for playing against competitors. In the unlikely event that Sony tries to forge ahead with a non-MCU Spider-Man, Sony has Snyder's own carcass twisting in the wind as an example of how Marvel/Disney will treat competitors. How much worse will it be for "traitors"? So, that's one very real threat right there.
The bottom line here is that Sony possibly has more to lose in a pissing contest over Spider-Man than Marvel does. Their financial stake in the MCU Spider-Man is X% of a guaranteed hit. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that Sony's board sees Holland's Spider-Man as the safe play which allows the studio to pursue their own profitable projects independent of anything to do with Marvel or comic books.
If Garfield ever plays Spider-Man again, my guess is it'll be in an MCU multiverse context. Marvel holds all the cards on this, fan campaigns be damned.
Bu there MIGHT be a play here for Sony to exploit. It's a long shot, esp since I have no idea what the agreements are between Sony and Marvel. But IF this is even legally possible, Sony could develop a non-MCU Miles Morales movie. The objective here is not to outgross Marvel or whatever. Rather, the idea would be to poison the well on Morales.
Sony could develop a Morales film which is explicitly separate from the MCU to steal Marvel's thunder. Because let's cut the crap, we all know where this is going. Tom Holland won't be playing this character forever. Sooner or later, he's hitting the road. And when he's gone, Marvel won't attempt to replace him as Peter Parker. Rather, Marvel will likely want to replace Peter Parker with Miles.
Sony getting there first ruins the novelty and woke appeal (if there is such a thing) that Morales offers.
Assuming the above is even contractually possible (and it may very well be since Sony was able to develop a non-MCU Venom), Marvel might be willing to work something out.
Maybe. But I don't see too many other options for Sony to pursue if they're desperate to have their own version of Spider-Man reign supreme. And I'm not convinced that having their own version of Spider-Man reign supreme is a priority (or even a possibility) anymore.