Batman-Online.com

This is the new name of the reboot. I must admit I'm not too crazy over the title.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgbox.com%2FmjxhOBHM.jpg&hash=d401b03ccef3f668f6d22516a3f70becbc725a28)

Marvel are showing a scene already filmed of Tony Stark showing up at Aunt May's house to meet Peter Parker at a presentation in Las Vegas, according to this report below.

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11419936/spider-man-homecoming-sony-marvel-announce

looks too cartoony so far.

I'm not keen on the title but I do like the branding.  It's about time Spider-Man went back to his colourful, upbeat, pre-Nolan roots.

Variety's reporting that Michael Keaton's being eyed to play the villain!  :D

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/michael-keaton-spider-man-villain-homecoming-2-1201752759/

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Apr  2016, 22:33
Variety's reporting that Michael Keaton's being eyed to play the villain!  :D

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/michael-keaton-spider-man-villain-homecoming-2-1201752759/

You beat me to the punch.  ;)

It's almost ironic that he may be going back to CBMs after 'Birdman'.

I wonder who he will be playing.  Apart from Norman Osborn I'm not sure which classic Spider-Man villain would best suit his talents. Maybe Mysterio?  A younger-looking, slightly less bald Vulture?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Apr  2016, 22:33
Variety's reporting that Michael Keaton's being eyed to play the villain!  :D

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/michael-keaton-spider-man-villain-homecoming-2-1201752759/

That's cool. I think the font works...the title will grow on me.

Here's my shortlist of villains which I could see Keaton playing
Vulture: this actually has more merit than you may think. While he's an old man in the comics, it's hard to get an old actor to do such a physical role so if they do the vulture on screen, they'd likely use a younger actor
Tinkerer: Another old man although less physical than the Vulture. Might be too cartoony to bring to live action
Norman Osborn: would be similar to his role in Robocop with the supervillain aspect
Hobgoblin: similar to green goblin
Allistair Smythe: should he not want to play a physical role again.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 13 Apr  2016, 23:15
I wonder who he will be playing.  Apart from Norman Osborn I'm not sure which classic Spider-Man villain would best suit his talents. Maybe Mysterio?  A younger-looking, slightly less bald Vulture?

My money's on Quentin Beck/Mysterio.


Vulture's a possibility, but seems a little too obvious with the whole Birdman connection. Mysterio would also relate to Birdman, albeit on a more thematic level – a dispossessed, washed-up Hollywood artist, frustrated with his lack of relevancy in the modern world, going to extreme lengths to reclaim his former glory. It's a role that would allow Keaton to flex both his comedic and dramatic talents, injecting the character with equal doses of humour and pathos. And I think Mysterio would probably fit in better with the more light-hearted approach they're taking for this version of Spider-Man.

He might well be playing Silvermane, Chameleon, Hobgoblin or someone else altogether. But I'm betting it'll be Mysterio.

Variety's now reporting the deal with Keaton may have fallen through. They're also saying Robert Downey Jr will make an appearance.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/robert-downey-jr-to-appear-in-spider-man-homecoming-1201758355/

I wouldn't mind Mysterio. He's probably the one un-used villain in Spidey's rogues gallery that most people want to see finally realized in live action, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind Vulture either. It's just too bad that it won't be John Malkovich, as it was planned to be for the cancelled Spider-Man 4, as that would have been something!

I recently read the graphic novel "Spider-Man: Season One" and I thought Vulture, as a physical adversary, was more than competent. I remember reading somewhere that comic book creator Roger Stern felt that the Vulture should be represented as one of Spider-Man's top villains, due to the idea that Peter Parker represents youth, where the Vulture represents age, and what we are left with is a "Youth vs Age" motif that could be highlighted greatly in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Especially with the film supposedly being very much a high school/John Hughes type Spider-Man movie. Something of which I don't believe we have ever quite got before...

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 04:47I wouldn't mind Mysterio. He's probably the one un-used villain in Spidey's rogues gallery that most people want to see finally realized in live action, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind Vulture either. It's just too bad that it won't be John Malkovich, as it was planned to be for the cancelled Spider-Man 4, as that would have been something!

I wish we could've seen that. I've got my own ideas about how I would've liked Raimi's second trilogy to have panned out. Obviously Spider-Man 4 would've featured Vulture and Felicia Hardy. I expect Peter and MJ would have finally tied the knot in that one too.

Then for Spider-Man 5 I would've liked an adaptation of Kraven's Last Hunt, only with Doc Connors turning into Lizard and fulfilling the role Vermin played in the original comic. This would have been the darkest of all the Spider-Man films.

Then for Spider-Man 6, the final entry in Raimi's saga, I would've liked the Sinister Six to have shown up. I had an idea that following the events of Spider-Man 2 Otto Octavius' body had washed ashore, barely alive, minus his arms and horribly burned following his experience with the fusion reactor (the burns would allow another actor to play the role if Molina was reluctant to return). The combination of oxygen deprivation and the loss of his arms has left him with amnesia (always a convenient plot device). So he spends the next few years living as a John Doe in a mental hospital in upstate New York. Then one day some salvagers recover his arms from the bottom of the Hudson and inadvertently reactivate them. The arms then home in on Octavius' brainwaves and reattach themselves to his body, restoring his memory and spurring him to unite the other surviving villains in a final campaign against Spider-Man. Sandman, Vulture and Lizard would join him. And I like the idea of another villain discovering the Green Goblin technology and becoming Hobgoblin. For the final member of the Sinister Six, they could've brought back Venom or used someone like Swarm or Mysterio.

I'd have preferred this over the Webb movies. Then they could have neatly tied up the Raimiverse in time for the MCU Spider-Man to take over.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 04:47I recently read the graphic novel "Spider-Man: Season One" and I thought Vulture, as a physical adversary, was more than competent. I remember reading somewhere that comic book creator Roger Stern felt that the Vulture should be represented as one of Spider-Man's top villains, due to the idea that Peter Parker represents youth, where the Vulture represents age, and what we are left with is a "Youth vs Age" motif that could be highlighted greatly in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Especially with the film supposedly being very much a high school/John Hughes type Spider-Man movie. Something of which I don't believe we have ever quite got before...

I've never read that one, but from the way you describe it it sounds like a solid basis for the new film.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 22:57
I wish we could've seen that. I've got my own ideas about how I would've liked Raimi's second trilogy to have panned out. Obviously Spider-Man 4 would've featured Vulture and Felicia Hardy. I expect Peter and MJ would have finally tied the knot in that one too.

Then for Spider-Man 5 I would've liked an adaptation of Kraven's Last Hunt, only with Doc Connors turning into Lizard and fulfilling the role Vermin played in the original comic. This would have been the darkest of all the Spider-Man films.

Then for Spider-Man 6, the final entry in Raimi's saga, I would've liked the Sinister Six to have shown up. I had an idea that following the events of Spider-Man 2 Otto Octavius' body had washed ashore, barely alive, minus his arms and horribly burned following his experience with the fusion reactor (the burns would allow another actor to play the role if Molina was reluctant to return). The combination of oxygen deprivation and the loss of his arms has left him with amnesia (always a convenient plot device). So he spends the next few years living as a John Doe in a mental hospital in upstate New York. Then one day some salvagers recover his arms from the bottom of the Hudson and inadvertently reactivate them. The arms then home in on Octavius' brainwaves and reattach themselves to his body, restoring his memory and spurring him to unite the other surviving villains in a final campaign against Spider-Man. Sandman, Vulture and Lizard would join him. And I like the idea of another villain discovering the Green Goblin technology and becoming Hobgoblin. For the final member of the Sinister Six, they could've brought back Venom or used someone like Swarm or Mysterio.

I'd have preferred this over the Webb movies. Then they could have neatly tied up the Raimiverse in time for the MCU Spider-Man to take over.

Something like that would have been pretty spectacular, and it's apparent you've given some time and thought on how the Raimiverse would have eventually panned out, and I appreciate the sentiment. I actually dig your ideas for the sequels quite a bit to be perfectly honest. Especially the bit about the Lizard essentially taking the place for Vermin in a live action "Kraven's Last Hunt" adaptation. Which definitely works, considering after a film featuring the Vulture, I'm sure the fans would have most assuredly been clamoring for a live action take on the Lizard by that point. The 6th film in the Raimiverse, being a Sinister Six film, with the return of Alfred Molina as the Sinister Six's leader, Doc Ock, is just spot on and perfect. I guess I'll always wonder how Bruce Campbell would have been as Quentin Beck/Mysterio. I remember that idea being pretty popular for awhile...

Quote
I've never read that one, but from the way you describe it it sounds like a solid basis for the new film.

Yeah, I might have read it from John Byrne's forum. He refers to Roger Stern quite a bit, and evidently respects his opinion on comic book subjects like that. It is a interesting viewpoint, and adds a element (youth vs age) to a Spider-Man/Vulture rivalry that could seen as being more or less exclusive to them....

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 29 Apr  2016, 02:33
I guess I'll always wonder how Bruce Campbell would have been as Quentin Beck/Mysterio. I remember that idea being pretty popular for awhile...

I forgot about Campbell. His character is another loose end that never really had a payoff. He should've appeared in the final movie as Mysterio.

Regarding Spider-Man: Homecoming, I'm a lot more excited for it after seeing Holland and Tomei in CA: Civil War. It's the first Spider-Man movie I've really looked forward to since 2007. I just wish Keaton hadn't passed on it. :(

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  1 May  2016, 18:54
Regarding Spider-Man: Homecoming, I'm a lot more excited for it after seeing Holland and Tomei in CA: Civil War. It's the first Spider-Man movie I've really looked forward to since 2007. I just wish Keaton hadn't passed on it. :(

Agreed on all counts. Interesting how 'Homecoming' is referenced a few times in CW via dialogue, too. I'm hoping for villains like Mysterio and Vulture in the first solo film. Then later on, bring back Doc Ock.

Yeah, following Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is one tall order, but I'm very much looking forward to seeing the MCU's Doc Ock in the Spider-Man movies one day. I don't care how many times people bring up 'The Night Gwen Stacy Died', Ock will always be Spider-Man's #1 villain to me. Spider-Man writer Dan Slott has really put Ock back in the spotlight over the course of his run, and I love him for that. Looong overdue!

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  9 May  2016, 21:52

Yeah, following Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is one tall order, but I'm very much looking forward to seeing the MCU's Doc Ock in the Spider-Man movies one day. I don't care how many times people bring up 'The Night Gwen Stacy Died', Ock will always be Spider-Man's #1 villain to me. Spider-Man writer Dan Slott has really put Ock back in the spotlight over the course of his run, and I love him for that. Looong overdue!

Molina's Doc Ock was a lot more sympathetic than the standard comic-book version, so I hope that any reboot of the character has him act in a suitably nefarious manner, albeit with some degree of pathos (completely despicable villains are rarely effective).

Knowing Marvel/Disney, they'll get Ock's characterization. Doc Ock's one of those villains where, despite not being a nice guy at all, you can reason with him ... to a point, where Green Goblin/Norman Osborn is much more of a b@stard. With Marissa Tomei being Aunt May in the MCU, it will be interesting to see if Marvel/Disney will play up the relationship between May and Ock like in the comics. I believe Spidey even went to Ock following Aunt May getting shot by a sniper, in order to see if Ock could help in any way possible, knowing Ock would because it's May Parker.

Variety is now reporting Keaton's back on board to play the villain.  :D

QuoteAfter momentarily passing on the opportunity to play the next "Spider-Man" villain, Michael Keaton is back in talks to join Sony's "Spider-Man: Homecoming."

Variety first reported that Keaton was being eyed to play the villain last month, but talks had barely begun before the actor pulled his name from consideration over money issues. Sources said the dispute occurred after Robert Downey Jr. was added to the cast to reprise his role as Tony Stark. At the time, it appeared as though the studio wouldn't be able to afford both talents.

With Downey's deal now closed, insiders say Sony and Marvel have now returned to Keaton and have found a way to make both parties happy.

If a deal closes, Keaton would join Tom Holland, who is set to play the web-slinger in the film, directed by Jon Watts. Marisa Tomei is set to play Aunt May and Zendaya is also on board in a mystery role. Kevin Feige is producing with Amy Pascal.

Plot details are still being heavily guarded.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/spider-man-michael-keaton-villain-1201770783/

Oooooooh yeah!

Now we're talkin'.

JoBlo.com is reporting that Keaton's character is indeed Vulture:

QuoteOkay, good. So, you'll recall the rumor that The Vulture would appear in SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING and that talks with Michael Keaton to play the character eventually fell through. Well, we can confirm that not only is The Vulture in the film, but he is, in fact, the main villain. But, he's not the only bad guy in the mix. The Vulture will be aided by none other than The Tinkerer, who will help him build his suit with recovered Chitauri tech from the Battle of New York.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/exclusive-scoop-the-villains-and-costume-of-spider-man-homecoming-204

A bit off topic, but check out this awesome fan made Bat-Keaton poster. Our social media followers might be interested in this.

I think The Vulture is a good choice for the first villain (the franchise should eventually build up from relatively small stakes to much more threatening/imposing villains like the Green Goblin and Venom).  But Keaton, as much as I adore him, is an interesting choice for the part.  The Vulture is usually portrayed as a grouchy, misanthropic old man type.  Although John Malkovich is younger than Keaton, he seems more the type for the part.  Keaton for the most part seems to specialise in slicker, more cocky types of characters (his brooding Batman was a rare exception).

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprem1.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F2016%2F4a92ab0fc9d54cff344e73fb0d09f74c.gif&hash=0c3b22972c49ed8917f1cbe1e829ef3c916ec795)

Director Jon Watts' most recent Tweet: https://twitter.com/jnwtts/status/733769319394381826?lang=en-gb

Looks like Keaton's locked in. Considering the excellent first impression Holland made in Civil War, combined with the superb cast they've assembled (Downey, Tomei, Keaton), this is now tied with Guardians of the Galaxy 2 as my most anticipated CBM of 2017. Of course if we're counting TV shows as well then The Defenders is my most anticipated CB adaptation of 2017, but only because Daredevil's in it.

And on the subject of Daredevil, there are rumours that D'Onofrio's Kingpin might make an appearance in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Though D'Onofrio himself has downplayed these stories on Twitter.

QuoteSorry folks but this is news to me. It would be great but I don't think it will happen. V.

https://twitter.com/vincentdonofrio/status/733702308106768384

QuoteI love all this action about me doing #SpiderMan Tell Marvel!!!

https://twitter.com/vincentdonofrio/status/734002460122075136

Don't forget that Thor: Ragnarok has now added Jeff Goldblum and Karl Urban to its cast, which already included Cate Blanchett, Sir Anthony Hopkins returning to resume his part as Odin and Mark Ruffalo as Hulk.  So it could give Spider-Man: Homecoming and GOTG2 a run for their money.

IMHO, Thor has so far been the weak link as far as solo MCU film franchises go, but this cast, as well as the director, Taika Waititi, inspires me with a lot of confidence

The Thor movies have definitely been a weak link in the MCU for me. They're not awful, per se. I just don't find Thor very compelling as a character. But the addition of Goldblum has me intrigued. As does the fact the Hulk will be appearing. I'm also glad to hear Portman won't be returning as Jane Foster, since I thought she was incredibly bland and uninteresting in the role.

While I liked Guardians of the Galaxy, I didn't love it quite as much as everyone else did. What's really got me stoked about the sequel though is the addition of Stallone and Kurt Russell. It's going to be Tango & Cash in space! I was sold on the project as soon as Sly's involvement was announced.

With regards to Spider-Man: Homecoming, Deadline and quite a few other sites are stating Keaton is definitely playing Vulture. While Keaton's involvement appears to be more or less official at this stage, I haven't seen any official confirmation regarding the identity of his character. If it is Vulture, then presumably they'll be going for a more hi-tech incarnation along the lines of the Ultimate version.


But will he be formidable enough to make Spider-Man cry?

Yeah - I've read that gear left behind from the alien invasion in New York will be used to create his suit.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 22 May  2016, 01:48
Yeah - I've read that gear left behind from the alien invasion in New York will be used to create his suit.

Why not a symbiote?

I agree the thor films are the weak link of the MCU and I too was underwhelmed by Guardians of the Galaxy. That being said they are still good films and we are spoiled that the MCU has been so well. Once things I love is that the MCU isn't pretentious and doesn't tell audiences what they should enjoy, they are looking for ways to make their sequels better. Already with the casting and addition of the hulk I am more excited for thor 3 than I was thor 2. Guardians I'm excited for as I'm hoping this film will connect it to the MCU (and it probably will with infinity war coming up)

There is no symbiote yet in the MCU, is there?

And I hope that when the symbiote does emerge, it will be done far better than it was in Spider-Man 3.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 24 May  2016, 14:26
Once things I love is that the MCU isn't pretentious and doesn't tell audiences what they should enjoy, they are looking for ways to make their sequels better.

The best thing about the MCU over the years is it has become so rich that you can turn to the more serious and grim Netflix shows i.e. Daredevil and Jessica Jones if you don't like the mainstream movies. One way or the other, there's an outlet for somebody to appreciate in this mega franchise.

There was a little rumour that Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin would appear in the new Spider-Man but unsurprisingly he confirmed it's not happening. It makes sense because I strongly doubt the movies and the R-Rated Netflix universe will ever cross over.

Source: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/spider-man/news/a795232/spider-man-homecoming-vincent-donofrio-denies-wilson-fisk-rumours/

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 25 May  2016, 11:15

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 24 May  2016, 14:26
Once things I love is that the MCU isn't pretentious and doesn't tell audiences what they should enjoy, they are looking for ways to make their sequels better.

The best thing about the MCU over the years is it has become so rich that you can turn to the more serious and grim Netflix shows i.e. Daredevil and Jessica Jones if you don't like the mainstream movies. One way or the other, there's an outlet for somebody to appreciate in this mega franchise.

There was a little rumour that Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin would appear in the new Spider-Man but unsurprisingly he confirmed it's not happening. It makes sense because I strongly doubt the movies and the R-Rated Netflix universe will ever cross over.

Source: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/spider-man/news/a795232/spider-man-homecoming-vincent-donofrio-denies-wilson-fisk-rumours/

When Joss Whedon was running the MCU the rule he came up with is that the television shows have to consider the films to be canon but the movies don't need to consider the shows canon. So for example in the films we are to assume Coulson is dead and had Agent Carter continued, they could not contradict continuity from Winter soldier or civil war (for instance since we know the eventual fates of Peggy Carter and Howard Stark, agent carter had to ensure they did not contradict future continuity)

Spider-man has so many villains I prefer having the Kingpin as a daredevil foe; I guess spidey is an underdog of sorts too but I think daredevil has had better battles; Kingpin corrupts the legal system Matt Murdock spends his days upholding and Murdock has his own legal system. The fact that he's not superpowered makes Kingpin a better physical adversary for Daredevil than Spidey as well. And of course tying the Kingpin to Jack Murdocks death adds meat there. 

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 25 May  2016, 13:58
Spider-man has so many villains I prefer having the Kingpin as a daredevil foe; I guess spidey is an underdog of sorts too but I think daredevil has had better battles; Kingpin corrupts the legal system Matt Murdock spends his days upholding and Murdock has his own legal system. The fact that he's not superpowered makes Kingpin a better physical adversary for Daredevil than Spidey as well. And of course tying the Kingpin to Jack Murdocks death adds meat there.

Kingpin's involvement in Jack Murdock's death was exclusive to the 2003 film, where they basically copied the plot twist from Batman 89 about the Joker killing the Waynes. But in the comics and the Netflix show, Kingpin wasn't actually involved in Jack's death.

Much as I'd love the MCU films to acknowledge the TV content – and I think they might finally do so with the Infinity Wars movies – I'm not sure Kingpin would be a good fit for Spider-Man: Homecoming. Imagine if some kid went to see the film and then Googled Kingpin, only to find this:


I'd love to see Charlie Cox show up as Matt Murdock, but it might be better if he didn't appear in costume. I don't think parents would react well to their kids seeing Daredevil ground-and-pound some drug dealer's face into a bloody pulp.

I haven't seen all of "Daredevil" yet, but I find it hard to believe anything could be as stomach-churning as that scene where The Kingpin decapitates a Russian lackey's head by smashing a door against his head/neck.  :o

Wait until you reach season 2...

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 25 May  2016, 13:58

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 25 May  2016, 11:15

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 24 May  2016, 14:26
Once things I love is that the MCU isn't pretentious and doesn't tell audiences what they should enjoy, they are looking for ways to make their sequels better.

The best thing about the MCU over the years is it has become so rich that you can turn to the more serious and grim Netflix shows i.e. Daredevil and Jessica Jones if you don't like the mainstream movies. One way or the other, there's an outlet for somebody to appreciate in this mega franchise.

There was a little rumour that Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin would appear in the new Spider-Man but unsurprisingly he confirmed it's not happening. It makes sense because I strongly doubt the movies and the R-Rated Netflix universe will ever cross over.

Source: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/spider-man/news/a795232/spider-man-homecoming-vincent-donofrio-denies-wilson-fisk-rumours/

When Joss Whedon was running the MCU the rule he came up with is that the television shows have to consider the films to be canon but the movies don't need to consider the shows canon. So for example in the films we are to assume Coulson is dead and had Agent Carter continued, they could not contradict continuity from Winter soldier or civil war (for instance since we know the eventual fates of Peggy Carter and Howard Stark, agent carter had to ensure they did not contradict future continuity)

That's true, Daredevil and Jessica Jones made references to the Avengers at various points. JJ had an episode where the main character became the subject of revenge by two angry survivors who blamed the Avengers and all superhumans for losing everything in the Battle of New York. Which - and forgive me for digressing by the way - I find it a bit rich nobody is complaining about ordinary people demonising the heroes in the MCU, but whined about Wallace Keefe's hatred over Superman in BvS.

But I don't expect the movies to return the favour for the shows. Civil War had actress Alfre Woodard playing a secretary who blamed Tony Stark for causing her son's death in Sokovia, but she's playing a totally different character in the Luke Cage TV show.

As for news that Michael Keaton is likely becoming the new Spider-Man villain? Let's put it this way: I was holding on (very) faint hope that he would've played Hugo Strange in a future Batfleck movie. It would've been ironic if an actor who played Batman from a bygone era ended up returning to the franchise as a villain who is obsessed with Batman.  ;D

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 26 May  2016, 13:57


As for news that Michael Keaton is likely becoming the new Spider-Man villain? Let's put it this way: I was holding on (very) faint hope that he would've played Hugo Strange in a future Batfleck movie. It would've been ironic if an actor who played Batman from a bygone era ended up returning to the franchise as a villain who is obsessed with Batman.  ;D

In the days of so many sequels and remakes I can't think of a single case where an actor who played a protagonist later plays an antagonist.

In the longest yard remake, two characters from the original made appearances; Burt Reynolds who is still a good guy, and the warden who plays a friend of the new warden.

John Wesley Shipp played the Flash and later father of the Flash.

As far as I know, no major actors in any of the live action Batman universes have reprised roles (I believe one of the scientists from Batman and Robin was also in the dark knight). Adam West as offered to play Bruce Waynes father in the 1989 film but declined.

Christopher Reeve played a character in smallville (on the same side as Clark Kent).

The only thing I'd worry about with Keaton as a Batman villain is would it get in the way of the actual story? It would be cool at first but it could turn out like Superman Returns with endless homages to previous films. I'm hoping the filmmakers put more efforts into making a good film than simply getting a beloved actor to play a role and reminding us of a classic film from the 80's

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 30 May  2016, 20:41
As far as I know, no major actors in any of the live action Batman universes have reprised roles (I believe one of the scientists from Batman and Robin was also in the dark knight). Adam West as offered to play Bruce Waynes father in the 1989 film but declined.

No major actors that I can think of, though another supporting actor to have appeared in more than one film is Vincent Wong. He played a crime lord in Batman 89...


...and one of Bruce Wayne's fellow prisoners in Batman Begins.

 
And of course Paul Reubens played the Penguin's dad in both Batman Returns and Gotham.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 31 May  2016, 20:28
And of course Paul Reubens played the Penguin's dad in both Batman Returns and Gotham.

Indeed, and contrary to riddler's comment 'In the days of so many sequels and remakes I can't think of a single case where an actor who played a protagonist later plays an antagonist', one could argue that Reubens was a villain in Batman Returns but a real sweetie in "Gotham" (shame the latter came to an untimely end  :( ).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 31 May  2016, 20:55

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 31 May  2016, 20:28
And of course Paul Reubens played the Penguin's dad in both Batman Returns and Gotham.

Indeed, and contrary to riddler's comment 'In the days of so many sequels and remakes I can't think of a single case where an actor who played a protagonist later plays an antagonist', one could argue that Reubens was a villain in Batman Returns but a real sweetie in "Gotham" (shame the latter came to an untimely end  :( ).

Would his character be a villain in returns? He was a bad father to the villain so essentially he was a villain to the villain. Does that make him a protagonist?

I'm not caught up on Gotham BTW so my previous post is not including anyone who may have shown up in season 2

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  1 Jun  2016, 13:45
Would his character be a villain in returns? He was a bad father to the villain so essentially he was a villain to the villain. Does that make him a protagonist?

I'm not caught up on Gotham BTW so my previous post is not including anyone who may have shown up in season 2

To be fair, I was rather overstretching the point.

I was simply noting the striking difference between the parental philosophies of Daddy Cobblepot in 'Batman Returns' and in "Gotham" (although they're both played by Paul Reubens, and both men are wealthy aristocratic types).

I do also think it's fair to describe Tucker and Esther Cobblepots as villains of sorts in 'Batman Returns' seeing how their actions (i.e. dumping Oswald into the sewer) contributed to making him a monster.

I wonder if this movie could bag $1+ billion worldwide. Based on the performance of the Webb movies, I'd think it more likely to end up in the $800-900 million range. But you never know. Raimi's movies came close to a billion, and that was without 3D ticket revenue. If Homecoming did gross over a billion, it'd be Downey's fifth consecutive appearance as Stark to do so. And it'd be Michael Keaton's third movie to reach ten figures after Toy Story 3 and Minions.

At present, the total WW gross of each Batman actor's filmography (according to boxofficemojo.com) is as follows:

1.   Clooney - $4,599.5 million
2.   Affleck - $4,461.9 million
3.   Bale - $4,383.3 million
4.   Keaton - $4,054.4 million
5.   Kilmer - $1,734.4 million

If Homecoming does make over a billion, it should bump Keaton up a place or two. Unless of course the other actors appear in equally lucrative films over the next 12 months. And since Affleck's got Suicide Squad and Justice League coming up, I'm guessing he's going to take the top spot from Clooney.

Jeffrey Henderson has posted some concept art he did for Raimi's unmade Spider-Man 4 back when the film was in preproduction. It seems to confirm fan speculation that Bruce Campbell would have been Mysterio.

Evidently, with Mysterio originally only having a small part in Spider-Man 4, one can only assume that The Lizard would have been the main villain for a Spider-Man 5. Especially since Dylan Baker's Dr. Conners having previously made appearances in 2 and 3, so the seeds were already planted. Plus, we are talking about The Vulture, The Vulturess, and Mysterio all appearing in 4.

I wonder if Raimi had any plans on introducing Electro and/or Kraven the Hunter in his Spider-Man films ... I suppose he could have made 5 with Lizard/Electro/Kraven, but that seems a bit overstuffed, unless perhaps the Lizard and maybe Kraven would appear in 5, and Electro making his 1st appearance in 6 to round out Doc Ock's Sinister Six ... ?

Similar to being interested in a comic book continuing the Burton Batman saga, I would love for Marvel Comics to team up with Raimi and give us the sequels that might have been. Kinda like the Smallville Season comics, they would be a nice companion piece to the movies.

The Raimi trilogy is such a massive driver of my Spider-Man passion. If I want to feel good about the character, I look in that direction. So those concept arts are like gold to me, but also haunting reminders of what could've....and should've been. They really didn't know how magical and on point Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi were. They cut the cord on a proven combo. But hey, I liked TASM2 overall, even though it's still a rung underneath the others. Tom Holand has real potential, and with new set pics out now, the hype train can really gain momentum.

Andrew Garfield rocks! I was sad to see him go. People can say what they want that it's for the best and whatnot but I really like his Ultimatey take on the character. Plus, ASM2 gave Spider-Man something he's always lacked: a real hero theme. Zimmer gave Spider-Man a very precious gift and it breaks my heart to see it tossed away.

Spider-Man 4... look, guys, I'm the one in the room who said he never needed a reboot in the first place. I dig Garfield and the Webbverse but I was happy with the Raimiverse and would've been interested to see that iteration of the character grow, mature, change, get married, father children, etc. It could've been epic.

I'm also probably the leading Spider-Man 3 apologist to be found anywhere online.

Spidey 3 has nothing to apologise for. It has a lot going for it and it's my second favourite in the series. ;)

And agree about Zimmer's Spider-Man score. It's an under appreciated gem. Cold War/No Place Like Home is one of the best one/two punches you will find in the web slinger's audio history. Zimmer nailed the young, fun, rock and roll energy of the character. Check out I Need To Know and the rendition of the main theme. It's Inception dipped into superhero jelly. It's so good, and speaks to the character's optimism. You're My Boy and Ground Rules are solid too when it comes to poignancy. Hans really delivered top quality superhero soundtracks towards the end of his comic book run.

But yes, Holland really impressed me during Civil War.

I'm not a fan of Maguire, to me he dropped the ball on the character in 3 ways
1) playing it too much of a nerd
2) not getting the humour of the character right
3) the entire love story with Dunst was weak in all three films, especially the third
he was good as the powerless Peter Parker in the first and second films but I just didn't like him as the protagonist, he seemed far too mentally weak to be a superhero. All the crying was too much

Still I embrace all the 21st century versions of the character. As maligned as SM3 and TASM2 are, there are still plenty of enjoyable aspects to both those films; the black suit, venom, the entire electric theme.

So far spider-man has the most superhero films without a bad one. Perhaps it's because he got a late start on the big screen compared to Batman and Superman. I do own all five spidey films (three of them on blu ray) it should also be noted the five spidey films have combined for 7 feature villains (not counting the Rhino) with only one being repeated (Harry) so there's a lot of variety there. Nolan reused three of the previous villains and the superman films had been far too reliant on Lex Luthor.


I do prefer the Webb series to the Raimi series though the Webb one will be forever incomplete. Garfield captured more of the smartass aspects than Tobey did and felt more of the character than Maguire did (it was easier to believe it was Garfield inside the spidey costume than Tobey). It does seem so far that the things Garfield got right, Holand is getting better. One criticism with Garfield is that he seemed a little too confident. Spidey is a tragic hero and should never be too much in control, he should aways feel awkward in his own skin and be constantly beaten up on metaphorically. I liked how Spider-man 3 began with spidey in complete control and on top of his world before having it all crashing down (mainly his own doing while under the symbiote influence; he took things personally with Sandman, Eddie, and Harry.



I don't think anyone truly wanted a reboot with Webb on board. The only somewhat appetite for a reboot were extreme Venom/Carnage fans who knew those characters could likely never be featured in another film in the Raimi universe. I certainly was not happy SM4 got scrapped especially when the reboot used the likely villain for the fourth film anyhow. But nearly 10 years since the Raimi series ended, I accept things the way they are. Maybe SM4 would have been worse than 3 and it would have been another repeat of the Batman and Superman series?

Michael Keaton has finally commented on the film, describing it as – SPOILERS – a "big budget movie that will be an awful lot of fun."
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-man/michael-keaton-comments-on-spider-man-homecoming-role-more-cool-set-a143399

I hope these details haven't ruined the movie for anyone.

Glad Keaton signed up for this one. He's had a good track record with films lately, so it all points to Homecoming being of similar quality.

I'll always respect Keaton for doing the films he wanted to do. He was heavily popular in the mid 90's coming off Batman and Beetlejuice, I'm sure he could have parlayed that into some high paying roles the way Kilmer and Clooney attempted to do (Clooney succeeding, Kilmer not so much) or held onto a monopoly on the character in a sense that only he could play him. He never did though and good for him for making that choice. It makes me trust the scripts he does choose.

The first footage has been shown at Comic-Con, including a brief clip of Vulture in action. Although the clip has yet to be released online, this concept art supposedly matches how he appears in the film:

QuoteAsked how he feels about moving from the DC world of "Batman" to Marvel's "Spider-Man" universe, Keaton says: "You're asking the wrong guy. I know so little about the entire culture; honestly it's a little embarrassing. You'd think that even by osmosis I would know more about it."

Fortunately, a friend has two young daughters who help him out. "They fill me in on the backstory of my character and all the other characters. So when I have questions, I call them."

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/beetlejuice-sequel-has-to-be-done-right-michael-keaton-says-1201824781/

I hope they don't kill him off. It'd be awesome to see Keaton return in a later movie as part of the Sinister Six. Right now, I just want to see a live action image of his costume. The concept art looks awesome – they've taken one of the potentially goofiest looking supervillains and made him appear badass and intimidating. He's even more threatening when you consider it's Keaton under the mask.


The MCU Vulture must be pretty dangerous. Holland's Spider-Man might be a novice, but he's already tangled with Captain America and several other superheroes. If Vulture can stand alone against him, then he must rank fairly high on the threat metre.

The first official trailer, and International trailer were released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DwoQ7HWvI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41dUp3kK-0w


Looks like it could be fun. I'm sorta in that feeling that it's somewhat difficult to get super amped up excited over this, since this is yet another take on Spidey in a relatively short amount of time, but Holland seems to evoke that nerdy, socially awkward Peter Parker that was introduced by Lee/Ditko way back in the early 1960's, that I felt was blatantly excluded during the Marc Webb films. In addition, not going to lie, anytime Keaton plays a villain, I'm already intrigued. However, I can't say I really care for the Vulture mask all that much. Sure, it makes sense that a criminal would want to hide their face, but considering this is a Spider-Man movie, where the idea of "realism" can obviously be played with, I would have preferred a more traditional approach, where we get to see Adrian Toomes/Michael Keaton's face. Or at the very least, some sort of head gear/helmet. Similar to what the 2nd Vulture, Blackie Drago, had.

All in all, it will be interesting to see a Spider-Man film with a John Hughes type of approach, along with one that incorporates the notion that this is a universe already filled with other superheroes. A first for any Spider-Man movie. That's a concept that was immediately brought to the forefront with comic book Spider-Man. Right at the start of Amazing Spider-Man #1 with Spidey inquiring about membership with the Fantastic Four!

The trailer didn't do much for me. But I'll still see it for Keaton.

My girlfriend is a Spidey fan from way back. If she wants to see it, we'll see it. If she doesn't... eh, I honestly don't care.

I saw someone on YouTube making a good point about Civil War tying into Homecoming.

Now that the Sokovia Accords is working as a fully sanctioned legislation, how can Spider-Man still roam around the streets around Manhattan? Considering the trailers showed us that a police helicopter is chasing after him, it makes less sense. Has Iron Man somehow convinced the government to exempt Spider-Man? Do the Accords only concern the Avengers, and not "local" heroes? I can't remember.

Here is a hilarious fan edit of the trailer, co-starring Keaton as Batman!  ;D

And don't worry, it's safe for work, so ignore the caption.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch4WmDWbG6g

New Posters.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprem1.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1217%2Fc25a38e5420c673198a7529eb4bb5386.jpg&hash=3df0b10095fff32f9d13be55914ad2177bb52301)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprem1.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1217%2Fe70fb5947eeea4ae338d9f808805397a.jpg&hash=2bd51f4b33b7c95fd4723d4cb90f83188f2e6ad8)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1217%2Fbcd5d28fa2c8de3028af1c7929de14de.jpg&hash=33aded3250437a74950d7ae5325bf27ebfff2901)


And a Vulture Comic/Movie homage that's kinda fun.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1217%2Fd37f05c8c54cb58fdde9b7ed3891fae0.jpg&hash=9d705eab2f843805cc45fa30ab9333eaee2a0e08)

I'm not sure I care for The Vulture's updated costume.  It's a bit bland, and I thought the Spider-Man movies might have done with masks after the Green Goblin.

Also, shouldn't Osborne Industries be just as prominent to the New York skyline as the Avengers headquarters?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 Dec  2016, 23:17
The trailer didn't do much for me. But I'll still see it for Keaton.

Sorry Keats, but I've revised this stance.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 25 Mar  2017, 23:59
I'm not sure I care for The Vulture's updated costume.  It's a bit bland, and I thought the Spider-Man movies might have done with masks after the Green Goblin.

I can agree that it's a bit generic. Vulture's had some updated looks in the books that even ditches the green in his costume, but doesn't involve wearing a mask.

QuoteAlso, shouldn't Osborne Industries be just as prominent to the New York skyline as the Avengers headquarters?

I'm kinda glad that it isn't to be perfectly honest. The Osborne's have been done to death, and would be perfectly fine if they sat it out in the MCU for atleast the foreseeable future. I would be more interested in a MCU Doc Ock at the moment. Especially in light of that character's notoriety in the comics in recent years.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 26 Mar  2017, 01:16I'm kinda glad that it isn't to be perfectly honest. The Osborne's have been done to death, and would be perfectly fine if they sat it out in the MCU for atleast the foreseeable future. I would be more interested in a MCU Doc Ock at the moment. Especially in light of that character's notoriety in the comics in recent years.

I agree that the Osbornes shouldn't be done in the MCU for a good while.  Like you say, the previous Spider-Man franchises have practically done the character to death, but I'd still like some acknowledgement that Osborne Industries exists in this universe, so if and when Norman and Harry do eventually show up, it won't seem so contrived and/or sudden.

It would be akin to Man of Steel featuring vans with the LexCorp logo (admittedly, Snyder and co were most likely planning for Lex to appear in the sequel, but he didn't have to, and it represented a nice 'Easter Egg' at the time signifying that the company was a permanent fixture in Metropolis).

Sounds good. I would be cool with that.

I believe there's a interest in seeing Spidey villains who haven't gotten their due on the silver screen finally be realized. Now with HOMECOMING, we're finally getting The Vulture. Mysterio seems a pretty safe bet for a sequel, and as far as a third film, Marvel/Disney could go back to the Goblins again, but I'm not entirely convinced that would be intriguing considering the overuse of the Osborne storyline with the prior sets of films.

Doc Ock is one that I think has been dormant long enough that may generate some excitement. Not gonna lie, I was interested in Sony's idea of casting Matt Damon as Otto for their cancelled "Sinister Six" movie. Which seems much more Ultimate Ock than the classic 616 version, and I wouldn't have a issue with that. Jackal, Kraven, Chameleon are others that could be incorporated. Actually, if Marvel/Disney simply cannot refrain from using a Goblin, I would be more open to the Hobgoblin to be perfectly honest. I believe in the 1990's Spider-Man animated series, the Hobgoblin was around even before the Green Goblin! Which I thought was an interesting/different route to take with that character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39udgGPyYMg

This is a great trailer, and Keaton looks like he'll be giving another awesome performance.

The only problem is, I feel more sympathy for small business owner Adrian Toomes/The Vulture than I do for big business honcho Tony Stark.  I hope the film delves into the 'problem with Tony Stark', rather than letting him off the hook, as a few of the previous films have tended to do.

*watches trailer*

All of you who are looking forward to this thing, hope you enjoy it. I'm officially out.

The trailer makes it look like Spiderman & Ironman, but we know trailers can be misguiding (they might have included 2 of the 5 minutes Downey is in it). For me, Keaton is the prime selling point.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Mar  2017, 23:34
*watches trailer*

All of you who are looking forward to this thing, hope you enjoy it. I'm officially out.

I still regard myself a fan of the MCU, but honestly, what they're offering this year looks very weak. I have no desire to see this movie or GOTG2 in theatres. And I might skip Thor Ragnarok if the trailers don't impress me. The next MCU movie I'm more excited for is Black Panther, and that won't come out till next year. :(

I seriously don't see anything special from what I've seen in this Spider-Man so far, not even Downey and Keaton are exciting me. I'd say it's because Spider-Man is overdone at this point since he's in yet another reboot for the SECOND time in five years. f*** that! And why does Hollywood like to spoil too much in their trailers?! Enough!

I enjoyed the first GOTG as a fun ride, but the trailers feel like they're trying too hard to be funny. And I don't care for that baby Groot crap. I think the novelty for that team is wearing thin for me right now.

As for Thor Ragnarok? I'm bummed out to hear that the film was originally supposed to be more serious, but the producers are claiming it will be the "funniest Thor yet". No thank you. We've already had moments of levity in the first Thor, and it was done very well I might add, but please don't add forced humour for the sake of it.

I have to say that I do agree with some of the reactions from the trailer. As a guy who grew up a fan of Spider-Man, and absolutely loved reading the early Lee/Ditko era of Spidey (thanks to Spider-Man Masterworks Vol.1 being purchased for me, along with the short lived "Spider-Man Classics" comics that reprinted from the very start in Amazing Fantasy #15), it is difficult to really get amped up for yet another reboot that is obviously placing alot of it's appeal on the fact that it's now taking place within the MCU. Which is fine and dandy, and I can see for those who adore the MCU's product enjoying the novelty, but at the same time, it does come across as if Marvel is all too aware that there is going to be alot of people out there who are going to have a difficult time getting excited about yet another reboot, and hence the trailer essentially making this out to be a cinematic adaptation of "Marvel Team Up: Starring Spider-Man & Iron Man". Which may be smart marketing wise, just not my preferred method right out of the gate.

As far as humor goes, I don't have a problem with it within a Spider-Man movie. Cause he's a character that has always lent himself to humor, witty comebacks, and nicknames for his adversaries. With Guardians of the Galaxy, I guess it's fine too. Don't really know alot about those character's, so it's really not a big issue for me. Now with Thor Ragnorok, aiming to make it hilarious does come across as off-putting to me. Like I said, with Spider-Man, I expect him to be snarky during a fight. With Thor or Hulk? Not so much. And too much of that pretty much just takes me out of the movie, because the stakes literally just come across as mere sparring. Especially when the point is being conveyed within the film that everything is on the line yet here the hero and villain are trying to out wit and out snark one another.

Probably why I never cared for the Tony Stark vs Loki snark/wit battle during a actual ALIEN INVASION of New York in 2012's Avengers movie.   

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 29 Mar  2017, 10:59And why does Hollywood like to spoil too much in their trailers?! Enough!

Originally when I said "I'm out", I was including this thread. But this line caught my interest.

Compare the Spider-Man trailer (which basically lays out the high points of what the movie will be about) compared to the trailers for Man of Steel, Suicide Squad and Justice League.

Admittedly, BVS gave away a fair amount in the trailers. But the MOS, SS and JL trailers gave the flavor of each movie but with minimal detail. In fact, I think there's an argument that the DCEU trailers give less away with each subsequent film. The basic theme of MOS was suggested in the trailers while less was said about SS. As for JL, the lion's share of the marketing revolves around the novelty of teaming these characters up... which I don't think will be effective in the post-Avengers world but that's preferable to giving away the store in the trailers, right?

It's just interesting, that's all I'm saying.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 29 Mar  2017, 10:59I enjoyed the first GOTG as a fun ride, but the trailers feel like they're trying too hard to be funny. And I don't care for that baby Groot crap. I think the novelty for that team is wearing thin for me right now.

If past is prologue, the MCU is predicated upon a badass first installment in a franchise followed by weak sequels. Iron Man 2, Thor: The Dark World, Avengers: Age of Ultron and the rest have their fans but the consensus seems to be that they don't come anywhere near the originals.

If that holds true, GOTG's best days are already behind it.

Yes, the Captain America movies are exceptions to the rule. But the rule still holds.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 29 Mar  2017, 21:12If past is prologue, the MCU is predicated upon a badass first installment in a franchise followed by weak sequels. Iron Man 2, Thor: The Dark World, Avengers: Age of Ultron and the rest have their fans but the consensus seems to be that they don't come anywhere near the originals.

If that holds true, GOTG's best days are already behind it.

Yes, the Captain America movies are exceptions to the rule. But the rule still holds.

With respect to GOTG2, let's wait and see, shall we?

Neither Thor film was among the best MCU entries, so the door is open for Thor: Ragnarok to be an improvement on the first film and Thor: The Dark World.

And you're right about the Captain America series, but I'm also one of those people who prefers Iron Man 3 to its predecessors.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 30 Mar  2017, 00:04With respect to GOTG2, let's wait and see, shall we?

I'm all for that. I'm just keeping my expectations low.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 30 Mar  2017, 00:04Neither Thor film was among the best MCU entries, so the door is open for Thor: Ragnarok to be an improvement on the first film and Thor: The Dark World.

I rather enjoy the first Thor film. If that was released in today's market, it would do better because wide audiences are more trusting of the Marvel brand than they were back in 2008.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 30 Mar  2017, 00:04And you're right about the Captain America series, but I'm also one of those people who prefers Iron Man 3 to its predecessors.

Good for you, I guess, but the arc of that series in the public mind peaked with the first one and went downhill from there. Just like it did with Thor and Avengers.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Mar  2017, 00:35
I'm all for that. I'm just keeping my expectations low.

Too bad some people don't follow that approach for ALL movies and prefer to jump on the bandwagon instead.

Apparently, people are believing that Sony's Amy Pascal is hinting that Spider-Man could drop out of the MCU after the Homecoming sequel because she said this in an interview:

Quote
"One of the things that I think is so amazing about this experience is that you don't have studios deciding to work together to make a film very often. In fact it may never happen again, after we do the [Homecoming] sequel."

https://youtu.be/Glpcj-oQEN0

But according to Forbes, Spider-Man has three films to appear in the MCU. Hmmmm.

In other news, Sony are making an R-rated Venom movie...that has nothing to do with the MCU. And the title character is cast by...Zac Efron?!

http://screenrant.com/venom-movie-zac-efron-eddie-brock-mcu/

***EDIT:*** Considering that today is April Fool's Day, I should've realised that the Venom/Zac Efron news was fake. :-[

Spider-Man's entire participation in Civil War felt tacked on... and a bit like someone was trying too hard. "See? Spider-Man is joking around as he fights! It's just like the comics! See? SEE???"

If he leaves the MCU after all this Homecoming and the sequel stuff... eh. Whatever. I've got three Raimi films and two Webb films. When it comes to Spider-Man movies, I'm good, thanks.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 18:46
Spider-Man's entire participation in Civil War felt tacked on... and a bit like someone was trying too hard. "See? Spider-Man is joking around as he fights! It's just like the comics! See? SEE???"

If he leaves the MCU after all this Homecoming and the sequel stuff... eh. Whatever. I've got three Raimi films and two Webb films. When it comes to Spider-Man movies, I'm good, thanks.

I somewhat agree with your first paragraph.  Spider-Man's involvement in Civil War felt shoehorned rather than natural.  And I'm a little worried about how much screen-time Iron Man/Tony Stark will be getting in the upcoming 'solo' Spider-Man film.

The thing about Spider-Man/Peter Parker was that he was always the little guy who didn't start off with any rich and powerful friends/benefactors, and I fear that by featuring Stark as a constant presence in the new Spider-Man franchise, that 'little guy versus the world' feeling will be somewhat lost.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 18:46
Spider-Man's entire participation in Civil War felt tacked on... and a bit like someone was trying too hard. "See? Spider-Man is joking around as he fights! It's just like the comics! See? SEE???"

If he leaves the MCU after all this Homecoming and the sequel stuff... eh. Whatever. I've got three Raimi films and two Webb films. When it comes to Spider-Man movies, I'm good, thanks.

I honestly believe Diveristy-Man was originally going to feature Miles Morales instead of Peter. Check out the supporting cast. Some of them strongly evoke his characters. This is basically a Miles film but with Peter.

That aside, I think something is being lost with this new version of the character. He is a young impressionable kid, and I get that. But he seems way too fascinated by pleasing the Avengers and Stark, when at this point of his career it should be about protecting the public. That's why he started doing this in the first place. Something about this doesn't click with me.

One of the reasons why I liked Spider-Man was because he was independent during his origins. He had to work things through himself and make things himself. Sure, Holland made the suit we see in Civil War. But after that, it's probably going to be Stark being Lucius Fox. Here's a new suit, here's a spider signal, here's this, here's that. A backstory of Peter creating a homemade suit doesn't really matter when the norm becomes the situation with Stark. Peter is the struggling kid who doesn't have the resources but he makes things happen. Having Stark in the mix takes that aspect away in my opinion. Things become too easy and it makes Peter an accessory.

Another reboot burned me out and this direction made me lose interest altogether.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 23:31I honestly believe Diveristy-Man was originally going to feature Miles Morales instead of Peter. Check out the supporting cast. Some of them strongly evoke his characters. This is basically a Miles film but with Peter.

I'll take your word on that. I don't know much about Miles, tbh.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 23:31That aside, I think something is being lost with this new version of the character. He is a young impressionable kid, and I get that. But he seems way too fascinated by pleasing the Avengers and Stark, when at this point of his career it should be about protecting the public. That's why he started doing this in the first place. Something about this doesn't click with me.

Good point.

I'm not a professor of Spider-Lore or anything. But my impression was that Spider-Man spent the great majority of his publishing history more or less on the outs from the wider Marvel universe. Yeah, occasionally he'd find acceptance from the Fantastic Four or the Avengers or something. But by and large, those exceptions mostly underlined that he is an outsider, even among his own peers.

When Peter became a kinda sorta apprentice to Stark in the Civil War comics, it marked a turning point for him. He was accepted by Tony and, by proxy, the rest of the Avengers in a way he had never been before. Joining the New Avengers was one thing. But going to work for Stark was a new beginning for him. It was enfranchisement that he had sincerely started believing he would never have.

Now, putting aside what happened in the aftermath of all that, Peter still had a TON of crap to go through to get to that point. It was a payoff that he had EARNED.

But Holland's Peter is getting it in his first MCU film (and it arguably started in the Civil War movie) and I just have problems with that.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 23:31Another reboot burned me out and this direction made me lose interest altogether.

This.

Here's a new interview with Michael Keaton: http://nerdist.com/michael-keaton-spider-man-homecoming-vulture-fangirls/ (http://nerdist.com/michael-keaton-spider-man-homecoming-vulture-fangirls/)

Here are a few interesting paragraphs where Keaton discusses his new comic-book character in some degree of detail:

QuoteKeaton revealed the blue-collar roots of Toomes, the small business owner of salvage company who he said, "Feels like a victim, and some of it is justified actually. He believes that there's an upper echelon of society of people who are getting away with a lot and have everything. And there's a whole lot of folks who are working hard, and don't have much."

For Toomes, that upper echelon means Tony Stark, whose company pushed his crew out of the Battle of New York cleanup gig that could have meant big money for a small business like his. So, with the help of his team, Vulture plans a series of heists to ripoff Stark Industries. On set we learned his team is made of Phineas "The Tinkerer" Mason (Michael Chernus), and Herman "The Shocker" Schultz (Bokeem Woodbine), as well as a cohort played by Logan Marshall-Green that no one on set would dare reveal. So what B-list baddie might he be?

Careful to not spill spoilers, Keaton didn't speak to Marshall-Green's role, but did say of the Vulture's squad, "They're his boys, and they are like-minded. They are just his boys, you know?"

"I really like the relationship with the Tinkerer–with Michael (Chernus)'s character–it's great," Keaton said. "He's real funny, so we goof around a lot and make up very, very funny backstories. But they're funny but then you think, 'Well, that's probably their relationship. They probably get on each other's nerves sometimes.' I have a lot of the ideas and then I just say, "Go make that. Go make that for me. I want to have a thing that does all this stuff. Just go make that stuff for me." And he's great. I'm having a lot of fun in that relationship."

Keaton was likewise tight-lipped when it came to questions about the set of Vulture's lab, which we got to tour. Winding through a dark and drafty warehouse, the glamor of Hollywood felt faraway. Within its chilly concrete walls, there was a bounty of strange glowing tech, and a pair of metal Vulture wings that extended into steel fingers. Then on the fridge, some children's drawings in crayon. So, this super-villain isn't just some wild rogue, he's a working dad whose motivation is providing for his family.
"He wants to look out for who his kids,"Marvel producer Eric Carroll said. "He's got sort of a Tony Soprano mentality. He doesn't have these big delusions of grandeur where he wants to take over the world, or replace the government, or even defeat the Avengers or anything. He just wants his shot at the good life, and he thinks it's not fair that someone like Tony Stark can make a fortune selling weapons and find the light, turn away from that, and be looked upon as a hero and then even worse, he gets paid to clean up the mess! ... So he's one of those guys. 'I'm doing some shady stuff, but I'm not really hurting anyone,' you know?"

Keaton's The Vulture/Adrian Toomes is coming across more  and more sympathetic each time I read about him.  I'm now wondering, is he the villain, or is it Tony Stark.

I rated Civil War a 9/10 on this site after I first saw it last year. I've since watched it again on DVD and realised that I overrated it in my initial review. My revised score would be a 6 or 7 at most. I still think it's a good film, but The Winter Soldier retains the top spot for best MCU movie IMO.

In retrospect, Spider-Man's inclusion in Civil War is one of the problems I have with it. Those scenes work in isolation, and I like Tom Holland in the role. But as others have pointed out, there's no reason for those scenes, entertaining though they are, to appear in that specific story. The whole plot basically stops so Marvel can plug another one of their upcoming films. It's inorganic. And I'm tired of this trend in general. It's nice that studios now have the option to include one hero in another's film should they need to, but I think there's been a tendency of late to abuse that freedom.

More and more, I'm longing for the days of unique and simple standalone superhero films like Batman 89 and The Crow, where one hero battled one villain and there was a sense of closure at the end of it all. It's great to have movies like The Avengers and Justice League, but we need more self-contained cameo-free films to balance things out.

As for Spider-Man: Homecoming, I'm not sure if I'm going to see it yet. I skipped the Webb films in theatres, but I'm intrigued to see Keaton in another superhero film. He's the main selling point for me.

I agree, once again, with a lot of your comments Silver Nemesis.

Like you, I appreciate the freedom Marvel Studios has to place any one of its various characters (except, alas, for the X-Men and Fantastic Four...) in whichever movie it chooses.  I also appreciate the sense of continuity between movies.

But I also resent the sense that certain MCU instalments are beginning to feel like two-hour trailers for the next movie rather than self-contained adventures one can appreciate without insisting on prior knowledge or waiting for loose threads to be resolved.

Like you say, Batman 1989 is a great example of a self-contained comic-book movie, that resolves its narrative within the space of two hours.  It's also why I can forgive the filmmakers for portraying The Joker as the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents.  That plot contrivance adds to the sense of a resolution, with Batman finally confronting and definitively defeating the very man/monster that effectively created him.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 23:12And I'm tired of this trend in general. It's nice that studios now have the option to include one hero in another's film should they need to, but I think there's been a tendency of late to abuse that freedom.

More and more, I'm longing for the days of unique and simple standalone superhero films like Batman 89 and The Crow, where one hero battled one villain and there was a sense of closure at the end of it all. It's great to have movies like The Avengers and Justice League, but we need more self-contained cameo-free films to balance things out.

It's funny how awesome the Burton and Schumacher Batman films look nowadays, isn't it?

I suppose it's like anything. When the marketing department gets too involved in these sorts of things, bad things happen. The MCU nowadays is starting to look like someone created a Frankenstein.

One of the things I really enjoyed about Iron Man 3 (inferior though it may be to the original) is that the conflicts begin and end with Tony Stark through that movie. He drives a good chunk of the narrative. His flaws and failings now and in the past are a source of pain and conflict for him.

Yes, Iron Man 3 definitely makes reference to goings on in the Avengers. One must have seen the first Avengers flick to really get the most out of Iron Man 3. But it's still a standalone piece. It's not a feature-length trailer for some upcoming Marvel movie.

And the issue there is Iron Man 3 took grief for that. Had fans reacted positively to Iron Man 3 being its own thing, hand-on-heart I believe Marvel would've probably framed future releases with an eye toward jokey cameos like we saw in Thor: The Dark World but not necessarily have made every new movie a preview for something coming later on.

But fans went a different way. And I understand that they enjoy seeing these characters crossing over into each other's movies. But it's starting to affect the quality of the movie. Homecoming is basically a novelty at this point. "Look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! FINALLY!!!" There's a film being made here. A story is being told. Actors have invested themselves in characters. Writers have invested themselves in scripts. A director has invested himself in a story.

But it's like none of that stuff matters. Because look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! Who cares about the characters or the storyline? WOOOOOOO, Spider-Man is in the MCU!!!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  4 Apr  2017, 04:29
But fans went a different way. And I understand that they enjoy seeing these characters crossing over into each other's movies. But it's starting to affect the quality of the movie. Homecoming is basically a novelty at this point. "Look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! FINALLY!!!" There's a film being made here. A story is being told. Actors have invested themselves in characters. Writers have invested themselves in scripts. A director has invested himself in a story.

But it's like none of that stuff matters. Because look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! Who cares about the characters or the storyline? WOOOOOOO, Spider-Man is in the MCU!!!

This particular paragraph has evoked some concerns I've had about the MCU lately. There appears to be a common consensus nowadays that the MCU embraces "fun", and should be praised for that alone. But there is also a rebuttal that too much "fun" i.e. comedy relief, undermines the tension and drama of the story. I was looking at some of the positive reactions to the GOTG2 on Twitter yesterday, and all I could here is the movie is fun this and that, full of heart...and yet, I saw some people suggesting the film was disjointed and even the jokes aren't as fresh as the first film. But as long as the story is fun, it doesn't really matter.

This is the biggest problem I had with Civil War's second act. People were so obsessed over that airport fight scene, it gave me an impression that they were ignoring the themes in oversight and character arcs, and analysing whether or not they stand up to scrutiny (I'll say it once more, Black Panther is the only one who had a real arc in that film, everybody else's was either tacked on or unfinished).

The earlier films certainly had their levels of fun, but I reckon they were richer when it came to content. Particularly for Tony Stark in IM1, The Avengers and IM3. Initially, Stark completes redeeming himself as the arrogant playboy who seeks take responsibility for his company's profiteering on war, learns to put his selfishness aside and become a team member for the sake of the planet, and then use his own intelligence to crack down on Killian's Mandarin hoax and overcome his own PTSD. Yes, he never shook off that arrogant, snarky bravado. But I do believe his path towards redemption was genuine.

But in AOU and CW, I can't help but feel his portrayal is going backwards. He makes a flippant remark about creating Ulton, which should've sent him to alcoholism over the fact he nearly had humanity wiped out (but somehow, he feels more guilty for being blamed for a young guy's death in Sokovia?), and manipulates Spider-Man into joining a fight that doesn't concern him. Never mind the fact the ending shoehorned a revenge theme, which appeared to have been relieved by a bloody letter.

But who cares, the airport scene was so much fun. Right?!

Yes indeed. And it's weird because for a long time there, the notion of a shared universe was the Holy Grail (at least for me) with comic movies. But the more of these we get, the more I wonder that maybe a shared universe is actually the inmates taking over the asylum.

I know this can be a touchy subject but Nolan insisted that his movies, love them or hate them, exist in their own immaculate reality, divorced from other superheroes. There's an argument that it was an egotistical policy. And maybe it was. But his gave his films a narrative focus which probably they would've lacked if he hadn't kept his hands so steadily on the steering wheel.

Would Iron Man 2, for example, be better regarded if it didn't have so many ties to the first Avengers flick? Maybe not. But maybe it would.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 20 Apr  2017, 17:37
Yes indeed. And it's weird because for a long time there, the notion of a shared universe was the Holy Grail (at least for me) with comic movies. But the more of these we get, the more I wonder that maybe a shared universe is actually the inmates taking over the asylum.

May I be so bold to suggest you're not really tired of the shared universe concept, but rather, you're tired of how progressively formulaic the MCU movies are becoming? I pose this question because you still enjoyed the recent DCEU films.

Look at AOU, for example. I didn't want to admit this at the time I saw it, but deep down, one of the biggest problems I had with that film is it had too many plot points that were a carbon copy of the first Avengers: brainwashing heroes, heroes fighting against each other - including another Hulk freakout, an army of canon fodder for the Avengers to beat etc. There were some great moments of eye candy for sure, i.e. the opening scene where the Avengers attack HYDRA and the chase scene in Korea. But plotwise, it left me wanting.

Even Ant-Man and Doctor Strange have been given the Iron Man treatment. As Iron Man and Iron Monger appear to be a mirror image of each other, we have Ant-Man fighting Yellowjacket, and Doctor Strange fighting Kaecilluis. Strange's origin story is very similar to Stark; arrogant rich man who redeems himself, albeit in a supernatural setting.

Now I do enjoy both movies, but how long can Marvel repeat the same formula till it burns out? What worries me is Marvel will continue as long as people keep focusing on the "fun" side, to the detriment of the movies' quality.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 20 Apr  2017, 17:37
I know this can be a touchy subject but Nolan insisted that his movies, love them or hate them, exist in their own immaculate reality, divorced from other superheroes. There's an argument that it was an egotistical policy. And maybe it was. But his gave his films a narrative focus which probably they would've lacked if he hadn't kept his hands so steadily on the steering wheel.

I think Nolan is a very poor example to use since his movies never had much focus to begin with.  ;)

I'd go with Sam Rami's Spider-Man series as a better example. Yes, I know Raimi didn't have to face studio pressure about starting a shared universe, but Peter Parker still had a storyline that followed through over the course of all three films.

Speaking of which, I think it's no longer fair that Spider-Man 3 gets torn apart for its humour, while stuff like GOTG gets overpraised.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 20 Apr  2017, 17:37
Would Iron Man 2, for example, be better regarded if it didn't have so many ties to the first Avengers flick? Maybe not. But maybe it would.

What it needed was a script that actually had a story to justify its running time.

Seriously, hardly anything happened in that movie. Apart from introducing Black Widow, I can't remember anything else that tied to the Avengers. What a waste of time, from misusing Mickey Rourke with the annoying Sam Rockwell, to a half-assed introduction to War Machine, and Downey phoning it in for a few hours. I'm still relieved that Marvel was able to recover after that setback.

Two important points were brought up here that I would like to add my two cents on:

Spider-man in Civil war; this is the part I was most disappointed with. Not that spidery was poorly portrayed in the least but he has a critical role in the comic Civil war plot and a rather pointless one here.


The second one I thought about was also brought up here; the lack of the true solo super hero. Marvel and DC seem to both be gravitating away from this:
DC on TV: Arrow started out as Oliver and Diggle but expanded to the whole team arrow concept. I was excited after the last season when two of the four sidekicks left but then they were replaced by three less interesting ones. We rarely see the Green Arrow fight alone since season 1 and the Flash is also turning into the 'team flash concept. For instance we rarely see much of Barry Allen as a CSI which is an important part of the character. Legends of tomorrow was green lighted instead of a solo character film. I haven't seen the second season of Supergirl, she doesn't cross over as often since she's from a different earth but I'm finding her show engaging on the basis that it's one of the few which focus mainly on the main character instead of trying to establish an ensemble cast.
DC on film: Nolan gave Bale a heck of a lot more help than any of the previous batmen got; Adam West had Robin but the GCPD was useless in that series, his only other ally was Alfred and this concept carried over into the next series. Bale got help from Gordon, Rachel, Harvey Dent, Alfred, Fox, John Blake, and Selina throughout the films. And I think we can all agree that DC is clearly rushing their expanded universe. Right now we have one solo film, two ensemble films and one of each coming this year (and that's assuming Wonder Woman doesn't get help in her movie). Wonder Woman was already shoehorned in Batman vs. Superman as were Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg. Batman didn't NEED to be in Suicide squad, and the justice league is coming way too early considering 3 of the 5 main characters and even most of Batman's world has yet to be established. Now they did keep the Green Lantern movie a solo one while they easily could have had other Lanterns help Hal Jordan but since this movie tanked, it didn't help the cause for the solo hero.
Marvel on TV: I haven't seen season 2 of daredevil yet but it seems Marvel on TV is sticking with the solo hero concept. it's refreshing to see and it makes sense since they seem to be making Daredevil the team captain and his character is the true underdog who rarely gets outside help with anything aside from Foggy and Elektra. Though Ghost Rider was shoehorned into Agents of SHIELD instead of giving him his own show.
Marvel on film: It seems a similar model to DC on TV is being used to Marvel on film. All six of the characters to get individual films got their solo films but all the sequels had other characters crammed in; Nick Fury and Black widow in iron man 2, many characters in Cap 2, Loki fighting with Thor in thor 2, the iron legion in Iron Man 3 as well as iron Patriot and Pepper suiting up, cap 3 being civil war, Hulk is in Thor 3, spider-man isn't even getting a solo film, we know Iron Man is in it.

Latest trailer reveals that the Spidey costume has AI similar to Jarvis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ib4r_UqFM

Here are the latest posters: first is theatrical, the other is international. As a poster, I prefer the second one - the first is too busy. And why the hell is Happy Hogan even there?

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTU4ODQzNDg0Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjQ5MTE0MjI@._V1_SY1000_SX675_AL_.jpg)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foyster.ignimgs.com%2Fwordpress%2Fstg.ign.com%2F2017%2F05%2FSpiderman-720x1066.jpg&hash=673bf990aa6125e8ffae00ab771baeaaeabaeeea)

My expectations on this film continue to be low, but it can't be worse than GOTG2.

Yeah the main complaint about the last three live action Spidey films is that there was too much going on and too many characters and I don't see this being any different. So far the MCU film this one is coming off as the closest to is Iron Man 2 so take that for what it's worth.

Keaton as the Vulture alone though is enough for me to buy a ticket.

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 26 May  2017, 23:52
Yeah the main complaint about the last three live action Spidey films is that there was too much going on and too many characters and I don't see this being any different. So far the MCU film this one is coming off as the closest to is Iron Man 2 so take that for what it's worth.

Keaton as the Vulture alone though is enough for me to buy a ticket.

Yes, it's funny, isn't it? I'm not expecting to be thrilled by this, and this is the first time I'm saying that about a Spider-Man film. I would've preferred a solo Spider-Man film despite being in the MCU. I'm more excited about Keaton being in it than anything else.

A common discussion these days is that with all the superhero movies coming out these days, few of them qualify as solo films. I don't like the idea of Spider-man fighting with sidekicks at all unless he's fighting multiple villains. There's that extra element of tension when we know the hero has nobody to save them if they got caught.

It should almost become a staple in any Spidey story that Peter Parker is always conflicted and juggling too much at a time. In fact I think that's the most unfair criticism against any Spider-man film: that there's too many storylines going on. The point of the character is that at any given point in his life Peter Parker is always juggling too many balls. Shoehorning Iron Man into this film is a mistake for three reasons IMO:
1) What I mentioned above. having another superhero in the background takes away from the Peter vs. the world mentality
2) the financial aspect. Part of the reason Peter juggles so much at a time is finances and resources. He doesn't tell anyone he's spider-man and thus does it all alone. Now he has Stark to be his sounding board, bank roll, and design his weapons
3) the fact that Tony Stark knows his identity. Of all the superheroes, spider-man arguably does the best job of keeping his identity a secret. This plays a big part in the Civil War comics.

I think it's a regression for Peter to be all about impressing Tony. To report all the crime fighting he's done as if it's a job and not a moral obligation. That's my issue with this arc right now.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 May  2017, 00:20
I think it's a regression for Peter to be all about impressing Tony. To report all the crime fighting he's done as if it's a job and not a moral obligation. That's my issue with this arc right now.

My issue with this version came in Civil war. Great movie, but could have been better if Spidey was handled better. In the comics spidey is a key character in the Civil war as he literally swings from one side to another. He leans to the PRO side on the basis that he doesn't consider himself a vigilante and believes in law and order but he also agrees with the ANTI side in that heroes would be putting their loved ones in danger revealing their identities.     
At this stage I'm just hoping we see more of Spidey than Iron Man. Its obvious this one has a lot of characters in it and is clearly meant as a vehicle for the MCU instead of a solo outing like Doctor Strange was. I think the best case scenario is that it ends up as good as Winter soldier, worst casce scenario, it ends up being criticized for being too busy much like the last 3 spider-man movies


Oh yeah and in case you were wondering, even though Michael Keaton is playing the Vulture, he's still %$#@ing Batman!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-OSTfpdMA&t=45s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-OSTfpdMA&t=45s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-OSTfpdMA&t=45s)

Speaking of Spider-Man, it seems he'll have his own "Arkham", a great video game seriers separate from the movies. Sony exclusive. If the game is half as good as the graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1Haxomq3M

That game looks way better than anything I've seen from Homecoming so far.

Apparently, the film is getting some early positive buzz, with the consensus that's "fun" this and  "fun" that.

I found this particular putz giving his two cents: SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING is an absolute, gosh-darned DELIGHT. It's like Spider-Man meets CAN'T HARDLY WAIT.

https://twitter.com/mikeryan/status/878427497066635268

Yeah, because when I think of Spider-Man, it reminds me of some mediocre Jennifer Love-Hewitt comedy.  ::)

I've now taken the word "fun" with a huge grain of salt. That's the word that people used to describe GOTG2, and I thought it was anything but fun. I thought it was utter rubbish. I hope Homecoming isn't anywhere near as bad.

How excited is everyone for Michael Keaton as the Vulture? As much as I want to use caution with this film I am still extremely giddy about seeing him in an actual comic film again. He's been pretty funny promoting the film, there was a hilarious exchange he had on the Jimmy Kimmel show in which Kimmel said growing up he always admired spider-man and Keaton went up and pretended to beat him up
JK: Sorry I forgot you're his [spider-man] nemisys
MK: No I'm Batman, what the %@#k are you talking about?
Keaton then proceeded to walk off set

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-OSTfpdMA

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Jun  2017, 07:33
I hope Homecoming isn't anywhere near as bad.

You'll have to tell me how it is.

The next film I see in the cinemas will be JUSTICE LEAGUE.

The first four minutes of the movie has already been released online together this trailer, in case anybody wants to see it.

https://youtu.be/OmE8cujOcBo

I won't give any spoilers away, but the more I look at this movie, the more unimpressed I am with it. It appears that this is geared towards a young teenage audience, and frankly, I'm finding the MCU's version of Peter Parker too hyperactive and a little annoying. Regardless if he's a teenager.

I just got back from seeing this. I didn't enjoy it as much as Raimi's trilogy, and even without the nostalgia factor – looking at it objectively – I didn't think it was as good as Spider-Man I & II. I also didn't think it was as good as Wonder Woman. But it was decent.

Tom Holland is very likeable in the lead role. Toby Maguire will always be my Spider-Man, but I admit Holland is closer to the Spidey you'll find in the more recent comics. He's the first actor to take on the role that actually looks and sounds like a teenager, and he manages to convey energy, humour and vulnerability without venturing into the smugness that can sometimes arise from Peter's ego. One thing I'm not mad on is the hi-tech nature of his suit. I always liked the homemade aspect of Spider-Man's accoutrements, but in this film his costume has a level of diverse functionality to rival Iron Man's. I prefer the simple spandex outfit, but that's just me.

The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Most of them were forgettable. Some of them were downright irritating (most of Peter's classmates fall into this category).There was one girl I really hated, who seemed to be a 21st century take on Ally Sheedy's character from The Breakfast Club. I was devastated when she turned out to be (SPOILERS) the new MJ. I'm keeping my fingers crossed she gets the Gwen Stacy treatment in the next film. (END SPOILERS). Marisa Tomei, who is an excellent actress, is badly wasted in this film. If you were disappointed by her lack of meaningful scenes in Civil War, Homecoming will only disappoint you further. They should have given her more to work with. I think part of the problem is that there are too many mentor figures. You've got Happy and Stark guiding Peter, so there's not much need for Aunt May. She has one scene where she helps prep Peter for a dance, but aside from that her presence is purely perfunctory.

The John Hughes aspect of the movie was probably the weakest part for me, mainly because I didn't really like any of the teenage characters besides Peter. The film contains numerous references to Hughes' work, including a very on-the-nose Ferris Bueller homage/shout out. It also gives nods to several other eighties films. One of the more obscure references slipped me by until I noticed Kirk Thatcher's name on the end credits. Who's Kirk Thatcher? He's a film producer and member of the Henson/Muppet workshop. In Spider-Man: Homecoming he's credited as playing 'street punk'. Why is this an eighties movie reference, you ask? Because Kirk Thatcher played the punk on the bus in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.


On the subject of eighties movie references, one thing that struck me as odd was Peter's excitement at the prospect of building a Lego Death Star, as well as the fact he has Star Wars action figures in his bedroom. In Civil War he referred to The Empire Strikes Back as if it were some old people's film he barely remembered. Yet in Homecoming he behaves like a Star Wars fan.

The strongest part of the movie by far is Michael Keaton. This may sound like fanboyism talking, but I really think Vulture is objectively the best aspect of the film. I was prepared to rake Marvel over the coals if they squandered Keats on another disposable bad guy role. But I'm delighted to say that's not the case. His performance is excellent and the character on the whole is fully rounded and genuinely intimidating. His storyline also has a really good twist about two thirds of the way into the movie that I didn't see coming. All in all, Toomes is my favourite MCU movie villain so far. And that's not just because he's played by Keaton. He's different from the Vulture in the comics, but I'd still rank him up there with Dafoe's Green Goblin and Molina's Doc Ock as one of the best Spider-Man movie villains so far. And I was pleased that (SPOILERS) he survives at the end of the movie, so he can potentially return as part of the Sinister Six in one of the future films. I also liked the mid-credit scene where he lies to Scorpion about knowing Spider-Man's identity. I assume he did that to repay Peter for saving his life, which added a further layer of humanity to the character. (END SPOILERS)

One thing this film has that the Webb films didn't is a strong sense of its own identity. The Raimi films had this in spades, but I always felt the concept behind the Webb reboot was very muddled. On the one hand it was meant to be a grounded reboot a la Batman Begins, but it was also meant to be a high school fantasy romance in the vein of Twilight. Then with the second film they tried steering it towards The Avengers, going for a lighter tone with the aim of launching a shared universe. None of those ideas gelled together and the whole thing felt characterless and confused. Spider-Man: Homecoming doesn't have that problem. It's a more comedic take on the material and knows exactly what it wants to be.

Some of the humour worked for me, while other parts fell flat. But that's a very subjective thing and everyone will respond differently. One thing I don't like in modern CBMs is when they use licensed music as a cue for the audience to laugh. I don't mind this in moderation, but sometimes it can be very heavy-handed. Homecoming doesn't use this cliché as excessively or clumsily as something like Suicide Squad, but it does use it to an extent. In general though, the humour was acceptable and there were several moments that made me smile.

Final thoughts. Spider-Man: Homecoming is good, but not great. The direction is bland, the supporting cast aren't very interesting and overall it lacks the strong visual and emotional components that made Sam Raimi's trilogy so endearing. But Holland and Keaton are both excellent, and any time they're on screen together the entertainment level goes into overdrive. Spider-Man has arguably the best gallery of rogues of any superhero after Batman, and this is the first movie in a while to remind me of that. There's some decent action, some funny jokes and a likeable lead hero. It's ok. Not great. Not terrible. Just ok. I've seen worse Spider-Man films, but I've also seen better.

I earned a discount to see this today, so I thought why not give it a chance?

While I didn't think it was as bad as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, I still didn't rate Spider-Man: Homecoming. I completely disagree with some reviews rating it as one of the MCU's best, or the best. I think it's a claim that's simply false. If you've seen the trailers, I'd say that 85% of the movie is spoiled. When will Hollywood ever learn?

Here are my initial thoughts after watching this tonight. Despite what I said in the last sentence, I'll return the friendly courtesy to warn everybody that the following contains SPOILERS:

Quote
The biggest issue I have with Homecoming is the Sokovia Accords doesn't get explored at all. In Captain America: Civil War, a new legislation was being introduced by the United Nations demanding that the Avengers and any costumed superheroes would have to submit to government oversight and have their identities registered, otherwise they would be prohibited from crimefighting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this plot point a pointless afterthought if Spider-Man can wander around the city without government intervention? As I said, this was never explored in the movie at all.

I think one of the key differences between past Spider-Man films and Homecoming is stuff like the Raimi trilogy could be appreciated by people of all ages. Raimi knew how to juggle between drama, comedy, and even horror to keep a lot of people's attention. And I must admit, I appreciate Raimi telling a story about a young kid trying to become into his own man and make a career into the real world, while dealing his own personal demons in his double life as Spider-Man. I do think the former resonates a lot of young adults to care and even relate to, which is I think it's one of the main reasons why Raimi's first two films were so highly rated.

But with Homecoming, I think a key issue this movie caters to a very young teenage audience, because I simply didn't care for the high school plot at all. The humour, while not quite as obnoxious as GOTG2, is still unfunny and childish. The Michelle character was particularly annoying and pointless. I wasn't impressed with the twist where Aunt May discovers Peter's secret either. Felt it was set up for a cheap laugh.

Peter Parker here is too eager to impress in the hopes of trying to join the Avengers, and I wasn't too fond of the idea of him being too reliant on an AI-controlled costume. Sometimes, it appeared that the inclusion of the suit had dumbed him down, e.g. suddenly suffering from a fear of heights while climbing on the Washington monument. That didn't make any sense to me because Peter Parker could swing around everywhere without showing such fear before in Civil War or earlier on in this movie. The responsibility theme was replaced with self-belief, as Peter needed to believe he could accomplish great things without the suit. I understand they were going for something different to what Raimi did, and not do a rehash like Marc Webb. But at the same time, I couldn't help but think this film was missing the internal conflict fans are normally used to seeing in Peter Parker. Instead, he is simply another tie-in to the MCU, but I feel he's less unique here than in past films. Besides, I'm not too convinced by Tony Stark's reasoning in confiscating the suit. If he didn't want a kid to risk getting killed on his conscience, then he shouldn't have recruited him in the first place, never mind entertain the thought of him joining the Avengers. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking that part, but that plot point isn't 100% convincing.

I like Michael Keaton, but I have to admit, I wasn't too impressed with the Vulture. Didn't think he was that compelling enough for a villain.

That's all I have to say for now. But to sum it up: this year so far has been extremely lacklustre from Marvel, in my opinion. At the start of the year, I was even doubting I'd go see any of these movies at the cinema. Well, I gave two out of three a chance, and I won't be fooled for a third time. Maybe it was bound to happen for Marvel to hit a rut. They are releasing too many movies nowadays with formulaic ideas and forced attempts at comedy. The sad thing is, I have low expectations for Infinity War.

Overall, I liked it. I'm not gonna compare it to hype. I hate hype. It's irrelevant to my own personal interests in films. But it wasn't a perfect experience for me. Now I may have to go see it again when I am in better health as, to be rather honest, having to content with a strong, sharp, stabbing pain may have hindered my experience with the film.

I use that word a lot, "experience." Well, I'm never cynical towards the idea of movies. I never look at the screen as if it's beneath me to indulge the universe it's about to show me. Some people are above the idea of wanting to emotionally connect to every movie they see. For me, it's preferred. However, I didn't feel a whole lot at all throughout Spider-Man: Homecoming.

It made me laugh a little bit and I liked at least one of the major action scenes. I also enjoyed Donald Glover's part but I wish that was fleshed out slightly more.

But I kept feeling that something was missing. Peter seems to be driven here to impress Tony Stark. There's nothing emotional about that. In fact, I felt more emotion towards Tony Stark's reasoning for mentoring Peter than Peter's journey. Having said that, while I somewhat understand Tony's reasoning for making such a deal about what happened, it didn't resonate with me.

Also, it bothered me that while the big, showstopping fight from Civil War is mentioned. Here, they pretend like there were no stakes in that fight and while no one was trying to kill each other, it was definitely dangerous. In fact, there was a major consequence that resulted from that fight, something that is criminally not mentioned in the film, even in an early scene that presumably happens not too long after that happened. Yet, here, Tony seems un-phased by what happened to his friend. Something that if brought up in THIS film might have made his reasonings for taking away the suit make slightly more sense. At least, emotional sense. Although, a part of me wonders if he should have taken the suit away immediately at the start of the film because of what happened to Rhodes and then have Spider-Man earn that suit back towards the end of the film.

The movie was fun, but unfortunately it didn't have a huge amount of emotional significance to me. In fact, sometimes I feel like it lampoons the universe a little. The climax of the film is centered around something that could have easily been the focus of a Lego Marvel movie.

I'm sorry to hear your experience of the film was marred by ill health, GoNerdYourself. I hope you'll be feeling better next time you see it.

I think you're absolutely on point about the lack of emotional depth. I did like the movie overall, and I give it a marginal thumbs up, but I agree that it lacks the pathos of the earlier Spider-Man films. One of the reasons Spider-Man 2 is so brilliant is that it engages the audience's sympathies and makes us feel for Peter. We laugh at his misfortune, but we also pity him for it. Peter's a nice guy and it's genuinely sad to see him so unhappy with himself. There's laughter, but there's also tragedy. The confluence of the two is the essence of drama.

Homecoming doesn't have that. It just has laughter. There were only a couple of scenes in the whole film where I really felt Peter's vulnerability shine through. The first was when he tells Aunt May he lost his internship. The other was the scene where he's trapped beneath the rubble. Incidentally, that was a cool nod to Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #33.


Maybe it's because they omitted the Uncle Ben aspect of the story, but I just felt it was an emotionally shallow experience compared to some of the earlier films. I still liked it. It was funny and at times suspenseful, and I never felt bored. But I would have liked it to have contained just a little more drama.

A few other things I liked that I neglected to mention in my previous post.

I love that they used an orchestral arrangement of the classic Spider-Man theme at the beginning. I've said in the past that I'd like to see classic superhero themes make a return, and this is a good example of how a recognisable motif can be incorporated into a modern score in such a way that blends with that picture's unique tone.

The final act of most blockbuster films is usually the weakest IMO, because that's where character and plot take a backseat to action and special effects. Homecoming is a very rare example of a popcorn flick where I thought the final act was actually more engaging than the first two thirds. And I think the reason for that is the interaction between Spider-Man and Vulture. (SPOILERS) From the moment Peter arrives at Liz's house, the level of tension increases a hundredfold. Suddenly there's a real sense of threat that wasn't there before now. The whole sequence with Toomes driving them to the dance is superb, and much of that is down to Keaton's performance. You can see his internal thought process written in his expression as he realises his passenger is his enemy. The finale is also a lot more exciting than any of the earlier action scenes owing to the fact Spider-Man no longer has his hi-tech suit to rely on. Now it's classic Spidey, armed only with his web-shooters and unique skill set. There's no cavalry to help him out, no Iron Man to save the day. I thought the final act was the best part of the film and contained the strongest hero-villain interaction of any MCU movie so far. (END SPOILERS)

One last thing I'd like to mention is this panel from the Vulture's debut story in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #2. I can't remember if this has already been posted or not, but it's remarkably prophetic.

I've been thinking about this film quite a lot over the last few days, and the more I do so the more I appreciate what Marvel has achieved with this latest reboot.

I've watched all six Spider-Man films in the past week, and it's interesting to note how some have benefited from subsequent entries in the franchise while others have suffered. Spider-Man 3, for example, has benefited immensely from the Marc Webb films. Meanwhile the Marc Webb films have suffered from the quality of Spider-Man: Homecoming. Watching the Webb films again over the past two nights, I feel more strongly than ever that they're pointless remakes. They're not bad films, and there's a lot to admire in them. Garfield and Stone in particular are excellent in their respective roles. But the tone of both movies is uneven, and the plots lift too many of the same beats from the source material that Raimi adapted. Only Raimi did it better. The Webb films tried to put their own spin on these events, but ultimately amounted to little more than a premature and unjustified rehash. Then along comes Homecoming and manages to reboot the franchise without repeating anything from the Raimi films. It's literally a completely new story, with villains we haven't seen before and a style we haven't experienced in any previous Spider-Man film. That's a pretty amazing accomplishment when you think about it.

The tragedy of Uncle Ben is subtly alluded to, but never outright described. Spider-Man's origin is recapped through humorous dialogue, but never depicted. Spider-Man's love interest is not central to the narrative and is not threatened by the villain during the finale. The new incarnations of Aunt May, Ned, Flash and (SPOILERS) MJ (END SPOILERS) are pretty much unrecognisable from their earlier iterations, both in the comics and the movies. Even Spider-Man's motivations are different. The classic Spider-Man is driven by guilt over his uncle's death and an ongoing desire to live up to an ideal of great responsibility. There was a vague reference to the responsibility angle in Civil War, but aside from that it's not been a major factor in the MCU so far.

This isn't an insecure Spider-Man wracked by guilt and constantly questioning himself. Instead, Homecoming presents us with an ambitious confident Spider-Man whose central motivation is a desire to impress Tony Stark and join the Avengers. Just as Peter Parker wants to fit in at high school, so Spider-Man wants to fit in with the superhero fraternity. It's a different central drive from what we saw in earlier films, but nevertheless has its basis in the comics. Amazing-Spider-Man Vol 1 #1 showed Peter trying unsuccessfully to join the Fantastic Four (the Avengers didn't exist back then). To an extent, Spider-Man's always been a hero who's defined in the context of a wider superhero fraternity. He can mingle with the street level heroes, but can also rub shoulders with the Avengers. He can move between cliques without necessarily belonging to one, much like a high school misfit.

The themes of ambition and stratification also play a role in Vulture's story. Toomes' is resentful of Damage Control and their monopoly on salvaging operations in the MCU. He looks up to the big guys and wants a piece of what they have; similar to how Spider-Man aspires to be an Avenger. Both characters want to ascend to what they perceive as a better way of life. They see what someone else has and want it for themselves. This fits in perfectly with the high school environment and its themes of cliques, competition and jealousy. But at the end of the day, Spider-Man and Vulture are both street level characters. Vulture isn't out to destroy the world. He's just running an illegal arms operation out of Queens. Holland's Spider-Man doesn't go swinging around Manhattan skyscrapers like his predecessors did. He just patrols his home neighbourhood. This is another way in which the MCU Spider-Man distinguishes itself from the earlier films.

The more I think about Vulture, the more I love this character. It's by far Keaton's most badass action role since Batman Returns, and the best Spider-Man movie villain since Doc Ock. He manages to pull off the rare feat of being threatening and sympathetic at the same time. They cover his origins right at the start of the film and establish a relatable motive of wanting to provide a better life for his family. He's not evil for the sake of being evil. In fact (SPOILERS) he only explicitly kills one person in the entire movie, and that was another villain. But you know he's capable of doing tremendous damage and can be a serious threat when he needs to be. (END SPOILERS) I really hope Keaton sticks with the MCU and returns in future films. I understand his reasons for quitting the Batman franchise, but it always bothered me that he never saw the series through to its conclusion. Fingers crossed that won't happen this time.

The indications so far point to this being the first entry in a new trilogy, with each film taking place during a different year of Peter's education. And by the sounds of it, they're going to continue avoiding elements from the earlier films. They've said they're only going to use villains who've never previously appeared on the big screen before. And I'm down with that. In Homecoming we got Vulture, Shocker and Tinkerer. Now I want to see Mysterio, Scorpion, Black Cat, Swarm, Hobgoblin and Kraven.

As I've said before, Raimi's trilogy is always going to be my cinematic Spider-Man. But while I don't like Homecoming as much as most people seem to, I am excited to see where they take this trilogy in the future. I think the sequels will be better. And I'm certainly a lot more enthusiastic about this reboot than I was about the last one.

And here we go...

The big point of contention for this film is the high school aspect. Likely due to actors ages, Peter spends far less time in high school during the previous movies than he does in the comics. Tobey Maguire graduates from high school in his first movie, Andrew Garfield in his second. As it was both films get somewhat criticized for having actors in their late 20's portray high school students. This film sets out to give us the true 'Peter Parker in high school' premise which is heavily drawn out in the comics but not so much in film. The result is about what was expected. Definitely the high school scenes play out as a John Hughes film with a super hero. The premises put forth in the film are fine but the execution of some of the high school sequences are where the movie suffers. Tom Holland plays a believable high school Peter Parker but his array of friends are largely forgettable and none of his high school friends stand out as good characters. The actress playing Betty Brant especially was extremely dry. The teenage actors just don't excel much beyond being teenage actors and are overall unlikeable and uninteresting. One finds out Peter's secret and becomes more of a hindrance than an ally once he becomes all googly eyed over knowing spider-man.
he love interest plotline isn't as annoying as Marguire/Dunst, likely because it takes a smaller plot line but it isn't nearly as developed as Garfield/Stone were. It's important to note the character expectations, this isn't MJ Watson or Gwen Stacy, the love interest is some girl named Liz, who does take on an important role by the end of the role and luckily not in the overdone "damsel in distress" clichee which the Raimi series had overused by midway through the second film.
There isn't much of an origin story for Peter Parker. Uncle Ben isn't shown or referenced other than an implication that May has suffered tragedy in her life. The spider-bite is referenced but not seen, the film starts out with Parker as spider-man so there's not much of an origin story which I'm sure we can all be thankful for having sat through it twice in the past 15 years. This version is definitely the most developed with respect to the science behind the webbing and Peter creating his own web including different versions. It IS dissolving web just like in the comics.
Tony Stark's role was similar to that of the mentor Nick Fury plays in the Ultimate spider-man comics, it's understandable why the change was made here as SHIELD is currently a shadow. Where this pays off is Stark's own 'daddy issues' projecting into his relationship with Peter. I felt this could have been stronger if Tony's trust issues were implied to be in part due to the condition of his best friend from Civil War but the current state of Colonel James Rhodes is not referenced at any point. Happy Hogan gets more screen time than Tony Stark and in his fourth portrayal of the character, Jon Favreau gives us his best performance yet. Since he gave up the director reins after Iron Man 2, Favreau was one of the bright spots in Iron Man 3 and he really provides a nice change of pace from all the high school kids himself. Iron Man is in the film but contrary to what the trailers may imply, this is definitely Spider-man's film.
I loved that this movie FINALLY gets the smartass Spider-man right. Some may call Holland yappy and annoying but that's the point of the character; he's not supposed to shut up.
Easter Eggs there are a plenty to look out for. I'm not sure if this was done to lay eggs for future films or just throw something in for the fans of the character but there are many references to the comics and previous spider-man films.
One thing which all the life action spider-man films seem to get right and this one does as well is Peter attempting to balance his personal life and always letting someone down. He's always juggling too much at once and Holland does a great job here.

Now the best part of the film and reason why you could make an argument for this being the best spidey film yet is the villain. The Vulture has never been considered spidey's arch nemisis, if anything he's the one that gets the most fun made of. This version of Adrian Toomes doesn't leave much to poke fun at. He's slightly younger than implied in the comics but he's far from a broken old man. He feels he hasn't gotten his fair shot in life and is negatively affected by the aftermath of the events during the Avengers so he reverse engineers some of the alien tech he got his hands on, creating his own weapons black market. His motivations are clear, he's dangerous, the costume looks great. I was somewhat concerned initially because the last time Keaton played a villain in a big budget action film, his character was more of a throwaway in the Robocop remake but this isn't the case here. He's layered, well developed, goes through an arc and transition and as the bad guy he is very menacing and terrifying at times. His goals are clear as are what he'll do against anyone who gets in his way. What's interesting is that his initial motivation is a hatred for Tony Stark but Keaton and RDJ do not share a single scene in the film. One thing the MCU has lacked has been great villains aside from Loki, we have one here. The Vulture isn't much of a headliner but if Keaton is on board, I will gladly take him in future MCU films. The groundwork is laid for 3 other spidey villains too as backdoor origin stories should they choose to go that route.

I don't want to compare it to the other spidey films due to the avengers presence here. I think Andrew Garfield remains the best Peter Parker but Holland takes over as the best spider-man. I definitely feel Marvel got the character right for the most part and rate this 8.5/10

Got around to checking out Spider-Man: Homecoming, and, well, here's my SPOILER FILLED REVIEW.

So you know, don't read unless you want to be SPOILED!





Ok.








To start off, it's to hardly anyone's surprise, Michael Keaton's performance as Adrian Toomes/Vulture is one of the positives I can give this film. It's weirdly alien to me to say that I actually dug two different MCU villains, all within the same year, considering their often weak track record with villains, but there it is. However, it's apparent that Marvel wanted people to have some sympathy for the Vulture's methods, but it fell pretty flat for me.

Before I go off into a rant, I will say the movie had some good things in there. Such as scenes where Spidey goes around and helps out local businesses and people in trouble. Evoking a sense that he was a part of the community. A  friendly, neighborhood Spiderman if you will. Tom Holland, to me, was a pretty good Spider-Man on a purely superficial level. It's obvious he can play the role, and I felt his Peter Parker was much more in line with that of Stan Lee/Steve Ditko's original interpretation, or how Maguire played him in the Raimi films. Much more so that what we got out of of Andrew Garfield's version, so that was cool. However, I also felt the way Peter Parker/Spider-Man was written in this film was severely lacking in alot of respects.

If I was walking into this with only a fleeting knowledge of the character, by the end of the film, I would correctly assume, going off what I was given, that Parker is essentially a cookie-cutter start-up hero (who somehow escapes the whole Government 'Registration Act' but ... whatever) who's intent on trying to impress the big boy club of the Avengers. Rather than taking pauses and illustrating within the story that Spidey does, what he does, to make sure his powers are used for the greater good, following the words of his beloved Uncle Ben (who, by the way, is not mentioned in the film in any capacity), Spidey just wants to be an Avenger purely for the glory. Which is a pretty big contrast from ASM #1, where he attempts to join the Fantastic Four, but quickly loses interest when he finds out that the FF do not financially gain from being a Super-Team, and any money that rolls in goes into research/finding a cure for Ben Grimm. That revelation right there, erased any inclination that Peter could help his Aunt with the bills, and even at that very early stage in his career, he was past the glory of it all. The attention whore Spidey who was motivated for his own gain died along with the death of Uncle Ben. Within this film, replacing Ben as the father figure is Tony Stark, a man the MCU Peter no doubt idolizes, and a man who been continuously conveyed to be that of relatively low character, and who is motivated by guilt more often than not.

It's a weird change. That was introduced in MCU's CIvil War and expanded upon in Homecoming. And if one can argue that the shadow of Uncle Ben will always loom large over Spider-Man in the comics, one could also argue that the shadow of Tony Stark definitely looms large over the MCU version.

Not gonna lie, but I was fully expecting this to be rectified at some point in the film. Perhaps with Peter reciting the words of Uncle Ben to Tony Stark's face. Defining himself along with his character, and illustrating that as much as Pete looks up to Tony, there will always be someone he looks up to a little more. Or maybe in a scene where Peter and Aunt May are alone and make mention of how they wish Ben was still with them. Even that would have been somewhat sufficient. But nope. Didn't happen. Sure, I don't need to see Uncle Ben getting killed again (who's asking for that?), nor do I necessarily need Uncle Ben returning in dream sequences to inspire Peter (who's asking for that either?), but atleast throw us a damn bone and at the very least convey what the guy meant to Peter, or Aunt May for that matter.....

Speaking of Aunt May .... My issue with it is that throughout her publication history, May has NEVER been a "young vibrant" type of mother figure. Maybe I'm a bit of a purist with this stuff at heart, but the writers of Homecoming obviously missed the real core of her character. For one thing, she was never intended as someone for other characters to be drool over. For all intents and purposes, she IS the wise older mother figure, and it's been established for decades that both she and Ben were quite a bit older than Peter's own father (Ben was his older brother) and mother. Part of why he kept the secret for so long was out of fear that the knowledge might, quite literally, kill her. Needless to say, that is a pretty BIG deal and not something that should be changed on a whim in the name of keeping up the MCU humor with jokes about the "hot aunt"! Sally Field was the lowest end of where they should have gone age wise. Spunky is fine, but let's be honest, this May was more eye-candy, and for MCU humor jokes about Pete's "attractive aunt" than she was mentor or moral compass. Course the mentor spot was filled by Tony Stark in this film rather than anything Uncle Ben or Aunt May could have said or done judging purely by what is given, but I digress.

Back to Spider-Man; well, Spidey being something of a novice was fine, Since he assuredly has never been portrayed as being the most 'polished' Superhero starting out. However, I do believe Marvel Studios goes a little too far with it for cheap comedic pops, but, hey, humor! Needless to say, I'm over all the jokes and quirky moments in the MCU. In alot of ways, they come across as simpleton distractions that takes away from the actual story for me. The bathroom scene with Happy would be a fine example of what I am talking about. Unecessary and completely deflated a potentially heartwarming scene if you ask me.

I also can't say I was a fan of the unnecessarily techy Spider-Man suit. If Stark had just implemented different web-shooter combinations, spider-tracers, and the spider-signal, I guess I might be fine with that ... sorta? But adding an A.I. and all that other bullsh*t (like a Back to the Future II self-fitting and self-drying thing, ect). was just overkill. He may as well just be wearing an Iron Man suit. I was unfortunately expecting this MCU Spider-Man to actually make his own home-made suit by the end of the film. Considering he comes out the victor against the Vulture WITHOUT the techy suit, and even turns down Tony's offer of the Iron-Spider suit which he was gawking at moments earlier, stateing he wants to be more ground level but .... nope. He goes right back to the tech suit. So ..... yay ... ?!?

Truly outstanding stuff.

Now onto the nitty gritty sh*t that ended up dragging down on the film.

Everything to do with the moments with Peter Parker in high school were pointless. The beginning of the film was ADHD rush through several characters and scenes in the high school to try and establish as many characters as possible.

The diversity bullet shot through more than a few characters. Flash Thompson, being only one, flat out got butchered to Hell and back.

In the comics, Flash is your typical classic depiction of a unapologetic dickhead High School jock. Those characterisitcs don't lend itself to just any one race. That obviously could be anyone. But in this, he's a soft looking twerp, and has glasses. The most he does is call Peter Parker "Penis" Parker, and other mild insults. Seriously, WTF????

Michelle "MJ" Jones is basically the "MJ" in Peter's life going forward. An antisocial, SJW who comes across as if she walked right out of a casting call for Ally Sheedy's character from "The Breakfast Club". Literally! Oh, and I'm aware she's not Mary Jane, cause she wouldn't be Michelle Jones if that was the case, but the "My friends call me MJ" line cements her as the "MJ" within the MCU. Otherwise what's the point of putting that in there? Unless it's all apart of Marvel's plan to have Mary Jane Watson show up in a sequel where she and Michelle Jones comically feud over who gets to be called, "MJ" in the High School. Which I wouldn't put past the MCU to do with the goofball humor at this point...

Course there's also Ned Leeds and Liz Allan Toomes, but I feel as if I'm beating a dead horse with this at this point (and that's good exercise if you ever get really bored one night). For my money, the movie had so many departures from the original source material that they were based on, that it felt like the names were just literally tacked on for simple fan service. "Updated" (if you want to call it that) without any REAL understanding of WHY they were what they were in the first place.

Spider-Man's world of rich characters is, essentially, compartmentalized, amid all the Tony Stark nonsense and so much is lost as a result. The Daily Bugle's potential in future installments is, from what I can tell, effectively decimated by taking character's like Ned Leeds and Betty Brant and making them high-schoolers. The more I think about it, does the Daily Bugle even need to exist in the MCU? Think about it. The only reason they have Spidey pictures is because Peter takes his own pictures. The reason he takes his own pictures in the beginning, is so that he can get some extra cash to support his ailing aunt. May is neither sick nor poor in this iteration, and even if she were, you can bet Tony Stark would pay for everything without hesitation. It essentially erases the dynamic of Peter's superhero life being a mess, and his private life being an even bigger mess.

It doesn't seem like a big deal at first until you realize how fascinating all these Peter/Spidey dynamics are. Peter degrading Spider-Man by selling his own pics to the Bugle; irony! Flash bullying Parker but adores Spidey; irony! Aunt May hates Spider-Man but loves Peter with all her heart; yup, irony!...etc. The secret identity aspect of Peter Parker's life, if you know the original source material (seriously, it's good stuff!) goes much farther than just "hmm, isn't it interesting that we've never seen Spidey and Peter in the same room?"

Anyways, I liked Keaton's and Holland's performances, but there's alot that had me shaking my head, and there's a lot of glaring issues that hold this movie back from being a outstanding Spiderman movie. However, I honestly can't say I was ever bored watching this, so that's something, and Tom Holland is a good fit for a younger Spiderman and one of the casting choices I actually dug. Keaton was good as Adrian Toomes/The Vulture (yes, he's another MCU villain never directly stated or called "The Vulture" in this. Think Whiplash), and I consider him a saving grace for the film, even though I'll always wonder how John Malchovich as the Vulture would have been like for the once-proposed Spider-Man 4, but that's just idle daydreaming.

Honestly, it's hard for me to straight recommend watching this. I guess if you like the MCU style, you'll like this too. Personally, I wanted a Spider-Man movie....not more of the same old same old.

Those are interesting thoughts, riddler and The Joker. I agree with most of what you've both said. It sounds as though I enjoyed the film more than The Joker, but not as much as riddler. For me, it's a 6½/10. Nowhere near as good as the Raimi trilogy, but more interesting and unique than the Webb duology.

PROS
•   Great hero
•   Great villain
•   Some amusing humour
•   Strong character themes

CONS
•   Bland direction
•   Lame supporting characters
•   Lack of emotional drama
•   So-so action

On the subject of the MCU Spider-Man, it seems Marvel has retroactively made Iron Man 2 his debut film. Remember the scene with the kid in the Iron Man mask (played by Jon Favreau's son)? Well Tom Holland, Jon Watts and Kevin Feige have all confirmed that kid is Peter Parker. Seriously, this is now canon.


Tony Stark in Iron Man 2: "Nice work, kid."

Tony Stark in Civil War: "Nice job, kid."

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 12 Jul  2017, 18:42



To start off, it's to hardly anyone's surprise, Michael Keaton's performance as Adrian Toomes/Vulture is one of the positives I can give this film. It's weirdly alien to me to say that I actually dug two different MCU villains, all within the same year, considering their often weak track record with villains, but there it is. However, it's apparent that Marvel wanted people to have some sympathy for the Vulture's methods, but it fell pretty flat for me.

See I didn't get that at all. Let's put aside our love for Michael Keaton for a second and just look at his character Adrian Toomes. I think they just gave him a motive. Right from the start they have him lose his contract likely due to there being ALIEN implications and he handles it by ripping off alien tech, making weapons out of it and selling it to criminals on the black market. All they did was give just enough to give the character a motive to do the bad things he does and give him enough screentime to tell his side of the story. He can claim he did it for his family all he wants but he went far beyond financially supporting them and knew he was risking automatically becoming a bad father and husband by breaking the law. Him becoming the Vulture was nothing more than to help his criminal acts. His turn to the life of crime was not justifiable and I don't think the movie implies this.

I love the fact that this is the first spidey film in which the villain ISN'T sympathetic in any way. The only time Toomes seems to be a decent guy is the first minute of the film until his crew gets shut down. He commits his first heinous act before the scene is over. He may do nice things during the film especially around his family but he remains a bad guy entirely through the film. The only reason we weren't cheering harder for Spidey to destroy him was because of how much we were enjoying watching Michael Keaton do what he was put on this planet to do.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 13 Jul  2017, 03:49
See I didn't get that at all. Let's put aside our love for Michael Keaton for a second and just look at his character Adrian Toomes. I think they just gave him a motive. Right from the start they have him lose his contract likely due to there being ALIEN implications and he handles it by ripping off alien tech, making weapons out of it and selling it to criminals on the black market. All they did was give just enough to give the character a motive to do the bad things he does and give him enough screentime to tell his side of the story. He can claim he did it for his family all he wants but he went far beyond financially supporting them and knew he was risking automatically becoming a bad father and husband by breaking the law. Him becoming the Vulture was nothing more than to help his criminal acts. His turn to the life of crime was not justifiable and I don't think the movie implies this.

I love the fact that this is the first spidey film in which the villain ISN'T sympathetic in any way. The only time Toomes seems to be a decent guy is the first minute of the film until his crew gets shut down. He commits his first heinous act before the scene is over. He may do nice things during the film especially around his family but he remains a bad guy entirely through the film. The only reason we weren't cheering harder for Spidey to destroy him was because of how much we were enjoying watching Michael Keaton do what he was put on this planet to do.

It's late, but seperating the character from the actor and his/her performance can be a tricky thing, since one can easily influence the other when it comes to assessing the entire package, but Keaton as the Vulture is another one of those deals where I appreciate the performance, and the charisma that he brought to the character, even if I didn't really buy the villain's motivations. Where I disagree, is that I think the film sincerely attempts in making Toomes sympathetic, or at the very least, understanding of his plight. He's painted as something of a "Blue Collar Villain" from the jump, just trying to get by and remain under the radar (which must be a 24/7 job in itself with the goons he's hired), then we see him kill the 1st Shocker, but immediately following that, we see him say that killing the guy wasn't his intention at all. Then we have scenes where we see where Toomes lives, and it's obvious he's not just 'getting by' (which is ok, since villains in comic book movies being hypocrites isn't exactly new), to Toomes even sparing Parker's life after he's figured out his secret just in order to give him a final chance to stay out of his way, and show his daughter a good time at the dance. Then at last, let's not forget that he's also shown not ratting Spidey's secret ID out to Mac Gargan who's looking for revenge, and questioning him about the rumor he's heard by the time the end credits start to roll either.

SPOILERS BELOW



....





Honestly, I believe the Vulture is already the most overrated villain in the MCU. Let's face it, as soon as him and his gang get the Chitauri gear, it cuts out to eight years later and he's an established villain. It doesn't have the same impact or depth as the backstories of the Raimi trilogy. I even rate Venom, no matter how rushed he may have been in SM3, much better than this.

I felt the twist was tacked on and even predictable. I found it lacking in tension because, let's face it, there's no chemistry between Peter Parker and Liz Allen. So I found the moment when Peter abandons her to go after her father to be flat.

Quote
On the subject of the MCU Spider-Man, it seems Marvel has retroactively made Iron Man 2 his debut film. Remember the scene with the kid in the Iron Man mask (played by Jon Favreau's son)? Well Tom Holland, Jon Watts and Kevin Feige have all confirmed that kid is Peter Parker. Seriously, this is now canon.

Oh FFS, the last thing I want to be reminded of is that awful excuse for a sequel, never mind overkilling the point that Iron Man is Peter Parker's idol/father figure. Seriously, I was hoping Marvel wouldn't return to making Iron Man 2-quality films. :-[

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 12 Jul  2017, 18:42
I also can't say I was a fan of the unnecessarily techy Spider-Man suit. If Stark had just implemented different web-shooter combinations, spider-tracers, and the spider-signal, I guess I might be fine with that ... sorta? But adding an A.I. and all that other bullsh*t (like a Back to the Future II self-fitting and self-drying thing, ect). was just overkill. He may as well just be wearing an Iron Man suit. I was unfortunately expecting this MCU Spider-Man to actually make his own home-made suit by the end of the film. Considering he comes out the victor against the Vulture WITHOUT the techy suit, and even turns down Tony's offer of the Iron-Spider suit which he was gawking at moments earlier, stateing he wants to be more ground level but .... nope. He goes right back to the tech suit. So ..... yay ... ?!?

Truly outstanding stuff.

I totally get what you mean and even agree with you, Joker. It reminds me when Nolan made Batman less of a "World's Greatest Detective" and more of a James Bond knockoff who relies on Q, aka Lucius Fox, to do nearly all of the detective, science and forensic work. Batman isn't James Bond, and Spider-Man isn't Iron Man.

That being said, I find the MCU's change understandable because Spider-Man's backstory has been done comprehensively - twice. Arguably as close as they could have been. Whereas Batman's backstory was never explored in huge detail in Burton and Schumacher's films, and Nolan could've explored the backstory about what drove Bruce's willpower to become Batman, but instead he made a story that deviated the source material just as Burton did by making the Joker be the Waynes killer in B89. Because of that, I find Batman's backstory more flexible and refreshing to explore in live action than Spider-Man, e.g. how Bruce witnessing his parents murders captured that feeling of powerlessness, which was a theme that ran throughout Batman's arc in BvS. Even Gotham has a new interpretation on the Waynes tragedy. For better or worse, Batman's sad past is a lot more open to interpretation than people want to admit.

But going back to Spider-Man, the real issue - as you say - is there is nothing to connect to this Peter Parker on an emotional level. This Peter is too happy-go-lucky. If I didn't know anything about Spider-Man, I wouldn't have guessed this kid suffered a tragedy as losing his uncle. As a matter of fact, his happy-go-lucky demeanor does NOT even gel well with the supposed themes in Civil War, when the Avengers are divided over whether or not they should submit to government oversight. Why the hell would Spider-Man want to join the Avengers when A) they kill villains, which will certainly challenge his simplistic perspective of right and wrong, and B) he would have to compromise his secret identity, assuming the Sokovia Accords are still active. Not exactly keeping up with the spirit of responsibility now, is it? As it stands, Civil War is thematically pointless.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 13 Jul  2017, 03:49
See I didn't get that at all. Let's put aside our love for Michael Keaton for a second and just look at his character Adrian Toomes. I think they just gave him a motive. Right from the start they have him lose his contract likely due to there being ALIEN implications and he handles it by ripping off alien tech, making weapons out of it and selling it to criminals on the black market. All they did was give just enough to give the character a motive to do the bad things he does and give him enough screentime to tell his side of the story. He can claim he did it for his family all he wants but he went far beyond financially supporting them and knew he was risking automatically becoming a bad father and husband by breaking the law. Him becoming the Vulture was nothing more than to help his criminal acts. His turn to the life of crime was not justifiable and I don't think the movie implies this.

I love the fact that this is the first spidey film in which the villain ISN'T sympathetic in any way. The only time Toomes seems to be a decent guy is the first minute of the film until his crew gets shut down. He commits his first heinous act before the scene is over. He may do nice things during the film especially around his family but he remains a bad guy entirely through the film. The only reason we weren't cheering harder for Spidey to destroy him was because of how much we were enjoying watching Michael Keaton do what he was put on this planet to do.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 13 Jul  2017, 06:59
It's late, but seperating the character from the actor and his/her performance can be a tricky thing, since one can easily influence the other when it comes to assessing the entire package, but Keaton as the Vulture is another one of those deals where I appreciate the performance, and the charisma that he brought to the character, even if I didn't really buy the villain's motivations. Where I disagree, is that I think the film sincerely attempts in making Toomes sympathetic, or at the very least, understanding of his plight. He's painted as something of a "Blue Collar Villain" from the jump, just trying to get by and remain under the radar (which must be a 24/7 job in itself with the goons he's hired), then we see him kill the 1st Shocker, but immediately following that, we see him say that killing the guy wasn't his intention at all. Then we have scenes where we see where Toomes lives, and it's obvious he's not just 'getting by' (which is ok, since villains in comic book movies being hypocrites isn't exactly new), to Toomes even sparing Parker's life after he's figured out his secret just in order to give him a final chance to stay out of his way, and show his daughter a good time at the dance. Then at last, let's not forget that he's also shown not ratting Spidey's secret ID out to Mac Gargan who's looking for revenge, and questioning him about the rumor he's heard by the time the end credits start to roll either.

Vulture is a horrible, selfish human being with a strong streak of evil running through him. But he definitely has his sympathetic side. His greed extends beyond providing for his family, but his protectiveness towards his family takes precedence over his greed. (SPOILERS) That's why he spares Peter when he first discovers his true identity, even though doing so would undoubtedly jeopardise his business operation (Toomes knew Peter had saved Liz's life, and that killing Peter there and then would hurt his daughter). He also spares Peter on two later occasions: firstly when he defeats him during the final battle, but doesn't try to kill him; and secondly when he lies to Scorpion to protect his secret identity in prison. (END SPOILERS) Toomes is evil, but he isn't pure evil. There's some humanity in him.

I can only speak for myself, but I didn't like this character solely because it was Keaton playing him. Admittedly in a lesser actor's hands the role might have sucked. And Keaton's performance is a big part of his appeal. But I enjoyed the whole package. I liked the concise back-story about him being a disgruntled salvager; a literal vulture, picking at the bones of the Chitauri invasion force. I liked how his suit and weapons were reverse engineered from Chitauri hardware, and how this connected him with Shocker and Tinkerer (and possibly more villains to come). I appreciated the fact this wasn't some megalomaniac trying to conquer/destroy a city using a ubiquitous sky beam (one of the most unimaginative visual clichés in modern sci-fi films). He's a small-time crook with a localised stomping ground, trying to maintain a low profile and avoid detection by the Avengers. I love that he has a secret identity; that he takes off his mask and costume, goes home to his family and pretends to be a normal guy, just like Spider-Man himself does. I liked the parallels between him and Peter, how they both look up to a larger organisation with envy. But where Peter admires the Avengers and wants to join them, Toomes hates Damage Control and wants to rip them off. (SPOILERS) I loved the plot twist about him being Liz's dad. (END SPOILERS) That's the first time in ages a movie plot twist has genuinely surprised me. And on a purely superficial level, I just loved the way the character looks. They took one of the silliest looking villains from the comics and made him appear cool and intimidating.

Wilson Fisk is my favourite MCU villain overall, but as far as the movies go I can't think of another bad guy I like more than Vulture. Loki is a more sympathetic and layered character, but none of the scenes between Hiddleston and Hemsworth were anywhere near as intense as the scene in the car between Holland and Keaton. I'm casting my mind back through all the MCU films, but I can't think of any other scenes of hero-villain interaction with that same level of intensity. There's the showdown between Cap and Bucky in The Winter Soldier, but I don't consider Bucky a true villain. So Vulture takes the top spot for me.

Moving away from the subject of Vulture, there are some interesting fan theories circulating about where Marvel is going with the Spider-Man character in the MCU. A lot of people have picked up on the Junior Iron Man vibe this version of Peter's got going. Stark has to all intents and purposes replaced Uncle Ben and Aunt May as his guardian and mentor. His Spider-Man suit features an insane amount of technology that makes the original Iron Man costume look almost primitive by comparison. And is it a coincidence that while Paul Bettany voiced Jarvis, his wife Jennifer Connolly is voicing the computer in Spidey's suit?

Kevin Feige has confirmed big changes will be coming to the MCU at the end of Phase 3. The most probable shakeup would be the departure of some of the Phase 1 actors. And Robert Downey Jr seems the most likely candidate to step down. By then he'll have been playing Stark for 11 years. So does this mean Iron Man will die in Avengers 4? If so, where does that leave Peter? Jon Watts' Spider-Man 2 is scheduled for release in 2019, shortly after the fourth Avengers film. If Stark does die, maybe then we'll get the whole guilt/responsibility angle that we didn't get in Homecoming. Stark's death could in effect serve the same function Uncle Ben's death served in the comics.

If Stark is grooming Peter to be his replacement, then Marvel is probably grooming Holland to be Downey's replacement. And if the fan theories are true, we'll eventually see Peter step up to claim Iron Man's legacy as the leader of the Avengers. In a recent episode of Kevin Smith's podcast, he speculated Peter would end up becoming the new Iron Man. I think it's more likely he'll become Iron Spider than Iron Man, but the basic idea of Peter donning the hardware Stark bequeaths him sounds feasible.

Since they alluded to the existence of Miles Morales in Homecoming, does that mean Peter will pass the mantle to another at the end of his solo trilogy? Upon graduating from high school in the third film, will he relinquish the role of Spider-Man, accept Stark's legacy and become Iron Spider to lead the Avengers throughout Phases 4 and 5? And if he does pass the torch to Miles, will they actually give the new Spidey his own solo films or just use him as a supporting character in the Avengers? Or is all of this fan theory nonsense that'll never come to pass?

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 13 Jul  2017, 06:59

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 13 Jul  2017, 03:49
See I didn't get that at all. Let's put aside our love for Michael Keaton for a second and just look at his character Adrian Toomes. I think they just gave him a motive. Right from the start they have him lose his contract likely due to there being ALIEN implications and he handles it by ripping off alien tech, making weapons out of it and selling it to criminals on the black market. All they did was give just enough to give the character a motive to do the bad things he does and give him enough screentime to tell his side of the story. He can claim he did it for his family all he wants but he went far beyond financially supporting them and knew he was risking automatically becoming a bad father and husband by breaking the law. Him becoming the Vulture was nothing more than to help his criminal acts. His turn to the life of crime was not justifiable and I don't think the movie implies this.

I love the fact that this is the first spidey film in which the villain ISN'T sympathetic in any way. The only time Toomes seems to be a decent guy is the first minute of the film until his crew gets shut down. He commits his first heinous act before the scene is over. He may do nice things during the film especially around his family but he remains a bad guy entirely through the film. The only reason we weren't cheering harder for Spidey to destroy him was because of how much we were enjoying watching Michael Keaton do what he was put on this planet to do.

It's late, but seperating the character from the actor and his/her performance can be a tricky thing, since one can easily influence the other when it comes to assessing the entire package, but Keaton as the Vulture is another one of those deals where I appreciate the performance, and the charisma that he brought to the character, even if I didn't really buy the villain's motivations. Where I disagree, is that I think the film sincerely attempts in making Toomes sympathetic, or at the very least, understanding of his plight. He's painted as something of a "Blue Collar Villain" from the jump, just trying to get by and remain under the radar (which must be a 24/7 job in itself with the goons he's hired), then we see him kill the 1st Shocker, but immediately following that, we see him say that killing the guy wasn't his intention at all. Then we have scenes where we see where Toomes lives, and it's obvious he's not just 'getting by' (which is ok, since villains in comic book movies being hypocrites isn't exactly new), to Toomes even sparing Parker's life after he's figured out his secret just in order to give him a final chance to stay out of his way, and show his daughter a good time at the dance. Then at last, let's not forget that he's also shown not ratting Spidey's secret ID out to Mac Gargan who's looking for revenge, and questioning him about the rumor he's heard by the time the end credits start to roll either.

But again the movie has him do bad things right from the start. He didn't HAVE to break the law and exploit humanity's supposed first encounter with aliens to sell weapons on the black market, that was the life he chose. So he lost a contract, 8 years later he became a full on criminal risking prison time to the detriment of his family. I'm sure he cared about his wife and daughter but  it's not as if he had no other options aside from crime.


With respect to the end scene, my initial thoughts were that Toomes wants to take out Peter himself and wont give him up. A secondary reason could be that if Peter spends time with Liz, he'd be putting Liz in danger by tipping off Gargan that Peter is Spider-man. Should Toomes get out, he can better ensure that Spider-man get taken out in a way that doesn't get Liz caught in the crosshairs.

You know something we can hang our hats on towards Bale/Nolan fans; their Batman said he might live long enough to be a villain, our Batman did it with aplomb.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 12 Jul  2017, 23:09
On the subject of the MCU Spider-Man, it seems Marvel has retroactively made Iron Man 2 his debut film. Remember the scene with the kid in the Iron Man mask (played by Jon Favreau's son)? Well Tom Holland, Jon Watts and Kevin Feige have all confirmed that kid is Peter Parker. Seriously, this is now canon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7JPI1RTR2M

Tony Stark in Iron Man 2: "Nice work, kid."

Tony Stark in Civil War: "Nice job, kid."

I'm not seeing the film, but I have to say that's.....pathetic.

There is nothing that connects that kid to Peter Parker. He's one of the million kids that were in New York at the time. I don't believe for a second that it was intended to be Peter Parker considering Marvel wouldn't even get the rights to the character for another five years. If they want us to believe that, put something in a film connecting the two. It reminds me of when someone who worked on Batman 89 tried to say in an article a few years ago that the thug with Jack Napier the night he killed the Wayne's was Joe Chill despite nothing in the movie or sequels ever stating this.

Aside from the orchestral rendition of the old Spider-Man theme and that one Ramones song, I can't remember any of the music in this film. With the eighties John Hughes influence, I wish they'd gone full retro and given it a synthwave soundtrack similar to Drive or It Follows. Considering how nondescript Jon Watts' direction is, particularly compared to Raimi's signature style, I think the film would also have benefited from some retro eighties cinematography (fogged sets, dry ice, coloured lights in night scenes, soft focus during romantic daylight scenes, etc).

Despite the rave reviews, Homecoming has reportedly experienced a massive drop in its second week at the box office. Though the film is still doing fine financially.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/07/16/box-office-spider-man-homecoming-suffers-mcus-worst-second-weekend-drop-ever/#7425377b35fb

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/07/15/what-spider-man-homecomings-awful-73-plummet-means-for-marvel-and-for-superhero-movies/#7036a8ff1672

I was speaking to a fan before who explained his take on the Sokovia Accords affecting Spider-Man. He reasoned that Spider-Man wasn't a cause for concern because his role was only contained in New York, and was never brought onto any mission that could be pose as a threat to the world. If Ross or someone else questioned Stark about Spider-Man after the ferry incident, he would simply shut them down and said he had it under control. Under Tony Stark's supervision, Peter had protocols in his suit to keep him from getting into huge trouble.

My problem with this is it still doesn't justify why would Peter want to join the Avengers, and why would Tony Stark even want to bring him along. Peter would have to give up a lot, including revealing his secret identity to the government, and face pressure by authority. If he doesn't understand the consequences of joining the Avengers - and it wouldn't surprise me because he wasn't debriefed properly when he joined the hunt for Bucky and Captain America - then Tony Stark is a pretty sh*t excuse for a mentor. It's just another example how Stark has regressed badly as a character, in my view.

With respect to the Sokovia accord consider the following
Peter is a minor and thus could not sign without parental consent. Tony seemed to have an extensive conversation with May during Civil War and knew that there was zero chance of Peter telling her his secret as well or May ever endorsing Peter becoming spider-man.

It's not really needed for Peter/Spider-man, Tony likely doesn't fear he'll go rogue and besides, Tony can easily find out where Peter is at all times, he's a kid with school and living with his Aunt, he can't go hide for days on end and if he did, there's still the spider-tracker.

That may be why Tony keeps Spider-man so close to the ground, he doesn't want him gaining too much popularity since he isn't registered. That is likely why he doesn't want Peter catching too much attention and gets so upset when he does on the staten island ferry.

I actually wonder if Tony Stark regrets revealing his identity? A lot of the bad things that happen to him throughout Iron Man 2 and 3 would not have happened if the world did not know Tony Stark is Iron Man. His big mistake in this film is ignoring the threats of the Vulture because of how well Toomes does at covering up what he is doing.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 17 Jul  2017, 15:03
With respect to the Sokovia accord consider the following
Peter is a minor and thus could not sign without parental consent. Tony seemed to have an extensive conversation with May during Civil War and knew that there was zero chance of Peter telling her his secret as well or May ever endorsing Peter becoming spider-man.

It's not really needed for Peter/Spider-man, Tony likely doesn't fear he'll go rogue and besides, Tony can easily find out where Peter is at all times, he's a kid with school and living with his Aunt, he can't go hide for days on end and if he did, there's still the spider-tracker.

That may be why Tony keeps Spider-man so close to the ground, he doesn't want him gaining too much popularity since he isn't registered. That is likely why he doesn't want Peter catching too much attention and gets so upset when he does on the staten island ferry.

This wasn't my point though. I was questioning why would Stark even want to bring Parker along in the first place if it would put the kid in harm's way. Wouldn't it have been better if he had never associated with Peter in the first place, for the boy's sake? After all, the Defenders having nothing to do with the Avengers, and they seem to get by without worrying about having to register to the government. Unless that spin-off show will address the Accords at some point? We'll see.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 17 Jul  2017, 15:03
I actually wonder if Tony Stark regrets revealing his identity? A lot of the bad things that happen to him throughout Iron Man 2 and 3 would not have happened if the world did not know Tony Stark is Iron Man. His big mistake in this film is ignoring the threats of the Vulture because of how well Toomes does at covering up what he is doing.

Tony Stark has always been an egomaniac, but judging by his last three film appearances - Age of Ultron, Civil War and Homecoming - I think the man is too self-absorbed more than ever. Even when he admits to do something wrong, e.g. creating Ultron, he's too flippant rather than sincere about it. It was fine when he was redeeming himself in the beginning as Iron Man and becoming a team player in the Avengers, but now it's starting to get grating. His character arc is regressing nowadays, in my opinion.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 18 Jul  2017, 10:14

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 17 Jul  2017, 15:03
With respect to the Sokovia accord consider the following
Peter is a minor and thus could not sign without parental consent. Tony seemed to have an extensive conversation with May during Civil War and knew that there was zero chance of Peter telling her his secret as well or May ever endorsing Peter becoming spider-man.

It's not really needed for Peter/Spider-man, Tony likely doesn't fear he'll go rogue and besides, Tony can easily find out where Peter is at all times, he's a kid with school and living with his Aunt, he can't go hide for days on end and if he did, there's still the spider-tracker.

That may be why Tony keeps Spider-man so close to the ground, he doesn't want him gaining too much popularity since he isn't registered. That is likely why he doesn't want Peter catching too much attention and gets so upset when he does on the staten island ferry.

This wasn't my point though. I was questioning why would Stark even want to bring Parker along in the first place if it would put the kid in harm's way. Wouldn't it have been better if he had never associated with Peter in the first place, for the boy's sake? After all, the Defenders having nothing to do with the Avengers, and they seem to get by without worrying about having to register to the government. Unless that spin-off show will address the Accords at some point? We'll see.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 17 Jul  2017, 15:03
I actually wonder if Tony Stark regrets revealing his identity? A lot of the bad things that happen to him throughout Iron Man 2 and 3 would not have happened if the world did not know Tony Stark is Iron Man. His big mistake in this film is ignoring the threats of the Vulture because of how well Toomes does at covering up what he is doing.

Tony Stark has always been an egomaniac, but judging by his last three film appearances - Age of Ultron, Civil War and Homecoming - I think the man is too self-absorbed more than ever. Even when he admits to do something wrong, e.g. creating Ultron, he's too flippant rather than sincere about it. It was fine when he was redeeming himself in the beginning as Iron Man and becoming a team player in the Avengers, but now it's starting to get grating. His character arc is regressing nowadays, in my opinion.

One thing I noticed is that not counting Homecoming (as it's not a stark film, we see very little about his world in this films) is that after his first three films (IM 1 and 2 and the avengers) he went from the suave superhero everyone wants to be to getting extremely humbled based on his own mistakes in the next three films; Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron and Civil War, Tony's character takes a beating and it is in part his fault. We found out in those three films that Tony doesn't always have all the answers. It never gets explored further but Iron Man 3 heavily implies Tony is getting nightmares and daymares from nearly dying in space and his encounter with aliens. This may explain why he doesn't embark on solo missions any more, I don't know how much time has passed in the films since the third Iron Man movie but Iron Man isn't doing his thing as often. Maybe he doesn't want to keep up this gunslinger act by himself anymore and we don't know if Rhodie will become the War Machine again after his injuries. Why does Batman groom Robins despite the danger he's putting them in? Maybe it's the same reason, Stark knows you can't stop an aspiring superhero if they have actual powers so he does the next best thing and keeps Spidey under his wing. Maybe with him getting serious with Pepper Tony is looking for someone to take over his mantle so he can get out of the trenches. Or simply put as the threats keep getting bigger, Tony figures they need more Avengers and special people don't come along every day.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  1 Jun  2016, 19:32
At present, the total WW gross of each Batman actor's filmography (according to boxofficemojo.com) is as follows:

1.   Clooney - $4,599.5 million
2.   Affleck - $4,461.9 million
3.   Bale - $4,383.3 million
4.   Keaton - $4,054.4 million
5.   Kilmer - $1,734.4 million

If Homecoming does make over a billion, it should bump Keaton up a place or two. Unless of course the other actors appear in equally lucrative films over the next 12 months. And since Affleck's got Suicide Squad and Justice League coming up, I'm guessing he's going to take the top spot from Clooney.

One year later, and oh how things have changed. Michael Keaton now has the highest grossing filmography of any Batman actor.

TOTAL DOMESTIC GROSS (UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION)
1.   KEATON:  $2,394,321,363
2.   AFFLECK: $2,288,795,245
3.   BALE: $2,215,847,430
4.   CLOONEY: $2,078,819,236
5.   KILMER: $1,041,329,397

TOTAL DOMESTIC GROSS (ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION)
1.   KEATON:  $3,687,705,300
2.   AFFLECK: $3,227,541,300
3.   CLOONEY: $2,877,178,800
4.   BALE: $2,820,281,600
5.   KILMER: $2,022,242,900

TOTAL WORLDWIDE GROSS (UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION)
1.   KEATON: $4,656.7 million
2.   CLOONEY: $4,640.8 million
3.   AFFLECK: $4,640.8 million
4.   BALE: $4,391.6 million
5.   KILMER: $1,734.8 million

Sources:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=michaelkeaton.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=valkilmer.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=georgeclooney.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=christianbale.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=benaffleck.htm

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 26 Jul  2017, 17:44

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  1 Jun  2016, 19:32
At present, the total WW gross of each Batman actor's filmography (according to boxofficemojo.com) is as follows:

1.   Clooney - $4,599.5 million
2.   Affleck - $4,461.9 million
3.   Bale - $4,383.3 million
4.   Keaton - $4,054.4 million
5.   Kilmer - $1,734.4 million

If Homecoming does make over a billion, it should bump Keaton up a place or two. Unless of course the other actors appear in equally lucrative films over the next 12 months. And since Affleck's got Suicide Squad and Justice League coming up, I'm guessing he's going to take the top spot from Clooney.

One year later, and oh how things have changed. Michael Keaton now has the highest grossing filmography of any Batman actor.

TOTAL DOMESTIC GROSS (UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION)
1.   KEATON:  $2,394,321,363
2.   AFFLECK: $2,288,795,245
3.   BALE: $2,215,847,430
4.   CLOONEY: $2,078,819,236
5.   KILMER: $1,041,329,397

TOTAL DOMESTIC GROSS (ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION)
1.   KEATON:  $3,687,705,300
2.   AFFLECK: $3,227,541,300
3.   CLOONEY: $2,877,178,800
4.   BALE: $2,820,281,600
5.   KILMER: $2,022,242,900

TOTAL WORLDWIDE GROSS (UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION)
1.   KEATON: $4,656.7 million
2.   CLOONEY: $4,640.8 million
3.   AFFLECK: $4,640.8 million
4.   BALE: $4,391.6 million
5.   KILMER: $1,734.8 million

Sources:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=michaelkeaton.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=valkilmer.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=georgeclooney.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=christianbale.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=benaffleck.htm

I wonder where Christian Bale's career is going? I doubt once he pulled ahead of Keaton, anyone thought Keaton would pull back ahead but yet while Keaton seems to be making a comeback proving he can still be a leading man, curiously Bale's career has quieted down since the Dark Knight Rises. He has shared the screen in some good films the Big Short and American Hustle but all of a sudden he's no longer a leading man. Is this a career choice or have his off-camera antics caused movie studios to be careful about headlining films around him?


Either way it's a good time to be a fan of the Burton bat films. Five years since it ended, the Nolan trilogy is already failing the test of time and losing relevance, Bale did not end up taking over Hollywood as some predicted, Hans Zimmer retired from superhero films meanwhile Keaton is back on his game, Michelle Pfeiffer is joining the MCU, Danny Elfman is composing for the justice league and the current Batman clearly takes far more cues from Keaton than Bale.

The 80's is cool again.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 14 Jul  2017, 23:08
Aside from the orchestral rendition of the old Spider-Man theme and that one Ramones song, I can't remember any of the music in this film. With the eighties John Hughes influence, I wish they'd gone full retro and given it a synthwave soundtrack similar to Drive or It Follows. Considering how nondescript Jon Watts' direction is, particularly compared to Raimi's signature style, I think the film would also have benefited from some retro eighties cinematography (fogged sets, dry ice, coloured lights in night scenes, soft focus during romantic daylight scenes, etc).

I think that would have atleast given the film a pleasing aesthetic that would have resulted in it feeling a little bit more unique and memorable. As it stands, I found this movie to be remarkably unmemorable save for a few performances. Character-wise, nothing really sticks out (much like any and all action sequences that were offered), and thus a complete dud.

After seeing Homecoming, and if I were to re-rank all 6 Spidey movies thus far, this would either come in dead last, or second to last. Amazing Spider-Man 2 had that distinction, but it's a tight race now.

After seeing Homecoming I think the movie was below average, not terrible, but not that great either.

I liked Tom Holland okay in the role (although I don't see why some fans are calling him the best Spider-Man actor already) and I certainly enjoyed seeing Michael Keaton as the Vulture, and Iron Man wasn't in the film as I much as I thought he would, but the movie as a whole just felt like it was missing something, in fact I'd call it the most forgettable Spider-Man film to date.

Maybe it did more for others and that's fine, but I'm not really optimistic for future Spider-Man films after this.

Homecoming had a 62.2% drop in its second week. But if a DCEU film has a percentage drop, the knives come out.

Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima has reviewed the movie on Twitter:
https://gamefragger.com/other/twitter-buzz-death-strandings-hideo-kojima-reviews-spider-man-homecoming-a6399?utm=Comic%20Book%20Movie&utm_campaign=HPHeadline&utm_medium=referral

He liked it.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 27 Jul  2017, 15:50
I wonder where Christian Bale's career is going? I doubt once he pulled ahead of Keaton, anyone thought Keaton would pull back ahead but yet while Keaton seems to be making a comeback proving he can still be a leading man, curiously Bale's career has quieted down since the Dark Knight Rises. He has shared the screen in some good films the Big Short and American Hustle but all of a sudden he's no longer a leading man. Is this a career choice or have his off-camera antics caused movie studios to be careful about headlining films around him?

Either way it's a good time to be a fan of the Burton bat films. Five years since it ended, the Nolan trilogy is already failing the test of time and losing relevance, Bale did not end up taking over Hollywood as some predicted, Hans Zimmer retired from superhero films meanwhile Keaton is back on his game, Michelle Pfeiffer is joining the MCU, Danny Elfman is composing for the justice league and the current Batman clearly takes far more cues from Keaton than Bale.

Who knows with Bale? It could be there's something going on behind the scenes in Hollywood, or maybe, he's just taking a break before returning to the spotlight again. If not, perhaps he's deliberately keeping a low profile because he doesn't like how the industry works there? I wouldn't blame him if that were true.

To think that several years ago, Michael Keaton was mostly considered a forgotten star, albeit fondly remembered in his heyday sometimes. But ever since he began his resurgence in the RoboCop remake, and then progressed to hype and buzz through Birdman, he's suddenly remembered as the cool dude with the screwed up face who played Batman again. I remembered a time when turncoats from bottom feeding clickbait sites downplayed his career completely. Not any more.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  4 Oct  2017, 10:23

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 27 Jul  2017, 15:50
I wonder where Christian Bale's career is going? I doubt once he pulled ahead of Keaton, anyone thought Keaton would pull back ahead but yet while Keaton seems to be making a comeback proving he can still be a leading man, curiously Bale's career has quieted down since the Dark Knight Rises. He has shared the screen in some good films the Big Short and American Hustle but all of a sudden he's no longer a leading man. Is this a career choice or have his off-camera antics caused movie studios to be careful about headlining films around him?

Either way it's a good time to be a fan of the Burton bat films. Five years since it ended, the Nolan trilogy is already failing the test of time and losing relevance, Bale did not end up taking over Hollywood as some predicted, Hans Zimmer retired from superhero films meanwhile Keaton is back on his game, Michelle Pfeiffer is joining the MCU, Danny Elfman is composing for the justice league and the current Batman clearly takes far more cues from Keaton than Bale.

Who knows with Bale? It could be there's something going on behind the scenes in Hollywood, or maybe, he's just taking a break before returning to the spotlight again. If not, perhaps he's deliberately keeping a low profile because he doesn't like how the industry works there? I wouldn't blame him if that were true.

To think that several years ago, Michael Keaton was mostly considered a forgotten star, albeit fondly remembered in his heyday sometimes. But ever since he began his resurgence in the RoboCop remake, and then progressed to hype and buzz through Birdman, he's suddenly remembered as the cool dude with the screwed up face who played Batman again. I remembered a time when turncoats from bottom feeding clickbait sites downplayed his career completely. Not any more.

Notice that aside from Christopher Nolan, Bale rarely works with the same people on multiple occasions. Many have cited he is difficult to work with.

I think with the time that's passed, people are realizing that Keatons Batman films are far more re-watchable than Bales and not nearly as flawed as the Nolan camp led us to believe nor were Keatons films bogged down by bad dialogue and an excruciatingly bad Bat-voice.

Remember with Keaton, the Nolan camp tried to rewrite history denying how huge Bat-mania was from 1989-1992 and attempting to claim that Keatons performance was protested AFTER the release instad of before. What you said about Bale avoiding the limelight may apply to Keaton as well. Look at his film credits from the 00's

Toy Story 3
Ken (voice)
2009 Post Grad
Walter Malby
2008 The Merry Gentleman
Frank Logan
2006 The Last Time
Ted Riker
2006 Cars
Chick Hicks (voice)
2005 Herbie Fully Loaded
Ray Peyton Sr.
2005/I White Noise
Jonathan Rivers
2005 Game 6
Nicky Rogan
2004 First Daughter
President Mackenzie
Catch Me If You Can (2003) ... Jerry Andrews (voice)
- Pigmalion (2003) ... Trip Larsen (voice)
2003 Quicksand
Martin Raikes
- Wheels of Fortune (2002) ... Blaine Sternin
- Pokey Mom (2001) ... Jack Crowley (voice)
2000 A Shot at Glory


Not a single memorable role that decade. By 2010 it was easy to predict that his career was winding down but then Robocop made him relevant again, Bird Man showed us he still has the talent to be an A-lister, and in a spider-man film over stuffed with characters, his came out the strongest.

Quote from: riddler on Thu,  5 Oct  2017, 23:10
I think with the time that's passed, people are realizing that Keatons Batman films are far more re-watchable than Bales and not nearly as flawed as the Nolan camp led us to believe nor were Keatons films bogged down by bad dialogue and an excruciatingly bad Bat-voice.

Remember with Keaton, the Nolan camp tried to rewrite history denying how huge Bat-mania was from 1989-1992 and attempting to claim that Keatons performance was protested AFTER the release instad of before. What you said about Bale avoiding the limelight may apply to Keaton as well. Look at his film credits from the 00's

This propaganda also made it in official products.

The exclusive documentary found in the 25th Anniversary "Diamond Luxe" of the 1989 film had a condescending tone towards the film.

It was late 2014, more than two years since Nolan's third came out, and an official documentary, in an official product, basically said the film it accompanies is flawed and not very good.

I don't know how many special features in BluRays, anniversary editions in particular, do that.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 10 Oct  2017, 02:29
This propaganda also made it in official products.

The exclusive documentary found in the 25th Anniversary "Diamond Luxe" of the 1989 film had a condescending tone towards the film.

It was late 2014, more than two years since Nolan's third came out, and an official documentary, in an official product, basically said the film it accompanies is flawed and not very good.

I don't know how many special features in BluRays, anniversary editions in particular, do that.

Yeah, I remember this forum talked about that a couple of years ago. That was pretty sh*t of WB to throw B89 under the bus in an official home video product. Given it had paved the way for the live action franchise which future Batman films took ideas from (as well as arguably setting the tone for the modern superhero film), not to mention its influence on the beloved BTAS, you would think WB would have the sense to celebrate how influential the film was.

Pathetic.

I remember it quite well. I had never owned the 89 film in any format until 2014. Once I caught wind that a 25th anniversary steelbook edition was in the works, I got excited and planned on picking it up. The takeaway I got from the special features was the thesis that Batman 89 was supposed to be an example of how a film can be profitable without being good. Also the presence of David Goyer in some of the commentaries was enough reason for me to avoid it considering the guy has never had a positive thing to say about Burton and Keaton. I was so disgusted by how badly the film itself was thrown under the bus, I oped for the standard blu ray edition without the presence of Goyer (whom I have nothing good to say about).

I agree that that particular feature was incredibly weird. I remember being sorta excited about a new special feature with the "Diamond" edition of Batman 1989, but probably not as quite as I might have otherwise been considering all the great special features that accompanied the 2005 SE's and subsequent blu ray releases. That being said, my reaction was like that of the consensus here. Essentially a slap in the face towards the film, while the SE DVD/Blu was a celebration of it.

An eagle-eyed Reddit user has spotted a Burton Batman Easter egg in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Apparently it's during the scene where Vulture drops Spider-Man following their first encounter. For one brief instant, you can see Keaton silhouetted against the moon with his wings spread.

Pretty cool, Silver Nemesis. I had not seen that before.