Marvel Cinematic Universe Part II

[Username taken]

I do think nostalgia is a crutch Hollywood leans on a little bit too much. Look at network television. CBS revived the CSI franchise this year and brought back Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle. Audience reactions appear to have been quite lukewarm. NBC brought back Elliot Stabler this year as well (originally from Law & Order: SVU) to star in a new Law & Order spin-off called Law & Order: Organized Crime. And critical reactions to his new show have been AWFUL. I've mentioned Ghostbusters this year as an example of a film that had a divided response and that movie was allegedly TOTALLY based on nostalgia. How is the upcoming Matrix: Resurrections NOT a film relying on nostalgia? They brought back the same directors and many of the actors and actresses from the previous Matrix movies (the last one of which was released almost TWENTY YEARS ago). And from what I'm hearing, the response to this instalment of the Matrix franchise has been decidedly MIXED.

I guess I'm sort of repeating what I said earlier to MindofShadow. Nostalgia is absolutely NO guarantee of a film's or television show's success. Nostalgia alone is not enough to make a film great, or even good. That's why I HAVE to tip my hat to Kevin Feige. Because from what I've read online, he harnessed nostalgia with great affect in NWH. Lots of things could have gone wrong with this film, but he dodged those pitfalls and helped make it an unbelievable success. So he deserves the praise he is getting now.

My problem is that the entertainment industry is starting to go backwards more than forwards a little bit. The Flash movie is not even hiding the fact that previous Batmen from earlier movies are gonna play a significant role in that film. I would LOVE to have the DCEU make nostalgia work for this movie, but I have my doubts that Warner Brothers is gonna get it right. In regards to the MoM, I DON'T want Marvel Studios execs to get the wrong message from the triumph that is NWH. It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle TWICE IN A ROW. Bringing back characters (and the actors and actresses who played them) from previous franchises using "multiverse shenanigans" could get old REALLY fast. I'm seriously hoping Disney doesn't crowd Strange 2 with pointless cameos solely for the purpose of fan service. I have no problem with fan service, if it works within the stories the movies/shows are trying to tell. I just don't enjoy fan service for the sake of fan service alone. I have some confidence Feige won't mess things up too much with Strange's sequel, but things could go either way with that one I think.

Yeah.

The truth about NWH is that most of us are still basking in the euphoria of seeing the previous Spider-mans and all those villains again.

For me (and probably a lot of people), those two movies represent different stages of people's lives, and seeing them on-screen again got everyone feeling "someway". Although, I will say that in this case, the feeling goes a bit beyond nostalgia because a lot of people (myself included) never thought we'd see these actors in these roles ever again. There's a sense of joy at just seeing guys like Foxx and Garfield get second chances at roles where we know they could have done much, much better.

But I agree that nostalgia as a whole has become commoditized in Hollywood. See the most recent Ghostbusters, I'm not going to spoil but I'll just say that movie was basically a "nostalgia field trip".

[Force de Phenix]

I do think nostalgia is a crutch Hollywood leans on a little bit too much. Look at network television. CBS revived the CSI franchise this year and brought back Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle. Audience reactions appear to have been quite lukewarm. NBC brought back Elliot Stabler this year as well (originally from Law & Order: SVU) to star in a new Law & Order spin-off called Law & Order: Organized Crime. And critical reactions to his new show have been AWFUL. I've mentioned Ghostbusters this year as an example of a film that had a divided response and that movie was allegedly TOTALLY based on nostalgia. How is the upcoming Matrix: Resurrections NOT a film relying on nostalgia? They brought back the same directors and many of the actors and actresses from the previous Matrix movies (the last one of which was released almost TWENTY YEARS ago). And from what I'm hearing, the response to this instalment of the Matrix franchise has been decidedly MIXED.

I guess I'm sort of repeating what I said earlier to MindofShadow. Nostalgia is absolutely NO guarantee of a film's or television show's success. Nostalgia alone is not enough to make a film great, or even good. That's why I HAVE to tip my hat to Kevin Feige. Because from what I've read online, he harnessed nostalgia with great affect in NWH. Lots of things could have gone wrong with this film, but he dodged those pitfalls and helped make it an unbelievable success. So he deserves the praise he is getting now.

My problem is that the entertainment industry is starting to go backwards more than forwards a little bit. The Flash movie is not even hiding the fact that previous Batmen from earlier movies are gonna play a significant role in that film. I would LOVE to have the DCEU make nostalgia work for this movie, but I have my doubts that Warner Brothers is gonna get it right. In regards to the MoM, I DON'T want Marvel Studios execs to get the wrong message from the triumph that is NWH. It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle TWICE IN A ROW. Bringing back characters (and the actors and actresses who played them) from previous franchises using "multiverse shenanigans" could get old REALLY fast. I'm seriously hoping Disney doesn't crowd Strange 2 with pointless cameos solely for the purpose of fan service. I have no problem with fan service, if it works within the stories the movies/shows are trying to tell. I just don't enjoy fan service for the sake of fan service alone. I have some confidence Feige won't mess things up too much with Strange's sequel, but things could go either way with that one I think.

Super hero movies are fan service by definition. They get funding because they have fans, or adjacent fans, like with Guardians of the Galaxy. They should have as much fan service as possible because fan service just means reference and inclusion of source material. If they wanted something original, they would watch something else. We just want them to be good and fan service is a MUST.

And nostalgia is a cheap/more secure way of getting money back from their investment without spending double on marketing/publicity.

[MindofShadow]

I think it's less people thinking the Garfield movies were better than they were and more people recognizing that Garfield was better than the movies he was in and deserves better/another shot.

his peter parker sucked though lol

Best spider-man though, actually quipped!

[Frontier]

his peter parker sucked though lol

Best spider-man though, actually quipped!

I think the movie even acknowledged the common fan conception of the other Spider-Men .

[Albert1981]

I agree with many of the above two posts. I USED to be opposed other Spider-Men joining Holland's version in any movie, but I changed my mind a few months ago. I discovered that Garfield was heartbroken about what went down with the Amazing Spider-Man movies, I think it would be fine for him to get "redemption". Besides, I really liked his acting in Never Let Me Go and the Social Network. I HATED his Spider-Man though. Jamie Foxx is a pretty funny guy, so I wanted to see him get a second chance in a new Spider-Man movie. I think giving the fans what they want makes total sense. So, I have no problem with fan service at all. Just try to make it feel natural and organic to the stories you're trying to tell is ALL that I ask. I have read reviews that they brought back certain popular characters in the Fast & Furious and Game of Thrones franchises, and did absolutely NOTHING with them. That kind of fan service is pointless in my opinion. I have also heard that Ghostbusters is a love letter to the past, but it seemed to have done all right at the box office (despite divided critical opinions on it).

Nostalgia is a reliable way of studios making money IF it's done right. I actually think IPs that fail to win over audiences using nostalgia actually END those franchises. Who knows where the Men in Black and Terminator franchises are gonna go now. Feige did it right and he deserves props for that. But like others have posted on here earlier, I'm REALLY lukewarm on the prospect of older Spider-Men actors reprising their roles in future movies. I still think Sony makes terrible live-action Marvel movies. Them shifting their release dates for Venom 2 so many times this past autumn felt SO unprofessional to me. I can't imagine Disney doing that. I would prefer Tom's version of Peter be the only live-action Spider-Man for the next ten years or so. But Sony should absolutely give him a break for now. I think he's entitled to at least a year off!

[The Kid]

I can see that. But with Sony? Hell naw (in a Will Smith voice).

If they could work out something with Marvel to perhaps consult on it (although Feige flat out said they don't know how to do that), then I won't mind that.

Sony's post Raimi Spider-man related outings have all been rubbish IMO.

Eh they did make the best Spider-Man movie to date in ITSV. I wouldn't mind seeing Garfield get another shot. If there's one thing I learned from NWH, it's that he was a perfect fit for Spidey. Goddamn did he outshine the other two Spideys when they were all together

[80sbaby]

Eh they did make the best Spider-Man movie to date in ITSV.

That was actually in spite of Sony, not because of them.

[The Kid]

That was actually in spite of Sony, not because of them.

It was made entirely by the creative people working at and with Sony. And I haven't read any accounts of Sony meddling almost ruining the film or anything. Or in other words, it's because of Sony just as much as something like Venom was because of Sony. From what I remember reading, they were the ones who wanted to make an animated film and have Lord and Miller as the architects which is what lead to so much of its success

[80sbaby]

It was made entirely by the creative people working at and with Sony. And I haven't read any accounts of Sony meddling almost ruining the film or anything. Or in other words, it's because of Sony just as much as something like Venom was because of Sony. From what I remember reading, they were the ones who wanted to make an animated film and have Lord and Miller as the architects which is what lead to so much of its success

No, the creators had to specify they'd basically have autonomy from Sony meddling and the studio still tried but it was fought. That's why it was as good as it was.

[Username taken]

Eh they did make the best Spider-Man movie to date in ITSV. I wouldn't mind seeing Garfield get another shot. If there's one thing I learned from NWH, it's that he was a perfect fit for Spidey. Goddamn did he outshine the other two Spideys when they were all together

I should have specified live action.

I don’t trust Sony’s approach to Spider-man at all.

And personally, I think Holland overall cemented himself as Spider-man in NWH. I didn’t feel Garfield or Maguire outshone him.

[The Kid]

No, the creators had to specify they'd basically have autonomy from Sony meddling and the studio still tried but it was fought. That's why it was as good as it was.

Oh didn't hear about that. Do you have a link for that? Curious what the point of argument was

I should have specified live action.

I don’t trust Sony’s approach to Spider-man at all.

And personally, I think Holland overall cemented himself as Spider-man in NWH. I didn’t feel Garfield or Maguire outshone him.

Fair enough. I do think Holland has established himself as Spider-Man but I personally thought Garfield stole the show the moment he appeared on-screen

[John Venus]

OH is the internet doing this again? Pretending bad movies are good because of Nostalgia and Memes lol?

Like the star war prequels?

Nobody really liked the garfield movies in real time... they were tolerated but never celebrated.

At least the Tobey movies have die hard fans and were generally loved until the third one (even if I didn't like them, i can recognize that).

Garfield is the underdog. There is some who liked his movies and he is a better actor than the scripts he got. But he got so much hate that some people probably feel the need to speak up on his behalf.

I'd like Xavier and Magneto's history to be kept the same.

I think a combo of Cyclops, Jean, Iceman, Wolverine, Storm and Nightcrawler should be the main starting team (maybe Iceman would be the youngest at 18, but the majority would be in early 20's). Have Forge, Cecilia, Beast and Angel be supporting characters who graduated from the team and left to do other jobs, but are still helpful.

Introduce Bishop, Polaris, Rogue, Gambit and Psylocke as future members. Maybe the second movie?

The first villains shouldn't be too powerful. Maybe a Brothehood led by Mystique and Destiny with Pyro, Toad, and Blob?

I would like to see Mr Sinister and the Juggernaut as the villains.

But I agree that nostalgia as a whole has become commoditized in Hollywood. See the most recent Ghostbusters, I'm not going to spoil but I'll just say that movie was basically a "nostalgia field trip".

Not even a recent phenomenon. Most movies during the last 20 years have been reboots of older properties. Even Mission Impossible is one.

You can go as far back as Batman Forever which attempted to simultaneously cater to the fans of the Burton Batman and the fans of the 60's Batman resulting in a neon mess. Peter David in his review called it an attempt to cater to 60's nostaglia. Even the campiness of the Brosnan era Bond films were likely due to this.

[John Venus]

Fair enough. I do think Holland has established himself as Spider-Man but I personally thought Garfield stole the show the moment he appeared on-screen

I think Holland is the best actor out of the three of them and has most emotional range. He can be funny and dramatic.

It's fitting that the movie showed Garfield as Spider-Man and Tobey as Peter Parker. Tobey captured the shy, socially awkward teen aspect of Peter really well but he didn't really have the energy as Spider-Man, he didn't quip much or annoyed his enemies with his sense of humor. Garfield was funny and charming as Spider-Man but is too cool to be a shy, socially ostracized nerd. Holland has the best of both worlds. He nailed Peter's nerdy side, his kinetic energy and his need to joke around to deal with the extraordinary situations he finds himself in. The only issue was that he was the third reboot of Spider-Man hence why his movies had to cross over with the other MCU movies and had to result in a three movie origin story and a reset to allow him to finally become a full fledged Spider-Man.

[The Kid]

I think Holland is the best actor out of the three of them and has most emotional range. He can be funny and dramatic.

It's fitting that the movie showed Garfield as Spider-Man and Tobey as Peter Parker. Tobey captured the shy, socially awkward teen aspect of Peter really well but he didn't really have the energy as Spider-Man, he didn't quip much or annoyed his enemies with his sense of humor. Garfield was funny and charming as Spider-Man but is too cool to be a shy, socially ostracized nerd. Holland has the best of both worlds. He nailed Peter's nerdy side, his kinetic energy and his need to joke around to deal with the extraordinary situations he finds himself in. The only issue was that he was the third reboot of Spider-Man hence why his movies had to cross over with the other MCU movies and had to result in a three movie origin story and a reset to allow him to finally become a full fledged Spider-Man.

I have to see Tom in other movies since Garfield has shown crazy range in other films but you are right about what has been shown on screen.

[Chris0013]

They really didn't need that spoilers:

19 on the watch at the end. But I guess that the 'Agent 19' designation could be re-assigned

end of spoilers

And I am not sure the credit scene is worth it.