Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 133
  1. #76
    I'm at least a C-Lister! exile001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sudbury, UK
    Posts
    1,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FeliciaSpidey View Post
    I am quite disappointed that MCU intends to convince people that Peter will be the next iron man. There is a scene in the movie where Happy thought of iron man when he saw Peter and so did the audiences. It makes me uncomfortable cause I believe that making spider-man behave like iron man is definitely murdering the character. Spider-Man is just Spider-Man.
    I think the route they were going in the movie was to make you think literally, he will be Iron Man, whereas the movie shows that they mean he will be the centerpoint of the Avengers franchise going forward. That he will be THE GUY.

    The movie repeatedly shows him trying to be an Iron Man-lite and failing, but DOES show them building the future of the heroic "world" around him. But whenever Peter is Peter, he succeeds.

    He is Fury's go to guy, he deals with an Avengers-level threat, he doesn't rely on the gadgets and AI's for the win. In the final battle, when all seems lost, he actually closes his eyes and relies only on his Spider-Sense. None of this is Iron Man stuff.
    Last edited by exile001; 07-05-2019 at 06:28 AM.
    Just. Be. Nice.

  2. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    So, just to reiterate, Jonah is not an Alex Jones type. Not in the movies, not in the comics, not any place.
    I agree with this and that's good enough for me.

  3. #78
    Ultimate Life Form BlackClaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Space Colony ARK
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Just got back from it and I loved it a lot! Holland kills it as always and I think Mysterio is a MASSIVE step up from Vulture. Donít get me wrong, I liked Vulture but Mysterio just blows him out of the water in every way. And the fact the J.K. Simmons is back as J. Jonah Jameson had everyone in the theater my age and older going ďHoly Shit!Ē

    Iím really excited to see whatís going to happen with Spidey in the MCU going forward. Especially with those end credit scenes.
    T'Challa
    A.K.A. The Black Panther
    King of Wakanda
    King of the Dead and The Champion of Bast
    Two-Time Time Magazine "Person Of The Year"
    Six-Time People Magazine "Sexiest Man Alive"

  4. #79
    The Celestial Dragon Tien Long's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    NY/NJ Area
    Posts
    1,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by exile001 View Post
    MYSTERIO WAS GODDAMNED AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I went to see a movie in which Mysterio was properly portrayed, and that is exactly what I got.

    I have a real affinity for a villain that's just... Well, kinda lame. Like, all the pieces are there for a truly great villain, but something just misses the mark and he becomes a joke (or just a D-list recurring nobody). This has, for years, been the case with Mysterio, and I love him all the more for it. My first exposure to him was the Spider-man cartoon in the 90's, and my brain was just like "what the hell is that costume and voice and why is he now my favourite character in this show?!?"

    The guy looks ludicrous, but in all the right ways. His motivations are pretty weak, but he just keeps doing his thing anyway. His threat level is mid-lower level, but he tries again and again never getting close to succeeding (with one or two exceptions, maybe). In short, Mysterio has always been one of my "guys", and I'll buy any comics with him in.

    It takes something special, like Guardian Devil, for all that potential to finally be realised... and EVEN THEN the point is made that he can't beat his arch-foe so attacks Daredevil (pretending like they are arch-foes), that his plan was done-to-death and, if not for Kingpin, wouldn't have even got off the ground. It was beautiful. Also, it gave me one of my favourite comic covers of all time! I'm not sure if this was the idea, but I swear he is giving a double-thumbs up and would have a big goofy grin if we could see his face.

    Attachment 84184

    The one thing I was worried about from the trailers was that in the movie, Mysterio would have powers but be faking the Elementals. I jumped for joy inside when it was revealed that EVERYTHING was fake! THAT is true Mysterio right there!

    Say what you will about this iteration of Spider-man, but the villains are among the best in ANY superhero movie. And Mysterio if fricking awesome!

    Also, Flash reading online about Morrie Bench and his origin when the fake Water Elemental appeared was hilarious!
    Yeah, me too bro. I liked how in the trailers, Mysterio portrayed himself as being some kind of other hero from an alternate Earth with real powers. I had a slight inkling that the movie would portray Mysterio as being real in some way. (I think even a couple of comic websites were hoodwinked into thinking this as well). But yeah, I jumped for joy too when the movie revealed everything about Mysterio as being fake. Because that's Mysterio. He's all fake! Plus, I loved his little meta trolling speech during the scene in the bar. A hero from an alternate Earth who is fighting elemental creatures who destroyed his world? What? C'mon, who would believe that? But hey, when you think about it, it seems like it could fit the pattern for any other MCU film. And it reminded me of the Guardian Devil arc as well. The scheme fits right up there with convincing someone that they are protecting the next Messiah/Antichrist.

    So yeah, that's what I liked about Mysterio and the movie in general. Spider-Man isn't fighting against Thanos or universal threats here. At the end of the day, he's fighting a small-time hood with desires for greed and wealth. There's a very "friendly-neighborhood" quality about that. At the same time, this hood has some serious tech and help. There's an "amazing" quality about that as well.
    "I am a man of peace."

    "A man of peace...who fights like ten tigers."

  5. #80
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    180

    Default

    How are comics fans reconciling Tony Stark replacing Uncle Ben as the moral compass for this Peter? It's still very bizarre to me, the way this version views his responsibility, how he interacts with money and capital, how he views what a superhero is or what his role in the world is. Everything about the way MCU Spider-Man views his place seems to be at odds with the way 616 Spider-Man tends to view himself and his place.

    The movie writers and directors seem to basically be shrugging off the question -- both in interviews, and definitely within the content itself. "We didn't want to retread the origin." Yeah okay, but it's one thing to start the story after the events of Uncle Ben's murder, but it's another thing entirely for him to not even be named once across 5 film appearances by MCU Peter.

    It feels as though you had a Batman franchise that started from the Justice League movie (not BvS), where it seems like everything he's doing is because of how Superman inspired him. It's like, yeah, those two characters share a deep connection, but that's not the motivation. It makes sense only from the marketing perspective of tying together these big IPs for a shared universe.

    Anecdotally, every person I hear who think "MCU Spidey is the best version" also "never really read the comics" so I can understand why it doesn't matter to that crowd. If the MCU isn't your primary introduction to the character, does the erasure of Uncle Ben bother you?
    Last edited by gregpersons; 07-05-2019 at 04:22 PM.

  6. #81
    Astonishing Member Jekyll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregpersons View Post
    How are comics fans reconciling Tony Stark replacing Uncle Ben as the moral compass for this Peter? It's still very bizarre to me, the way this version views his responsibility, how he interacts with money and capital, how he views what a superhero is or what his role in the world is. Everything about the way MCU Spider-Man views his place seems to be at odds with the way 616 Spider-Man tends to view himself and his place.

    The movie writers and directors seem to basically be shrugging off the question -- both in interviews, and definitely within the content itself. "We didn't want to retread the origin." Yeah okay, but it's one thing to start the story after the events of Uncle Ben's murder, but it's another thing entirely for him to not even be named once across 5 film appearances by MCU Peter.

    It feels as though you had a Batman franchise that started from the Justice League movie (not BvS), where it seems like everything he's doing is because of how Superman inspired him. It's like, yeah, those two characters share a deep connection, but that's not the motivation. It makes sense only from the marketing perspective of tying together these big IPs for a shared universe.

    Anecdotally, every person I hear who think "MCU Spidey is the best version" also "never really read the comics" so I can understand why it doesn't matter to that crowd. If the MCU isn't your primary introduction to the character, does the erasure of Uncle Ben bother you?
    It’s all about context and interpretation. This is the MCU version of Spider-Man and in that context it works fine. I have no issue with this. We’ve seen the uncle Ben angle done plenty of times at this point, it’s fine to have another interpretation for this universe.
    AKA FlashFreak
    Favorite Characters:
    DC: The Flash (Jay & Wally), The Atom (Ray Palmer) , Jack Knight, Stargirl, & Shazam!.
    MARVEL: Daredevil, Spider-Man (Peter Parker), Iron Fist, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man (Scott Lang), & Iron Man.

    Current Pulls: Daredevil, Amazing Spider-Man, Venom, Immortal Hulk, Shazam,Guardians of The Galaxy, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, & Spider-Man Life Story.

  7. #82
    Incredible Member kingaliencracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregpersons View Post
    How are comics fans reconciling Tony Stark replacing Uncle Ben as the moral compass for this Peter? It's still very bizarre to me, the way this version views his responsibility, how he interacts with money and capital, how he views what a superhero is or what his role in the world is. Everything about the way MCU Spider-Man views his place seems to be at odds with the way 616 Spider-Man tends to view himself and his place.

    The movie writers and directors seem to basically be shrugging off the question -- both in interviews, and definitely within the content itself. "We didn't want to retread the origin." Yeah okay, but it's one thing to start the story after the events of Uncle Ben's murder, but it's another thing entirely for him to not even be named once across 5 film appearances by MCU Peter.

    It feels as though you had a Batman franchise that started from the Justice League movie (not BvS), where it seems like everything he's doing is because of how Superman inspired him. It's like, yeah, those two characters share a deep connection, but that's not the motivation. It makes sense only from the marketing perspective of tying together these big IPs for a shared universe.

    Anecdotally, every person I hear who think "MCU Spidey is the best version" also "never really read the comics" so I can understand why it doesn't matter to that crowd. If the MCU isn't your primary introduction to the character, does the erasure of Uncle Ben bother you?
    While I have problems with the MCU Spider-Man, I'd rather them not mention Uncle Ben every 5 minutes. So I'm fine with the lack of references thus far through 5 movies.

    I've read plenty of Spider-Man comic books. Uncle Ben's memory is only one facet of why Peter fights crime as Spider-Man. It's also established quite explicitly that Peter loves the thrill of crime fighting and this is at times equal to his honoring Uncle Ben. And Uncle Ben isn't mentioned every other page.

    I'm also not bothered with the Iron Man/Spider-Man connection. It's not ideal, especially if you're a comic book fan, but it works and makes sense within the MCU. Peter didn't have a father, his father figure in Uncle Ben was killed - presumably by his inaction. Then Tony comes along and becomes his mentor, only to be killed bringing Peter back from death. It makes sense that FFH would deal with the aftermath of that.

    Again, what I have a problem with is that Peter's enemies in the movies so far are really Tony Stark's enemies. Vulture and Mysterio were both trying to get back at Tony Stark, and Peter just got in the way. This, despite the fact that Vulture and Mysterio are very much Spider-Man villains. It would just be nice to have a standalone Spider-Man film, set in New York, that deals with Spider-Man battling his own enemies.

  8. #83
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Wouldn't there be hundreds of witnesses (if not thousands) who saw the drones attacking Spider-Man at the Tower Bridge?

  9. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregpersons View Post
    How are comics fans reconciling Tony Stark replacing Uncle Ben as the moral compass for this Peter?
    Generally not very much.

    It's still very bizarre to me, the way this version views his responsibility, how he interacts with money and capital, how he views what a superhero is or what his role in the world is. Everything about the way MCU Spider-Man views his place seems to be at odds with the way 616 Spider-Man tends to view himself and his place.
    If you want to look at it politically, the movies have villains who are respectively, a honest working-class dude without a criminal record (Toomes) who had his legal contract taken away from him without compensation which by the way is illegal, as per the law of Eminent Domain in the USA...you cannot take property from someone without proper compensation...both Matt Murdock, Jennifer Waters, or Janice Lincoln (although she's more corporate law than civil law) could have taken his case. Of course it turns out it's justified since this guy is some arms dealer (which as he points out is what Tony Stark was before he got his redemption arc, something that isn't allowed for the likes of Toomes)...so it's like "Sure Tony and Damage Control stiffed a little guy but look he became evil, that gives them the right to do this, since it isn't their fault."

    In the case of Beck, a dude who had his intellectual property and life's work appropriated, renamed and taken away from him. The latter I find especially bemusing because Disney/Marvel have a history of stiffing artists without correct attribution and compensation, so Far From Home is basically propaganda for them : "Sure we stiffed artists, but those artists are grubby, resentful, evil people who would murder if they could, so we were right to do it". This actually is somewhat realistic...in real life, Steve Ditko's character was assassinated by fanboys who wanted to feel better about Stan Lee, so you had false rumors that he had issues with Norman being Goblin, that he wanted Peter to be in high school, that he wanted to make it a Randian propaganda piece. You can still find people saying online about Stan saving Spider-Man from Ditko and so on...but it's one thing to highlight cult-like behavior among fans and another to operate under the same mentality.

    The movie writers and directors seem to basically be shrugging off the question -- both in interviews, and definitely within the content itself. "We didn't want to retread the origin." Yeah okay, but it's one thing to start the story after the events of Uncle Ben's murder, but it's another thing entirely for him to not even be named once across 5 film appearances by MCU Peter.
    You know what else had been done before in the previous movies: Spider-Man shooting webs, Spider-Man having Spider-abilities, Spider-Man crawling walls, Spider-Man being Peter Parker. I mean if they had real guts, they could have avoided this whole "repeat previous movies stuff" by simply bringing in Miles, since they brought Ganke into the movies. But apparently Uncle Ben is a bridge too far. It's more or less inevitable that you will repeat things and beats if you keep doing Spider-Man stories. And again you don't have to show the origin or cast an actor. Simply mention him, put him in a picture frame and have May talk about how she misses Ben.

    The problem with Tony Stark being this mentor figure is that it literally doesn't make any sense. The movies consistently frame Tony Stark as this guy who wrecks Peter's life. His actions created villains that messed up Peter's life. So him being this guy who at the end of the day is still someone Peter looks up to and admires without qualifications doesn't make sense. If Peter said, "I made mistakes. Tony made mistakes. But we both try to be better," that might be something. The stories do need Peter to acknowledge that Tony Stark was the MCU's biggest f--kup, far bigger and with more human blood than Peter can hope to dream of.

  10. #85
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11,977

    Default

    It doesn't bother me honestly. I've gotten a bunch of films, not to mention TV shows, comics, games, etc with Uncle Ben stuff. The big appeal for many here was finally getting to see Peter interacting with other MCU heroes and characters, and they're finally running with that.

    Also it makes total sense to me that teenage Peter would look up to Tony, and why Tony would become fond of him in-return. Also both the comics and TV show have done this.

    So yes, it's fine imo. Also you cannot have this movie right after Endgame and NOT address the Tony issue.

  11. #86
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Generally not very much.
    Honestly thank you, your post was amazing, spectacular... really great. Thanks!

    If you want to look at it politically, the movies have villains who are respectively, a honest working-class dude without a criminal record (Toomes) who had his legal contract taken away from him without compensation which by the way is illegal, as per the law of Eminent Domain in the USA...you cannot take property from someone without proper compensation...both Matt Murdock, Jennifer Waters, or Janice Lincoln (although she's more corporate law than civil law) could have taken his case. Of course it turns out it's justified since this guy is some arms dealer (which as he points out is what Tony Stark was before he got his redemption arc, something that isn't allowed for the likes of Toomes)...so it's like "Sure Tony and Damage Control stiffed a little guy but look he became evil, that gives them the right to do this, since it isn't their fault."

    In the case of Beck, a dude who had his intellectual property and life's work appropriated, renamed and taken away from him. The latter I find especially bemusing because Disney/Marvel have a history of stiffing artists without correct attribution and compensation, so Far From Home is basically propaganda for them : "Sure we stiffed artists, but those artists are grubby, resentful, evil people who would murder if they could, so we were right to do it". This actually is somewhat realistic...in real life, Steve Ditko's character was assassinated by fanboys who wanted to feel better about Stan Lee, so you had false rumors that he had issues with Norman being Goblin, that he wanted Peter to be in high school, that he wanted to make it a Randian propaganda piece. You can still find people saying online about Stan saving Spider-Man from Ditko and so on...but it's one thing to highlight cult-like behavior among fans and another to operate under the same mentality.
    Great point. Damn.

    It is wild how the Disney Spider-Man is actively fighting against the little guy to protect big corporate/government interests (The extent to that Spidey is fighting on behalf of anyone else is only implied by like one minute in Homecoming where he gives an old lady directions). Of course, it's not actually that surprising -- I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the Disney/Marvel movies, which are also partly funded by the US Department of Defense, have overtly pro-military-industry themes.

    But man, it is jarring to see those themes attached to Spider-Man. In the comics, he's a "robin hood" character who thumbs his nose at the elite. But in the Disney films, he's in total awe that he gets to be drafted to fight alongside his military heroes. He's become GI Joe in a web costume.

    You know what else had been done before in the previous movies: Spider-Man shooting webs, Spider-Man having Spider-abilities, Spider-Man crawling walls, Spider-Man being Peter Parker. I mean if they had real guts, they could have avoided this whole "repeat previous movies stuff" by simply bringing in Miles, since they brought Ganke into the movies. But apparently Uncle Ben is a bridge too far. It's more or less inevitable that you will repeat things and beats if you keep doing Spider-Man stories. And again you don't have to show the origin or cast an actor. Simply mention him, put him in a picture frame and have May talk about how she misses Ben.
    100%. Well put. I want to repeat this to every other poster who is like "Uncle Ben? Ugh! WE'VE SEEN IT! BOOOORING"

    The problem with Tony Stark being this mentor figure is that it literally doesn't make any sense. The movies consistently frame Tony Stark as this guy who wrecks Peter's life. His actions created villains that messed up Peter's life. So him being this guy who at the end of the day is still someone Peter looks up to and admires without qualifications doesn't make sense. If Peter said, "I made mistakes. Tony made mistakes. But we both try to be better," that might be something. The stories do need Peter to acknowledge that Tony Stark was the MCU's biggest f--kup, far bigger and with more human blood than Peter can hope to dream of.
    Yeah. Ugh. It's so annoying, and so poorly thought out from the creatives. It wouldn't surprise me if these were dictated by the terms of the Sony/Disney deal -- like, the Disney characters have to be mentioned or incorporated a certain amount, or something. It doesn't feel organic, to me, as someone coming at these movies as primarily a Spider-Man fan as opposed to an "MCU" fan.

    Incidentally, Gail Simone expressed some similar frustrations (not on Ben specifically but about how this Spider-Man isn't a smart alec, which again points to how submissive hs is toward power in general) which is worth a read.

  12. #87
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Punisher007 View Post
    It doesn't bother me honestly. I've gotten a bunch of films, not to mention TV shows, comics, games, etc with Uncle Ben stuff. The big appeal for many here was finally getting to see Peter interacting with other MCU heroes and characters, and they're finally running with that.

    Also it makes total sense to me that teenage Peter would look up to Tony, and why Tony would become fond of him in-return. Also both the comics and TV show have done this.

    So yes, it's fine imo. Also you cannot have this movie right after Endgame and NOT address the Tony issue.
    Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. These movies are best enjoyed if viewed from the perspective of "this is a spin-off of Disney's The Avengers" rather than "this is a movie about Spider-Man."

    Homecoming and Far From Home both felt like "tie-in" issues to a big crossover event, and ultimately, that is what they are.

  13. #88
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingaliencracker View Post
    I'm also not bothered with the Iron Man/Spider-Man connection. It's not ideal, especially if you're a comic book fan, but it works and makes sense within the MCU. Peter didn't have a father, his father figure in Uncle Ben was killed - presumably by his inaction. Then Tony comes along and becomes his mentor, only to be killed bringing Peter back from death. It makes sense that FFH would deal with the aftermath of that.

    Again, what I have a problem with is that Peter's enemies in the movies so far are really Tony Stark's enemies. Vulture and Mysterio were both trying to get back at Tony Stark, and Peter just got in the way. This, despite the fact that Vulture and Mysterio are very much Spider-Man villains. It would just be nice to have a standalone Spider-Man film, set in New York, that deals with Spider-Man battling his own enemies.
    Well if you look at it from within the MCU then actually Uncle Ben doesn't exist. Or if he does, his death is absolutely not canon. There have been easter eggs and winks, initials on suitcases -- but that's not the same thing. This is a separate universe.

    He doesn't need to be "mentioned every 5 minutes" to have a presence or impact on Peter's motivations. In Into The Spider-Verse, Ben is mentioned explicitly when Peter mentions his origin -- Ben speaks one line, and Peter says his name one time. But his impact is felt throughout in the theme of "great power, great responsibility."

    Throughout 5 appearances in the Disney/MCU films, Ben has had 0 impact -- there is 0 indication that this version has a sense of "responsibility" to anyone except his superiors (the Avengers). What that means is that this version of Spider-Man an empty vessel. He is just a continuation of the MCU brand, and not much more.

    So of course his villains are motivated by Tony and the Avengers; all of the Spidey characters are merely brand extensions of the Avengers in the Disney-verse. Maybe by Movie 6, they'll let Spider-Man be a recognizable version of his own character, but in the meantime, we'll all get tons of merch and clickbait videos, articles, trailers, and interviews to fuel the brand loyalty.

  14. #89
    "Emma is STILL right! Vegeta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Why is it sooo important that we see Uncle Ben? There was a whole first season of "Spider-man and his Amazing Friends" as well as a solo Spidey cartoon in the 80's where Uncle Ben wasn't mentioned once. it didn't hurt the narrative in anyway.

    There's also multiple issues of the comic where Uncle Ben doesn't get a name check by Peter and the books read just fine! In many books published in the 90's Spidey was far more likely to be shouting "MARY JAAAAAAANE!" then recounting his Uncle's murder for the umpteenth time.And in the latest issue of Amazing Spider-Man (#24) Peter makes zero references to Uncle Ben and doesn't even utter the phrase "with great power..." and it still felt like Spider-Man!

    You guys have 3 Raimi films of Peter Parker crying at the drop of a hat over his dead Uncle. Why do we NEED to see it yet again?
    "The White Queen welcomes you, TO DIE!"

  15. #90

    Default

    For those interested. Here's Gail Simone's views on the film from twitter summarized here:

    What happened to Spider-man the smartass?...The reason Spider-man works in the comics is because he is the loner, the underdog. Everyone thinks he's a doormat. He's bullied at school, he's bulled in his job, he's bullied in the spidey suit...So when he fights back, when he gets the better of people who are stronger and richer and meaner, WE FUCKING LOVE HIM because that's a world we'd all like to live in...But THIS Spider-man doesn't tell jokes, doesn't mock the powerful, he is in awe of them, he only wants to please them and be friends with them and avoid disappointment from them...And weirdest of all, they made Spider-man EVERYONE's straight man. Nick Fury, MJ, his fellow students, the villains, Happy, even his aunt, EVERYONE makes fun of him and his response is puppy eyes...It's odd. I think they've created a very credible Spider-man, we care about him and he's likeable. But it's a very, very different take...When comic book Spidey says he's the "friendly neighborhood Spider-man," he's being ironic, he's being flippant and funny. In this one, they try to make it an actual mission statement without a hint of irony. It comes up several times...Okay, that was my big thing. A Spider-man who doesn't tell jokes is always going to feel a little bit wrong to me. There are a couple other things...It makes me sad, as a Spidey fan, that they've made this an Iron Man spin-off. When Spidey takes off his sparkly spider armor and wears a much less tech-y version, I was DELIGHTED. The moment didn't last. But I still like the Spidey who invented his OWN gear...And finally, this makes me feel bad to say, but I thought most of the kids didn't work. Most of the kid VIBE felt off, too. I don't get this version of Flash. He COULD bully Peter with his internet presence, but he's never actually effective, so Peter is never the underdog...I felt the kids were being mocked so consistently, not by Peter, but by the filmmakers, it was a bit off-putting. "Ha, look at how silly these teens are these days," is a weird take in a Spider-man movie...And that feeling kind of permeates the movie...for one thing, ALL the showcase soundtrack songs are from decades before Peter was even BORN...You're making a movie about the youngest big icon hero, and you use ACDC, the Go-Gos, and the Ramones for the key emotional moments? How does that have anything to do with a kid today?..."I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" was released 27 years before Peter was even BORN. I love the Ramones, I know a lot of kids do, too. But...wouldn't they be listening to something from this century?...It's weird that in a movie about youth and young love and making youthful mistakes, I wanted more Happy and May than Ned and Betty. Also, there's a plot with the kids that goes nowhere, and it's weird...BUT. These really are mostly minor things. I love the movie, I had a great time, it's certainly the most explosive Spidey film, the cast is great, go see it, you'll have a blast.

    https://twitter.com/GailSimone/statu...30628260175872
    Quote Originally Posted by gregpersons View Post
    It is wild how the Disney Spider-Man is actively fighting against the little guy to protect big corporate/government interests (The extent to that Spidey is fighting on behalf of anyone else is only implied by like one minute in Homecoming where he gives an old lady directions). Of course, it's not actually that surprising -- I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the Disney/Marvel movies, which are also partly funded by the US Department of Defense, have overtly pro-military-industry themes.
    I don't know if Disney-Marvel movies are trying to promote a military-industrial complex theme necessarily. Because Joss Whedon's The Avengers didn't get any help at all from the military. They had a problem with SHIELD being run by the World Security Council and not the US Government. Then of course the Russos made The Winter Soldier, where Captain America becomes a liberal who shuts down SHIELD (though again SHIELD being a non-government agency and so on, makes it kind-of anti-UN if you squint).

    I'd say the Spider-Man subtext is just as a result of incompetence and poorly conceived ideas. They basically saw Spider-Man not as a character but as a corporate mascot and icon. Spider-Man is supposed to be kids and since the kids are crazy about Avengers they basically made Peter Parker into a surrogate for their teenage audience. Now there's a way you can do that and also make him Spider-Man...because not all of those kids are uncritical of the Avengers actions in the movies.

    The end result that Tom Holland's Peter is a pretty shallow and one-dimensional version of Peter. Even Slott's Peter who was pretty shallow has more depth to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegeta View Post
    Why is it sooo important that we see Uncle Ben?
    1) Stop changing goalposts or ignoring other people. We said that Uncle Ben can be mentioned by name or discussed in scenes without there being a flashback and so on.

    2) Uncle Ben is as important to Spider-Man as his web-shooters as his name, and his theme.

    There was a whole first season of "Spider-man and his Amazing Friends" as well as a solo Spidey cartoon in the 80's where Uncle Ben wasn't mentioned once. it didn't hurt the narrative in anyway.
    Saturday morning cartoons from the '80s with low-budget and low-production values and aimed for very small audiences with censorship restrictrions on showing and mentioning death and so on, aren't reasonable examples to bring into this.

    There's also multiple issues of the comic where Uncle Ben doesn't get a name check by Peter and the books read just fine!
    A movie is supposed to digest bits from across all Spider-Man movies. Not a single monthly issue comic which relies a lot on pre-established continuity. And besides Peter does mention Uncle Ben during HUNTED. Can't say which issue but yeah. If Uncle Ben had been mentioned in Homecoming, that's it, we don't need it brought up again.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 07-06-2019 at 11:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •