Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 115
  1. #46
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullkid View Post
    So far all you're doing is making it clear the only "problem" is that you hate Iron Man and can't stand the fact a version of Spider-Man looks up to and respects a character you don't like.
    That's the only point you're making here, you hate Iron Man and therefore Spider-Man should too.
    If that's all you want to take away, I can do nothing to stop you.

  2. #47
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    199

    Default

    That's all I can take away because that's the only thing you keep making apparent, especially going by what I've read in other threads.

  3. #48
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the illustrious mr. kenway View Post
    Neither- the Jackal.

    He could be a recurring character if they do a trilogy based of his college years. Each movie might have a different villain but he could be a secondary antagonist in the background.

    I believe Spectacular Spiderman was doing something like that as Warren replaced Connors as the ESU scientist Peter and Gwen interned under.
    Anytime I see that show mentioned I always wonder what could have been... Spectacular was too good for this world. Warren usurping the Empire State University lab via blackmail was BRILLIANT... Never in all my years would I ever think that I would be interested in someone like the Jackal of all people.

    I will say that Jackal is more known for being a guy in the shadows sending villains after Peter than someone who would directly confront him, so I do believe that would be the way to go for him if they do decide to go that route. That said, we would need to find some obligatory way to connect him to Stark in some way, as it seems that with MCU's Spidey he's going to be cleaning up after the deceased industrialist. I do think the scorned former employee would be a bit too much of a retread.

    I suppose we could go with Norman, as he IS Spidey's arch...but if anything I will say Harry's existence made that possible (in that Peter wouldn't turn Norman in due to thinking how it would affect his friend). However, I don't see them bringing Norman/Harry in at all as with them trying to avoid reusing characters from past Spider-Man movies (but STILL using Jameson with the exact same actor for some reason), it would feel like retreading old ground.

  4. #49
    Astonishing Member David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Norman Osborn makes a lot of sense as an evil version of Tony Stark.
    I mean, Tony Stark also arguably makes a lot of sense as an evil version of Tony Stark.

  5. #50
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullkid View Post
    That's all I can take away because that's the only thing you keep making apparent,
    You can be a fan of Batman and still complain when DC shills him to the detriment of other characters (like Superman and the Justice League).

    Likewise, you can like Tony Stark as a character in some stories (Iron Man 1, Iron Man 3, The Avengers) while taking issues about him having too much screentime and movie real estate in other movies and other stories.

    After all, the stuff with Spider-Man and Tony Stark is pretty exceptional in the MCU.

  6. #51
    Mighty Member Zeitgeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    MCU Tom Holland Spider-Man has appeared in five movies (Civil War, Homecoming, IW, Endgame, FFH). I think if in five movies you focus on a single soon-to-be-dead horse that is Iron Man as the fulcrum of a character's existence, then you can't fall back on the excuse of "barely peeked into Spider-Man's past in the MCU, be design". Because five movies is...a lot. Especially since the solo movies, ought to be, movies which do a deep dive into those characters...
    If we're going to make a point of being analytical about this, let's do it in good faith: Civil War, Infinity War and Endgame were supporting roles where the character either shared the screen with a dozen other characters at the same time, or was dead for 4/5ths of the run time. So we've had 2 solo, Spider-Man focused films. Civil War was unique in that it was a backdoor introduction for the character and thus showed a window into his home life, so let's say 2 1/2 films dedicated solely to his own personal story.
    The reason why we haven't looked into Spider-Man's past is because the studio made the choice to have us join the character mostly in media res, though in the early stages of his career as a vigilante - and we know they made that choice because they didn't want to retread the origin story we'd seen twice in the last decade already.

    This doesn't mean that those events haven't happened in the MCU though, it's just we haven't seen them in a blatant, obvious manner. A lot about his past has been inferred through dialogue or provided through easter eggs, showing events definitely have transpired.

    Mostly in the five MCU movies, Tom Holland Peter is in a submissive position to established older heroes, and character actors, and is essentially an incarnation of the MCU fan rather than an actual character. That doesn't work in the long term where eventually you are going to have to deal with Peter Parker Spider-Man as his own character in his own setting and status-quo. They will have to virtually soft-reboot the story, a la Taika Waititi and Thor Ragnarok to eventually begin to tell actual Peter Parker stories.
    I don't find Spider-Man's fawning over established heroes in the MCU any different than how the character did in the comics regarding Captain America and the Fantastic Four. They should pull the trigger on filling in that backstory though by the next film - I don't think it's something that should be perpetually passed by just because it's familiar, and I think enough time has passed and the character in the MCU has been established enough that viewers will go along on that journey again.




    In cinema, it is. What you leave out greatly informs stuff about the character and story that the audiences are able to infer.
    Depends if you trust your audience's intelligence. I think what's there rewards those who are bothering to look; but again, this is a thread that should eventually be followed through on.



    Tony isn't exactly stable...and after all MCU Iron Man has a bigger body count than Norman in comics and movies has. What with Ultron, those weapons he sold to Klaue and Sokovia, and in Afghanistan, as well as all the collateral damage he does.
    Agreed, and that's why I think it'd be an interesting segue. Because Stark was incredibly flawed, as Peter found especially in Far From Home, but overall he gets a pass because of his late life heroics. So what happens when Peter comes across another Stark archetype, seemingly almost as brilliant, seemingly equally as flawed? He'll forgive them also, maybe because he likes to see the best in people, maybe because he's subconsciously looking for some kind of mentor/father figure to fill that void - but in this case, there's no real heroic side of Norman coming. Psychologically, I find that prospect fascinating, and would make for a great eventual hero-villain relationship IMO.
    ♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪ღ♪.* *..*♪ღ♪*

    ♪ღ♪░░░░M░J░ ░I░S░ ░A░ ░K░A░R░E░N░░░░♪ღ♪

    *♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪.* *..*♪ღ♪

  7. #52
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
    So we've had 2 solo, Spider-Man focused films.
    Yeah and that's a lot.

    I don't find Spider-Man's fawning over established heroes in the MCU any different than how the character did in the comics regarding Captain America and the Fantastic Four.
    In the original issues of ASM, Spider-Man gatecrashed the FF headquarters and asked them to sign him up because he needed money not because he was a fan of the FF but because he needed the bread to help his Aunt and himself. So it's not accurate to say he was a fanboy of the Fantastic Four since his interactions with the FF in those early issues were all over the place. Sometimes he'd be inspired by Johnny, other times he would be fighting him. His interactions with the Avengers were likewise push-pull.

    Depends if you trust your audience's intelligence.
    Peter's origin isn't some deep cut special thing that only audiences of a certain age and background are able to infer the nuance...it's a fundamental core element that shapes the character. You don't have to do the full-press redo of the story...but you do have to, say, do the four-panel intro from All-Star Superman (or Spider-Man Life Story's first page) or some version of that. You do need a scene which implies a Ben-shaped hole in the lives of Peter and Aunt May and that's just not there in these movies. A lot of casual viewers assumed that Aunt May was some single mother and vague references to initials on suitcase are not enough. That has to be there for these characters to be their characters.

    So what happens when Peter comes across another Stark archetype, seemingly almost as brilliant, seemingly equally as flawed?
    "Fool me twice, shame on me."

    He'll forgive them also, maybe because he likes to see the best in people, maybe because he's subconsciously looking for some kind of mentor/father figure to fill that void
    A concept that only works because the MCU movies haven't addressed the fact that to quote Tobey's Peter, "I had a father. His name was Ben Parker". You can't have a guy who keeps chasing after daddy figures because his current ones are dead because that implies that these figures had no impact on him when they were alive. That's not believable psychology. And if that's the case, that makes MCU Peter a pretty vapid and shallow character, and a total moron.

    Psychologically, I find that prospect fascinating, and would make for a great eventual hero-villain relationship IMO.
    The version from the comics and Spider-Man 1 is already a great actual hero-villain relationship...not "eventual", but actual. And Tony Stark was never needed for that.

    I mean that's the problem with the MCU...these movies are being treated as transition to some final end-state, which means that tacitly everyone agrees that MCU Spider-Man is basically "spider-man in training" and not the actual Spider-Man. That makes these movies frustrating because fundamentally you know that Tom Holland is never gonna get there. If in five movies, Tom Holland's Spidey is fenced in and petted by established figures in the MCU and that gives them success...they're just gonna keep doing that and continue doing that to the point that MCU Spider-Man remains a mascot rather than a character.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 02-07-2020 at 05:28 AM.

  8. #53
    Mighty Member Zeitgeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Yeah and that's a lot.
    I don't feel like two films is a lot. Now if we're at the three solo film mark and we're still here, sure, ball dropped.


    Peter's origin isn't some deep cut special thing that only audiences of a certain age and background are able to infer the nuance...it's a fundamental core element that shapes the character.
    That suits my argument pretty fine. If it's a fundamental core element of the character that most people know, then why argue as if Ben doesn't exist here? We're smart enough to fill in those blanks in their absence for the time being.

    You don't have to do the full-press redo of the story...but you do have to, say, do the four-panel intro from All-Star Superman (or Spider-Man Life Story's first page) or some version of that. You do need a scene which implies a Ben-shaped hole in the lives of Peter and Aunt May and that's just not there in these movies. A lot of casual viewers assumed that Aunt May was some single mother and vague references to initials on suitcase are not enough. That has to be there for these characters to be their characters.
    I don't disagree, despite my opinion above that it's not something that'd been needed to be explicitly shown so far, I do hope this is something they get around to. Marvel Studios especially shouldn't take how many films they have left on this docket with Sony for granted - if they've got a story to tell, they should get it all out there.


    A concept that only works because the MCU movies haven't addressed the fact that to quote Tobey's Peter, "I had a father. His name was Ben Parker". You can't have a guy who keeps chasing after daddy figures because his current ones are dead because that implies that these figures had no impact on him when they were alive. That's not believable psychology. And if that's the case, that makes MCU Peter a pretty vapid and shallow character, and a total moron.

    That's a pretty cynical take away of how and why people form relationships after loss and I don't think that holds true for people in real life at all. First to bear mentioning here that we're talking about a young character in his formative stages, which is when boys will instinctively reach out for such guiding figures the most.
    In general, when you're faced with losing someone important in any form and you move on to a degree in some way, be it remarrying, getting a new dog, or looking up to someone else that isn't your dead uncle... that doesn't devalue or make the initial relationship any lesser at all, nor does it erase or overwrite what you took away from them, such as say, a sense of morality. And it definitely, absolutely does not make you vapid. No friendship or relationship is the same moreover - though both Ben and Tony are both father figures to Peter to various degrees, the lessons learned from both are vastly different.

    Moreover it's very in line with the comics and other Spider-Man related media for Peter to admire, hero worship and essentially be charge-like for various male figures who are initially respected in their industries, isn't it? Besides those I already mentioned, there's also Curt Connors on page and in the first Amazing film, Otto Octavius in Spider-Man 2 and the PS4 game, and even Miles to Peter in turn right across the board. None of those devalued Ben's impact (hell, in some of them Ben barely has any screen or voice time at all).




    The version from the comics and Spider-Man 1 is already a great actual hero-villain relationship...not "eventual", but actual. And Tony Stark was never needed for that.

    I mean that's the problem with the MCU...these movies are being treated as transition to some final end-state, which means that tacitly everyone agrees that MCU Spider-Man is basically "spider-man in training" and not the actual Spider-Man. That makes these movies frustrating because fundamentally you know that Tom Holland is never gonna get there. If in five movies, Tom Holland's Spidey is fenced in and petted by established figures in the MCU and that gives them success...they're just gonna keep doing that and continue doing that to the point that MCU Spider-Man remains a mascot rather than a character.
    Sure, but we're talking about working with what's already been laid out here in the MCU.

    Regarding your other point, I mean, isn't that how comics read? Every issue is transitional. Peter Parker is always failing, always learning, never perfect. In this case we're two solo films in, the character is still in high school, played by an actual age appropriate actor (no 30-something in college here), with the story arc explicitly about the character growing up and finding out what kind of hero he wants to be. "Spider-Man the seasoned vigilante" just isn't the arc on the cards yet, which is fine. There are a lot of stories to still tell here, and plenty of time in the future for that, ideally. I think your fear is unfounded though, since the hands-of-time will make it rather impossible to keep Tom Holland's Spider-Man somehow in a state of cinematic neoteny.
    Last edited by Zeitgeist; 02-07-2020 at 08:29 AM.
    ♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪ღ♪.* *..*♪ღ♪*

    ♪ღ♪░░░░M░J░ ░I░S░ ░A░ ░K░A░R░E░N░░░░♪ღ♪

    *♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪.* *..*♪ღ♪

  9. #54
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
    I don't feel like two films is a lot.
    The Godfather I and II are two movies, A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back are two movies. Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2 are two movies. Especially since both Homecoming (at 133 minutes) and FFH (129 minutes) are longer than SM1 and SM2 (122 and 127 mins respectively).

    That suits my argument pretty fine. If it's a fundamental core element of the character that most people know, then why argue as if Ben doesn't exist here?
    Because we can't infer it from the character interactions. Aunt May doesn't feel like she's missing Ben, nor is Peter. I mean even Ned Leeds doesn't treat Peter like a dude whose Uncle and Guardian just died.

    I don't disagree, despite my opinion above that it's not something that'd been needed to be explicitly shown so far, I do hope this is something they get around to. Marvel Studios especially shouldn't take how many films they have left on this docket with Sony for granted - if they've got a story to tell, they should get it all out there.
    Agreed on this.

    First to bear mentioning here that we're talking about a young character in his formative stages, which is when boys will instinctively reach out for such guiding figures the most.
    Which applies to kids who grew up without any parental figures, but Peter was raised by Ben and had him for all his childhood and early teenage years. You are conflating the attitude of an orphan raised without parents to someone who just lost his guardian a few years back.

    Moreover it's very in line with the comics and other Spider-Man related media for Peter to admire, hero worship and essentially be charge-like for various male figures who are initially respected in their industries, isn't it?
    Not exactly. Peter didn't respect Jonah after all. Nor were his first interactions with the Avengers and Fantastic Four entirely fanboyish. For Peter, the FF and Avengers were merely meal-tickets, and he was upfront about it when he tried to sign on with them.

    None of those devalued Ben's impact (hell, in some of them Ben barely has any screen or voice time at all).
    Ben was mentioned and featured in Spider-Man 2 (and Cliff Robertson reprised his appearance in a dream scene), and in the PS4 game, quite a few times.

    I think your fear is unfounded though, since the hands-of-time will make it rather impossible to keep Tom Holland's Spider-Man somehow in a state of cinematic neoteny.
    Most likely they'll recast a younger actor and keep doing more stories with Teen Peter...

  10. #55
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullkid View Post
    So far all you're doing is making it clear the only "problem" is that you hate Iron Man and can't stand the fact a version of Spider-Man looks up to and respects a character you don't like.
    That's the only point you're making here, you hate Iron Man and therefore Spider-Man should too.
    Okay. I DON'T think that's what was meant. Also, I'm gonna chime in and say that Revolutionary_Jack does kind of have a point here. I can admit that, while I really like the MCU Spider-Man movies, they essentially make Peter into a legacy character for Tony. And honestly? That kind of goes against the whole point of Spider-Man as a character. Stan Lee went on record many times saying that he created Spider-Man as a rebuke to the concept of kid sidekicks. In other words, for him, Peter was meant to be the kid who didn't need an adult mentor hero showing him the ropes. He made himself into a hero. Nobody else did.

    The MCU Spider-Man, however, seems entirely motivated by the prospect of impressing Tony Stark and, later, living up to his legacy. Not only that, but Peter's suit and tech, his connections to the superhero world, and even his villains all come through his connection to Iron Man. He is literally a character living in the shadow of Tony Stark. And, as enjoyable as those movies are, that's antithetical to who Spider-Man has traditionally been.

    SOOOOO, to steer back to the topic, I'm gonna say that to combat this, they should make Spider-Man's nemesis in the MCU someone who has no ties whatsoever to Tony Stark, Iron Man, or the Avengers. Spider-Man should have his own corner of the MCU.
    Last edited by Green Goblin of Sector 2814; 02-07-2020 at 02:29 PM.

  11. #56
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    Okay. I DON'T think that's what was meant. Also, I'm gonna chime in and say that Revolutionary_Jack does kind of have a point here.
    Thanks.

    I can admit that, while I really like the MCU Spider-Man movies, they essentially make Peter into a legacy character for Tony. And honestly? That kind of goes against the whole point of Spider-Man as a character. Stan Lee went on record many times saying that he created Spider-Man as a rebuke to the concept of kid sidekicks. In other words, for him, Peter was meant to be the kid who didn't need an adult mentor hero showing him the ropes. He made himself into a hero. Nobody else did.
    Preach.

    The MCU Spider-Man, however, seems entirely motivated by the prospect of impressing Tony Stark and, later, living up to his legacy. Not only that, but Peter's suit and tech, his connections to the superhero world, and even his villains all come through his connection to Iron Man. He is literally a character living in the shadow of Tony Stark. And, as enjoyable as those movies are, that's antithetical to who Spider-Man has traditionally been.
    Testify.

    SOOOOO, to steer back to the topic, I'm gonna say that to combat this, they should make Spider-Man's nemesis in the MCU someone who has no ties whatsoever to Tony Stark, Iron Man, or the Avengers. Spider-Man should have his own corner of the MCU.
    Hallelujah.

  12. #57
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    Okay. I DON'T think that's what was meant. Also, I'm gonna chime in and say that Revolutionary_Jack does kind of have a point here. I can admit that, while I really like the MCU Spider-Man movies, they essentially make Peter into a legacy character for Tony. And honestly? That kind of goes against the whole point of Spider-Man as a character. Stan Lee went on record many times saying that he created Spider-Man as a rebuke to the concept of kid sidekicks. In other words, for him, Peter was meant to be the kid who didn't need an adult mentor hero showing him the ropes. He made himself into a hero. Nobody else did.

    The MCU Spider-Man, however, seems entirely motivated by the prospect of impressing Tony Stark and, later, living up to his legacy. Not only that, but Peter's suit and tech, his connections to the superhero world, and even his villains all come through his connection to Iron Man. He is literally a character living in the shadow of Tony Stark. And, as enjoyable as those movies are, that's antithetical to who Spider-Man has traditionally been.

    SOOOOO, to steer back to the topic, I'm gonna say that to combat this, they should make Spider-Man's nemesis in the MCU someone who has no ties whatsoever to Tony Stark, Iron Man, or the Avengers. Spider-Man should have his own corner of the MCU.
    This just ignores a lot of things about him.
    He was already Spider-Man before he met Tony, he was already swinging around trying to protect people, the only difference is after Peter realizes he could be doing more than just helping old ladies with directions.
    And outside the crossover films he has pretty much been doing it by himself.
    And saying he's entirely motivated by Peter is just a falsehood, when he chases after Vulture's goons after abandoning Liz's party Tony isn't the thing driving him, when he chooses to leave Liz at the dance its not Tony he's thinking about when he chooses the face the Vulture, in the entirety of FFH the only thing really on his mind is the fact now his friends are put on a collision course to danger because he was around.
    And for all people love to complain about the villains being connected to Tony, its not even all that different than how most of the villains origins are in the comics, where they're pissed at someone else and their beef with him comes from the fact he's getting in their way

  13. #58
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullkid View Post
    And for all people love to complain about the villains being connected to Tony, its not even all that different than how most of the villains origins are in the comics, where they're pissed at someone else and their beef with him comes from the fact he's getting in their way
    In the case of Mysterio, he's not pissed at anyone or has beef with anyone. That was not part of his origin in the comics.

    In the case of Vulture, a glance at the comics will tell you a good deal about the problem the MCU movies created for themselves by inserting Tony into stories.
    -- In the comics, Adrian Toomes was screwed over by a guy called Bestman. In the origin story which outlined this, when Spider-Man and also some cops learned of Vulture's origin and Toomes' grudge, they sympathized with him over Bestman, and after they arrested Toomes, they also booked Bestman in for embezzlement and scheming.
    -- In the movies, Tony Stark effectively takes over the role of Bestman in Toomes' life, but because Tony Stark is a protected character, he cannot be brought to task for his involvement, indirect as it might be, in Toomes' turn to villainy. He's not called out, nor is he chastised.

    This is even worse in FFH, because while his involvement with Toomes is indirect, albeit still responsible in a general sense, he is directly involved in stealing the credit for Mysterio's invention in FFH and screwing him over for recognition, and the movie still presents him at the end as a general good guy. If you are a fan of Tony Stark, I think you should be upset at how he's used in the MCU Spider-Man movies.

  14. #59
    Incredible Member Marvelgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    543

    Default

    For killing Gwen Stacy, it should be Goblin. This was 30-40 years ago. If you ask anyone in 2020, they will tell you its Venom.

  15. #60
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    In the case of Mysterio, he's not pissed at anyone or has beef with anyone. That was not part of his origin in the comics.

    In the case of Vulture, a glance at the comics will tell you a good deal about the problem the MCU movies created for themselves by inserting Tony into stories.
    -- In the comics, Adrian Toomes was screwed over by a guy called Bestman. In the origin story which outlined this, when Spider-Man and also some cops learned of Vulture's origin and Toomes' grudge, they sympathized with him over Bestman, and after they arrested Toomes, they also booked Bestman in for embezzlement and scheming.
    -- In the movies, Tony Stark effectively takes over the role of Bestman in Toomes' life, but because Tony Stark is a protected character, he cannot be brought to task for his involvement, indirect as it might be, in Toomes' turn to villainy. He's not called out, nor is he chastised.

    This is even worse in FFH, because while his involvement with Toomes is indirect, albeit still responsible in a general sense, he is directly involved in stealing the credit for Mysterio's invention in FFH and screwing him over for recognition, and the movie still presents him at the end as a general good guy. If you are a fan of Tony Stark, I think you should be upset at how he's used in the MCU Spider-Man movies.
    I should be upset why?
    Tony did nothing wrong in any of these cases, with Vulture all he did was end up taking a contract from the guy which isn't wrong or illegal, hell if Toomes handled things better he probably got his crew working with Damage Control, or could've gotten compensated for the work he already did.
    And with Beck he flipped out because Tony jokingly mentioned the anagram for his Invention was barf and then got fired for being unstable, which going by what he does in FFH nothing suggests that was the wrong call.

Posting Permissions

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