Page 8 of 136 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121858108 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 2039
  1. #106
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    "No Way Home". With a title like that, I'm already quite worried. It would be interesting if it means the alternative Spider-Men (in case the theory about the Multiverse is true) will stay in the MCU. Three Spider-Men together could actually work as a "clone saga". Maguire and Garfield could have roles similar to Ben Reilly and Kaine, except there won't be problems about "who's the real one", as they are all real. I would really like to see the three Spiders fighting together.

  2. #107
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Adrian Toomes was a law-abiding citizen without a criminal record who got turned into a supervillain as a consequence of Stark's actions. Sure Damage Control deserves blame but couldn't Tony have told them or given them funds to compensate people who would lose their fair-and-square legal contract through no fault of their own.
    You're doing nothing but trying to place everything on Tony, the way DC acted towards Toomes and his team was not his fault, there's no reason to any assume Tony already knew that another team was hired to get the stuff before DC was, frankly the idea DC was even directly acting under his say so is ridiculous.

    Name one person before seeing FFH who didn't think that the invention in CIVIL WAR wasn't Tony Stark's work. Name one. The answer is nobody did because that scene was written and concieved before FFH or Mysterio was on anyone's radar.
    That has literally nothing to do with what I said, in Civil War he never claims that he was the one who built it, he says he funded it, even in that movie he doesn't say he was solely responsible for it, so you can't use the "it's a retcon" excuse, especially when the entire point of the scene was to lead up to Tony announcing that he was gonna fund MIT students projects.
    And if you missed what I said earlier Mysterio mainly flipped out because Tony jokingly said "barf"

    Because Tony Stark is a model of sanity and never flips out over anything, or insists people subject themselves to his annoying eccentricities.
    Now you're not even making an counter argument you're just picking at Tony's quirks to try and make him bad for firing Mysterio.
    For the scientific and tech division, yeah, Tony would have to have a say in the handling of the hiring process and HR. If he hires people with bad personalities and puts them at work giving them access on Stark resources and technology (and so insight on how to reverse-engineer and duplicate it) and more importantly mistreats and removes them in such a way that they could go rogue, he would have to be held liable for being a poor boss.
    And once again you're not making an argument, you're just going out of your way to unreasonably try to place the blame on Tony's shoulders, someone in his position is not going to be directly involved with hiring every employee, and even if he was which again is utterly absurd, Tony's not a mind reader nor can he see the future, because it's extremely unlikely how any of them acted in their job interviews would make Tony or anyone else think "This the sort of person who would flip out over a small joke and become a mass murdering villain nearly a decade later." And nice part ignoring the fact how some of them were apart of Stane's team who tried to help him kill Tony.
    Rhodey says in INFINITY WAR that the Sokovia Accords was a mistake, and Stark was responsible for the Sokovia Accords becoming a dividing issue in that movie. So again the movie themselves point to Stark's personal guilt and grief.
    No he wasn't, the Sokovia Accords were happening regardless of Tony's involvement, he got involved to make it easier on the other Avengers, but he was far from the person in charge of them.
    And by trying to place everything on Tony you're pretty much saying everyone else don't have minds or opinions have their own.
    In the context of this thread, when people have issues with any criticism of Stark as anything less than a saint, and basically rudely attack people for making mild observations about Stark's role in the MCU Spider-Man movies, there would be little enthusiasm to say nice things about Tony Stark, on my part.
    So basically you're just admitting to demonizing Tony, misrepresenting what's he's done and downplaying anything good he's done on purpose.
    Again the good done by Tony Stark doesn't make up for or remove the bad things he did, especially for things that other people rather than him to have to carry water for.
    And again despite how you keep trying to claim the bad parts of his life don't wash out the good, especially when by this point you're trying to blame him for every thing he had the slightest involvement in, to downplay his actions in things such as quite literally saving the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    So what is a good metric?

    Box office isn't a good metric, popularity isn't a good metric, critical consensus isn't a good metric, general consensus isn't a good metric. But a vocal minority on some messageboards is. Ok.
    Sounds like a good metric here is "If I personally approve of it because my opinion means more than everyone else's."

  3. #108
    World's Greatest Hero blackspidey2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    So what is a good metric?

    Box office isn't a good metric, popularity isn't a good metric, critical consensus isn't a good metric, general consensus isn't a good metric. But a vocal minority on some messageboards is. Ok.
    Stop putting words in my mouth. Messageboards aren't a good metric - my word is.
    "Anyone can win a fight when the odds are easy! It's when the going's tough - when there seems to be no chance - that's when it counts!" - Spider-Man

  4. #109
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    So what is a good metric?
    .
    Artistic input. if we consider all this films as such.

    I don't have to be a film genius to know which movies have the best spiderman story telling or use of VFX.
    Box office isn't a good metric, popularity isn't a good metric, critical consensus isn't a good metric, general consensus isn't a good metric. But a vocal minority on some messageboards is. Ok
    a message board is just one portion.


    Quote Originally Posted by blackspidey2099 View Post
    The "general consensus" is a terrible metric for judging how good of an adaptation MCU Spider-Man is, considering that comics in general are a very niche product. As such, a "general consensus" tells us approximately nothing about the quality of MCU Spider-Man as an adaptation of the Spider-Man character.
    I see things this way, general consensus is the average movie goer, they just want to be entertained. comic films don't necessary hav a big reputation for been high art. the meta critic come more from the character fans and other people who are more into film making. I mean this is one of the core reasons, sam raimi films are so favoured. it was more about personally favouring sam as a director and the way he directs. MCU Spiderman is a Kevin Feige mass produced film , he has in the ''hundreds'' with little distinction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ursalink View Post
    "No Way Home". With a title like that, I'm already quite worried. It would be interesting if it means the alternative Spider-Men (in case the theory about the Multiverse is true) will stay in the MCU. Three Spider-Men together could actually work as a "clone saga". Maguire and Garfield could have roles similar to Ben Reilly and Kaine, except there won't be problems about "who's the real one", as they are all real. I would really like to see the three Spiders fighting together.
    Clone saga is one saga you will never see in films, the 90s cartoon didn't even finish it and missed many of the plot lines. someone once said a clone saga story is more difficult to do in films than the phoenix saga.

    Also clone saga is way too heavy for a spiderman film in the MCU. it is also one of the most stressful comic book stories ever told.

    Additionally the actors (Holland, Tobey, Garfield) dont look alike. so a clone saga is just not plausible.
    Last edited by Castle; 02-28-2021 at 11:44 AM.

  5. #110
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Stalin helped save the world from Hitler, did that clean up his ledger? Did the British Empire fighting the Nazis make up for the centuries of slavery and colonization? Or the fact that it was Jim Crow America that went to war against a racist regime excuse the former?
    Okay, I think it is a serious exaggeration to put Tony/Iron Man on that level. He's made mistakes but he's still a Superhero at the end of the day who has personally saved thousands of people.

    I get having reservations about Tony, but I think that's a bit too much.

    The Infinity War and Thanos would have the same status in the MCU that the fight against Hitler has in our world. And you can extrapolate the real world issues with the fact that the last good war was in fact waged by three regimes that were basically just a few degrees better than the Nazis but not truly good in any larger sense and apply that to the Avengers, who would be seen as pretty shady and dodgy types, especially Stark.
    Tony is pretty heroic. I think he's far from being a Nazi.
    Let's not forget that Tony Stark backing the Sokovia accords and his terrible handling of that situation broke up the Avengers for a year or more dividing them enough that they couldn't co-ordinate a proper response against Thanos in Infinity War. Rhodey in his first scenes in IW straight up admits that the Accords were a mistake. Would Thanos have won anyway, probably but without the team divided, obviously they weren't able to co-ordinate tactically. Scarlet Witch with her powers alone would have been enough to defeat Thanos and instead of helping her, Tony locked her up, fenced her in, offered no real help or guidance, drove her to become a fugitive. The whole decimation could have been avoided.
    That's only with the benefit of hindsight, and part of the divide was on Steve for keeping something so important from Tony about Bucky and that leading to the relationship spiraling out of control.
    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Adrian Toomes was a law-abiding citizen without a criminal record who got turned into a supervillain as a consequence of Stark's actions. Sure Damage Control deserves blame but couldn't Tony have told them or given them funds to compensate people who would lose their fair-and-square legal contract through no fault of their own.
    Tony could have handled it better but that doesn't justify Toomes forming his own underground theft and crime ring that he kept going for so long even when it put innocent people in danger or to the point where he was willingly vaporizing people.

    He had legitimate grievances with Tony. His methods for handling said grievances were less than legitimate, and he had full control over that.
    Because Tony Stark is a model of sanity and never flips out over anything, or insists people subject themselves to his annoying eccentricities.
    And then we meet MCU Quentin Beck...
    For the scientific and tech division, yeah, Tony would have to have a say in the handling of the hiring process and HR. If he hires people with bad personalities and puts them at work giving them access on Stark resources and technology (and so insight on how to reverse-engineer and duplicate it) and more importantly mistreats and removes them in such a way that they could go rogue, he would have to be held liable for being a poor boss.
    We know Beck is a good actor.

  6. #111
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,568

    Default

    This is a bit off-topic, but Tony definitely redeemed himself in the end. His 11-year character arc would not work otherwise.

    But that doesn't excuse Peter's uncritical view of him in FFH. The problem is that the film is dismissive towards Tony's past actions. It's that context that makes it problematic.

    If anything, FFH cheapens Tony's character arc. Tony's sacrifice at the end of Endgame works because he wasn't the kind of person to do such a thing, if we go back to his origin. The fact he lead a life of screwups and managed to finally do something right in the end is genuinely inspiring. It wouldn't work if Tony was the person Homecoming and FFH imply that he was. Glorifications of Iron Man cheapen his sacrifice and frankly (ironically) don't do him justice.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 02-28-2021 at 12:16 PM.

  7. #112
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    This is a bit off-topic, but Tony definitely redeemed himself in the end. His 11-year character arc would not work otherwise.

    But that doesn't excuse Peter's uncritical view of him in FFH. The problem is that the film is dismissive towards Tony's past actions.

    As a sidenote, Tony redeeming himself is also why Downey can't ever play Iron Man again. This isn't the 616 comics where Tony can go on to act like that forever. If Downey were to technically return to play the character, he wouldn't be able to play him the way audiences want him to. Or Marvel would let him play Tony the audiences want him to, but that would cheapen his character arc. It's a lose-lose situation. That's why Downey can't ever play Iron Man again (unless it's in a flashback).
    I also think it's an issue that the films can't seem to commit to a proper direction for Peter's character arc in relation to the MCU.

    Is he an independent hero? Is he an Avenger? Is he a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man or averting global disasters now?

    Is he Tony's legacy or his own hero? Is he being his own hero or is he still making costumes from Stark resources like Tony did?

  8. #113
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I also think it's an issue that the films can't seem to commit to a proper direction for Peter's character arc in relation to the MCU.

    Is he an independent hero? Is he an Avenger? Is he a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man or averting global disasters now?

    Is he Tony's legacy or his own hero? Is he being his own hero or is he still making costumes from Stark resources like Tony did?
    It's because there is no clear vision for this Spider-Man. As a character, this version is the most corporate-manufactured and empty of the three.

    Even Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man, who was micro-managed by empty suits to oblivion, was still a genuinely three-dimensional character with consistent attributes (meaning his beliefs, personality, etc.).

  9. #114
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    274

    Default

    The fact you don't like him doesn't mean there's no vision for him or that he's empty.
    His character arc has been obvious so far, how you don't see it I have no clue.

  10. #115
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Clone saga is one saga you will never see in films, the 90s cartoon didn't even finish it and missed many of the plot lines. someone once said a clone saga story is more difficult to do in films than the phoenix saga.

    Also clone saga is way too heavy for a spiderman film in the MCU. it is also one of the most stressful comic book stories ever told.

    Additionally the actors (Holland, Tobey, Garfield) dont look alike. so a clone saga is just not plausible.
    Pal, I don't pretend the Clone Saga to be adapted in a film, but the concept of Spider-Man/Peter Parker having "two versions of himself" out there. And besides, even if Kaine and Ben Reilly are clones, they no longer look so much like Peter. I mean, there's Ben Reilly with the blond hair, and Kaine have that "muscled body" and aggresive attitude more fitting to Wolverine. It's logical a clone will look like the original, but when clone looks for his own identity, it changes his appearance to be different.

  11. #116
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewel Runner View Post
    The fact you don't like him doesn't mean there's no vision for him or that he's empty.
    His character arc has been obvious so far, how you don't see it I have no clue.
    How would you describe his character arc?

  12. #117
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    So what is a good metric?
    There is none. There's no such thing as a good metric, nor a single metric, or anything when you are assessing something as qualitative as movies. This messageboard isn't a metric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Okay, I think it is a serious exaggeration to put Tony/Iron Man on that level. He's made mistakes but he's still a Superhero at the end of the day who has personally saved thousands of people.
    The movies don't treat Tony Stark just as a superhero, they treat him like he's part-Elon Musk (an explicit model for the character), as some kind of "great man of history". If you were to extrapolate and apply real life 'Great Men of History' to that, then criticism isn't unwarranted.

    In real-life, someone like Iron Man flying around and fighting off purple alien giants don't happen. You know what happens, rich philanthropists indulging in government partnerships that screw over regular people who paid their fair shares. The way the movie frames it is that Tony Stark's superheroism makes his actions as a businessman unassailable and above reproach. And you can't simply use superhero-lore to excuse that.

    Tony is pretty heroic. I think he's far from being a Nazi.
    I wasn't comparing Tony to a Nazi, I was comparing him to Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin, you know imperialist types who got to be heroes for all time because they fought off Hitler. In real life fighting Hitler doesn't mean either of the three are above critcism or reproach for the stuff they did before/during/after World War II (I know FDR didn't have an "after WW2" exactly but still).

    Tony could have handled it better but that doesn't justify Toomes forming his own underground theft and crime ring that he kept going for so long even when it put innocent people in danger or to the point where he was willingly vaporizing people.
    The point is at the outset, Tony has far more power than Toomes does and he used it without caring or factoring in the consequences for "people who are not me". What was that proverb about those who have great power, how did that go again?

    And again look at the comics, in Roger Stern's original run, Vulture being driven to crime by Bestman won him Spider-Man's sympathy and the police because Stern agreed that scummy evil businessmen were people readers should dislike (since they are far more likely to exist in real life than old dudes flying around in a green outfit).

    Justice for Bestman.jpg

    Why is it that in the original ASM comic, the man who screwed over Toomes was treated with contempt and vocal displeasure but in the movies, since Tony Stark takes that role, somehow he gets a pass? The MCU took a villain in the comic and put Iron Man in that role, and somehow expects people to uncritically buy Tony as a hero without blemish because marketing/agents say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    This is a bit off-topic, but Tony definitely redeemed himself in the end. His 11-year character arc would not work otherwise.

    But that doesn't excuse Peter's uncritical view of him in FFH. The problem is that the film is dismissive towards Tony's past actions. It's that context that makes it problematic.
    Agreed.

    If anything, FFH cheapens Tony's character arc. Tony's sacrifice at the end of Endgame works because he wasn't the kind of person to do such a thing, if we go back to his origin. The fact he lead a life of screwups and managed to finally do something right in the end is genuinely inspiring. It wouldn't work if Tony was the person Homecoming and FFH imply that he was. Glorifications of Iron Man cheapen his sacrifice and frankly (ironically) don't do him justice.
    Agreed. I will say that I get tired and irritated that MCU repeatedly tied Iron Man into the origins of characters who in the comics weren't tied to him. And if you are a fan of MCU Iron Man I think you should be tired of that too. But the consequence of that is the more the movies hit that beat, the harder it gets to accept the idea of Tony as some unassailable good guy especially for someone like MCU Peter who needs to represent the "voice on the street" instead he's some kind of toy personality or social-media algorithm-generated character of the real-life MCU fanboy.

    To repeat what I pointed above, in the comics, Gregory Bestman was condemned for screwing over Toomes but in the movie, we can't excuse and criticize Iron Man who occupies that exact same role and plot function. Why? Because we need to have marketing, advertising, promotion and overall continuity BS in place of actual story/character and I will add, controversially, personal morality. The mentality of fans excusing Tony Stark from any criticism isn't far from how people in the real world defend the rich and famous because of their celebrities.

  13. #118
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The movies don't treat Tony Stark just as a superhero, they treat him like he's part-Elon Musk (an explicit model for the character), as some kind of "great man of history". If you were to extrapolate and apply real life 'Great Men of History' to that, then criticism isn't unwarranted.

    In real-life, someone like Iron Man flying around and fighting off purple alien giants don't happen. You know what happens, rich philanthropists indulging in government partnerships that screw over regular people who paid their fair shares. The way the movie frames it is that Tony Stark's superheroism makes his actions as a businessman unassailable and above reproach. And you can't simply use superhero-lore to excuse that.
    I mean, in context he's a businessman and investor turned Superhero who saved a bunch of people and tried to do the best he could, even when he made mistakes.

    And yeah, he made bad decisions and wasn't perfect but I don't think that made him any less of a Superhero for it.
    I wasn't comparing Tony to a Nazi, I was comparing him to Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin, you know imperialist types who got to be heroes for all time because they fought off Hitler. In real life fighting Hitler doesn't mean either of the three are above critcism or reproach for the stuff they did before/during/after World War II (I know FDR didn't have an "after WW2" exactly but still).
    I think you can critique Tony, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a hero with good intentions trying to do the right thing. It wasn't just because he fought a Hitler type but because he had an about-face after a life-changing experience and dedicated himself to helping people. He may have stumbled in some respects but that was what was driving him.
    The point is at the outset, Tony has far more power than Toomes does and he used it without caring or factoring in the consequences for "people who are not me". What was that proverb about those who have great power, how did that go again?

    And again look at the comics, in Roger Stern's original run, Vulture being driven to crime by Bestman won him Spider-Man's sympathy and the police because Stern agreed that scummy evil businessmen were people readers should dislike (since they are far more likely to exist in real life than old dudes flying around in a green outfit).

    Why is it that in the original ASM comic, the man who screwed over Toomes was treated with contempt and vocal displeasure but in the movies, since Tony Stark takes that role, somehow he gets a pass? The MCU took a villain in the comic and put Iron Man in that role, and somehow expects people to uncritically buy Tony as a hero without blemish because marketing/agents say so.
    I don't think he did it without caring - Damage Control was specifically designed to clean up Superhero messes as a means of Tony taking personal responsibility - he just didn't take into account how that would impact other contractors. It doesn't make him evil when his intentions were misguided, because he wasn't an evil or corrupt businessman even if his choices negatively impacted someone.
    To repeat what I pointed above, in the comics, Gregory Bestman was condemned for screwing over Toomes but in the movie, we can't excuse and criticize Iron Man who occupies that exact same role and plot function. Why? Because we need to have marketing, advertising, promotion and overall continuity BS in place of actual story/character and I will add, controversially, personal morality. The mentality of fans excusing Tony Stark from any criticism isn't far from how people in the real world defend the rich and famous because of their celebrities.
    The difference is that Gregory Bestman was an actual bad guy.

  14. #119
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    The difference is that Gregory Bestman was an actual bad guy.
    That drives home the issue of MCU Spider-Man as an adaptation though.

    They adapted an element from the comics which was explicitly anti-corporate, and critical of capitalism i.e. in the common "supervillains are bad but corporate/business types are worse"...into something where the bad guy is shown to wrongly hate and attack the capitalist, where the movie frames it in a way that his grievance isn't justified or worthy of empathy.They did this again with Mysterio where the movie has you side with someone or rather that person's legacy, over a person whose life's work was taken from him and passed off as the work of somebody else.

    They took comics whose consistent theme through its most representative period was a broad sympathy and empathy for the struggling people on both sides of the law and made it into movies that engender hatred and contempt for the poor and the hardworking.

    And that kind of classism is right through the MCU Spider-Man movies.

  15. #120
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    This is a bit off-topic, but Tony definitely redeemed himself in the end. His 11-year character arc would not work otherwise.

    But that doesn't excuse Peter's uncritical view of him in FFH. The problem is that the film is dismissive towards Tony's past actions. It's that context that makes it problematic.

    If anything, FFH cheapens Tony's character arc. Tony's sacrifice at the end of Endgame works because he wasn't the kind of person to do such a thing, if we go back to his origin. The fact he lead a life of screwups and managed to finally do something right in the end is genuinely inspiring. It wouldn't work if Tony was the person Homecoming and FFH imply that he was. Glorifications of Iron Man cheapen his sacrifice and frankly (ironically) don't do him justice.
    That's not true in any way shape or form, the movies don't act like Tony's a perfect person who never did anything wrong, Tony himself wants Peter to do better than him because of his own screwups.
    In FFH Peter wasn't comparing himself to Tony the person, he was comparing himself to Iron Man the world saving superhero who just sacrificed his life to save the universe a few months prior, it's why Happy who is about the only person who knew Tony intimately has to remind Peter that Tony wasn't perfect, he made his own fair share of screw ups and mistakes and even he had problems living up to the he cultivated for himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That drives home the issue of MCU Spider-Man as an adaptation though.

    They adapted an element from the comics which was explicitly anti-corporate, and critical of capitalism i.e. in the common "supervillains are bad but corporate/business types are worse"...into something where the bad guy is shown to wrongly hate and attack the capitalist, where the movie frames it in a way that his grievance isn't justified or worthy of empathy.They did this again with Mysterio where the movie has you side with someone or rather that person's legacy, over a person whose life's work was taken from him and passed off as the work of somebody else.

    They took comics whose consistent theme through its most representative period was a broad sympathy and empathy for the struggling people on both sides of the law and made it into movies that engender hatred and contempt for the poor and the hardworking.

    And that kind of classism is right through the MCU Spider-Man movies.
    Except that's wrong Vulture and his motives are sympathetic it however doesn't excuse stealing technology to make dangerous weapons to sell to criminals.
    And Mysterio, his work was never stolen or passed off as someone else's, you keep saying that yet it's not something that was ever expressed in the movies, in Civil War Tony says he funded it and of all the grievances Becks lists off in FFH having his work stolen isn't one of them.

Posting Permissions

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