Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 364
  1. #226
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    I said faith was the one who used the word but yeah the word has a broader meaning now , which is why faith uses it in broad terms beyond romance but also parenting, however the mayor been very conservative or traditional did not agree.

    we fans are more like faith here, if we use the term, because let's face it, fans have already said tony replaced the one father figure in peter's life. ben.

    Also you do notice, mayor and tony help and assist with back up for faith and peter in the superhero/slaying business. they give them ''supplies'' to do their jobs better, the only ironic difference is the mayor added something substantial to faith's character.

    Tony Stark takes too much away from Peter. he does not really add anything apart from the constant reminder that spiderman is now part of the MCU.
    The only thing Tony takes is the suit and even then Peter doesn't rely entirely on the one Peter takes from him.

  2. #227
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I'm not sure how you got this out of what I said. I was pointing out that Peter and Tony's relationship, like Faith and the Mayor's, is not sexual in nature.
    Nobody said it was to start with, my dude.

  3. #228
    Peter Scott SpiderClops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    So why add and complicate a simple origin by putting more hurdles between Peter Parker and becoming Spider-Man. Why over-think and over-do something that was already quite simply and easily done at the start?
    Because they wanted to show how good Peter already is and how good he can be given the right resources.

    And second, because they wanted one high-tech costume and one home-made cute one.

    You're the one that's overthinking it. He was already Spider-Man before the events of Civil War(and I'm not talking just about powers). He's just becoming a better superhero.


    It's not stupid if people infer that peasants can't create anything
    Literally no one said that. If they did, show me. If anything, you're the one that's insulting people who don't have enough resources by saying that they're just not good enough if they can't do it on their own.

    and that somehow Tom Holland sponging off a sugar daddy is more believable and realistic than making it on his own.
    Spider-Man being a fan of and idolizing Tony Stark is realistic and makes perfect sense in-universe, and isn't out of character at all adaptation wise. You just don't like it, which is perfectly fine. But if you're going to argue that it somehow doesn't make sense, you're going to fail miserably no matter how long essays you write.

    Give me your definition of "false equivalency" and then let's judge if it applies to the example and quote you cited.

    In the actual dictionary definition, it doesn't apply.



    It costs a lot more for Disney to animate feudal France in Beauty and the Beast than to actually live in feudal France.

    Again, basic film production 101.
    A practical Spider-Man suit required for everyday crime fighting that looks supercool would be MORE EXPENSIVE than the movie production one. You're using the exact opposite example.

  4. #229
    Mighty Member Jman27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    James Bond comparison is probably right doubt holland will be the last live actor to play the character but he is the current so he will be scrutinize and taken the part the most. As long as its consistent
    "He's pure power and doesn't even know it. He's the best of us."-Matt Murdock

    "I need a reason to take the mask off."-Peter Parker

  5. #230
    Peter Scott SpiderClops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The MCU has a fandom which has come to see being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the MCU as a big deal, or being in a shared universe as some badge of honor. What was one a fun "wouldn't it be nice" sort of playful thing has become this toxic cliquish thing where somehow people think that standalone or individual stories are somehow lesser. You saw that with the hysterical reactions on the MCU fandom's part when the deal between Disney-Sony collapsed and you had "#SaveSpiderMan" on twitter and stuff like that.

    So fans have come to think that Tom Holland's Spider-Man is the true Spider-Man and so on. The wider general public of course doesn't care one way or another. Thanks to ITSV, Tom Holland is now just "a" Spider-Man but around the time Homecoming arrived people saw him as the definitive version.

    Tom Holland is the live-action actor who has played Spider-Man more than any other. Two solo movies (Homecoming, FFH) and three team-ups (Civil War, Avengers IW, Endgame). That makes him the Roger Moore if we are going to map this out on James Bond analogies. Roger Moore has appeared in the most James Bond movies (7). Moore was a popular Bond but he's not considered the definitive Bond the way Sean Connery is. Tobey will likely always have Sean Connery status in Spider-Man.

    Of course, if Holland is Moore, that means the Brosnan and Craig versions of Peter Parker aren't very far.
    I want to see posts of the bolded.

  6. #231
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    And by the way, the costume in-universe would be EVEN more expensive than real life.
    And the parts for the complex and compact web shooters are cheap and commonplace enough in Homecoming that he can dumpster dive for them...

    I really don't know why the cost of a basic costume is so costly that it's unbelievable to people, but more intricate and costly things that don't even exist yet don't make anyone blink twice. Sure a lot of time people explain it away by Peter using magic...I mean science to create them, but science isn't cheap. In real life, even the most brilliant minds can't build working elaborate machines from a random assortment of garbage, and even some of the smallest machines cost quite the pretty penny to make. If we could buy the web shooters in the movies, we can buy a Spidey suit.
    Last edited by Mistah K88; 03-03-2021 at 10:27 AM.

  7. #232
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    Spider-Man being a fan of and idolizing Tony Stark is realistic and makes perfect sense in-universe, and isn't out of character at all adaptation wise.
    1) Realistic is arguable but at least a valid enough claim.
    2) "Makes perfect sense in-universe" however doesn't for all the arms-dealing, Ultron-making stuff mentioned before.
    3) "Isn't out of character at all adaptation wise" though is totally insupportable for all the reasons mentioned before.

    But if you're going to argue that it somehow doesn't make sense, you're going to fail miserably
    1) I haven't failed.
    2) I'm not going to fail.
    3) What exactly do you mean by "success" or "failure" anyway in terms of this debate? If you mean the MCU movies make money and succeed, sure they do, so did Michael Bay and Nickelback.

    A practical Spider-Man suit required for everyday crime fighting that looks supercool would be MORE EXPENSIVE than the movie production one.
    1) Spider-Powers doesn't exist in real life. We can't say with any certainty what a real-life Spider-Man suit could potentially accomplish, no more than we can fathom what lightsaber physics or the wand magic of Harry Potter. It's moot.

    2) The original Spider-Man suit in the comics and also the Raimi movies needs to be constantly sewn and resewn, and washed and maintained by Peter which we see him doing multiple times in the comics, and we see him wash his Spider-Man suit in the second movie.

    So the comics have long outsmarted you on this front.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mistah K88 View Post
    And the parts for the complex and compact web shooters are cheap and commonplace enough in Homecoming that he can dumpster dive for them...

    I really don't know why the cost of a basic costume is so costly that it's unbelievable to people, but more intricate and costly things that don't even exist yet don't make anyone blink twice. Sure a lot of time people explain it away by Peter using magic...I mean science to create them, but science isn't cheap.
    Exactly. I was actually holding off on using this video because I have done it before but a YouTube video guy successfully proved that you can make the Spider-Man suit on your own without any real advanced skills. All you have to do is imagine that Peter Parker would be able to do better than average in making this suit when he really puts his mind to it.



    The Spider-Man Costume Class War was won a long time ago, in the comics (where this was explained and addressed multiple times), and on YouTube.

  8. #233
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    Spider-Man being a fan of and idolizing Tony Stark is realistic and makes perfect sense in-universe, and isn't out of character at all adaptation wise. You just don't like it, which is perfectly fine. But if you're going to argue that it somehow doesn't make sense, you're going to fail miserably no matter how long essays you write.
    You know, as much as words like "realistic" or "makes sense" get thrown around... We only have to go back a few years to see Spider-Man not being fond of Iron Man as a mainstream, acceptable opinion.

    JMS spent the second half of his run showing them at odds and how different they were from one another. Andrew Garfield not too long ago said the same thing a lot of fans are saying now (that Peter Parker wouldn't look up to someone like Tony Stark), and it wasn't treated as controversial or irrational. In fact, if we look at a lot of the media reactions at the time, we can notice the opposite.

    Even if we go by recent attitudes, I only have to bring up respectable people like writer Gail Simone and director Peter Ramsey of ITSV, who have made similar arguments to the ones we're making. Their opinions likewise received very positive feedback from the media as well.

    It's the other way around. Tony and Peter being best buds didn't become normalized or "rational" until the Disney PR kicked in.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 03-03-2021 at 11:40 AM.

  9. #234
    Peter Scott SpiderClops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mistah K88 View Post
    And the parts for the complex and compact web shooters are cheap and commonplace enough in Homecoming that he can dumpster dive for them...

    I really don't know why the cost of a basic costume is so costly that it's unbelievable to people, but more intricate and costly things that don't even exist yet don't make anyone blink twice. Sure a lot of time people explain it away by Peter using magic...I mean science to create them, but science isn't cheap. In real life, even the most brilliant minds can't build working elaborate machines from a random assortment of garbage, and even some of the smallest machines cost quite the pretty penny to make. If we could buy the web shooters in the movies, we can buy a Spidey suit.
    I am only making this argument because someone here is comparing real world and in-universe cost. Showing examples of things where it was more expensive production wise but cheap in-universe. I just pointed out the for Spider-Man it'd be the exact opposite.

    As I've said before, it doesn't really matter if Peter makes his suit on his own or not. Both are fine.

  10. #235
    Peter Scott SpiderClops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    1) Realistic is arguable but at least a valid enough claim.
    Why, thank you.

    2) "Makes perfect sense in-universe" however doesn't for all the arms-dealing
    Which he regrets. You know, the arc of literally the first movie. That's how he becomes Iron Man. Seeing first hand effects of his ignorance and feeling guilty and trying to take responsibility by putting his weapon making skills to good use. Yeah, nothing to admire there. Doesn't look like something Peter will connect with at all.
    Ultron-making stuff mentioned before.
    And he also created Vision. But hey, one mistake and you're no longer worthy of anything. Doesn't matter if you've literally saved the world multiple times putting your life at risk and at the end did give away your life.

    And you do know Ultron was created with all the best intentions. But I guess only perfect flawless superheroes are the only one worth of any admiration. I mean, why would Spider-Man connect with a guy who's mistakes have cause unintentional harm to others. Pfft!

    3) "Isn't out of character at all adaptation wise" though is totally insupportable for all the reasons mentioned before.
    You mean your preferences.

    1) I haven't failed.
    You have compared Iron Man to literal supervillains in this thread.
    2) I'm not going to fail.
    You are arguing that this is bad adaptation because Peter is not that good at tailoring.
    3) What exactly do you mean by "success" or "failure" anyway in terms of this debate? If you mean the MCU movies make money and succeed, sure they do, so did Michael Bay and Nickelback.
    The very little difference being that MCU Spider-Man is both commercially and critically successful.

    1) Spider-Powers doesn't exist in real life. We can't say with any certainty what a real-life Spider-Man suit could potentially accomplish, no more than we can fathom what lightsaber physics or the wand magic of Harry Potter. It's moot.
    The clothes Maguire Spidey wore(which is the example I was using) do exist in real life. And it was never implied that they were anything that doesn't exist in real world. So yeah, we can make assumptions how costly a practical and cool looking Spider-Man suit would cost. And by any estimation, it'd be a lot.
    2) The original Spider-Man suit in the comics and also the Raimi movies needs to be constantly sewn and resewn, and washed and maintained by Peter which we see him doing multiple times in the comics, and we see him wash his Spider-Man suit in the second movie.

    So the comics have long outsmarted you on this front.
    You're the one who's using real-life examples. That "yeah, he totally could've because cosplays". This right here shows that it's just your preference. It isn't about making sense or realism or Peter's resourcefulness.
    Exactly. I was actually holding off on using this video because I have done it before but a YouTube video guy successfully proved that you can make the Spider-Man suit on your own without any real advanced skills. All you have to do is imagine that Peter Parker would be able to do better than average in making this suit when he really puts his mind to it.



    The Spider-Man Costume Class War was won a long time ago, in the comics (where this was explained and addressed multiple times), and on YouTube.
    Yeah, that's a good cosplay. Emphasis on cosplay.



    Here's the thing. Peter making that costume both in comics and movies is unrealistic. Does that make it bad? Absolutely not! This is comics!
    But the point is that Peter making the suit on his own has never been essential to the character(web-shooters are). So if someone wants to make a movie or any adaptation where he can't make it on his own, that is perfectly acceptable and "not enough resources" is a very valid reason.

    Ultimate Spider-Man royally sucked at sewing his suit, by the way.

  11. #236
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    280

    Default

    I'm not gonna pretend I don't notice how the narrative shifted from "MCU Peter is a empty corporate shell unconnected from real people because real people can definitely make Spider-Man suits" to "Yeah it's unrealistic for someone with no background or experience with sewing or tailoring to know how to make a superhero suit but it's fictional so it's ok to be unrealistic"
    There's a clear contradiction here.

  12. #237
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    I mean, why would Spider-Man connect with a guy who's mistakes have cause unintentional harm to others.
    Yeah, why would Spider-Man do that? Homecoming sure doesn't give any answers on that front. And no, the movie can't go "Read the comics, watch the Raimi movies" and so on. They called the movie "Homecoming" implying that the MCU is Spider-Man's home and that this is the true authentic Spider-Man, they can't rely on pre-existing stuff to do free work for them. They are being paid money, they should earn it.

    The clothes Maguire Spidey wore(which is the example I was using) do exist in real life.
    As do the streets of New York City, but NYC doesn't always look as lush as it does in the Raimi movies.

    And it was never implied that they were anything that doesn't exist in real world.
    The movies never say what fabric and material was used either way, so it doesn't matter. The fabric used to build a costume in any production isn't meant to correlate 1:1 with the setting. For example you can never fully ask actors to wear period specific fabric because old time fabrics weren't always comfortable or pleasant to wear (some directors have pushed for this and there have been actors who decide to go the distance but not everyone would). In the case of modern day settings, costumes are designed for production, i.e. multiple takes with scene continuity (i.e. objects between action and cut need to be adjusted between takes so that it doesn't break flow, and that includes costumes which must maintain a look shot to shot and take to take). So costumes for film production are meant and treated differently.

    So the costumes on a movie-set are designed for the purposes of production. How it looks on camera, on lighting, and color coding, for VFX (in the case of Spider-Man), and not always for 1:1 realism. In a superhero movie, the costume has special importance for marketing, brand, logo, and emotional reasons (in any superhero movie, the moment the character appears and wears the costume has an inherent emotional charge).

    You're the one who's using real-life examples.
    You're the one defending MCU Spider-Man getting a handout saying, more or less, that peasants can't create stuff on their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewel Runner View Post
    I'm not gonna pretend I don't notice how the narrative shifted
    The narrative hasn't shifted.

    There's a clear contradiction here.
    The only contradiction is that the MCU Spider-Man is selectively realistic. It says Peter making the web-formula is more believable than taking time and stitching his own costume.

    The point is why can't he do it all as he did in the original comics. Obviously it's not for the sake of realism, or if so it's based on misapplied realism, it completely subtracts from aspects of Spider-Man (which detracts from it as an adaptation) and from Tom Holland's own presentation of the character, and it's also unnecessary.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 03-03-2021 at 12:36 PM.

  13. #238
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    I am only making this argument because someone here is comparing real world and in-universe cost. Showing examples of things where it was more expensive production wise but cheap in-universe. I just pointed out the for Spider-Man it'd be the exact opposite.

    As I've said before, it doesn't really matter if Peter makes his suit on his own or not. Both are fine.
    Yeah, trying to base too much in realism has been the bane of comic book movies for a while (at least for me) as trying to explain every single minor thing starts to make things less plausible. Even that stitched together Catwoman outfit in Batman Returns probably cost quite the pretty penny to make in real life. Especially since that suit DEFINITELY wouldn't be functional in real life.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    Here's the thing. Peter making that costume both in comics and movies is unrealistic. Does that make it bad? Absolutely not! This is comics!
    But the point is that Peter making the suit on his own has never been essential to the character(web-shooters are). So if someone wants to make a movie or any adaptation where he can't make it on his own, that is perfectly acceptable and "not enough resources" is a very valid reason.

    Ultimate Spider-Man royally sucked at sewing his suit, by the way.
    Are they though? The Raimi trilogy just changed those to organic powers and not too many people batted an eyelash...if anything the same general public who feel that Peter idolizing Tony Stark make sense also thought that the natural abilities of a spider (webs) being transferred to a human make sense (to the point it even went to comics for a bit) If anything I'd say that a lot of Peter's gear (developing suit, developing mechanical webshooters, etc.) isn't as essential to him as things like his powers that stick through every medium like sticking to walls and the like.

  14. #239
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mistah K88 View Post
    Yeah, trying to base too much in realism has been the bane of comic book movies for a while (at least for me) as trying to explain every single minor thing starts to make things less plausible. Even that stitched together Catwoman outfit in Batman Returns probably cost quite the pretty penny to make in real life. Especially since that suit DEFINITELY wouldn't be functional in real life.
    For the longest time the issue with Batman in movies is that he couldn't move his neck without moving his own body, but that doesn't mean we have to assume that Batman in the two Burton movies moved like some Frankenstein animatron because he's still presented as a capable and fierce fighter and combatant and is meant to be as such.

    Fundamentally, the issue with costumes is an issue of aesthetics and how the film-maker wants their fictional world to look on screen.

    Are they though? The Raimi trilogy just changed those to organic powers and not too many people batted an eyelash...if anything the same general public who feel that Peter idolizing Tony Stark make sense also thought that the natural abilities of a spider (webs) being transferred to a human make sense (to the point it even went to comics for a bit) If anything I'd say that a lot of Peter's gear (developing suit, developing mechanical webshooters, etc.) isn't as essential to him as things like his powers that stick through every medium like sticking to walls and the like.
    The issue of Tony Stark making Peter's suit is far more essential to the flaws of Homecoming than organic webbing in Raimi's films. Homecoming's thematic throughline is "If you're nothing without the suit, you shouldn't have it." But again he has superpowers, so he doesn't need the suit to start with. It makes no sense. And again the costume that most resembles the Spider-Man of the comics being something the movie Spider-Man has to earn as a kind of reward is fairly nonsensical from an overall brand perspective because it implies that there's not a natural link between Holland Spider-Man and the defining classic image and costume of Spider-Man known across the world.

    The MCU Spider-Man movies revolve on Spider-Man suits and costumes as thematic plot touchstones in a way that the Raimi Spider-Man movies (I and II) never did.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 03-03-2021 at 12:54 PM.

  15. #240
    Astonishing Member John Venus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Between the Raimi movies, the Webb movies, a string of successful video games from the 2000 one to the recent PS5 one to beloved animated show from the 90's one to Spectacular Spider-Man, Spider-Man easily has a bigger pop culture footprint than either Iron Man or Captain America whose successes are largely confined to the MCU. I think folks accept that this is a Spider-man and not the Spider-man, non of the non-MCU related Spider-man stuff that came out since Homecoming have really focused on the Stark connection. People know that it's there because of a combination of there being two previous Spider-man reboots and the strange joint-custody deal between studios to get him into the franchise in the first place. If it weren't for those two factors, Spider-man's MCU connection would probably be handled more like how it's done in Ant-Man, where Stark and Cap are mentioned and Cap's shadow looms large but they don't dominate the movie.

Posting Permissions

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