Spider-Man 3: No Way Home

[Frontier]

The marketing for this film feels like Sony's first rodeo at not trying to spoil a film. They don't want to spoil but they also don't know how to get people excited the way Marvel generally does.



That bugged me too. "Ever since you tampered with the spell..." So the multiverse really opens up because a teen couldn't stop talking?

That would mean that whatever death happens in the film 'including civilians) is on Peter.

What happened to the speech from Homecoming and Far From Home about being better than Tony?

And it seems like Peter messes things up more because he doesn't want to leave the villains to their fates in the movies...even though some of those were fitting ends to those characters.

[Arsenal]

The marketing for this film feels like Sony's first rodeo at not trying to spoil a film. They don't want to spoil but they also don't know how to get people excited the way Marvel generally does.



That bugged me too. "Ever since you tampered with the spell..." So the multiverse really opens up because a teen couldn't stop talking?

That would mean that whatever death happens in the film 'including civilians) is on Peter.

What happened to the speech from Homecoming and Far From Home about being better than Tony?

Well, if we really going down this route, I'd say the blame really rests on Strange since he's the one who decided to go through with the spell at all.

[Frontier]

Well, if we really going down this route, I'd say the blame really rests on Strange since he's the one who decided to go through with the spell at all.

I still think, even with his issues of hubris, it doesn't really make sense for him to do that kind of spell on a whim. Especially when Wong told him not to do it.

[Lukmendes]

Well, if we really going down this route, I'd say the blame really rests on Strange since he's the one who decided to go through with the spell at all.

Specially since the first trailer has Peter changing his mind and telling him to stop, meaning that Strange didn't really explain what the spell was doing and decided to keep going with it despite the one who requested asking him to stop... And that's somehow Peter's fault lol.

That bugged me too. "Ever since you tampered with the spell..." So the multiverse really opens up because a teen couldn't stop talking?

That would mean that whatever death happens in the film 'including civilians) is on Peter.

What happened to the speech from Homecoming and Far From Home about being better than Tony?

Well, he created less super-villains so far, so I guess he is better than Tony by managing that much .

It's how the proud die! Not on a cross of gold but a humble stake of tin. (Paraphrasing from memory...)

(ASM#122)

Clone enough lol.

I still think, even with his issues of hubris, it doesn't really make sense for him to do that kind of spell on a whim. Especially when Wong told him not to do it.

I mean, it's the only way to get a mix of OMIT and Spider-Verse, can't worry about proper characterization if you're doing that .

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Well, if we really going down this route, I'd say the blame really rests on Strange since he's the one who decided to go through with the spell at all.

Not really, since it seems like Strange knows what he is doing until Peter botches it. That would be like saying the person driving a car is ethically responsible for the car crash if the passenger next to him grabs the wheel while he was explicitly instructed not to.

And it seems like Peter messes things up more because he doesn't want to leave the villains to their fates in the movies...even though some of those were fitting ends to those characters.

I don't have as much of a problem with that because Peter and Strange don't have the full context for what happened in those other universes. As far as Peter knows he is just saving them from their deaths.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The marketing for this film feels like Sony's first rodeo at not trying to spoil a film. They don't want to spoil but they also don't know how to get people excited the way Marvel generally does.

When your marketing is built on clickbait, as the MCU generally has been, it's a bit hard for other studios to swing it. Like with Avengers Endgame and Far From Home, Sony had to promote its film knowing fully well it would spoil the idea that Peter would be back from the dead with Avengers Endgame. In the case of No Way Home, they have a great deal of clickbait so that also meant a limited way of marketing it and so on, so trailers delayed for long, posters built around a small set of motifs (all of them bad).

Ideally this stuff isn't necessary, Titanic for instance didn't have to hide the fact that the ship sunk or anything and it made a ton of money, as did Avatar which didn't really have any deep plot to hide and be coy about. The Phantom Menace announced that the little kid was Darth Vader, revealed Darth Maul and his dual lightsabers before the movie released. Likewise Spider-Man 1 advertised Green Goblin and his costume before the movie and so on.

That bugged me too. "Ever since you tampered with the spell..." So the multiverse really opens up because a teen couldn't stop talking?

That would mean that whatever death happens in the film 'including civilians) is on Peter.

What happened to the speech from Homecoming and Far From Home about being better than Tony?

Well maybe MCU Peter interpreted that to mean, "I must be even more self-destructive and a bigger f--k up than MCU Tony was, and boy will I f--k the place up." It's logical when you choose Tony Stark as mentor, put him on a pedestal, never have the character acknowledge the stuff MCU Tony actually does.

The emphasis on Peter being flawed and so on which in the comics usually means he would act based on what seems reasonable and plausible in front of him and come to wrong conclusions (which you see in the first Raimi where "Don't tell Harry" and Keep MJ away are obvious mistakes but you understand why he's making these choices) in the MCU leads to a version who seems incapable of doing anything right. This has been a tendency since the BND era as well.

Peter asked how to shut it down, Ock told him, Peter was going to do it himself but Ock stopped him and said, "Let me."

And it's odd that Peter let him and doesn't stop to think about Ock dying or his body not turning up afterwards. It's one of those things which 616 Peter in general, wouldn't let someone else do for him, or at the very least walk away without confirming he'd be alive.

It's how the proud die! Not on a cross of gold but a humble stake of tin. (Paraphrasing from memory...)

That's mostly it, i.e. "proud", "cross of hold" but it's "stake of humble tin".

I think if Bruce had simply said nothing and leaped to safety that scene would read a lot differently.

Or if the eyes on the prize was diverting the train to stop an explosion and Bruce did it in the last minute or if Ra's tried to stab him and Batman ducked out and so on...that would at least work the way it's supposed to.

Of course, Bruce had already killed multiple League of Assassins ninjas and the guy he wouldn't execute when he burned down their hideout. Ra's was the only guy he saved!

It became necessary to kill a bunch of people and leave them to die in order to vindicate my 'no-kill rule'.

Let's face it, movies are cheats they obviously never believed the "no-kill rule" and thought things through. Not that this vindicates Zack Snyder or anything but he did have a ghost of a point when he said superheroes do kill more often than not because logically when you live a life of violence, people are going to die. It's not really possible to be a pacifist no-kill superhero. Of course ultimately the takeaway is if you want the superhero story to be about violence or if it should be about fun. For Snyder the latter was very much not on the table, so it defeated his purpose.

[Frontier]

I don't have as much of a problem with that because Peter and Strange don't have the full context for what happened in those other universes. As far as Peter knows he is just saving them from their deaths.

Yeah, but I'm not sure if the audience who actually knows what happened would be as forgiving.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yeah, but I'm not sure if the audience who actually knows what happened would be as forgiving.

Wouldn't Otto after being snapped out, tell them that what happened i.e. he chose to die after this experiment and so on.

[PizzaTime2099]

When your marketing is built on clickbait, as the MCU generally has been, it's a bit hard for other studios to swing it.

That's not really clickbait though? Marketing through reveals and "spoilers" =/= marketing through clickbait. There is no deceptive or misleading marketing going on as far as I'm aware. Unless you want to argue that every piece of marketing for every single piece of media ever has all been clickbait.

superheroes do kill more often than not because logically when you live a life of violence, people are going to die.

Ya I feel that's an often overlooked aspect of the genre. A character is either a 'killer', who goes around guns a 'blazing murdering everyone in sight, or they're not, and writers tend to ignore death, and go out of their way to absolve the hero of culpability by any means necessary. I've started reading Daredevil by Zdarsky right now which deals with this, which is quite refreshing.

The best is in the Arkham games where you can run a guy over with the batmobile and throw him off a 50 foot building, just to find him "unconscious".

[Kaitou D. Kid]

When your marketing is built on clickbait, as the MCU generally has been, it's a bit hard for other studios to swing it. Like with Avengers Endgame and Far From Home, Sony had to promote its film knowing fully well it would spoil the idea that Peter would be back from the dead with Avengers Endgame. In the case of No Way Home, they have a great deal of clickbait so that also meant a limited way of marketing it and so on, so trailers delayed for long, posters built around a small set of motifs (all of them bad).

Ideally this stuff isn't necessary, Titanic for instance didn't have to hide the fact that the ship sunk or anything and it made a ton of money, as did Avatar which didn't really have any deep plot to hide and be coy about. The Phantom Menace announced that the little kid was Darth Vader, revealed Darth Maul and his dual lightsabers before the movie released. Likewise Spider-Man 1 advertised Green Goblin and his costume before the movie and so on.

Thing is, even the lead-up to Endgame wasn't as frustrating as this. We now await in frustration and not excitement.

I get not showing Tobey and Andrew, but what is the point of literally going in completely blind? Newsflash to Sony: Everyone and their dog knows or at least highly suspects that they're in it. There is no one who is going to be genuinely surprised that theyre in it, but almost everyone is going to be pissed at this point if they're not, including even some people I know who love Tom Holland's Spider-Man.

It's crazy to me they wouldn't at least do a subtle one-second tease the way the Ghostbusters trailers teased Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray (no, "You're not Peter Parker" doesn't count). It makes me think Sony/Disney don't even have confidence in the film and are hoping the box office amounts from the Tobey/Andrew hype will make up for the revenue that the film's subpar quality won't be able to bring in.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's not really clickbait though? Marketing through reveals and "spoilers" =/= marketing through clickbait. There is no deceptive or misleading marketing going on as far as I'm aware.

They were literally caught CGI removing a character from a fight scene with an invisible hit to Lizard, lol. That's actually deceptive and misleading marketing in the most technical sense.

Ya I feel that's an often overlooked aspect of the genre. A character is either a 'killer', who goes around guns a 'blazing murdering everyone in sight, or they're not, and writers tend to ignore death, and go out of their way to absolve the hero of culpability by any means necessary. I've started reading Daredevil by Zdarsky right now which deals with this, which is quite refreshing.

We'll see how that goes because at the end, the blind ninja fantasy of Matt Murdock is a big part of the character.

Ultimately, it's about the divide between fun and violence, and how much you can thread that needle between actual fun and telling people lies about violence.

The best is in the Arkham games where you can run a guy over with the batmobile and throw him off a 50 foot building, just to find him "unconscious".

The superhero games, the Arkham ones and the PS4 Spider-Man, because they have you immersed in those fight scenes that in comics is covered over a few panels and in the movies done in single fight scenes tend to make that more unbelievable than before.

In the case of Batman Arkham, it's obvious that anyone who fights like Batman does would be murdering or beating these guys to death. It's also obvious in the PS4 Spider-Man games but less so because those games are coated with a fun aesthetic, brighter colors, and prioritize web swinging and so on, the effect isn't strong. The Batman Arkham games are phenomenally violent games, and Arkham Knight with the Batmobile that electrocutes people away with tasers (which can be deadly in real life) even at high speeds or uses "slam rounds" for canons (which can be deadly in real life) or having Batman torture people with a tire or slamming bad guys head first into junction boxes and so on. At some point, it's obvious that "no kill" is some kind of bizarre joke or in wrestling terms "kayfabe". It's obvious to the developers and the players that your character is murdering these people and is a psychopath which the narrative acknowledges since it ends with him having a tragic fall.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

About that Otto Octavius joke... every live reaction I saw had people going crazy when Otto said his name, while the characters are laughing.

The crowd goes wild, Peter and Co. laugh, and the crowd goes silent.

That's... awkward.

[Lukmendes]

They were literally caught CGI removing a character from a fight scene with an invisible hit to Lizard, lol. That's actually deceptive and misleading marketing in the most technical sense.

Didn't realize that before, but now that reminded me of Metal Gear Solid 2's trailers, where they put Snake in locations he isn't part of in the final game, all to hide the fact that Snake is not the protagonist.

The superhero games, the Arkham ones and the PS4 Spider-Man, because they have you immersed in those fight scenes that in comics is covered over a few panels and in the movies done in single fight scenes tend to make that more unbelievable than before.

In the case of Batman Arkham, it's obvious that anyone who fights like Batman does would be murdering or beating these guys to death. It's also obvious in the PS4 Spider-Man games but less so because those games are coated with a fun aesthetic, brighter colors, and prioritize web swinging and so on, the effect isn't strong.

I'm pretty sure any game before PS4 Spidey let you throw people off buildings (You still can do it in PS4 Spidey, but at least a gadget is used to prevent them from falling to their deaths), and in Ultimate Spidey game it's even the only way to defeat enemies with Spidey without webbing them down, you really have to ignore it to pretend you're not killing people in those games, colorful aesthetics be dammed lol.

But yeah, it's ultimately fantasy, stuff that would kill people in real life hardly injures fictional characters that badly, even in non super-hero places lol.

About that Otto Octavius joke... every live reaction I saw had people going crazy when Otto said his name, while the characters are laughing.

The crowd goes wild, Peter and Co. laugh, and the crowd goes silent.

That's... awkward.

I had forgotten how **** MCU humor is, that moment on the trailer made me groan out loud in annoyance lol.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I had forgotten how **** MCU humor is, that moment on the trailer made me groan out loud in annoyance lol.

I think it's more than that. Remember how I said this Spider-Man (and the people working on him) are out of touch with everyday people and have elitist undertones?

I mean, you can see it strikingly clear in that crowd reaction.

[PizzaTime2099]

They were literally caught CGI removing a character from a fight scene with an invisible hit to Lizard, lol. That's actually deceptive and misleading marketing in the most technical sense.

Are you saying it's clickbait because they spoil too much or it's clickbait because they spoil too little?