Spider-Man 3: No Way Home

[Jewel Runner]

In the context of real life for one thing. There's no such thing as a simple case of redemption and absolution in real life.

In the fictional context of the MCU based on what we see in the movies and sequels, Tony Stark doesn't have a simple redemption story. Every movie, every Avengers movie has him constantly confronting the consequences of his past which rebound not on him but on other characters. They mine that beat time and time again, and now you might have issues with them doing that constantly (and I agree that it's annoying) but the fact is that the constant banging of that beat makes it impossible to buy uncritically the idea of MCU Tony as having achieved lasting redemption of any kind.

I mean in the case of MCU Spider-Man, a good part of his life is dealing with Tony Stark's messes. Vulture exists because Tony Stark's negligence led to a guy with no criminal record getting radicalized into supervillainy. In the case of Mysterio, he plagiarized his work and passed it off as his own, in addition to the massive numbers of Stark personnel working for Mysterio which suggests a long history of terrible hiring practises or a failure to properly handly highly skilled personnel from getting radicalized. Because of negligence, because of incompetence, indifference, and stupidity, Tony constantly creates a slew of messes and problems.

You're proving my exact point, you're just misrepresenting what Tony did and exaggerating it to look worse than it really is.
Like "radicalizing Vulture?" The hell are you on about? Tony didn't even know the guy existed, it's not his fault one of the people in charge of Damage Control wanted to be a jerk to Toomes, Tony has involvement in that whatsoever.
And he didn't pass off Mysterio's work as his own, in Civil War he straight up says he only funded it, never once said he created it, Mysterio got fired because Tony jokingly pointed out the acronym for the device spelled out barf and he flipped out over it, and one of people who was working with Mysterio was one of the guys who was helping Stane kill Tony in the first Iron Man it's not too much to believe that's true for a bunch of the rest too, by this point you're trying blame Tony for the fact not everyone who worked his company was a benevolent individual, as if he had any control over that and if you really think someone in his position was directly handling the hiring process for the gigantic multinational company you are delusional.

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?

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.

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.

And now you're blaming Tony for the Snap.
This is exactly what I mean, you just want to blame him for everything to either downplay or completely ignore anything good he's done.

[Castle]

By most critics and fan reactions, no it isn't.

You're letting your personal preference skew your worldview.

YOU don't like this Spider-Man. Which, again, is fine. But you'remaking a general statement that this is somehow a bad adaptation, which could not be further from the truth by general consensus.

Do people still listen to critics anymore at face value? the some that do now just love to read the critics reviews. there is usually nothing impressive about MCU Spiderman reviews. it's just a nod head. I am already dreading how critics reviews is going to implode on us when the next critics reviews for Blade and X-Men films are out.

Fan reactions meaning twitter reaction is just another level of fractured reality. People need to get off twitter. Additionally this is fan reaction here. it's feels different from Twitter reactions from what has been put out there, it's all to well oiled Disney machine.

I must say this does bother me...the general worldview reason I created this thread.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ans-commentary

[Castle]

I could not gather all the posts so I will say a few things about the Aunty May casting. I don't think they should have gone with a younger actress. it takes way too much important traits from the conception of Aunt May. Call it my ageing, but I just finally understand Aunt May better. she is a Gandalf or Dumledore kind of character in the books. the wise old grey person , who is an anchor to the hero. Taking that away with this new series for me hurt Spiderman.

To keep it real, it was a mistake the way Ben and May were handled in the MCU movies. It stops peter from a lot of things. Am all for updating a character to modern times, it worked well with Spiderverse, Aunt may is still old, wise and wrinkled but she is a darm bad ass.


Sally was great in ASM because Sally is just a darm good actress. This new actress in Spiderman who plays May is alright but she does not bring anything to table

[Jman27]

What are Aunt May best moments anyway? Like she is pretty much Peters mother and the only family member he has left. She gives good advice to him but which ones are the essential for Peter character? Like what from the comics did you want the movies to do that hasn’t already been done in the other films?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The number of people who know his identity isn't that large. Marvel never put that much stock in secret identities anyway and the days of keeping such a secret from loved ones is long past. It's not about incompetence (Holland is far from an idiot) it's about adapting to modern standards.

Marvel never put that much stock in secret identities anyway

Spider-Man, Marvel's biggest and most popular character, always did have a secret identity as a central part of his story.

Since Spider-Man is "more equal" than most Marvel characters, Marvel always did put stock in secret identities.

...it's about adapting to modern standards.

"modern standards" doesn't apply because the concept of a secret identity is fairly universal and timeless.

YOU don't like this Spider-Man. Which, again, is fine. But you'remaking a general statement that this is somehow a bad adaptation, which could not be further from the truth by general consensus.

A criticism on aesthetic grounds (which is what the poster you responded to was arguing) doesn't have to be part of a general consensus. The vast majority of people don't read comics and don't care about comics Spider-Man, which is fair and fine. Among the people who do read comics and care about the comics Spider-man, the reception to Holland Spider-Man is definitely quite polarized.

Like "radicalizing Vulture?"

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.

And he didn't pass off Mysterio's work as his own,

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.

Mysterio got fired because Tony jokingly pointed out the acronym for the device spelled out barf and he flipped out over it,

Because Tony Stark is a model of sanity and never flips out over anything, or insists people subject themselves to his annoying eccentricities.

...if you really think someone in his position was directly handling the hiring process for the gigantic multinational company...

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 now you're blaming Tony for the Snap.

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.

This is exactly what I mean, you just want to blame him for everything to either downplay or completely ignore anything good he's done.

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.

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.

[SpiderClops]

MCU Spider-Man is polarizing the same way Dan Slotts run is.

As in, not really, but a vocal minority really really wants to(unsuccessfully) prove that it is.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

MCU Spider-Man is polarizing the same way Dan Slotts run is.

As in, not really, but a vocal minority really really wants to(unsuccessfully) prove that it is.

The idea of something being commercially successful and polarizing is not a hard concept to grasp.

Nickelback sells well but are constantly the butt of jokes, Michael Bay is a successful film-maker but critically derided. Game of Thrones' final season was high in ratings (based on the strength of earlier seasons) but critically derided and deeply polarizing all the same. The Star Wars Prequels were commercially very successful and young children really do like Jar Jar Binks but today you can't say a kind word about any of that (and I happen to love those prequels).

I can list other examples if you wish.

[Castle]

MCU Spider-Man is polarizing the same way Dan Slotts run is.

As in, not really, but a vocal minority really really wants to(unsuccessfully) prove that it is.

It's not a vocal minority. Many folks rejected and continue to reject the Tony Stark is Spiderman's hero to a big fault and when I mean a big fault, it is now making some just despise Spiderman himself.

A criticism on aesthetic grounds (which is what the poster you responded to was arguing) doesn't have to be part of a general consensus. The vast majority of people don't read comics and don't care about comics Spider-Man, which is fair and fine. Among the people who do read comics and care about the comics Spider-man, the reception to Holland Spider-Man is definitely quite polarized.

I could have the poster wrong but maybe he is referring to the infamous rotten tomatoes as good criticisms or general consensus of movies, lol. I wonder what is the purpose of that if every spiderman film apart from Amazing Spiderman 2 got a bad score?

I don't see how Holland's Spiderman films keeps getting a pass for some jarring flaw the Garfield's films would have been destroyed for.

[Castle]

What are Aunt May best moments anyway? Like she is pretty much Peters mother and the only family member he has left. She gives good advice to him but which ones are the essential for Peter character? Like what from the comics did you want the movies to do that hasn’t already been done in the other films?

This clip.. oh this clip

The Aunt May from the Holland film comes of more as his girlfriend, sister or pal than an authoritarian figure. none of the good advice she gives him has any meaning gravitas because the dynamic of mother and son or teacher and student is absent.

Peter has many people in his life who play different roles, the role of aunt may as the wiser older figure who can give him just life lessons advice is absent.

Rosemary Harris, the actress who played Aunt May in the Raimi movies, just had this aura of moral authority and wisdom that you can see why peter needs her so much, even little things like her smile in the movies, says so much about her character. . May is just so well written in the older films, this new may in the MCU is hip because you know...things now are hip.

[SpiderClops]

The idea of something being commercially successful and polarizing is not a hard concept to grasp.

Nickelback sells well but are constantly the butt of jokes, Michael Bay is a successful film-maker but critically derided. Game of Thrones' final season was high in ratings (based on the strength of earlier seasons) but critically derided and deeply polarizing all the same. The Star Wars Prequels were commercially very successful and young children really do like Jar Jar Binks but today you can't say a kind word about any of that (and I happen to love those prequels).

I can list other examples if you wish.

But MCU Spider-Man IS critically successful.

[Castle]

But MCU Spider-Man IS critically successful.

So was Sam Raimi Spiderman, Spiderverse and Amazing Spiderman 1. The question is, what is the difference and which critical success is more valued after 2 years, 5 years, 20 years?

We know the definition of MCU critical success. Light fun and humour movies. Other Spiderman movies did more heavy lifting than that with a bigger artistic input .

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But MCU Spider-Man IS critically successful.

Are you gonna keep changing the goalposts, or are you actually gonna score? Just simply say out loud that people who dislike these films have no right to their opinions, no claims to voice it, and should simply shut up, and so on.

Because that's kind of what you and others here seem to be doing.

[blackspidey2099]

By most critics and fan reactions, no it isn't.

You're letting your personal preference skew your worldview.

YOU don't like this Spider-Man. Which, again, is fine. But you'remaking a general statement that this is somehow a bad adaptation, which could not be further from the truth by general consensus.

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.

[SpiderClops]

Are you gonna keep changing the goalposts, or are you actually gonna score? Just simply say out loud that people who dislike these films have no right to their opinions, no claims to voice it, and should simply shut up, and so on.

Because that's kind of what you and others here seem to be doing.

I am moving goal posts. Really. Sure. Let's say that.

[SpiderClops]

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.

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.