Spider-Man 3: No Way Home

[Agent Z]

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.

Titanic was based on a real life event, so hiding the fact that the ship sinks would be pointless. Avatar didn't have anything deep to hide so they didn't bother and The Phantom Menace was a prequel.

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.

By what standard are you judging "can't do anything right"?

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 obvious to both Peter and Octavius that the latter will not survive what he is about to do. There is nothing that Peter can do to stop him and blaming it all on Peter removes Octavius's agency in this situation. All he did was ask Octavius how to stop the machine, he didn't tell him to die trying to stop it.

Let's face it, movies are cheats they obviously never believed the "no-kill rule" and thought things through.

The no-kill rule itself was never truly believed in or thought through. It was created to avoid parents protesting violence in superhero comics and these days it largely exists to justify keeping villains alive because the stories won't end.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yeah, it also helps that when JJ said it, while it's lampshade hanging his name, it was a throwaway line and there wasn't too much focus on it

That's why I say so much of MCU is clickbait driven. People just pluck out stuff like it's a factoid from wikipedia without recalling the film in full, the scene in moment, and JK Simmons' line delivery which is more wry and ironic rather than sarcastic and insulting.

Nice, you did a pretty good job.

Thanks. Contextualizing the Entire Spider-Man 616 Continuity on the Comic page was something I'm quite pleased with.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...Book/SpiderMan

I summarized each run on Spider-Man, described the new characters and story plots in each one, introduced a who-what-where-when-how for each i.e. this thing you remember comes from here, that scene and so on comes from here, and so on and so forth. Before the stuff on Spider-Man was really jumbled and basically incoherent.

Honestly, wouldn't put that many points in a franchise needing all of this, Simpsons, while it's far less popular now than before, was still getting a good number of views even when the quality was meh for years, people may watch stuff out of habit without dropping even if it sucks, brand recognition is pretty powerful.

Simpsons is more like MAD Magazine. It reflects popular culture and new trends, so long as you have new things to parody, spoof, and new celebrities and ideas to riff off, it can continue. Whereas MCU doesn't have that.

It was a big question why Avengers: Age of Ultron earned so much lower than Avengers 1 and even if it earned a lot of money it didn't make Disney happy (its US domestic gross was lower than Avengers 1). The main reason was that it had no novelty. It doubled down on the Avengers 1 team as protagonists but it didn't open up the world to anything new. It added in Wanda, Pietro, Vision as new characters but all of them were tied to Tony as characters and didn't introduce any new corners of the MCU, it was basically the same kind of beats they did with the solo Iron Man villains.

So the MCU is built on expansion and not on retreads.

[primenumber101]

Not to be rude, I'm honestly baffled by the fact that there's multi-page discussions over the trailer scene with joke about Otto, which can be summarize by saying "I didn't like Otto joke scene/Otto Joke scene didn't work for me."

[Frontier]

The no-kill rule itself was never truly believed in or thought through. It was created to avoid parents protesting violence in superhero comics and these days it largely exists to justify keeping villains alive because the stories won't end.

Superheroes would probably be pretty different if they were more open to killing in my opinion.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Not to be rude, I'm honestly baffled by the fact that there's multi-page discussions over the trailer scene with joke about Otto, which can be summarize by saying "I didn't like Otto joke scene/Otto Joke scene didn't work for me."

The real issue is that some people couldn't accept that was a bad joke and bad writing and kept defending it. The same way Synderfans defended Martha from BVSDOJ. When I posted my reaction I didn't think there would be debate about it being a bad joke because it seemed obvious to me and many others.

Then you had to put up with MCU defenders and it's the same bad faith and poor citation that the Snydercult indulged in.

Superheroes would probably be pretty different if they were more open to killing in my opinion.

They wouldn't be fun to start with.

[Agent Z]

The real issue is that some people couldn't accept that was a bad joke and bad writing and kept defending it. The same way Synderfans defended Martha from BVSDOJ. When I posted my reaction I didn't think there would be debate about it being a bad joke because it seemed obvious to me and many others.

Then you had to put up with MCU defenders and it's the same bad faith and poor citation that the Snydercult indulged in.



They wouldn't be fun to start with.

Saying a joke doesn't land is one thing. But you also engaged in ludicrous hyperbole like saying that the joke would result in people with similar names getting bullied. Or that characters in universe can't make fun of a guy because he has a tragic background. You can't say nonsense like this and be surprised when people respond. Especially when your reaction to this joke is far stronger than that of anyone else in this thread who has defended it despite your accusations of MCU fans being "thin skinned".

[HypnoHustler]

The real issue is that some people couldn't accept that was a bad joke and bad writing and kept defending it. The same way Synderfans defended Martha from BVSDOJ. When I posted my reaction I didn't think there would be debate about it being a bad joke because it seemed obvious to me and many others.

Who are the “others”? Seems like you’re an Army of One when it comes to outrage over Doc Ock Jokegate. I haven’t seen anyone else bring it up (And for the record, I saw your earlier comparison of this to the homophobic “husband” joke from SSM1. That is waaaaaaaaaay worse for reasons that should be fairly obvious)

[The Kid]

Who are the “others”? Seems like you’re an Army of One when it comes to outrage over Doc Ock Jokegate. I haven’t seen anyone else bring it up (And for the record, I saw your earlier comparison of this to the homophobic “husband” joke from SSM1. That is waaaaaaaaaay worse for reasons that should be fairly obvious)

Yeah I’m not seeing any outrage over that joke. The only mention of it I’ve seen at all has been a few jokes/memes about Doc Ock getting ‘bullied’ by a bunch of zoomers but that’s about it. Haven’t seen any other discussion it, this forum is really a bubble of its own

[Jack The Tripper]

Michael Keaton has said that he’s shooting some “vulture stuff” in the next few days. I wonder if it might be a post credits thing for this movie? More likely that it’s for morbius or something else in the sonyverse but it would be nice to see him back in the MCU!

[Frobisher]

Not to be rude, I'm honestly baffled by the fact that there's multi-page discussions over the trailer scene with joke about Otto, which can be summarize by saying "I didn't like Otto joke scene/Otto Joke scene didn't work for me."

And then all the comic book news sites can report on the discussion with screengrabs of posts, explaining what people said in them.

"Deep rift opens between Comic book fans over trailer joke"

All we need is a confused boomer to come in and complain that the joke is an example of "woke politics" ruining movies.

[Ravin' Ray]

Is it possible that the trailer is not showing us crucial context for the joke scene that would cast it in a new light when we finally watch the movie?

[Confuzzled]

Is it possible that the trailer is not showing us crucial context for the joke scene that would cast it in a new light when we finally watch the movie?

Unlikely. Peter thought "Doctor Strange" was a made-up name in Infinity War too and they showed that scene in the promos, which was exactly the same in the actual movie.

[Confuzzled]

Is Scooby Doo even a pop culture reference kids would know at this point? Do reruns of it get airtime significantly?

Are you not aware of the Ultra Instinct Shaggy meme?

[Jack The Tripper]

Is it possible that the trailer is not showing us crucial context for the joke scene that would cast it in a new light when we finally watch the movie?

It shouldn’t even matter lol, this joke is fine, it’s easy pickings, it’s a goofy name. I don’t know why people are critiquing this joke as if it’s the death knell of this film - in context of the movie (assuming it’s kept in like this), it will be a throwaway joke - then it will be on to the next line of dialogue.

[Castle]

Not to be rude, I'm honestly baffled by the fact that there's multi-page discussions over the trailer scene with joke about Otto, which can be summarize by saying "I didn't like Otto joke scene/Otto Joke scene didn't work for me."

Nope. The Joke did not work and was pretty cringe. I think the joke points out many things that made the Sam Raimi movies miles above MCU Spiderman and an important part of that was casting. I have to agree with someone on this thread who said earlier that Disney was too obsessed with casting people that looked so young in their Spiderman roles and it shows here during the confrontation with Otto. Although I am one of the few that thinks Holland and Zandaya sometimes cannot really pass for playing teens anymore.

However in that scene, they just look like little kids. Exchanging that type of ''funny'' dialogue with an adult like Otto, does not want to make you take the movie seriously. Compare that scene in the trailer to this scene in Spiderman 2 and you will see a big difference even in humor.


Me also not counting that James Franco is a good actor.

The exchange between Tobey Maguire, James Franco and Alfred Molina in Spiderman 2 IMO just feels more realistic, adult oriented and gives us a little bit of cool drama even in the humor moments. (Loved Franco teasing Otto about Nobel Prize). Compared to that, No way home from the trailer is lacking what Spiderman 2 has. Peter, MJ and Ned act more like Disney channel kids who have been asked to go on a treasure hunt and have accidently stumbled onto Otto. That scene and the joke (although with don't know the full content yet) feels like it is stripping away the almost paternal authoritative presence Otto had in his original appearance in Spiderman 2.

As for the overall trailer, it was the usual-usual and way too much CGI that looks as bad as Eternals and Shang Chi.