Spider-Man 3: No Way Home

[Jewel Runner]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of Spider-Man, "is good at tailoring" never comes to mind.

All people are doing is stating their preferences, which as I say again and again, is fine. But you can't say that it somehow doesn't make sense for him to not develop fancy looking suit on his own with his pocket money just because very very few cosplayers have done it.

And just to be clear, I still don't think any cosplayer has created a costume better than Peter's initial costume in MCU. Unless all your requirement is the webbed design and spider logo. Other than that, not even close.

By the way, Tobey Maguire's costume took something like $100-150k to make.

Another thing wrong with the argument is the fact cosplay suits are primarily made for people to walk around in, not to wear on a regular basis while constantly fighting criminals and casually doing stunts in mid air, because the suits don't need to just look good they need to be durable enough to survive wear and be comfortable enough to move around in.
Making something that just looks good isn't hard.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of Spider-Man, "is good at tailoring" never comes to mind.

It never would have if people behind the scenes and others didn't make an issue out of it to start with. Nobody complained or made a fuss about Tobey's Peter making his own Spider-Suit in SM-1 (especially that boss montage of him going over various designs on his notepad and drawing and redrawing stuff and ideas...which was copied and homaged multiple times).

By the way, Tobey Maguire's costume took something like $100-150k to make.

If you were to make a movie about The Great Depression tomorrow, it would cost you a lot of money to find authentic vintage clothing even if you were portraying a slumworld. It would cost you a lot of money to pay a costume designer to design appropriate authentic peasant clothing if you were to make a movie set in the Middle Ages. But that doesn't mean that the Depression-era poor or Medieval peasants aren't poor people because how much it cost to make their costumes on-screen. If you were to make a movie about Jesus Christ and his Apostles, historically all of whom are supposed to be very poor, the period costumes for Roman-occupied Judea around that time wouldn't come cheap either.

This is a frankly absurd argument, where there's no sense of imagination or proportion being applied to the matter at hand.

The cost of producing a costume for a movie (where costumes are about movement, light, color, fit...about how it looks on camera) has absolutely nothing to do with how expensive or pricey it's supposed to be in-universe for the characters at hand. Especially because in the case of Spider-Man you are dealing with a larger-than-life fantasy character.

[SpiderClops]

It never would have if people behind the scenes and others didn't make an issue out of it to start with. Nobody complained or made a fuss about Tobey's Peter making his own Spider-Suit in SM-1 (especially that boss montage of him going over various designs on his notepad and drawing and redrawing stuff and ideas...which was copied and homaged multiple times).

Because it doesn't matter how he got the costume! It has never mattered! One way or the other. Ultimate Spider-Man just took his wrestling costume given by the company and added the webbed design.

It doesn't matter if Peter creates his costume on his own or not. That has never been essential to the character.

Just like it is silly argument the Maguire Spidey couldn't make the costume on his own, same way it is silly argument that Holland Spidey totally could make it on his own.

Judging the adaptation on this merit is stupid.

People are making saying that Holland didn't have the means ONLY because some fans just can't take that he got tge suit from Stark. There's nothing deep than that.

It makes sense in-universe, and adaptation wise it has never been essential to the character.

But people really really feel the need to justify their personal preference by making worse and worse arguments.

Just say that you didn't like Stark gave it to him and that's it.

If you were to make a movie about The Great Depression tomorrow, it would cost you a lot of money to find authentic vintage clothing even if you were portraying a slumworld. It would cost you a lot of money to pay a costume designer to design appropriate authentic peasant clothing if you were to make a movie set in the Middle Ages. But that doesn't mean that the Depression-era poor or Medieval peasants aren't poor people because how much it cost to make their costumes on-screen. If you were to make a movie about Jesus Christ and his Apostles, historically all of whom are supposed to be very poor, the period costumes for Roman-occupied Judea around that time wouldn't come cheap either.

This is a frankly absurd argument, where there's no sense of imagination or proportion being applied to the matter at hand.

The cost of producing a costume for a movie (where costumes are about movement, light, color, fit...about how it looks on camera) has absolutely nothing to do with how expensive or pricey it's supposed to be in-universe for the characters at hand. Especially because in the case of Spider-Man you are dealing with a larger-than-life fantasy character.

The amount of false equivalency here is mind numbing.

[SpiderClops]

And by the way, the costume in-universe would be EVEN more expensive than real life.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Because it doesn't matter how he got the costume! It has never mattered!

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?

Judging the adaptation on this merit is stupid.

It's not stupid if people infer that peasants can't create anything and that somehow Tom Holland sponging off a sugar daddy is more believable and realistic than making it on his own.

The amount of false equivalency here is mind numbing.

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.

And by the way, the costume in-universe would be EVEN more expensive than real life.

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.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

It makes sense in-universe, and adaptation wise it has never been essential to the character.

Ever since Miles Morales, it kinda is. Both Peter and Miles have costumes that reflect their personalities and most inner desires. Peter was an outcast who wanted to be seen, so his costume looks like that of a performer, with primary colors and web armpits. Miles wanted to stand out so his costume looks odd-looking with an inverse spider and different patterns on his glove fingers and bunch of other odd-looking things.

It's a little convenient how Tony made Peter a Spider-Man suit that is so optimistic looking and fits his personality and sensibilities so well. Good thing Weapons Industrialist Tony Stark found his inner Steve Ditko and managed to think of something so simple and quirky, otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

[Agent Z]

It's not stupid if people infer that peasants can't create anything and that somehow Tom Holland sponging off a sugar daddy is more believable and realistic than making it on his own.

1) That is a huge case of projecting on your part.

2) Please look up what the term sugar daddy actually means because you calling Tony that is just sick.

[Castle]

1) That is a huge case of projecting on your part.

2) Please look up what the term sugar daddy actually means because you calling Tony that is just sick.

I don't trust he means sugar daddy in the sex/romantic term. speaking of this, funny that you mentioned it because I was just talking about joss whedon and buffy on the tv/film forum.

Faith calls the mayor her sugar daddy. because he literally takes care of her. buys her an apartment, a play station game and even cloths.

the relationship between faith and the mayor was a father-son/daughter relationship and a loving one even though both were evil. its the exact same thing with tony and peter minus the evil part.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Good thing Weapons Industrialist Tony Stark found his inner Steve Ditko and managed to think of something so simple and quirky, otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

My issues with Stark making the costume is complicated for a lot of reasons, many of which I've made no secret about here. Let's leave aside political and ideological baggage for a moment. Even on a simple aesthetic, symbolic, and brand perspective, on a story perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially in Homecoming. The Spider-Man costume is essential, far more than Peter Parker himself. The first exposure people around the world have to Spider-Man is the costume by Stephen John Ditko whether in toys, in beanies, in bedspreads, in labels, in lunchboxes, in backpacks, in the Macy's Thankgiving Parade. People know and see Spider-Man from a young age, either as babies, or toddlers and so on, and they know him long before they find out he's Peter Parker, know how Peter looks like, know or care he's a teenager and so on. Spider-Man is Spider-Man before he's Peter Parker in terms of merchandise, and merchandise is the first contact between Spider-Man and his consumers or fans. More people buy Spider-Man merch, and it makes vastly more money than see the movies after all. There are babies born every minute and Spider-Man is popular decorations among new parents for their child's crib and toys. And by the time these kids grow up to a moviegoing age, Tom Holland would be as remote to them as Garfield is to people now. So the costume counts for far more than these movies ever will.

From a symbolic and brand perspective, the title being "Homecoming" and so on, the idea is that Holland Spider-Man is the truest version of the live-action Spider-Man yet. If you want to honor that, then you do need to sell that to the hilt. Instead what we see are a range of choices which subtracts that governing intent. If the Spider-Man suit most like the Lee-Ditko costume is actually made by Tony Stark and handed to Peter as a gift, and if as the climax of "Homecoming" suggests, the truest version of Peter is the one in that weird pajama-tunic combination they ginned-up, then that essentially amounts to saying, in visual terms, that their version of Spider-Man is not the true Spider-Man. Tom Holland's Spider-Man is the not the Spider-Man young babies see with their eyes for the first time. Homecoming revolves around Spider-Man using Stark gadgets, stuff he never needed to be Spider-Man in the original comics and the Tobey movies, and also the Garfield movies, and also ITSV, and the cartoons (even the ones I don't like). It creates a problem that didn't exist and then presents itself as a solution, you know the arsonist coming in as a firefighter. And the conclusion says that Spider-Man just needs to use his superpowers to get things done, which is honestly nonsense as an underdog message. The climax of Homecoming has Holland Peter fight Toomes in a pajama outfit he made for himself and not the original actual Lee-Ditko outfit he created. On a brand perspective, what it actually suggests is that Tom Holland's true self isn't the actual Lee-Ditko Spider-Man outfit.

It essentially nullifies and de-legitimizes Holland as the real Spider-Man. And I think the entire issue with the suit is indicative, subconciously, that the film-makers themselves don't believe that Holland can actually carry a movie as Spider-Man for real.

I don't trust he means sugar daddy in the sex/romantic term. speaking of this, funny that you mentioned it because I was just talking about joss whedon and buffy on the tv/film forum.

Faith calls the mayor her sugar daddy. because he literally takes care of her. buys her an apartment, a play station game and even cloths.

the relationship between faith and the mayor was a father-son/daughter relationship and a loving one even though both were evil. its the exact same thing with tony and peter minus the evil part.

Thanks for the assist. The word "sugar daddy" has fallen into a general usage category which means anyone sponging off gifts and freebies from a rich friend and so on.

And by the way I did look up the dictionary meaning (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../sugar%20daddy) and there are two usages, the second one, relevant to Spider-Man and Tony is this: "a generous benefactor of a cause or undertaking"

[Agent Z]

Faith calls the mayor her sugar daddy. because he literally takes care of her. buys her an apartment, a play station game and even cloths.

the relationship between faith and the mayor was a father-son/daughter relationship and a loving one even though both were evil. its the exact same thing with tony and peter minus the evil part.

And it's because their relationship is a father/daughter one that the Mayor takes offense to her calling him that.

[Castle]

And it's because their relationship is a father/daughter one that the Mayor takes offense to her calling him that.

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.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

It essentially nullifies and de-legitimizes Holland as the real Spider-Man. And I think the entire issue with the suit is indicative, subconciously, that the film-makers themselves don't believe that Holland can actually carry a movie as Spider-Man for real.

I'm curious to what extent Tom Holland is perceived as "the real Spider-Man". I think with characters as big as Superman or Batman or Spider-Man, we reached a point where no version has a monopoly. There is maybe a dominant version that the public views as definitive (for Superman it's the Donner films and for Batman it's TAS), but even then it's not like the public doesn't ever think about other versions that have also become mainstream.

That's what separates Spider-Man from the other MCU heroes that were more-or-less blank states to the public prior to the MCU. So selling Holland as "the real Spider-Man" was always going to be near impossible compared to selling Downey as the "real" Iron Man or Evans as the "real" Cap or Hemsworth as the "real" Thor.

Still, I think Holland could have come to be seen as "the current definitive version" the same way everyone remembers the old Bonds and Holmes but want only Cumberbatch and Craig for now.

I don't know if he is, though. I'm inclined to say no, but that could be just my confirmation bias.

And it's because their relationship is a father/daughter one that the Mayor takes offense to her calling him that.

I mean, you kinda pinpointed the problem with MCU Spider-Man very nicely. These two characters that are so fundamentally different from each other have a loving father/son relationship with no tension or core disagreements between them.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm curious to what extent Tom Holland is perceived as "the real Spider-Man".

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.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

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 don't know if Spider-Man has a Connery. Tobey is like Moore whose films were cheesy and who was as memorable as Connery, but whom the fanbase was very split on. Garfield is like Timothy Dalton who is a complete afterthought to most but who developed a cult following within the fanbase. And Holland is like Brosnan who doesn't stand out but whose face was marketed the most as Bond's and is probably the face that most comes up for Millenials/Zoomers when they hear the name (even if they prefer Craig).

Even then, there's no rule that says Spider-Man will inevitably get a Craig version or that it's "next".

[Agent Z]

I mean, you kinda pinpointed the problem with MCU Spider-Man very nicely. These two characters that are so fundamentally different from each other have a loving father/son relationship with no tension or core disagreements between them.

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.