Marvel Studios/Sony - SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING

[Khev]

If their goal was to finally introduce a suit with moving eyes then I don't mind that they had Stark build it. I know that in the comics Peter makes his own costumes but they do indeed draw his eyes changing in almost every panel and up until now it's essentially been presented as simply magic. That doesn't really fly in this new era of superhero films that at least try to pay some lip service to be connected to the real world.

And if Peter is making not only the web shooters but also a Spidey suit with eyes that move depending on his facial expression then he's essentially Reed Richards or Tony Stark and it then begs the question as to why he also isn't building spaceships, force fields, and all that. Giving the suit duties to Stark basically does the same thing that Nolan did when he brought Bruce Wayne slightly closer to earth by allowing vehicle tech to be provided by Lucius Fox instead of made from scratch by him and Alfred. That didn't make Bruce "Fox Lad" or anything it just reigned in his "can literally do or make anything" powers to be more in line with what audiences are willing to suspend their disbelief to accept.

 

[jye4ever]

B I N G O

 

[EVILFACE]

You can understand all that but it does hurt Spidey. Brilliant but lazy. Not exactly lazy but want to help people. I would have been fine with the deadpool eyes.

Same as it hurt Batman. When he woke up from being gassed and Fox rattled off what he made the tonic from and Bruce was alll duh?? ***** please, even Keaton could play with a chemistry set.

 

[ShadowX81]

The moving eyes and refining the webshooters was one thing. What I didn't like was the Karen A.I., parachute, drone, and billions of webshooters combinations. The fact that it is essentially an Iron Man suit. Spider man's key character trait is his self reliance and innovation.

He's down on his luck and has to make due with what he can put together. Yea it's a bit of a stretch that a teenager can make a perfectly tailored super suit, but it's more believable than a skintight computer.

 

[EVILFACE]

I kinda like the AI. Chatting with her while locked up in the bunker. And showing his intelligence is getting out.

And can't believe HT left out Kill Mode eyes.

 

[ShadowX81]

It just isn't Spider-Man at all.

 

[jye4ever]

The moving eyes and refining the webshooters was one thing. What I didn't like was the Karen A.I., parachute, drone, and billions of webshooters combinations. The fact that it is essentially an Iron Man suit. Spider man's key character trait is his self reliance and innovation.

He's down on his luck and has to make due with what he can put together. Yea it's a bit of a stretch that a teenager can make a perfectly tailored super suit, but it's more believable than a skintight computer.

It just isn't Spider-Man at all.

Didn't he summon his inner strength to lift a roof AC unit off him without Stark's costume?

Didn't he defeat the main villain in his crappy home made costume?

Weren't those critical parts of his character journey?

How is that not Spiderman.

 

[Khev]

I think they were just taking Spidey back to the well that served IM's 2008 origin and arguably showed their cards a little too much. In the original IM some of the most entertaining scenes were him testing out his suits and having things go haywire so they brought that back for Spidey. Also ending the movie with the game changing "I am Iron Man" identity reveal. And then fast forward to 2017 we have Spider-Man introduced into the MCU but testing out his suit to comedic effect and the last second of the movie once again being a surprise identity reveal this time to Aunt May instead of the world. Oh yeah lots of banter with Happy Favreau throughout. Spider-Man was still Spider-Man but the fact that they hit so many IM 2008 beats is what has people thinking he's a mini-Tony Stark or whatever.

Superhero movies have always gotten a pass for following the "Donner template" but now that a movie went full "Favreau template" people are a little caught off guard especially now when following another film's style is no longer as appreciated (as we saw most famously with The Force Awakens.)

 

[Khev]

Difabio is worth keeping because hes one of the sharpest members we've ever had. His reasoning skills are why hes worth keeping.
Regardless if he hates the movies we like or not. I say that as someone that loves rogue one

Hating any movie is fine as long as it doesn't translate to simply trolling the threads dedicated to those films anytime someone says something positive. There's definitely a difference.

SNIKT1950 speaks his mind openly and frequently about what he likes and doesn't like but notice he isn't here stinking up the Homecoming thread nor did he do so with RO or any other movie he didn't like. Can he post negative opinions in this thread? Of course and people are doing so right now in fact. But it's a respectful back and forth without trolling for the sake of trolling or trashing a movie as way of increasing your rep as a badass keyboard commando or whatever.

 

[jye4ever]

I think they were just taking Spidey back to the well that served IM's 2008 origin and arguably showed their cards a little too much. In the original IM some of the most entertaining scenes were him testing out his suits and having things go haywire so they brought that back for Spidey. Also ending the movie with the game changing "I am Iron Man" identity reveal. And then fast forward to 2017 we have Spider-Man introduced into the MCU but testing out his suit to comedic effect and the last second of the movie once again being a surprise identity reveal this time to Aunt May instead of the world. Oh yeah lots of banter with Happy Favreau throughout. Spider-Man was still Spider-Man but the fact that they hit so many IM 2008 beats is what has people thinking he's a mini-Tony Stark or whatever.

Superhero movies have always gotten a pass for following the "Donner template" but now that a movie went full "Favreau template" people are a little caught off guard especially now when following another film's style is no longer as appreciated (as we saw most famously with The Force Awakens.)

I agree but at least those call backs were presented in a high quality manner I would even argue the attachment was handled better than TFA.

Both were on the nose and i'm not saying TFA did it all wrong but Spiderman's felt more organic because Stark was just passing on his hard learned yet very valuable lessons to Peter in his surrogate uncle-father mentoring role.

 

[DiFabio]

Didn't he defeat the main villain in his crappy home made costume?

Vulture defeated himself. Peter just stopped him from accidentally blowing himself up.

Peter didn't even beat the Shockers come to think of it.

 

[Khev]

Vulture defeated himself.

Just like Raimi Goblin and Doc Ock.

 

[jye4ever]

Hating any movie is fine as long as it doesn't translate to simply trolling the threads dedicated to those films anytime someone says something positive. There's definitely a difference.

Do people here really go to the mods to complain that someone is coming off rude about their movies?

I just don't see it myself I have never read a negative post about a movie I enjoyed that has angered me enough to go running to a mod to complain.

If anything the different opinions is why I live here to begin with.

I never get tired of seeing a movie getting ripped apart over and over and over especially when it's being done with wit and humor.

 

[jye4ever]

Vulture defeated himself. Peter just stopped him from accidentally blowing himself up.

Peter didn't even beat the Shockers come to think of it.

Sometimes a conflicted villain works lol

But yes Peter was learning while still giving it his best.

Peter should've let him go lol

Just like Raimi Goblin and Doc Ock.

I don't think Goblin did he was ready to murder Peter with being tricky lol.

 

[Khev]

Do people here really go to the mods to complain that someone is coming off rude about their movies?

People have left the site on account of not being able to really have a discussion without their opinions being stomped on or always having to watch a positive discussion go sideways so that "trolls" (<--or whatever you want to call them) can have their fun.

We just need balance and timing is a big part of that. Believe me, I'm not trying to say that this has to be a site of nothing but sunshine and rainbows. Or no humor or sarcasm. The best way to trash a movie or do some epic and hilarious roast is to do it when either the thread is losing steam or if it really appears that no one is trying to discuss the positive sides of a movie. I think if people are trying to be positive then they have just as much of a right to NOT have their discussion crapped on as anyone who wants to make jokes or rip something apart.

And since we don't have "Homecoming the Positive Thread" and "Homecoming the Negative Thread" the best way to go about having discussions is to either take turns with haters letting fanboys having their say while naysayers get to post negative reviews without being attacked as well. And if you don't want to take turns because a movie just came out and everyone wants to talk about it NOW (like with Homecoming) then both sides just need to be civil and respectful of the other.

Really it's just basic kindergarten playground stuff that people really shouldn't have a problem with. You want to post a stupid RLM video in the RO thread right now? Go ahead. Or roast Skull Island? Have at it as those discussions have simmered and bumping those threads isn't derailing anything. But there's no need to go that route right now in this thread for instance. People should be free to have their say on both sides and yes that includes predominantly negative folks like DiFabio and/or SNIKT or whatever.

So in summary:

1. You can roast a movie, but don't only do it when people are trying to discuss what they liked.
2. If someone strategically chooses a window to roast a film that was not interrupting a cordial and/or positive discussion then said roast deserves to be left alone or laughed at without THAT person being attacked.
3. If both sides want to talk simultaneously then everyone should give respectful leeway to the other.

I don't see how the above stifles discussion or ostracizes any one person or set of opinions because our goal here is just the opposite. Encourage discussion with everyone feeling like they can contribute without a few people taking over a thread by stomping on whatever anyone wants to say.

 

[DiFabio]

Just like Raimi Goblin and Doc Ock.

No, they killed themselves, but Spider-Man still defeated them. There's a difference.

Peter in the first film gets BTFO by Norman. Then in his defeat, he comes back and whoops the Goblin's ass to the point where Norman basically cowers and surrenders. The glider going into his chest doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man pummeled him into submission. Same with Doc Ock. Spider-Man finally figured out how to overcome him and beats Ock into the water where he sits and stays until Peter makes an attempt to convince him that the energy orb needs to be shut down to save lives.

If Vulture didn't crash and mess his wings up, he would have gotten away. Peter was clearly webbing him to stop him from blowing up (his cries for Toomes to stop are proof of this), not get away. He couldn't even defend himself from Vulture repeatedly smashing head into the sand.

It would be the same scenario had Green Goblin kicked Spider-Man's ass then jumped back on a smoking, defective glider or Doc Ock kicked Spider-Man's ass and then his tentacles went haywire, but that didn't happen. Spider-Man overcame those villains with his own strength and ingenuity in those films. Just because they killed themselves afterwards doesn't make Parker's victory against them any less significant.

 

[Khev]

No, they killed themselves, but Spider-Man still defeated them. There's a difference.

Peter in the first film gets BTFO by Norman. Then in his defeat, he comes back and whoops the Goblin's ass to the point where Norman basically cowers and surrenders. The glider going into his chest doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man pummeled him into submission. Same with Doc Ock. Spider-Man finally figured out how to overcome him and beats Ock into the water where he sits and stays until Peter makes an attempt to convince him that the energy orb needs to be shut down to save lives.

If Vulture didn't crash and mess his wings up, he would have gotten away. Peter was clearly webbing him to stop him from blowing up (his cries for Toomes to stop are proof of this), not get away. He couldn't even defend himself from Vulture repeatedly smashing head into the sand.

It would be the same scenario had Green Goblin kicked Spider-Man's ass then jumped back on a defective glider or Doc Ock kicked Spider-Man's ass and then his tentacles went haywire, but that didn't happen. Spider-Man overcame those villains with his own strength and ingenuity in those films. Just because they killed themselves afterwards doesn't make Parker's victory against them any less significant.

You know what DiFabio those are damn fine points and you're right about Spidey defeating them *before* they ultimately took themselves out.

 

[jye4ever]

People have left the site on account of not being able to really have a discussion without their opinions being stomped on or always having to watch a positive discussion go sideways so that "trolls" (<--or whatever you want to call them) can have their fun.

We just need balance and timing is a big part of that. Believe me, I'm not trying to say that this has to be a site of nothing but sunshine and rainbows. Or no humor or sarcasm. The best way to trash a movie or do some epic and hilarious roast is to do it when either the thread is losing steam or if it really appears that no one is trying to discuss the positive sides of a movie. I think if people are trying to be positive then they have just as much of a right to NOT have their discussion crapped on as anyone who wants to make jokes or rip something apart.

And since we don't have "Homecoming the Positive Thread" and "Homecoming the Negative Thread" the best way to go about having discussions is to either take turns with haters letting fanboys having their say while naysayers get to post negative reviews without being attacked as well. And if you don't want to take turns because a movie just came out and everyone wants to talk about it NOW (like with Homecoming) then both sides just need to be civil and respectful of the other.

Really it's just basic kindergarten playground stuff that people really shouldn't have a problem with. You want to post a stupid RLM video in the RO thread right now? Go ahead. Or roast Skull Island? Have at it as those discussions have simmered and bumping those threads isn't derailing anything. But there's no need to go that route right now in this thread for instance. People should be free to have their say on both sides and yes that includes predominantly negative folks like DiFabio and/or SNIKT or whatever.

So in summary:

1. You can roast a movie, but don't only do it when people are trying to discuss what they liked.
2. If someone strategically chooses a window to roast a film that was not interrupting a cordial and/or positive discussion then said roast deserves to be left alone or laughed at without THAT person being attacked.
3. If both sides want to talk simultaneously then everyone should give respectful leeway to the other.

I don't see how the above stifles discussion or ostracizes any one person or set of opinions because our goal here is just the opposite. Encourage discussion with everyone feeling like they can contribute without a few people taking over a thread by stomping on whatever anyone wants to say.

 

[jye4ever]

You know what DiFabio those are damn fine points and you're right about Spidey defeating them *before* they ultimately took themselves out.

Was Vulture even trying to kill Peter on the beach, I don't think so.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The glider going into his chest

I always thought Goblin stabbed himself in the ****.