Spider-Man: No Way Home *spoilers from post 185*

FunLover18

Has Ben ever been mentioned by name in the Home trilogy? You'd think when Maguire and Garfield were speaking about their Bens, our Peter might have said something and there was a conspicuous lack of Ben on May's gravestone.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118464123#Comment_118464123

I don't think so. There was a suitcase with his initials on it that Peter had in Far From Home, but I don't think his name was ever actually spoken.

I think while he did exist and died, his role in Peter's life isn't the same as the Maguire/Garfield ones. He likely died a fair bit earlier and so Aunt May has taken on the role of both May and Ben.

johnny_ultimate

I think the MCU relies a lot on the actors being charismatic in lieu of actual interesting characterisation. I'd put Tom Holland’s Spidey in that category - obviously a good screen presence, but I don't believe his trilogy has much of a novel or focused 'take' on Spider-Man (unlike Raimi's films). But again that's a wider problem with the MCU.

Agent Coulson

I don't think Marvel or Disney see it as a problem at all considering they have made over 20 billion in box office profits from 27 movies and that profit will continue to grow no matter what they churn out over the next decade.

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118462118#Comment_118462118

He was never even an Avenger really. Pushed into the MCU team up for the sake of it, Spiderman and all his properties. Avengers was a b team to X-Men, for second rate heroes who couldn't stand on their own.

Since it got huge due to the MCU, Spiderman and his properties are still too big to need the Avengers or MCU. Spiderman acting as a protege to Iron Man was a joke..

Before I wanted Marvel to get the rights to Spiderman back, now I'd prefer Sony hold onto them. He and his properties are far too big to be a MCU sideshow, nor do they need it

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118454217#Comment_118454217

Strange post. You pick certain traits to suggest the first two actors didn't nail Spidey/Parker, they almost did, but not fully, from how you envision Parker.

Then you praise the incarnation who was least like him. You say you didn't read the comics, but seem aware of how an early Parker was portrayed. So I don't see how you could view Holland's take as good, he was nothing like Peter at that age

The Golden Miller

As a side note, I think it should be acknowledged just how popular Spiderman has become since his creation. An enduring popularity never seen before really. To this day, the everyman, who everyone can relate to.

There are huge franchises like Star Wars, Harry Potter or whoever. Global brands. But purely from an individual level, one singular character, nothing has ever had the continued impact and appeal of Spiderman.

My mate put it to me one day, he loved Iron Man and his films. Into cars, could relate to the tech stuff or whatever. A few years later said the character bored him, a fad or phase.

Spiderman for decades, transcends that and continues to do so, regardless of what's the in thing. His enduring popularity as the everyman is something everyone can relate to and is timeless.

People may role their eyes but I think it's fascinating. My daughter, now 6, watched his cartoons as a toddler, interested, and now watches them in a manner where she understands them. A large proportion of every demograph and minority relates to him on some level, an unintended, huge reaching appeal no other character has ever encompassed, or had that impact.

I'm confident you could reboot his films every year for the next 20 years with the same origin story over and over again, and people would still go to see it. I always thought the characters persistently huge and widespread appeal is incredible.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118464593#Comment_118464593

How is Raimi's take novel deemed novel? It was the first time the character was really on the big screen and basically the second blockbuster comic book movie - everything at that point was novel.

I don't see it as being based on them being charismatic, MCU do a great job in making their heroes likeable and having the audience care about them. Their characters then take interesting archs that the audience is invested in - some seem to put 'interesting' over engaging. MCU did a better job engaging the audience with Garfield's Spider-man over a few minutes on screen than Sony did with 2 movies.

MCU's take on a younger Spider-man is far more novel and interesting than what Sony did with Garfield's iteration, which was basically lets do a rethread but throw in some weird stuff.

flazio

Remind me, wasn't the spell "the whole world will forget Peter Parker"

Well what about those not on the world. Nick Fury, Peter Quill, Nebula etc. They still remember him don't they?

Busi_Girl08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118484111#Comment_118484111

I think the assumption is that it's universe-wide.

MCU universe-wide though...

Not a zealot of these comic movies myself but did find this an interesting overview of the history of the Spider-Man movies and how the Sony deal with Marvel drove the releases and influenced Marvels moves into production

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/28/1076531156/the-spider-man-problem

EoinMcLovin

https://twitter.com/SpiderManMovie/status/1496485006759251970?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1496485006759251970%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-10683754463406971254.ampproject.net%2F2202042210001%2Fframe.html

B.A._Baracus

Finally saw it tonight. I enjoyed it but thinking that being late to the party kinda ruined it. As I knew about the three spideys and aunt may.

Lesson learned I guess is to see these movies pretty quick.

Agent Coulson

I felt the two shoving the snow in Sanctum Sanctorum should have been Shang-Chi & Katy,

seraphimvc

Finally get to see it last week - I have heard bits and bobs beforehand but pretty much has no impact to my experience.

So ya nostagia factor to the max, DocOct and Willem dafou stole the show hard, and not to my least surprise that we have 3rd installment of Tom Holland's spiderman and he is still not the 'core' character in this another movie supposedly about himself/spiderman.

I enjoyed it overall (nostalgia warmy feeling and god damn DocOct and Willem performances are on another level), but I just can't help to feel pity on this writing with so many missed opportunities. My god they were given a big pile of amazing source materials and this is how they did it - nothing get fleshed out (again DocOct Willem truly stole the show with their limited screen time), rushed and lazy plot devices throughout the film. I mean, the project basically cannot fail due to the massive source materials given to it and somehow it makes me felt disappointed. Well, why do I get my expectation up for a marvel film aha.

The film feels cringey at times like Tom Holland calling himself spiderman 1 and it is so american that 'oh i will fix you' - seriously did no one tell them by doing that they are fcking up the multiverses/timelines further lol. The death of Aunt May - i am sorry the scene just felt forced since she has been a comic relief all these times - and ya come on adrenaline rush or not, they let her live to do that scene after the point blank explosion...And I don't know why but that Michelle-Jones pissed me off lolol - why is she the only one with such different name vs other people in multiverses? Oh ye subverting expectation huh.

And oh so smart that the whole trilogy is Tom Holland's spiderman origin story - ya you know when Strange casted the spell to make everyone forgets Spiderman = Peter Parker - why is that not impacting to other Peter Parkers? Oh because Tom Holland's spiderman apparently is the Main timeline now? I mean sure it is so convenient Strange's spell send back the other Peters and the villains, that's it. That spell is the strongest (plot device) ever that it could delete all media footage of Spiderman = Peter (just imagine the spell is able digitally delete some pictures of the newspapers records lol), and also apparently stopping Tom to write down the facts right there for MJ and Ned.

Anyway, I am just glad that Sam Raimi didn't work on this - I think Multiverse Madness fits his dark/grimmy style better and most importantly less attachments like a spidey movie nowadays.

And ye you know what, I would recommend Into the Spiderverse even more after watching this - now THAT is how a good project on spidey multiverse looks like, with so much fun and thoughts put together.

The Phantom Pain

So, finally caught this on Apple TV and all I have to say is, Andrew Garfield:

TryingNot2Lie

Saw it tonight and loved it.

After a really tough day, I wanted some switch-ff-mind kind of entertainment.

I've been a huge Spidey fan for over 30 years, so obviously know alot about the canon, but despite veering from canon in places (Aunt May should not be that hot), I still loved it, and the nods to the previous movies in their various incarnations.

PTH2009

Spoiler Warning

A bit confused but do The green Goblin and the others actually stay alive in there universes ?

pixelburp

Finally caught this, finally, and yeah a very enjoyable ride, even if it was powered by a huge amount of nostalgia. One of the stronger, recent MCU films; the obvious takeaways were the other Spider-Men, both effortlessly playing the role again - with Andrew Garfield kinda stealing the show. I was sad to see them go. But then that was also kind of a problem: yet again, we had a Tom Holland Spider-Man where he wasn't really the lead of his own story. At least here it was down to it being more of an ensemble piece - than a Tony Stark tale, featuring Spider-Man along for the ride.

Specific props too for taking Alfred Molina's Doc Ock and redeeming him; it was something of a small quibble of Raimis own film, letting him die a villain than have his young friend save his soul. Molina and Dafoe both left their mark, and reminded that memorable, punchy villains remains a sticky problem with the MCU.

Also, might just be me but while the cinematography was as blah as ever, it felt like they got rid of the drab colour grading. Seemed a more colourful film than usual in the series. The colours stronger, richer but maybe it was just me.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118844141#Comment_118844141

I've seen that complaint come up before that Holland's Spider-Man hasn't been a lead of his own movies but I watched Homecoming last week for the first time in a few years and expected it to be full of Stark. He however barely makes an appearance and I confirmed on IMDB that he clocks in at less than 8 minutes of screen time, with Holland having 76 minutes.

Stark does feel like a bigger part in the movie but that is the world this iteration of Spider-Man is navigating, not an eastern european in a rhino costume. Even with the MCU background the first two movies are clearly focused on Holland and his nemesis in the given movie.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848517#Comment_118848517

Far From Home was more egregious, but I've found the trilogy had stood itself, and Peter, within the shadow of others, thematically or otherwise. Stark acting as surrogate mentor or father figure, with Happy Hogan the cheaper option when the Downey Jr time ran out. Peter always seemed to orbit bigger people's lives than forming his own. It hasn't been a huge problem mind, just a curious choice.

Especially the sequel which was, basically, about Peter inheriting the mantle of nu-Stark in the Avengers (the villain more interested in the Stark tech than having some personal connection with Peter ala Doc Ock from Raimi's Spider-Man - and what there was was a ruse). And while No Way Home had similar with its other Spider-Men demanding focus through the excitement of its returning actors, the ending felt like perhaps Marvel felt similar?

It was a big reset button, all that Stark tech pushed off the board so Spider-Man could become just a guy in a costume again, saving the day, locally. I know he has travelled the cosmos in the comics but there was always something wrong with Spider-Man battling aliens on spaceships in Infinity War, scuttling about on his tech legs. YMMV obviously

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848779#Comment_118848779

I don't feel it was a curious choice at all, it was a refreshing and much needed break from what we'd seen from the 5 movies before it.

Seeing Parker getting to grips with being Spider-Man as a small yet important fish in a very big pond, alongside the Avengers, was a great change of pace from the previous two attempts at the character. Holland's Spider-Man has always been the core of his own movies, the backdrop was just bigger and to me far more interesting than whatever slightly tweaked regurgitated version of his origin story in Queens would have been if they tried to build him from the ground up again. The youth and perspective of a teenager also worked so well with the ensemble movies so it was a win/win.

As you say, the reset should now have him back at street level and the foundation of future stories and the audience has their palate's cleansed from what came before, much more interested in seeing him put in this position.

kerplun k

It’s a valid complaint IMO. Civil war was an ensemble, Homecoming, he’s in the shadow of Happy and Stark. Infinity war and Endgame are ensembles. FFH he’s still in the shadow of Happy, the loss of Stark is central and he’s taking orders from Fury and NWH, is basically another ensemble. He’s never really been front and centre of any films that he’s starred as SpiderMan.

Effects

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118470559#Comment_118470559

Tony always came across like an arrogant knob end. Someone like that won't have the same kind of appeal.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118776962#Comment_118776962

Everyone knew about the three spideys before the film even came out. Surprised they managed to keep it under wraps for as long as they did.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880854#Comment_118880854

Saying he was in their shadow seems a bit much... his solo movies were still very much his movies. Just because another element of the story is that he has extra people putting burdens on him doesn't mean he's not 'the guy'. Those are story beats, adding further tension and conflict to his own journey in how he choses to navigate them.

In a way they just replaced the traditional pressure and expectation that Uncle Ben's death puts on him, with the pressure and expectation Stark puts on him. Starks presence and then his, and now May's, deaths have brought him on the same journey he always goes on in the different iterations.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880854#Comment_118880854

Screen time shows that he has clearly been front and centre in every one of his trilogy - as noted earlier Stark is on camera for less than 8 minutes in Homecoming and Fury and fake Fury about the same in FFH.

Parker is teenager and has always been either seeking approval from father figures, mourning loss, or taking orders in practically every one of the movies in the previous iterations of Spider-man, especially when they were as young as Holland and I've never seen it be claimed that he wasn't front and centre in those movies.

The 'complaint' seems to be far more that the movies contain established MCU characters that Parker interacts with than based on either the reality of screen time or the actions of Spider-man (which is a completely valid complaint btw but different than what it is being posed as)

kerplun k

Think the 8 minutes adds more weight to the argument TBH. Homecoming starts off with Stark making a deal with the US government, setting vulture up as the antagonist, Stark then recruits Parker for Civil War, Parker then spends the next chunk of the film hassling Stark, trying to get his attention, he’s then rescued by Stark in his first fight with Vulture. Parker and Ned then hack the spider man suit which is owned by Stark. Spidey is again rescued by.. you guessed it, Tony Stark. We then find out Vultures plan is to steal Starks tech, the film ends with Parker winning Starks approval who invites him to join the avengers and offering a new Stark suit upgrade.

For someone with 8 minutes of screen time, he sure does cast a long shadow over the film.

pixelburp

How many minutes a character has on-screen isn't a barometer of how much of an effect they can have on a story. How much did Darth Vader appear on-screen in Star Wars? Or the titular character in the Wizard of Oz? Or John Doe in Se7en (or indeed any serial killer film)? Obviously, a character's impact is more than just the sum total of minutes they can be seen. As kerplunk says, characters can cast long shadows over the rest of the tale. Just finished re-watching Glengarry Glen Ross and Alec Baldwin has 2-5 minutes of screentime.. yet his presence (and threats) persist throughout the rest of the film.

Anyway. "Complaint" implies my enjoyment was severely curtailed, whereas my original point was more a critical observation about the direction and focus these MCU Spidey films have taken. No Way Home was ultimately a lot of fun - even if it sometimes served to remind us that Jon Watts is not Sam Raimi. While I hope the Sam Raimi working Dr. STrange 2 gets to be Sam Raimi; that'd be nice.

But the sequel of this kinda-trilogy galvanised what Homecoming circled around. Far From Home's entire narrative was centred around Peter literally - as well as metaphorically - inheriting Stark's legacy (by dint of those McGuffin magic-tech glasses). While No Way Home seemed like an attempt to course-correct all that, by scrubbing Peter's transition into Tony Stark Jr. The antagonist in Far From Home, albeit via a 3rd act surprise, was someone trying to steal the tech glasses & headed a bevvy of ex-Stark employees. Peter was just collateral, part of the con in that classic trope of the conman and mark forming an unexpected bond.

In fact, if I remember, the downtime was spent with Peter fretting over the loss of Tony Stark, and if he could take on the mantel Tony had obviously set before him. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, recent comics have taken that same path: with Peter Parker becoming CEO of a tech company in some stories (though open to correction there, been a while). So it all has form.

Stark as a proxy Uncle Ben isn't a terrible idea by any stretch, and a good read of things, but tying Peter's story so rigidly into Tony's world was a choice I didn't buy into; that's all. Can agree to disagree on choices taken without it being a question of right or wrong. While also leaning a little too much into the MCU in being always connected to something else - the idea that nobody is allowed have their own adventures anymore without it tying back.

But it's done now: Spider-Man is - for now - back to being just some random kid swinging about in a homemade costume and I'd put a small sum of monies on the next film maybe, maybe, involving a team-up with Daredevil and some "street-level" stories about New York. The villain being Morbius 🤓

flazio

No, no no. You do not bring back Vincent D'Onofrio's Wilson Fisk and not have a Spider-man v Kingpin face off.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118881984#Comment_118881984

Young Parker always lives in shadows of other characters in the movies, why it suddenly a complaint with Holland’s iteration? For example, you could easily make a similar list as your post regarding how Osborn pervades and drives Parker’s narrative in the first Maguire movie.