Deleted User wrote: » I'm also suspecting a fair few of these may amount to very brief cameos rather than extended screen time.
2smiggy wrote: » an 'into the spider verse' live action attempt !?
CastorTroy wrote: » Turns out they can't fit Tim Holland into this film
Trailer
ah man, why did they stick that Marvel grey filter onto sam raimis movie? It’s probably my own fault for thinking that Disney would have allowed raimi to put some colour into it.
has Doc Ock had work done?
Raimi didn’t make this one, he’s directing the next Doctor Strange.
There's only one Spiderman 3
Teaser trailer my ass, they practically showed the entire movie.
And what I just saw, I'm really not sure about. There's very much a JJ Abrahms feel about it, and not the good kind. Altering space-time through the power of magic? Really?
I said this to someone just the other day, the Marvel movies I enjoyed the most were all where the main character I was never interested in in the comics. E.G:
Ironman 1
Black Panther
All the Avengers films
Dr Strange
Ive been a major Spider-man fan for over 30 years and hated all his movies, with the exception of Sam Raimi's second attempt(which was OK) and Into the Spider-verse(which was terrific). The Avengers version of Spider-man with nano tech courtesy of Tony Stark, meh. And I'm sorry but in no universe should the character of Aunt May be played by the ridiculously good looking Marisa Tomei.
whoopsie-daisy. My comment on the gray filter remains unchanged.
Whatever about filters, I always have trouble seeing Spider-Man in any environment or location other than New York. He feels like a MCU character whose "thing" is intrinsically tied into a place as well as abilities. Just feels weird to me, watching him swing around Venice, or space! Homecoming worked partly because it kept the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in the neighborhood.
Holland has nailed the part though, love his physical energy; was a great piece of casting.
@johnny_ultimate could we rename the thread to the actual name please?
The Home trilogy is my least favourite cinematic interpretation of the character for the same reason why putting Batman in the Justice League does not work: the moment you put Spider-Man in the Avengers he comes insignificant. It's also not helped by Sony allowing Marvel to stress Peter's adolescence and having him be a Iron Man fanboy. Don't love Tony Stark being a proxy for Uncle Ben either. Now they have to put Doctor Strange in there as well - it's as if Sony has lost their confidence in Spider-Man and feel like they need other characters to make him cool.
TBH I would have preferred to see Andrew Garfield's version in the Avengers because at least he was already established as a neighbourhood badass. Tom Holland does a good job but his films don't feel like Spider-Man films to me. Sony's Spider-Man films had a certain mid 90s feel to them (even though they weren't released in the 90s, I know, hold your horses). It's a feeling that's not too dissimilar from Venom (which is why I liked it so much).
Playing the 2018 Spider-Man game only highlighted what's wrong with Tom Holland's version. In that game Peter still has all the vulnerabilities of being a regular Joe (who just so happens to have these amazing powers) but he's still The Man and the game treats the character respectfully.
That said, Marissa Tomei as Aunt May was great casting. Who says aunties can't be hot? Hot aunties FTW.
Oh for sure. I’d actually say the two Spider-Man films have been among the most anonymously directed of the MCU films - really no particular visual style or energy to them at all. The Raimi Spider-Man films are flawed (especially the third 😅) but they do have a certain comic book exuberance and vibrancy. I’ll be curious to see how his MCU film looks - his Oz film shows Raimi can very much get lost in modern blockbuster blandness, but he does have a proven affinity for comic book fare.
Going by precedent, I imagine the Dr. Strange sequel will look like a Sam Raimi film during the scenes that aren't the action set pieces. Though the given Strange has the more psychedelic FX perhaps he'll have more creative control.
More anonymously directed than Iron Man 1-3, Avengers 3-4, Captain Marvel and well basically everything except Thor 3, GOTG and at a stretch BP? I am not sure that's possible!
I actually find Watt's first Spider-Man more distinctive than most of the other MCU films. The sequel somewhat less so. It certainly isn't more blandly directed than the others, Watts just isn't well known compared to Favreau, Whedon etc. However I definitely agree that this entry looks bland but that's possibly just due to trailer editing or the fact that this is the ninth, tenth (?) Spider-man movie in 19 years.
I really hope we get camoes from the old spider man trilogy (both Tobey Mcguire and Andrew Garfield versions)
Anyone else think this multi verse thing could 1 and done kind of deal.
Dr. Strange 2 is titled "Multiverse of Madness" so it'll at least make it to Stranges next appearance anyway.
It seems a bit suspect that the entire conflict of a movie can be brought about by the heroes self-interest.
I'm struggling to get why Strange would be so careless to go ahead with this.
And that the details (Oh, but don't make MJ & Ned forget) wouldn't be ironed out prior to him actually being mid-spell.
That said, do hope we get some fun cameos, and Sinister Six action.
As the Pitch Meeting writer character says "... so the movie can happen". It does seem a little sloppy but hopefully the scenes with Strange add a little more context
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ae95441af6570c932058bb1c78524df6.svg)
