Spider-Man: Homecoming

[thecolorsblend]

And I'm tired of this trend in general. It's nice that studios now have the option to include one hero in another's film should they need to, but I think there's been a tendency of late to abuse that freedom.

More and more, I'm longing for the days of unique and simple standalone superhero films like Batman 89 and The Crow, where one hero battled one villain and there was a sense of closure at the end of it all. It's great to have movies like The Avengers and Justice League, but we need more self-contained cameo-free films to balance things out.

It's funny how awesome the Burton and Schumacher Batman films look nowadays, isn't it?

I suppose it's like anything. When the marketing department gets too involved in these sorts of things, bad things happen. The MCU nowadays is starting to look like someone created a Frankenstein.

One of the things I really enjoyed about Iron Man 3 (inferior though it may be to the original) is that the conflicts begin and end with Tony Stark through that movie. He drives a good chunk of the narrative. His flaws and failings now and in the past are a source of pain and conflict for him.

Yes, Iron Man 3 definitely makes reference to goings on in the Avengers. One must have seen the first Avengers flick to really get the most out of Iron Man 3. But it's still a standalone piece. It's not a feature-length trailer for some upcoming Marvel movie.

And the issue there is Iron Man 3 took grief for that. Had fans reacted positively to Iron Man 3 being its own thing, hand-on-heart I believe Marvel would've probably framed future releases with an eye toward jokey cameos like we saw in Thor: The Dark World but not necessarily have made every new movie a preview for something coming later on.

But fans went a different way. And I understand that they enjoy seeing these characters crossing over into each other's movies. But it's starting to affect the quality of the movie. Homecoming is basically a novelty at this point. "Look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! FINALLY!!!" There's a film being made here. A story is being told. Actors have invested themselves in characters. Writers have invested themselves in scripts. A director has invested himself in a story.

But it's like none of that stuff matters. Because look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! Who cares about the characters or the storyline? WOOOOOOO, Spider-Man is in the MCU!!!

[The Laughing Fish]

But fans went a different way. And I understand that they enjoy seeing these characters crossing over into each other's movies. But it's starting to affect the quality of the movie. Homecoming is basically a novelty at this point. "Look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! FINALLY!!!" There's a film being made here. A story is being told. Actors have invested themselves in characters. Writers have invested themselves in scripts. A director has invested himself in a story.

But it's like none of that stuff matters. Because look! Spider-Man is running around the MCU! Who cares about the characters or the storyline? WOOOOOOO, Spider-Man is in the MCU!!!

This particular paragraph has evoked some concerns I've had about the MCU lately. There appears to be a common consensus nowadays that the MCU embraces "fun", and should be praised for that alone. But there is also a rebuttal that too much "fun" i.e. comedy relief, undermines the tension and drama of the story. I was looking at some of the positive reactions to the GOTG2 on Twitter yesterday, and all I could here is the movie is fun this and that, full of heart...and yet, I saw some people suggesting the film was disjointed and even the jokes aren't as fresh as the first film. But as long as the story is fun, it doesn't really matter.

This is the biggest problem I had with Civil War's second act. People were so obsessed over that airport fight scene, it gave me an impression that they were ignoring the themes in oversight and character arcs, and analysing whether or not they stand up to scrutiny (I'll say it once more, Black Panther is the only one who had a real arc in that film, everybody else's was either tacked on or unfinished).

The earlier films certainly had their levels of fun, but I reckon they were richer when it came to content. Particularly for Tony Stark in IM1, The Avengers and IM3. Initially, Stark completes redeeming himself as the arrogant playboy who seeks take responsibility for his company's profiteering on war, learns to put his selfishness aside and become a team member for the sake of the planet, and then use his own intelligence to crack down on Killian's Mandarin hoax and overcome his own PTSD. Yes, he never shook off that arrogant, snarky bravado. But I do believe his path towards redemption was genuine.

But in AOU and CW, I can't help but feel his portrayal is going backwards. He makes a flippant remark about creating Ulton, which should've sent him to alcoholism over the fact he nearly had humanity wiped out (but somehow, he feels more guilty for being blamed for a young guy's death in Sokovia?), and manipulates Spider-Man into joining a fight that doesn't concern him. Never mind the fact the ending shoehorned a revenge theme, which appeared to have been relieved by a bloody letter.

But who cares, the airport scene was so much fun. Right?!

[thecolorsblend]

Yes indeed. And it's weird because for a long time there, the notion of a shared universe was the Holy Grail (at least for me) with comic movies. But the more of these we get, the more I wonder that maybe a shared universe is actually the inmates taking over the asylum.

I know this can be a touchy subject but Nolan insisted that his movies, love them or hate them, exist in their own immaculate reality, divorced from other superheroes. There's an argument that it was an egotistical policy. And maybe it was. But his gave his films a narrative focus which probably they would've lacked if he hadn't kept his hands so steadily on the steering wheel.

Would Iron Man 2, for example, be better regarded if it didn't have so many ties to the first Avengers flick? Maybe not. But maybe it would.

[The Laughing Fish]

Yes indeed. And it's weird because for a long time there, the notion of a shared universe was the Holy Grail (at least for me) with comic movies. But the more of these we get, the more I wonder that maybe a shared universe is actually the inmates taking over the asylum.

May I be so bold to suggest you're not really tired of the shared universe concept, but rather, you're tired of how progressively formulaic the MCU movies are becoming? I pose this question because you still enjoyed the recent DCEU films.

Look at AOU, for example. I didn't want to admit this at the time I saw it, but deep down, one of the biggest problems I had with that film is it had too many plot points that were a carbon copy of the first Avengers: brainwashing heroes, heroes fighting against each other - including another Hulk freakout, an army of canon fodder for the Avengers to beat etc. There were some great moments of eye candy for sure, i.e. the opening scene where the Avengers attack HYDRA and the chase scene in Korea. But plotwise, it left me wanting.

Even Ant-Man and Doctor Strange have been given the Iron Man treatment. As Iron Man and Iron Monger appear to be a mirror image of each other, we have Ant-Man fighting Yellowjacket, and Doctor Strange fighting Kaecilluis. Strange's origin story is very similar to Stark; arrogant rich man who redeems himself, albeit in a supernatural setting.

Now I do enjoy both movies, but how long can Marvel repeat the same formula till it burns out? What worries me is Marvel will continue as long as people keep focusing on the "fun" side, to the detriment of the movies' quality.

I know this can be a touchy subject but Nolan insisted that his movies, love them or hate them, exist in their own immaculate reality, divorced from other superheroes. There's an argument that it was an egotistical policy. And maybe it was. But his gave his films a narrative focus which probably they would've lacked if he hadn't kept his hands so steadily on the steering wheel.

I think Nolan is a very poor example to use since his movies never had much focus to begin with. 

I'd go with Sam Rami's Spider-Man series as a better example. Yes, I know Raimi didn't have to face studio pressure about starting a shared universe, but Peter Parker still had a storyline that followed through over the course of all three films.

Speaking of which, I think it's no longer fair that Spider-Man 3 gets torn apart for its humour, while stuff like GOTG gets overpraised.

Would Iron Man 2, for example, be better regarded if it didn't have so many ties to the first Avengers flick? Maybe not. But maybe it would.

What it needed was a script that actually had a story to justify its running time.

Seriously, hardly anything happened in that movie. Apart from introducing Black Widow, I can't remember anything else that tied to the Avengers. What a waste of time, from misusing Mickey Rourke with the annoying Sam Rockwell, to a half-assed introduction to War Machine, and Downey phoning it in for a few hours. I'm still relieved that Marvel was able to recover after that setback.

[riddler]

Two important points were brought up here that I would like to add my two cents on:

Spider-man in Civil war; this is the part I was most disappointed with. Not that spidery was poorly portrayed in the least but he has a critical role in the comic Civil war plot and a rather pointless one here.


The second one I thought about was also brought up here; the lack of the true solo super hero. Marvel and DC seem to both be gravitating away from this:
DC on TV: Arrow started out as Oliver and Diggle but expanded to the whole team arrow concept. I was excited after the last season when two of the four sidekicks left but then they were replaced by three less interesting ones. We rarely see the Green Arrow fight alone since season 1 and the Flash is also turning into the 'team flash concept. For instance we rarely see much of Barry Allen as a CSI which is an important part of the character. Legends of tomorrow was green lighted instead of a solo character film. I haven't seen the second season of Supergirl, she doesn't cross over as often since she's from a different earth but I'm finding her show engaging on the basis that it's one of the few which focus mainly on the main character instead of trying to establish an ensemble cast.
DC on film: Nolan gave Bale a heck of a lot more help than any of the previous batmen got; Adam West had Robin but the GCPD was useless in that series, his only other ally was Alfred and this concept carried over into the next series. Bale got help from Gordon, Rachel, Harvey Dent, Alfred, Fox, John Blake, and Selina throughout the films. And I think we can all agree that DC is clearly rushing their expanded universe. Right now we have one solo film, two ensemble films and one of each coming this year (and that's assuming Wonder Woman doesn't get help in her movie). Wonder Woman was already shoehorned in Batman vs. Superman as were Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg. Batman didn't NEED to be in Suicide squad, and the justice league is coming way too early considering 3 of the 5 main characters and even most of Batman's world has yet to be established. Now they did keep the Green Lantern movie a solo one while they easily could have had other Lanterns help Hal Jordan but since this movie tanked, it didn't help the cause for the solo hero.
Marvel on TV: I haven't seen season 2 of daredevil yet but it seems Marvel on TV is sticking with the solo hero concept. it's refreshing to see and it makes sense since they seem to be making Daredevil the team captain and his character is the true underdog who rarely gets outside help with anything aside from Foggy and Elektra. Though Ghost Rider was shoehorned into Agents of SHIELD instead of giving him his own show.
Marvel on film: It seems a similar model to DC on TV is being used to Marvel on film. All six of the characters to get individual films got their solo films but all the sequels had other characters crammed in; Nick Fury and Black widow in iron man 2, many characters in Cap 2, Loki fighting with Thor in thor 2, the iron legion in Iron Man 3 as well as iron Patriot and Pepper suiting up, cap 3 being civil war, Hulk is in Thor 3, spider-man isn't even getting a solo film, we know Iron Man is in it.

[The Laughing Fish]

Latest trailer reveals that the Spidey costume has AI similar to Jarvis.

Here are the latest posters: first is theatrical, the other is international. As a poster, I prefer the second one - the first is too busy. And why the hell is Happy Hogan even there?





My expectations on this film continue to be low, but it can't be worse than GOTG2.

[riddler]

Yeah the main complaint about the last three live action Spidey films is that there was too much going on and too many characters and I don't see this being any different. So far the MCU film this one is coming off as the closest to is Iron Man 2 so take that for what it's worth.

Keaton as the Vulture alone though is enough for me to buy a ticket.

[Edd Grayson]

Yeah the main complaint about the last three live action Spidey films is that there was too much going on and too many characters and I don't see this being any different. So far the MCU film this one is coming off as the closest to is Iron Man 2 so take that for what it's worth.

Keaton as the Vulture alone though is enough for me to buy a ticket.

Yes, it's funny, isn't it? I'm not expecting to be thrilled by this, and this is the first time I'm saying that about a Spider-Man film. I would've preferred a solo Spider-Man film despite being in the MCU. I'm more excited about Keaton being in it than anything else.

[riddler]

A common discussion these days is that with all the superhero movies coming out these days, few of them qualify as solo films. I don't like the idea of Spider-man fighting with sidekicks at all unless he's fighting multiple villains. There's that extra element of tension when we know the hero has nobody to save them if they got caught.

It should almost become a staple in any Spidey story that Peter Parker is always conflicted and juggling too much at a time. In fact I think that's the most unfair criticism against any Spider-man film: that there's too many storylines going on. The point of the character is that at any given point in his life Peter Parker is always juggling too many balls. Shoehorning Iron Man into this film is a mistake for three reasons IMO:
1) What I mentioned above. having another superhero in the background takes away from the Peter vs. the world mentality
2) the financial aspect. Part of the reason Peter juggles so much at a time is finances and resources. He doesn't tell anyone he's spider-man and thus does it all alone. Now he has Stark to be his sounding board, bank roll, and design his weapons
3) the fact that Tony Stark knows his identity. Of all the superheroes, spider-man arguably does the best job of keeping his identity a secret. This plays a big part in the Civil War comics.

[The Dark Knight]

I think it's a regression for Peter to be all about impressing Tony. To report all the crime fighting he's done as if it's a job and not a moral obligation. That's my issue with this arc right now.