Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

[thecolorsblend]

Marvel Studios continues dick-imprinting (and thus delegitimizing) all previous incarnations of Spider-Man with their "home" branding.

I swear, the more time goes by, the more it looks like Disney, Marvel and Lucasfilm are all run by the most insecure, penile envy-afflicted creatures on the face of the Earth.

No, I don't like this title.

[The Laughing Fish]

Marvel Studios continues dick-imprinting (and thus delegitimizing) all previous incarnations of Spider-Man with their "home" branding.

If you think that's bad, try watching Spider-Man: Homecoming.

I don't care what anyone says, bringing Spider-Man into the MCU was one of the worst things they've ever done. But who cares, as long as they're making money, right?

[The Dark Knight]

If word around the campfire is true, Maguire, Garfield and a bunch of other villains are coming back. The issue I therefore have with re-using 'Home' in all the titles is they could feasibly apply to any of the Holland movies. This movie could easily be called Far From Home with those alternate reality characters entering the scene.

[The Joker]

Only thing I am interested in at this stage, are the appearances of the previous Spider-Men/Villains. If they are just regulated for a after-credit sequence in order to provide a "trailer" for DocStrange2, then I'll just watch that scene online and skip seeing this next "Home" movie in the theaters just like I did with the last one. 

[Silver Nemesis]

There are reports of a casting call for courtroom extras: https://movieweb.com/spider-man-no-way-home-daredevil-cameo/

How disappointing would it be if we went to see this expecting Matt Murdock to be Peter's lawyer, and instead it turned out to be Jennifer Walters as a lead-in for the She-Hulk show? That would be quite possibly the cruellest bait-and-switch in CBM history.

Only thing I am interested in at this stage, are the appearances of the previous Spider-Men/Villains. If they are just regulated for a after-credit sequence in order to provide a "trailer" for DocStrange2, then I'll just watch that scene online and skip seeing this next "Home" movie in the theaters just like I did with the last one. 

I've got a similar perspective on the movie, except for me the possibility of Daredevil's return is also a major lure. I'm not emotionally invested in the Holland Spider-Man's story arc, if indeed it can be described as such. So I don't mind spoilers. I just want to know two things:

1)   Is Charlie Cox's Daredevil in this?
2)   Is Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man in this?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is yes, I'll go and see it. If the answer to both of those questions is no, then I'm out.

[thecolorsblend]

Marvel Studios continues dick-imprinting (and thus delegitimizing) all previous incarnations of Spider-Man with their "home" branding.

If you think that's bad, try watching Spider-Man: Homecoming.

I don't care what anyone says, bringing Spider-Man into the MCU was one of the worst things they've ever done. But who cares, as long as they're making money, right?

In a way, I can understand why Marvel wanted to change the character up under their own management. Spider-Man has been done quite well in the past so it makes sense to break away from that.

But here's the thing. As I've said before, his Raimi and Webb origins aren't quite perfect. In Amazing Fantasy #15, Peter gets powers and basically becomes a major league a-hole. He could've stopped the thief but he chose not to. He had no motive for doing that except that he was a jerk. Period. And then he paid the price later.

That has never been done in live action even tho it's the foundational element of the character. Getting that wrong is as egregiously bad as showing young Bruce with a dark side before the Wayne murders.

Anyway, there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow waiting to be picked up and Marvel Studios didn't do it. A shame.

[Gotham Knight]

Marvel Studios continues dick-imprinting (and thus delegitimizing) all previous incarnations of Spider-Man with their "home" branding.

If you think that's bad, try watching Spider-Man: Homecoming.

I don't care what anyone says, bringing Spider-Man into the MCU was one of the worst things they've ever done. But who cares, as long as they're making money, right?

In a way, I can understand why Marvel wanted to change the character up under their own management. Spider-Man has been done quite well in the past so it makes sense to break away from that.

But here's the thing. As I've said before, his Raimi and Webb origins aren't quite perfect. In Amazing Fantasy #15, Peter gets powers and basically becomes a major league a-hole. He could've stopped the thief but he chose not to. He had no motive for doing that except that he was a jerk. Period. And then he paid the price later.

That has never been done in live action even tho it's the foundational element of the character. Getting that wrong is as egregiously bad as showing young Bruce with a dark side before the Wayne murders.

Anyway, there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow waiting to be picked up and Marvel Studios didn't do it. A shame.

I would argue that Raimi actually got that one right by adding the motivation. Part of the message is that even when you feel justified in reacting angrily to someone who has flagrantly mistreated you, it doesn't means its okay to do the same because there are consequences anyway. The promoter's jerkery does not make yours good. This bit just adds to the power and responsibility stuff. You have to do right all the time, not just when it is convenient or when you think it is deserved or not. The promoter being an ahole doesn't mean Peter isn't one. It was more important to do right, not less, because of the way he had been treated. The core theme of AMF 15 remains the same and in fact there is a little dimension added. Hardly egregious.

"This guy, Flash Thompson. He probably deserved what happened, but just because you can beat him up, doesn't give you the right to."

[The Laughing Fish]

Let's face it, Marvel knows how to pander to lazy audiences nowadays, so any attempts to explore the origin story would've been met with "we've seen this before!" complaints from people who don't care about context and how it differs from past interpretations.

With that said, my growing distaste for MCU Spider-Man has nothing to do with the lack of origin story. My issue is trying to make him this happy-go-lucky goofy character dimishes the conflict among the Avengers in Civil War. All that trouble and talk overaccountability and Sokovia Accords, and yet, Peter Parker still thinks it's all fun and games. No real consequences. He has no reason to be in CW on the first place, and Homecoming really drives home that his appearance was purely commercial.

And don't get me started on his terriblly unfunny quips throughout Infinity War. He and most of the Guardians of the Galaxy characters bring down every dramatic moment they're in. I don't mind humour, but now the MCU has resorted to this bathos style of comedy that I have no tolerance for, and Spider-Man has become an example of that.

[thecolorsblend]

Kevin Feige Addresses The Potential Returns Of Marvels Netflix Heroes
https://www.superherohype.com/tv/493689-kevin-feige-addresses-the-potential-returns-of-marvels-netflix-heroes

"I think we probably could do it, I think a lot of that stuff comes back to us," said Feige. "There's always rumors online about things reverting, sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not, but I'm not exactly sure of the exact contracts but perhaps someday."

Am I crazy or is that a non-denial? Don't bet the ranch on it or anything. But it seems to me that Feige is being coy. He's not about to blow the lid on a Cox cameo appearance. But he didn't exactly deny anything either.

[thecolorsblend]

Golly, so this happened.



A Netflix exclusivity deal for all theatrically-released Spider-Man movies. If I didn't know better, I'd think Sony just fired a shot across the bow at Marvel.