Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Turtletrekker, Mar 6, 2015.

  1. WebLurker

    WebLurker Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Fair enough (I mean, literature is usually of higher quality than comics). I just meant that I think that some of the more popular superhero franchises have things that appeal to a wide range of audiences than just the kids.
     
  2. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 20, 2001
    Location:
    West Haven, UT, USA
    Which actually has very little, if anything, to do with the viability of the comic book as a medium and the audience for which said medium is intended.
     
  3. Serveaux

    Serveaux The Wind Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Location:
    SoL
    I have this tattooed on my...uh, soul (yeah, that's the ticket...)

    Except that then I can't eat as much ice cream. FAIL.
     
  4. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Adults were actively reading comics since the dawn of the superhero in the medium. That was not Marvel's innovation, and even as the company moved in the soap opera direction, they took cues from (or outright ripped off) the work of others, as in the case of the misfit/angsty Doom Patrol--the clear as day inspiration for the X-Men.
     
  5. WebLurker

    WebLurker Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Can't speak for how viable the medium is (I've heard the market is not very good, though). Most of the comics I've seen seem to be teens or adults, except for a few kids stuff. But, then, I'm not much of a comic reader, so I may not be that versed in what's what for target audiences.

    (To the point of the OP, I'm generally looking forward to the movie. It doesn't look like it'll be exactly the Spider-Man movie I wanted or replace the Raimi movies as the definitive film version of the character, but Tom Holland still appears to be an excellent Spider-Man and the movie looks like it'll be great when taken on its own terms. Can't wait to see Iron Man and Vulture interacting with Spider-Man on the big screen.)
     
  6. LJones41

    LJones41 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Location:
    I'm from Long Beach, CA.
    Oh god. I forgot that Iron Man was in this film.
     
  7. suarezguy

    suarezguy Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    I'm far from optimistic about this movie ...
    The Webb movies already felt too much, too often like change for the sake of change and here the setting and supporting characters seem yet more different.
    Despite my issues with Garfield, Holland doesn't seem a lot if at all more faithful to the original character and the plot seems a little too centered around wanting to be an Avenger.

    I thought Maguire was a little too nerdy (mostly in the first movie) but Garfield felt not nerdy at all.
     
  8. M'rk son of Mogh

    M'rk son of Mogh Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Unlike, say, his first issue of Amazing Spider-Man in 1963 where the plot was a little too centered on wanting to be a member of the Fantastic Four?
     
  9. Kahless the Unforgettable

    Kahless the Unforgettable Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    That's fine! It was the so-called "fans" that said, say, Guardians of the Galaxy were going to suck for a multitude of silly reasons -- err, no, I'm sorry. That they were "far from optimistic" about it for a multitude of silly reasons.

    Everyone else, however, could see Marvel had a hit on their hand once the first trailer was released. The same is true of this one. They actually understand their characters and have a vested interest in seeing them succeed. Sony (and every other company that took advantage of Marvel and DC way back when) just seem them as cash cows to be milked, or at least to maintain control over the properties.

    Which do you think is the winning recipe there? It's kind of a no-brainer to me, doubly so after having actually seen the trailer. In fact, I can't even fathom how any fan of the character thinks its going to be worse than the crap Sony churned out. Again, sorry, are "less than optimistic" about them compared to the past fares.
     
  10. suarezguy

    suarezguy Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    The plot of one issue doesn't necessarily make a good plot or focus for a movie and it makes more sense to me that, as in the comics, after a team initially rejects him he would feel he also doesn't need them (rather than continue to look up to them).

    I think the problem is that with a really young hero, especially one who seems young, you probably can't get too intense with the tone or action or villains.

    The making of TASM did feel to a large degree about keeping the property but with Marvel in the last decade erasing Peter's marriage (through the devil) and reviving Harry and briefly killing Peter off and replacing him with Dr. Octopus in his body it's questionable how much Marvel today understands the character. I think, despite some flaws, Raimi's films, at least the second one, were a lot truer to the character and best comics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2016
  11. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Did you actually read that storyline? I think The Superior Spider-Man showed a very good understanding of Spider-Man, by showing how Otto Octavius's lack of Peter Parker's essential empathy and humility made him a poor substitute for the real thing. Much like how the '90s Knightfall storyline where Azrael took over as Batman and became an ultraviolent, overweaponed '90s-style antihero was meant to refute the arguments that Batman needed to become an ultraviolent '90s antihero by showing exactly why a character like that would be a bad Batman.
     
  12. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Really? He's a teenager, not an eight-year-old. We're not talking HOME ALONE or ANNIE here. Nobody is going to balk at subjecting to him to PG-rated comic-book jeopardy along the same lines as that found in any other Marvel movie. ("May contain scenes of fantasy violence.") And how "intense" do we want it to be anyway? This is Spider-Man, not WATCHMEN. Nobody wants an R-rated Spider-Man movie.

    Here's the thing: a young-adult protagonist does not mean that it's a YA story, aimed strictly at teens, any more than making a child the protagonist in a story means that it's a children's story. (See TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, LORD OF THE FLIES, etc.) Plus, Hollywood has been putting teenagers in "intense" situations since the 1950s at least, as proven by pretty much every slasher movie ever made! :)

    In short, making him a teenager doesn't mean HOMECOMING has to be less intense than, say, IRON MAN or CAPTAIN AMERICA.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2016
  13. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Actually YA stories can get pretty dark and violent. The Hunger Games is YA. Heck, most comics these days are aimed at teens and they can get quite dark and intense. After all, teenagers don't see themselves as children; they see themselves as burgeoning adults and they're drawn to the exploration of adult ideas and themes. That's why the genre is called "young adult," after all.
     
  14. WebLurker

    WebLurker Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    I'm no fan of the Webb movies and I agree that a lot of the changes were just for the sake of change, but I think there's one difference between those changes and the ones that we seem to be getting in Homecoming; the Webb movie changes were often at odds with the spirit of the franchise. Even if Homecoming is very different in the characters and settings, it feels very faithful to the spirit of the Spider-Man mythos, esp. in the emphasis of Peter being a guy who's leads a normal life outside of his superhero career. (It's also worth noting that the movies seem to be taking elements from the Miles Morales Ultimate Spider-Man comics, so the changes are arguably rooted in authenticity. Also, from the trailer, I think the supporting cast seem to be working well on their own terms.)

    While there are some differences, Holland seems like he's on the right spectrum for the Peter character and I think the Avenger angle makes sense given the MCU setting and Peter's involvement with them in Civil War. For what it's worth, Homecoming is also using the Ultimate comics as one of their main inspirations for this take on Spider-Man, and in the Ultimate Clone Saga story arc, we learn that Peter wanted to become an Avenger very badly.

    Maybe. I never had a problem with Maguire. I really thought his movies captured the ideas of Peter being a normal person thrown into the superhero world, the idea of him being a decent person overall, the facts that his civilian life were the things that drove him forward (the major plots that tied the trilogy together were his relationships with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn), and the ways that his normal and superhero life overlapped and interacted, in ways that often caused headaches. I think Maguire remains the definitive live action Spider-Man to date and am really happy that Holland's version seems to be running along the same spectrum.

    My main problem with Garfield was in the writing. He came off as brooding and angry; a rebel without a cause. While other version of Peter do angst, it comes across more reflective and/or focused on non-anger-related emotions. Unlike Maguire, he felt nothing like any of the versions of the characters from the comics. In fact, he was nothing like Ultimate Peter, whom Garfield's version was ostensibly based on. (I think Garfield was a decent casting choice; he's clearly a good actor, gave his best, and the fact that he loved the character came through. Like Emma Stone, he was hobbled with a script that really botched the characters.)

    I've tried reading Dan Slott's stuff. The man does not demonstrate a good understanding of Spider-Man from what I've read of his comics. I found Superior esp. sickening and had to give up on it. The one exception I have found to this is the Renew Your Vows miniseries that Slott wrote for the Secret Wars event. That was a good story and was written in a way that understood Spider-Man and built the story around the themes of the franchise. I don't know why Slott can't or won't do the same in the main series, but it doesn't speak that well of him. To be frankly honest, there are many other modern-day Spider-Man creators who have proven to have a better understanding of the mythos and have created series and runs that are arguably much better in terms of quality, consistency, creativity, and just plain good storytelling than anything in Slott's Spider-Man portfolio.

    In other words, the whole point of the story was to prove something we already knew? Sorry, not interested.

    (I may be unfairly biased, but the modern Spider-Man comics have torn out everything that I loved about this character and his world, and Slott is responsible for most of those decisions. Since Spider-Man is my all-time favorite superhero, this is an extremely sore subject for me. So, I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.)
     
  15. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Neil The Hippy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Scumbag College
    Not every story is aimed at "us".
     
    Dimesdan likes this.
  16. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Which just makes me wish they'd gone ahead and used Miles Morales as the MCU Spider-Man, instead of grafting his story onto Peter Parker.


    He was fine for what he was. He was just a version of Peter Parker that was changed to be Tobey Maguire-like. Not bad, but different.

    My biggest problem with the Raimi/Maguire Spidey is that he almost never engaged in quips and banter as Spider-Man -- just one or two feeble jokes here and there, and otherwise silence. Spider-Man without the nonstop banter is like Thor without a hammer. It just doesn't feel complete.


    I see it very differently. There's a lot of anger and frustration in Peter/Spidey. You can't really grow up as a bullied nerd without having some pent-up rage and resentment. It's just that he usually directs his anger at himself, at his own failures, or channels it positively into his crimefighting. I agree Garfield's Peter was edgier than usual, but I felt he was closer to the mark than Maguire was, because he was a wiseass. Maybe a bit too much of one, but he still was one.

    Although it might've been better if Garfield's Peter had been more subdued as Peter and only let the full wiseass out as Spidey. That's the usual approach -- that being in the mask loosens his inhibitions and lets him be more bold and assertive.

    I think ASM2 did a great job with Spidey/Peter as a character, and Stone's Gwen in both movies was a far more effective character than she ever was in the comics. The problem with ASM2 is that it got Peter, Gwen, and May so right and got everything else so wrong.


    Again, I disagree. Just because someone's interpretation doesn't agree with yours, that doesn't mean they "don't understand" the character, just that they understand the character differently than you do.


    Define "we." The audience is not monolithic in its familiarity with the characters or its attitudes toward them. In any fandom, in any audience, there will be multiple conflicting points of view. As I said, in the '90s, a lot of comics readers argued vocally that a Batman who didn't kill was quaint and unbelievable and that the character "needed" to become another Punisher or the like, some overblown, gun-laden vigilante drenched in blood and testosterone. Knightfall was the Batman writers' and editors' counterargument to that perception. The fact that many in the audience didn't already know or accept that is why they felt the story needed to be told.

    Understanding is not a given. It's something that needs to be worked for and earned. Sometimes people lose track of the real essence of an idea because they take it too much for granted. And so the core messages need to be restated from time to time, the core ideas re-examined. Repeating the exercise helps to maintain the strength of the idea, just as with a muscle or a skill.


    I don't know if this is part of what you're talking about, but just to be clear, Slott wasn't responsible for ending Peter and MJ's marriage. That happened while J. Michael Straczynski was still the head writer, and it was mostly Joe Quesada's decision, IIRC. Slott was just one of the team of writers who came on board after that to restart the series with its new status quo, along with Mark Waid, Marc Guggenheim, Bob Gale, Joe Kelly, and others. Slott didn't become the solo writer until about three years later. And as much as I hated the decision to end the marriage -- and as utterly dreadful as the writing in that story was -- I felt that the subsequent work by those writers in the wake of the change was good enough that it made amends for the awfulness of the change itself. It's like they were the team brought in to rebuild a city after a hurricane wrecked it, and I think they did a good job of that. Yes, it was different from what came before, but it was interesting in its own right.
     
    WebLurker and grendelsbayne like this.
  17. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Good point. YA novels are very edgy these days. I was reading a fun YA zombie novel yesterday that had Walking Dead levels of violence and heartache. The only difference was that the focus was almost entirely on teenagers and kids, since the zombie virus only affected adults.
     
  18. Thestral

    Thestral Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    My only problem with bringing Spidey into the MCU is the same problem I have with talk of folding the X-Men back in at some point: one of the great advantages of Marvel not having Spider-Man or the X-Men is that it required them to explore some other characters. Would we ever have had Iron Man kicking off the MCU, or gotten Guardians of the Galaxy, let alone Ant-Man, if Spider-Man movies could be made?

    We're already seeing shuffling and Captain Marvel keeps being pushed back. The problem with "all the eggs in one basket" is that less well-known characters get overlooked to pump out Cash Cow #33 because one studio can only do so much. I'm sure Tom Holland will be fine and I thought his appearance in Civil War was great, but... we've had 5 Spider-Man movies already.
     
  19. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Well, yeah, but that's the advantage of waiting eight years to bring Spidey in. Now the other characters have a collective weight and history behind them that MCU Spidey doesn't yet, and moreover, he's grown up in a world shaped by them. This Spidey starts out as the protege of Tony Stark, so even if he ends up replacing Iron Man as the anchor of the MCU, he's still carrying the influence of Iron Man and Stark technology.

    There's also the consideration that, even with the integration of Spidey into the MCU, Sony still controls the character's film rights. So that would give Marvel a reason to continue playing up the characters they own fully, rather than relying too heavily on a Sony-controlled character.
     
  20. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 20, 2001
    Location:
    West Haven, UT, USA
    To follow up on Christopher's point about the rights situation and how it affects Marvel's use of Spidey in the MCU, Marvel Studios only makes a direct profit from movies featuring the character that they themselves finance, meaning that, as much as having access to Spidey enhances their creativity, they didn't really agree to this partnership with Sony for financial reasons, and can't really pin the financial future of the MCU on him because he's only partially financially viable to them.