Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

[Greg Cox]

Why? Why does Peter Parker/Spider-Man has to be perpetually a teenager? He aged in the comics. Why won't Hollywood allow him to age or be slightly older in the films? And I don't see why Andrew Garfield's Spidey couldn't be in "Civil War". The writers would simply have to re-write the story to fit a somewhat older Peter Parker. I find it hard to believe that would be so hard.

But why bother? What would be gained by that except keeping the same actor around for a few more movies? Would that have improved CIVIL WAR?

And doing so would beg the question of why nobody has heard of Spider-Man yet. Plus, it might confuse viewers as to whether the last two Sony movies were part of the overall Marvel movie continuity instead of allowing Marvel to make a fresh start when it came to introducing Spidey to the MCU. Better perhaps to start over with a new Spidey, and since the MCU doesn't have a teen hero yet . ... bingo, you kill two birds with one stone.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Garfield was fine in the part, but he wasn't the first or even the second actor to play Peter Parker and the new kid, Holland, won't be the last. There will be another Spider-Man someday, just like there have been multiple actors playing James Bond, Batman, Dracula, Zorro, etc. That's just how it goes. No actor owns a role forever.

I mean, you don't see people demanding that Nicholas Hammond be allowed to play Spidey again.

 

[Christopher]

No, he doesn't have to be perpetually a teenager, but that's how he works best.

I'm puzzled why people think that. In the comics, Peter Parker's high school career lasted 29 issues and three real-world years (counting the half-year gap between his first two appearances). He was in college by issue 31 of Amazing Spider-Man. He graduated college in issue 185 in 1978. For most of his existence as a character, Peter has been portrayed as a young man in his 20s. His teenage years were a brief phase in his history.

I can see the value of doing Spidey as a teenager in the MCU, but it's not about fidelity to the source. It's about adding something new to the universe, since we haven't seen a teen hero in it before, and he brings a fresh perspective. He's someone who's grown up in a world where Iron Man and other heroes exist, so it's shaped his life and his worldview, and that's potentially interesting to explore.

 

[LJones41]

What value? What value is there by having an adolescent Spider-man in the MCU? Why on earth does the MCU need a goddamn teen hero in the first place? Why? Why is it that every damn time they get a new Spider-man, he has to go back to the goddamn high school? I get so sick and tired of it.

I mean, you don't see people demanding that Nicholas Hammond be allowed to play Spidey again.

What is the point of this comment?

 

[Skywalker]

Well, if these new Spidey movies move in real time like most of the MCU does (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 apparently takes place not too long after the first movie), Holland's Peter will be out of high school soon enough.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I'm puzzled why people think that.

I enjoyed the first 100 issues (plus) of the Ultimate run more than the first 100 issues of Amazing Spider-Man. The originals were more creative, by far, but the emotion worked better for me and was more consistent with Ultimate Spider-Man. Bendis showed us time and time again why Peter works wonderfully as a teenager. And since the Ultimate universe is being mined extensively enough for the MCU, why not do the same with Spidey? Heck, look at the visuals of Ned Leeds and say he wasn't inspired by the Ultimates' Ganke.

Highschool Spider-Man gives us more stories and a different perspective perspective to the universe than an older Parker would. I thought Stephen Strange tread too much ground as Stark, personally, and Parker can easily fall into that trap, too (see the current comics especially).Teenage Parker can't even come close to that, thank goodness, and it keeps him pretty unique.

 

[Greg Cox]

What is the point of this comment?

Just to stress that, for some of us, we're on our fourth live-action Spider-Man anyway, so why worry about Spider-Man 3.0 being replaced by Spider-Man 4.0. Recasting Spidey is a time-honored tradition at this point.

And what's wrong with teen heroes? Who says every superhero has to be an adult? And a young Spidey makes a nice contrast with cynical, worldly Tony Stark or sophisticated Stephen Strange or family-man Ant-Man or timeless living legend Steve Rogers or rugged, battle-hardened Hawkeye, etc. You want different personality types and voices to keep things interesting.

It's not about Spider-Man on his own anymore. It's about how Spidey fits into the overall dynamic of the MCU. And teen Spidey makes more sense than, say, teen Black Widow or teen Howard the Duck . ..

 

[Samurai8472]

What value? What value is there by having an adolescent Spider-man in the MCU? Why on earth does the MCU need a goddamn teen hero in the first place? Why? Why is it that every damn time they get a new Spider-man, he has to go back to the goddamn high school? I get so sick and tired of it

Because the MCU never had one at this point? It's unexplored territory. The previous Spider-man movies glossed over this period of Peter Parker's life quickly

We've been in the "adult" MCU world dealing with the adult's problems since 2008.

IronMan- Shady business deals with shady business men

Captain America- Part political intrigue and government corruption

Thor- cosmic issues

Guardians of the Galaxy- WAAAAY out there galactic issues


It's time go to the ground level and look at how teens in the MCU feel about Cap and Iron Man

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's not about Spider-Man on his own anymore. It's about how Spidey fits into the overall dynamic of the MCU. And teen Spidey makes more sense than, say, teen Black Widow or teen Howard the Duck . ..

Come on. Howard the Duckling would rock!!!

 

[Sci]

The only explanation I have for the nearly masturbatory love of either Garfield or MacGuire is that they were people's first exposure to the character, and that created a very unfortunate connection for them.

Is that really a thing? I mean, there are some Garfield defenders, sure, but he was never a choice that I thought inspired a general consensus.

Personally, my take on it is that I always thought Maguire was the perfect Peter Parker -- geeky, insecure, awkward, sometimes off-putting -- but not the best Spider-Man, because he wasn't charismatic or charming enough. Whereas I thought Garfield was a wonderful Spider-Man, with his ability to be charismatic, charming, and funny, but was not a very good Peter Parker--I never once believed this kid ever had trouble getting a date.

I do have a lot of affection for Maguire's iteration of the character, because while he may not be the perfect Spidey/Peter, he was perfect for what Raimi was trying to do in those films. And because Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were two of the most important films of my late adolescence -- they're both just fantastic flicks that came along at the perfect time in pop culture history. Bob Chipman has a really great entry in his Really That Good series about why they were such wonderful films.

But it never quite struck me that Maguire's version of the character was so beloved as what you're describing.

Tom Holland has done a great job of portraying both Peter and Spidey from what we've seen so far, and he's being handled by people who actually understand and want the character to succeed, as opposed to using him/them only as a cash cow and to retain their license.

The great thing about Holland so far is that he is able to pull off the trick that Maguire and Garfield both failed -- he's the awkward geek as Peter, and the funny, charismatic charmer as Spidey.

 

[dahj]

Making Spidey a teenager is clearly a reaction to the popularity of Baby Groot

 

[DigificWriter]

Tom Holland is fine for what they're going for, but he just doesn't interest me the way that both Maguire and Garfield did. I still plan on seeing the movie, but, again, only because of my enduring love for the character of Spider-Man in general.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I thought the Gwen/Peter relationship in the Amazing Spider-Man duology was the only well-written part of those films, but I thought they were really marvelous together. In particular, Stone's Gwen was a more vividly realized character with much more agency than Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane (who was herself really more of a composite of Gwen and M.J. from the comics). I also felt that the sequence of Peter grieving Gwen's death was very well-done. Shame their wonderful chemistry and well-written relationship was wasted on two otherwise fairly mediocre films.

I hope Spider-Man: Homecoming and the rest of the MCU Spidey films find a female lead as worthy as Emma Stone was.

That graveyard sequence is one of my favorite visual/atmospheric moments from any superhero movie. Right up there with the death of Ultron, Wolverine attacking the Black Clan, the airport battle with Giant-man, the "I'm always angry" shot, etc.

What value? What value is there by having an adolescent Spider-man in the MCU? Why on earth does the MCU need a goddamn teen hero in the first place? Why? Why is it that every damn time they get a new Spider-man, he has to go back to the goddamn high school? I get so sick and tired of it.

I agree with all the other answers that have been provided already, but I think it's also worth pointing out that Marvel is looking for a long game here. Spider-man is clearly being set up as an increasingly major player in the future of the MCU, maybe even a potential replacement for Iron Man when RDJ stops being a credible action star. Casting as young as possible gives them a much longer time in which they can keep doing Spider-man stories and keep Spider-man at the center of their universe. Which also means you can relax, already, because this Spider-man will grow up and be a twenty-something character soon enough, and he'll probably stay around without rebooting back to high school longer than any other live action version so far.

 

[DigificWriter]

At this point, I think it is very premature to assume that this partnership deal will last beyond the six films for which Tom Holland is currently contracted, only 3 of which will actually make Marvel Studios/Marvel itself any money.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

At this point, I think it is very premature to assume that this partnership deal will last beyond the six films for which Tom Holland is currently contracted, only 3 of which will actually make Marvel Studios/Marvel itself any money.

Well, they're giving themselves plenty of options if the partnership falls to pieces. But they'd be pretty stupid to just assume it will and not take the future into consideration at all, and you can bet they want their flagship character on the screen as much as humanly possible while they have the access, however long that lasts (and really, unless Homecoming bombs somehow, Sony would be total morons to back out of this partnership, since they clearly have no clue how to manage the franchise alone and the mere existence of the partnership is already proof that they must recognize that fact).

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Why do you assume that Sony would be the ones to back out of the deal? Marvel doesn't need to stick with the deal if they were to decide that it's not profiting them to do so given that, as I pointed out, they only make money on the films featuring Spider-Man that they themselves finance, which, under the current contractual agreement they have with Sony, amounts to 3 films (Civil War and two others).

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^ Why do you assume that Sony would be the ones to back out of the deal? Marvel doesn't need to stick with the deal if they were to decide that it's not profiting them to do so given that, as I pointed out, they only make money on the films featuring Spider-Man that they themselves finance, which, under the current contractual agreement they have with Sony, amounts to 3 films (Civil War and two others).

Which isn't really true at all. Marvel profits hugely in the creative sense from being able to use spider-man and his associated characters, and MS has shown a consistent understanding that taking care of the creative side leads to financial profits in itself. Also, Marvel/Disney controls Spider-man merchandising, which means all good Spider-man movies stand to make them a ton of money, one way or another. Not to mention those 3 movies they're not getting profits from are also 3 mcu movies they don't have to pay for, either, which is massive free advertising at the very least.

And Marvel backing out of the deal would be both bad publicity and a potential creative headache in having to write Spider-man out of universe he'd already been inserted into, and having to themselves maybe even lose money that had already been invested in development of potential future Spider-man projects.
If Marvel didn't think this deal was going to go well for them, the time to back out would've been before it was signed in the first place, not after they're already in deep.

 

[DigificWriter]

I don't think either party will end up ending this partnership, but I also don't think it's wise to take its perpetual existence as a given, either.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't think either party will end up ending this partnership, but I also don't think it's wise to take its perpetual existence as a given, either.

Nothing is a given, but in so far as anything in Hollywood can ever be reasonably predicted, I'll lay odds that the MCU is going to be around for a long time and that Spider-man is going to be a major part of it for a long time.

 

[Christopher]

I mean, you don't see people demanding that Nicholas Hammond be allowed to play Spidey again.

Might be nice to see him make a flashback cameo as Uncle Ben, though.

I enjoyed the first 100 issues (plus) of the Ultimate run more than the first 100 issues of Amazing Spider-Man. The originals were more creative, by far, but the emotion worked better for me and was more consistent with Ultimate Spider-Man. Bendis showed us time and time again why Peter works wonderfully as a teenager.

I think that whether a story works has more to do with how it's told than what it's about. If Bendis had chosen to tell stories about Spidey as an adult, he probably would've told them just as well.

And the Ultimate universe was only around for, what, a decade or so? Versus half a century of main-universe Spidey as a twenty-something hero. If Spidey didn't work as an adult, then he wouldn't have had such a long, successful run. So clearly he does work as an adult, even if he also works as a teen. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Bendis's alternative approach, or with Kurt Busiek's in Untold Tales of Spider-Man, but that's just it -- they're alternatives. Not everything has to be a winner-take-all conflict between two mutually exclusive options. Spider-Man can work as either a teenager or an adult, because Spider-Man works, period.

Although for me, it was definitely satisfying writing Spidey as a married, seasoned adult in my 2007 novel Spider-Man: Drowned in Thunder, because his relationship with Mary Jane gave me a lot to work with and I think it enriched him as a character to have a partner like that in his life. I think the fact that he'd been through a lot over the years and gained a lot of hard experience gave me a lot to work with in writing him, and I'm not sure it would've been as interesting to write him as a novice with less experience and fewer emotional scars. But then, I've never tried writing him at that stage, so I can't say for sure.

And since the Ultimate universe is being mined extensively enough for the MCU, why not do the same with Spidey? Heck, look at the visuals of Ned Leeds and say he wasn't inspired by the Ultimates' Ganke.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with an Ultimate-based approach. I just don't think that praising the Ultimate approach requires devaluing the standard approach, to say that only one of them gets to work. They can both work. They do both work. You don't have to deny the value of adult-Spidey stories in order to express the value of teen-Spidey stories.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Just to stress that, for some of us, we're on our fourth live-action Spider-Man anyway,

*raises hand*

What value? What value is there by having an adolescent Spider-man in the MCU? Why on earth does the MCU need a goddamn teen hero in the first place? Why? Why is it that every damn time they get a new Spider-man, he has to go back to the goddamn high school?

Why not? This is a new Spider-Man, not that bizarre, stammering misfit as portrayed by Garfield that never played as young (in or out of high school). Further, no one said he's going to be in high school throughout his MCU appearances. If you look at the progression of a few MCU characters, they do not stay in the same phase of life in every film. As the MCU moves forward (however long it lasts), the Holland Spider-Man should not be expected to be some big budget version of one of those asinine TeenNick or Disney series.

I get so sick and tired of it.

Then exercise that ultimate power...a power greater than Captain America's mighty shield...stronger than Mjolnir...the power to...avoid seeing Homecoming, because Parker.Spider-Man is a teenager.