Spoilers Spider-Man: Homecoming-- Grading and Discussion

[Star Wolf]

Has Peter signed the Accords? And can he do so without May's authority or knowledge?

I believe that Peter Parker is only the second enhanced person who has not reached the age of majority shown in the MCU so far before the Freeform shows kick off. The first was killed by Agent May years before the Accords were thought of. I can only look to Yo-yo on the Agents of SHIELD as our only example in the MCU of living as a signatory to the accords and guess yes Peter Parker has signed or some kind of court made Tony Stark a guardian for him in some way. They both have trackers on them with an authority, SHIELD in Yo-yo's case The Avengers in Stark's presence in the Peter's. With The Watchdogs and others hunting down Inhumans ,which by all rights everybody in the MCU should be assuming that is what Peter is, there is a reason for his identity to be shielded beyond his minor status.

 

[Venardhi]

Civil War didn't exactly specify very well who and what the Sokovia Accords had authority over, but Peter isn't operating internationally (apart from his part in the airport skirmish) and so probably isn't in violation of them.

 

[Gaith]

But my chronological nit is..."Space Age Love Song" by A Flock of Seagulls, being played at a high school homecoming in 2017? Is '80s retro a really big thing with the kids right now? If so, I'd have thought that would have been last decade.

Aye, I had a pleasantly surprised chuckle when I recognized that song - a far better one than the vast majority of stuff that played at my public high school "dances". But hey, no complaints there.

I do think that Watts' and Feige's comments about how this would be a John Hughes-esque movie were pretty overblown - apart from the obvious reference or two, and despite the charmingly small scale of the action and stakes (even the events of Ant-Man could have been hugely consequential had the Pym tech gotten into HYDRA hands), this really didn't feel John Hughes-ish to me at all. (What, Peter's suit's AI couldn't have been voiced by and/or named after a Hughes actress/character?) In fact, I get far more of a Hughes vibe from ASM1, with its great Peter-Gwen relationship based on awkward flirtation and even (gasp!) family class differences, and teenage angst. The Homecoming high school stuff felt more like a TV sitcom - not a bad thing per se, it's just the whole "Hughes-ian flavor" seems like false advertising. Maybe a more honest promoting of a "Saved by the Bell flavor" didn't test as well?

My favorite moment, though, was Pepper's return - I was totally surprised and unreasonably happy to see that she and Tony, two fictional people, were back together. It makes complete sense that they'd have been on pause during Civil War, so that Tony'd be at his lowest, but I'm glad they worked things out (again). And I also had started to think the suit and press conference offer was a test, so the reveal that it wasn't was damned funny also.

So, I liked it. Safe, lightweight, and entirely enjoyable: B+.

My personal Spider-ranking:
1. ASM1
2. Tie: SM:H and SM2
4. ASM2
5. SM1
6. SM3

SM2 is almost certainly a better movie than SM:H, but though I'd have to rewatch SM2 to be sure, I'm pretty sure I prefer SM:H. Raimi's MJ at her best pales next to ASM1 Gwen, and I even prefer ASM1's Connors to Doc Ock, even if the former was in large part a ripoff of the latter. And for all SM2's very real strengths, I don't like SM1 or SM3 much at all, which sours things. Anyhow, a strong start, and I look forward to more depth next time around. (We'll just all pretend that recruiting a minor to be a child soldier isn't a real-world war crime, yeah?)

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

I am not a huge fan of Kirsten Dunst and it was always a hassle to watch her as MJ, who I am already not a fan of as a character. This is a large part of why I don't like the Raimi movies. The other large part is that I am not a fan of Toby Maguire either, especially when he's Peter Parker, however SM2 is definitely a good movie despite both of them being in it. I am unable to sit through SM3 after seeing it the first time, so when ASM1 came out and Gwen was just so wonderful I was really hoping that ASM2 was going to be anything but what ASM2 actually ended up being.

 

[Gaith]

Yeah, it seems ASM1 gets crapped on from all sides: from Raimi fans, for existing at all, from MCU Spidey fans, for not being MCU, and from sheer association with ASM2. ASM1 isn't a perfect popcorn flick, but I think it's a damn good one, and deserves better than being indiscriminately lumped in with ASM2 (if it's even remembered at all).

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

I didn't even know ppl hated ASM1! I thought all the hate was for ASM2. ASM1 was my favorite Spidey movie up until Homecoming, which only scores higher for me because of the added bonus of being in the MCU.

 

[Anwar]

Apparently people didn't like that Peter was portrayed as a flawed person who could do things for less than noble reasons.

No matter how human those reasons were.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Apparently people didn't like that Peter was portrayed as a flawed person who could do things for less than noble reasons.

No matter how human those reasons were.

And the retread of an origin that was done better years before. And the awful and boring subplot with the parents. And how stupid the characters were written. And...

I think I liked ASM2 a smidgen more than the first, at least the Peter/Gwen stuff (plus ASM2 has the best onscreen depiction of Spidey's suit to me). But both were awful and I'm glad they're being swept under the rug for McGuire and Holland to duke it out over who had the best in the franchise.

 

[LJones41]

I think I liked ASM2 a smidgen more than the first, at least the Peter/Gwen stuff (plus ASM2 has the best onscreen depiction of Spidey's suit to me). But both were awful and I'm glad they're being swept under the rug for McGuire and Holland to duke it out over who had the best in the franchise.

I don't even recall the differences between Maguire and Garfield's suits. And the only reason I have any memories of Holland's suit was because it was supposed to be this tech wonder created by Tony Stark.

 

[Dream]

Homecoming made me realize that I don't care about high school stories anymore. I hate the hipster kids, random parties, and the adults being depicted as morons.

I'm super glad the Raimi movies rushed through high school.

 

[Tosk]

I think I liked ASM2 a smidgen more than the first, at least the Peter/Gwen stuff (plus ASM2 has the best onscreen depiction of Spidey's suit to me). But both were awful and I'm glad they're being swept under the rug

I only just realized recently that I agree, sort of.

While ASM2 is just awful, I'm more likely to watch it for the good parts than I am ASM1. At least ASM2 has a good looking suit, a Parker who comes across less like an ass, and I don't have to slog through all the "we just did this!" origin related stuff. I tend to skip the parent subplot in both though. Blecch.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

I saw it last night. My first Spider-Man movie. I was more a fan of Tom Holland and the guy who played his friend than the movie itself. They had some fantastic one-liners!

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

He's also a 15 year old kid who has superpowers and is fresh off of fighting with (and against) the Avengers. And, yes, it's stated several times in the movie that he feels like he can do more good by working with the Avengers. Steve was an adult in his twenties, living in a country that was facing its greatest threat, with millions of people including his best friend shipping off to fight it. Very different circumstances, very different levels of mental and emotional maturity. To think that there's any legitimate comparison between the two is simplistic, at best.

No, its simplistic to think he's some mere boy, when he's "mature" enough to face off against the dangers of the American streets (his videos), yet he has no sense of greater purpose for doing anything above and beyond his own interests. I cannot forget that his film takes place after Civil War, where Parker knows there's a larger, more serious world out there, yet he's just giddy to join the club, and seems completely ignorant of the serous issues facing the world, or even his mentor.

The Raimi Spider-Man also featured a high school student, but that film--true to character origins--did not excuse any personal fallings just to get to the heroics. Raimi's film had Parker learn what it meant to misuse his extraordinary gifts at a terrible cost, so it justified his crusade. Time and again, Homecoming has no such motivation or purpose behind his Spider-Man-ing. If the sequel does not explore (no, add) a greater purpose to this character (e.g. his "not wanting to" put his aunt through something again, whatever that implies) he will just be there to be there (for Disney & Sony interest, above anything else).

 

[Anwar]

Time and again, Homecoming has no such motivation or purpose behind his Spider-Man-ing. If the sequel does not explore (no, add) a greater purpose to this character (e.g. his "not wanting to" put his aunt through something again, whatever that implies) he will just be there to be there (for Disney & Sony interest, above anything else).

You're discounting all the comic stories where Peter is just doing his thing and there's no mention of him angsting over Uncle Ben.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You're discounting all the comic stories where Peter is just doing his thing and there's no mention of him angsting over Uncle Ben.

I'm talking about the start point of this film series--the early times of Parker as Spider-Man, where his great failure (nowhere to be found in Homecoming) would weighs on and gives him the purpose to take on his crusade. By the way, the comic version had Parker referring to his responsibility either with direct references to Ben, or others he's lost thanks to his existence on numerous occasions, to the point where he's referred to himself as suffering from the "Spider-Man curse"--even applying it to a time before the start of his career (meaning the act of selfishness that cost Ben his life).

 

[Anwar]

I'm talking about the start point of this film series--the early times of Parker as Spider-Man, where his great failure (nowhere to be found in Homecoming)

We've had nothing BUT that in Spidey movies for 15 years now. No need to keep hammering it into the audiences' heads when they'd rather see Peter have adventures.

By the way, the comic version had Parker referring to his responsibility either with direct references to Ben, or others he's lost thanks to his existence on numerous occasions, to the point where he's referred to himself as suffering from the "Spider-Man curse"--even applying it to a time before the start of his career (meaning the act of selfishness that cost Ben his life).

Not in every single issue and every since story.

 

[Reverend]

I'm talking about the start point of this film series--the early times of Parker as Spider-Man, where his great failure (nowhere to be found in Homecoming) would weighs on and gives him the purpose to take on his crusade.

They already covered that quite neatly in Civil War. 'Nuff said.

 

[Dream]

Who are you people trying to convince?

There is no right or wrong answer. This all comes down to preference, and I agree with TREK_GOD_1.

 

[Tempest]

I found this movie a little bland. And not a fan of the dumbassery on Peter's part.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Who are you people trying to convince?

There is no right or wrong answer. This all comes down to preference, and I agree with TREK_GOD_1.

The problem isn't opinion, it's tone and attitude.

Not everyone should have to come into these films with a lifetime of comic-induced baggage and preference.

I had NO notion over the finer points that people are arguing about in this thread. I enjoyed the film (overall) for what was presented in front of me. Not whittling it down to 30 year old story arcs or presumptions of what must make a SM film good.

Still, some posters simply can not express an opinion without it coming off as "fact". And a supercilious, encyclopaedic tone gets tiresome quickly

There is an apparent minor disconnect within the character because everything isn't spelled out like it was in Raimi's films, which basically had to as they were built from the ground up. That's my BIG flaw in the Marvel model. Inter-connectedness is fun for the superfan, ticking off and noting every beat and easter egg. But for the casual fan, things get missed or forgotten. Like that scene @Reverend posted, which clearly depicts Peter's backstory in one scene without spending 1/2 a film retreading old ground. I'd forgotten about that and it does a nice bit of character heavy lifting. That whole subplot felt out of place in CW and could have been slid nicely into SM:H, but it's already out there and, perhaps from Marvel's perspective, there's no point in running over it again.

It's supremely hard to satisfy fans and general audience members alike and overall I think Marvel does a fair job of straddling the middle line. The problems with many of their films is not adhering to older iterations of the characters but, rather, finding half-finished playgrounds to let their versions romp in. Their stories need more work, more depth. Only a few have actually nailed that properly, hence why many (whilst still enjoyable) feel so thin, especially on rewatch.

I had fun with film whilst I was in the theatre and the characters, the cast, a few of the action scenes and the overall tone still sits with me. Unlike say Dr Strange or Ant-Man, both of which I can only recall the finales, where some actual imagination was used in the story beats.

So it was a success. But then I don't expect much from these films. Just a bit of fun is just fine. If they do something truly impressive and connect with me then brilliant, but so far they've only fully succeeded three times and James Gunn owns two of those.

Hugo - has never read a Guardians of the Galaxy issue and probably never will.