Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[TREK_GOD_1]

You say that, but in Doctor Who terms, we’ve just had the equivalent of The Three Doctors. It could equally just be possible that whoever is cast next gets to be Spidey’s equivalent of Tom Baker.

Interesting comparison. Another thing to consider is that Holland's Spider-Man can be argued to only have success due to being a part of the MCU's plot and characters (shoehorned for no justifiable in-universe reason in what was supposed to be a third Captain America film), whereas the Raimi Spider-Man built its own Spider-Man universe, standing and flourishing independent of a "cinematic universe", with its interconnected plots, teases, etc.

On that note, I'm fairly sure another lone Spider-Man movie--with a new actor in the role--is not an impossibility from a practical and audience interest POV (e.g., Baker may have been a popular Doctor, but Davison followed him, cutting his own, memorable path, and the same might apply to Holland).

 

[MikHutch]

Spider Man succeeded because he was Spider Man

 

[Anwar]

The Raimi movies were pretty contrived with their plot developments, and Spider-Man 2 has real plot issues that get ignored too easily.

 

[wayoung]

The Raimi movies were pretty contrived with their plot developments, and Spider-Man 2 has real plot issues that get ignored too easily.

Undeniably, but even acknowledging that at the time 2 felt like the best super hero movie ever made. The Raimi trilogy was so big that Spiderman 3 was advertised as simply "3" in the early marketing, they didn't even need to use the spider man name.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Undeniably, but even acknowledging that at the time 2 felt like the best super hero movie ever made.

Hear, hear. It didn't hurt that John Dykstra et al. knocked it out of the park with the visuals and received a well-deserved Academy Award for it. Moreover, the unmasking scene on the train was top notch and packed an emotional wallop. Then, they kept doing unmasking scenes that were of greater and greater significance to the story, first with Doc Ock and then with Mary Jane. Also, the brilliant casting, the humor. There was so much to like in this film. It took great chances with the material and far surpassed the first Raimi film.

 

[Anwar]

Frankly, Ocks' whole character was poorly written IMO. Well acted and given spotlight but the motivations fall apart on deeper analysis, and his ending is pretty Ex Machina too.

MJ's whole subplot with John Jameson was contrived, and somehow we're supposed to be sympathetic to her and not feel bad for John who did nothing wrong.

There's more, but you get what I'm saying.

 

[MikHutch]

Idk I thought Ock being controlled by the arms' main objective made sense

 

[Anwar]

Idk I thought Ock being controlled by the arms' main objective made sense

I felt it was contrived as heck. Because it means he's not really to blame or in control of himself, so naturally at the end Peter does something to blow out the Tentacles' AI so Ock can instantly go back to being good and sacrifice himself.

Oh and that whole thing of how to stop a miniature sun...by dumping it in the river.

 

[MikHutch]

I felt it was contrived as heck. Because it means he's not really to blame or in control of himself, so naturally at the end Peter does something to blow out the Tentacles' AI so Ock can instantly go back to being good and sacrifice himself.

Oh and that whole thing of how to stop a miniature sun...by dumping it in the river.

I'm not sure how that's contrived

Aside from the sun thing

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oh, drowning the sun in the river was pure silliness. But it lampshaded that there's necessarily an element of silliness in the genre so it was really OK. Taking this stuff too seriously inevitably leads to having the fun sucked completely out of it.

 

[theenglish]

You say that, but in Doctor Who terms, we’ve just had the equivalent of The Three Doctors. It could equally just be possible that whoever is cast next gets to be Spidey’s equivalent of Tom Baker.

Jon Pertwee was my favorite Doctor.

 

[theenglish]

I felt it was contrived as heck. Because it means he's not really to blame or in control of himself, so naturally at the end Peter does something to blow out the Tentacles' AI so Ock can instantly go back to being good and sacrifice himself.

Oh and that whole thing of how to stop a miniature sun...by dumping it in the river.

That's not contrived--that's the way the movie was written and the end is foreshadowed from the beginning of the story. You are arguing that Octavius was not like his comic book counterpart and that is true--and at the same time totally coherent with how the film was written.

 

[The Knappos]

John Pertwee was my favorite Doctor.

I’ll get back to you when we’ve had the seventh live action big screen Spidey.

I mean, for me, Christopher Daniel Barnes is the definitive screen Spidey and is in barely any danger of being surpassed (IMO).

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Idk I thought Ock being controlled by the arms' main objective made sense

True.

I'm not sure how that's contrived

That's not contrived--that's the way the movie was written and the end is foreshadowed from the beginning of the story. You are arguing that Octavius was not like his comic book counterpart and that is true--and at the same time totally coherent with how the film was written.

No, its not contrived, unlike the Sony/MCU Spider-Man who had no purpose in Civil War other than obvious external factors from Disney, and spent that appearance and his first "solo" film trying to be Spidey-Lad, spewing "Mister Stark! Mister Stark!" every few minutes. This was not a strong adaptation of the comic character who was forced to grow up ahead of his years due to the weight and guilt of tragedy, yet pressed on, no matter how much his very existence threatened those he cared for, handled to wonderful degrees in the Raimi films. Nope, for the MCU, it was Spidey the Boy Wonder who was thin on substance and the personal call to action.

John Pertwee was my favorite Doctor.

Ditto--by far.

 

[MikHutch]

MCU Spider Man was not thin on substance

 

[Anwar]

That's not contrived--that's the way the movie was written and the end is foreshadowed from the beginning of the story. You are arguing that Octavius was not like his comic book counterpart and that is true--and at the same time totally coherent with how the film was written.

Instead of undergoing real characterization or character development, he has a "Good/Evil" on off switch. That's lazy as heck.

Also, Spider-Man 2 has the whole "He subconsciously hates being Spider-Man so his powers stop" nonsense and NATURALLY they immediately come back as soon as MJ is in danger. Or how Ock has Harry at his mercy and Harry says "I'll give you the stuff you need if you bring me Spider-Man" and Ock does that...instead of just torturing Harry then and there for the material.

Or how of all people MJ gets engaged to, it's John Jameson. And she cheats on him, and then she leaves him at the Altar and we're not supposed to feel bad for John.

There's also how there were plenty of moments the Gwen and Eddie Brock could've been introduced in SM2 to set up SM3 better. Yes I know they had no plans for either of them at the time but it shows how they knew there's be a third movie but had no ideas for it at the time. A little lazy.

No, its not contrived, unlike the Sony/MCU Spider-Man who had no purpose in Civil War other than obvious external factors from Disney, and spent that appearance and his first "solo" film trying to be Spidey-Lad, spewing "Mister Stark! Mister Stark!" every few minutes.

You mean, how Peter would act if he existed with other Supers who were actively trying to recruit others instead of acting like he was alone in his own little world?

This was not a strong adaptation of the comic character who was forced to grow up ahead of his years due to the weight and guilt of tragedy, yet pressed on, no matter how much his very existence threatened those he cared for, handled to wonderful degrees in the Raimi films. Nope, for the MCU, it was Spidey the Boy Wonder who was thin on substance and the personal call to action.

He was quite true to the Ultimate version, and not as incompetent as the Raimi version.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Nope.

 

[Anwar]

Yep. Raimi Peter was pretty incompetent, but no one knew any better than to say so back in 2002 and 2004. Or the plot holes/problems in those movies.

Nostalgia goggles are a heck of a thing though.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

MCU hyper-defensiveness + obsession blinds some to the obvious about its failings.

 

[Reverend]

It's worth bearing in mind that the tone of the original Rami movies are vastly different from the modern MCU Spider-man movies, or indeed, the 'Amazing Spider-Man' duology.
Rami was deliberatly going the full camp and melodrama route; channelling the original 60's version of the character that he grew up with (which also plays into why he had no clue what to do with Venom.)

One can debate personal preference all day and all night, but when it comes to the writing and plotting, there's objectivly just no comparing old with new. They're entierly different animals, and that's by design. One might as well judge the old Adam West 'Batman' against the Nolan movies; it's silly to even try.