Spider-Man: Far From Home anticipation thread

[Grendelsbayne]

Thank you. Reminding me of those characters convinces me even more that the fall from grace is the far more compelling story.


Which sounds like a weak villain motivation for a film like Spider-man.


In an animated movie made for all ages. I expect Spiderman movie villains aimed at a more mature audience to have more depth with a strong character arc.

IOW, you just dislike the idea in general. No need to hide behind 'wouldn't alternative x be more original'.

The difference to most of those characters would be that they were just relatively normal people.

An actual superhero turning bad I haven‘t seen so often.

Mordo clearly qualifies, as does Batman. Also Jean Grey (soon to be twice over). Pyro in X2. Magneto in First Class. Really, half the cast of First Class. Sinestro. If we're including MCU tv, Davos from IF and Elektra from DD.

 

[Skywalker]

If these Elemental-ish characters really are a combination of Sandman, Hydro-Man, Molten Man, and...Cyclone? and the Elementals, then what if instead of them being projections created by Mysterio, maybe they're real and Mysterio is working with them? They cause havoc and he shows up with his illusory light show, "defeats" them and saves the day, and secretly splits his rewards with them.

 

[Saul]

IOW, you just dislike the idea in general. No need to hide behind 'wouldn't alternative x be more original'.

No need to make that kind of comment here. We are talking about a Spiderman movie and I stick by what I said.
I dislike the idea and considering how most people have summed up the general motivation of the villain from the trailer (as Samurai8472 did) it would be a fairly predictable and unexciting storyline. That is, if it actually happens to turn out like that in the finished film.

 

[Captaindemotion]

This is the reasoning of a youngster.

“But I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.” (Bob Dylan, My Back Pages)

Edit: feck it, I see @Greg Cox beat me to that line!

 

[Grendelsbayne]

No need to make that kind of comment here. We are talking about a Spiderman movie and I stick by what I said.
I dislike the idea and considering how most people have summed up the general motivation of the villain from the trailer (as Samurai8472 did) it would be a fairly predictable and unexciting storyline. That is, if it actually happens to turn out like that in the finished film.

If my tone offended you I apologize, but your position honestly makes no sense. It's one thing to say that your story idea is better in your opinion. It's quite another to say that a story concept which has rarely ever been done in a live action superhero movie is 'too predictable' while one that has been done several times over (including in the MCU itself) somehow magically isn't. It's nonsense.

And the claim that people making predictions from the trailer is somehow proof of your assertion is just bizarre. People in this thread are able to put some clues together that most people wouldn't because *they're familiar with the source material*. Calling that 'too predictable' is like saying it's 'too predictable' for Batman to be gruff or Superman to be kind or the X-Men to be hated and feared by the world they protect.

 

[Saul]

If my tone offended you I apologize, but your position honestly makes no sense. It's one thing to say that your story idea is better in your opinion. It's quite another to say that a story concept which has rarely ever been done in a live action superhero movie is 'too predictable' while one that has been done several times over (including in the MCU itself) somehow magically isn't. It's nonsense.

And the claim that people making predictions from the trailer is somehow proof of your assertion is just bizarre. People in this thread are able to put some clues together that most people wouldn't because *they're familiar with the source material*. Calling that 'too predictable' is like saying it's 'too predictable' for Batman to be gruff or Superman to be kind or the X-Men to be hated and feared by the world they protect.

Let's look at what I said...

"..it seems like a somewhat predictable plot. If he was an actual good guy that goes bad I might find that more interesting. I'd like to see more than one villain too. "

"Pretending to be good and creating fake villains is a familiar plot from Saturday morning cartoons.(i recognize the irony in saying that)

"sounds like a weak villain motivation for a film like Spider-man."

"That is, if it actually happens to turn out like that in the finished film.".

So you've twisted my words "somewhat predictable" into "too predictable" to justify this continued attack on me and try to trump me with your argument. With the added "nonsense" and "just bizarre" as extra digs at me.

Why is this a thorn in your side and why are you taking what I say as me preaching the gospel? Should I tack on "in my opinion" at the end of every sentence? I thought when I used words such as "seems like", "sounds like", "I dislike", and "if" it was clear that it was my opinion. The fact that I'm writing this on a message board should be clear enough of that.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Let's look at what I said...



So you've twisted my words "somewhat predictable" into "too predictable" to justify this continued attack on me and try to trump me with your argument. With the added "nonsense" and "just bizarre" as extra digs at me.

Why is this a thorn in your side and why are you taking what I say as me preaching the gospel? Should I tack on "in my opinion" at the end of every sentence? I thought when I used words such as "seems like", "sounds like", "I dislike", and "if" it was clear that it was my opinion. The fact that I'm writing this on a message board should be clear enough of that.

1. I haven't 'twisted' anything. When you say 'A seems like a somewhat predictable plot. I'd rather they do B instead' you are implying that A is more predictable than is acceptable and B is not. I honestly see no other possible way to interpret that statement.

2. Calling a statement nonsense is not an attack or a dig. I neither said nor implied that you were stupid or a terrible person or anything of the sort. It was a discussion about a claim you made, not a discussion about you as a person.

3. I don't take anything you say as 'gospel-preaching'. The fact that this is your opinion was always abundantly clear - but opinions are not beyond discussion, and I replied because I found this one to be founded on questionable facts. This is a very normal thing to do on a discussion board, at least in my experience.

But it seems clear that my tone is still causing problems even though I have tried to moderate it, so I'll simply leave it at this:

I never intended this to be anything more than a simple discussion about a point of disagreement and I am sorry that you felt in any way harassed. I hope you have a good weekend and that you find the movie enjoyable whenever you're able to see it.

 

[Saul]

I never intended this to be anything more than a simple discussion about a point of disagreement and I am sorry that you felt in any way harassed. I hope you have a good weekend and that you find the movie enjoyable whenever you're able to see it.

Thanks man. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Water under the bridge as far as i'm concerned. Have a good weekend too.

 

[Captaindemotion]

An amicable resolution to an internet argument. Haven’t you guys read the rules of internet posting?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

An amicable resolution to an internet argument. Haven’t you guys read the rules of internet posting?

We're rebels.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Very unpopular opinion, since the Raimi movies were the only Spider-Man adaptations to come as close as possible to getting it right, unlike--for one example--the horrible Garfield movies with its stammering, ready-for-the-looney-bin Parker and empty villains.

I really liked Raimi movies..as they seemed to be made by someone who has an appreciation of comics culture and fans. The Garfield movies felt like a blatant attempt to keep the film license and make money...with little care about longtime fans

Bucky, Harvey Dent, Harry Osbourne, Otto Octavius, Mr. Freeze, Kurt Connors, Batman (temporarily), Mordo, just off the top of my head. Good guys being pushed over the edge by tragedy or corrupted by magic/technology is hardly uncommon in movies. And if we're counting cartoons, there are probably dozens more examples there, if not hundreds.

At least in regards to movies

Harry, Doc Ock , Harvey and Connors...all essentially had outside random forces mE them evil. That is an OK motivation

With Mordo and Sinestro...we have not yet seen the after affects of their choice to go to the Dark Side...it will make them interesting villains to be sure....but we really haven't seen that much in the movies.

Bucky was forced into it...and only previous friendship restores him...ibthink it worked in Captain America but I wouldn't want to see that storyline again

With Mysterio....it would be interesting where if he really DOES want to be a hero but has twisted his motivation to do bad (and not intentionally lethal) things...
That could be applied to life in many ways
It would, in my mind, be a more original villain premise.

An amicable resolution to an internet argument. Haven’t you guys read the rules of internet posting?

I believe the rules are yell really loudly and only quote people who support your beliefs.

Keep trying to humiliate the other side until they give up, or (though it never happens) change their mind about your petty issue.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I really liked Raimi movies..as they seemed to be made by someone who has an appreciation of comics culture and fans. The Garfield movies felt like a blatant attempt to keep the film license and make money...with little care about longtime fans

All too true. The Garfield films featured an upside down portrayal of Parker/Spider-Man that was designed to appeal to..? That. and a total misunderstanding of the modified superhero-meets-soap opera influences of the Ditko/Lee and Romita/Lee periods in particular that made the character a then-ever growing success--the heart of what most associate with the character. That association was something the Garfield film's handlers cared little about, as it was more about their bizarre Parker caught in some constant environment of depression and pointlessness to his story.

I doubt many miss that terrible misinterpretation of Spider-Man.

 

[suarezguy]

More Random thought: I hope by the end of the movie MJ at least will figure out Peter is Spider-Man. I mean first Spider-Man shows up in DC, now all over Europe just where they happen to be at any given time...I mean I get Flash not putting it together, but MJ should be switched on enough to put two-and-two together.

I recall the '89/'90s Batman film series got a lot of grief for the love interest and/or villain always learning Batman's secret identity (until the otherwise terrible last film), a lot of complaints that that much repetiveness was annoying, nowadays a lot of people learning it is taken for granted and/or considered more realistic.

I think Peter, in Homecoming as in the previous movie versions, has been far too reckless and inept in trying to conceal his identity and it's gotten increasingly annoying.

 

[Anwar]

I recall the '89/'90s Batman film series got a lot of grief for the love interest and/or villain always learning Batman's secret identity (until the otherwise terrible last film), a lot of complaints that that much repetiveness was annoying, nowadays a lot of people learning it is taken for granted and/or considered more realistic.

I think Peter, in Homecoming as in the previous movie versions, has been far too reckless and inept in trying to conceal his identity and it's gotten increasingly annoying.

Peter always sucked at hiding his ID in the comics, the only reason he kept it secret was because anyone who found proof would randomly become idiots and draw the wrong ideas all the time. And anyone who did find out would always die soon after.

 

[Samurai8472]

Posters

 

[Samurai8472]

Mysterio

 

[JD]

Very nice.

 

[kirk55555]

Mysterio

I can't wait to see him wear the helmet for probably 30 seconds when we first see the suit, then never wear it again until the inevitable CG filled final battle, removing the helmet for a final time as he's captured and/or dies.

 

[crookeddy]

I can't wait to see him wear the helmet for probably 30 seconds when we first see the suit, then never wear it again until the inevitable CG filled final battle, removing the helmet for a final time as he's captured and/or dies.

Have any of your predictions ever come true? (though this particular one is kind of a reasonable one)

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

He previously predicted that the helmet would not appear at all, I believe.
This is just shifting the goal post.