Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

[DigificWriter]

I believe Peter's age is 15 in both Civil War and Homecoming, in keeping with Sony's (and, by proxy, Marvel Studios) desire to have the character remain in High School for the duration of the 6 films that are being produced - currently - under the partnership deal they and MS signed.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Who the fuck cares?

The whole point of that discussion -- if you had kept up with it -- was that Marvel has a more vested interest in making the character great than Sony ever did. So much so that they are giving up butt loads of cash in order to do so. The more the character is in their hands, the better.

to be sure, Marvel has the drive and interest to make their version of the character something to capture some of the heart of the character--unlike the abysmal Garfield version.

 

[WebLurker]

Agreed. Moreover, changing his identity would only serve to add controversy to a production that needs (arguably) the strongest, trouble-free debut than any other MCU character. IOW, this is the Spider-Man, not some latter-day story few know/care about.

Maybe.

This is true, and contrary to the myth (created for some reason) Spider-Man was a human joke machine, I can point them to innumerable stories in the Ditko/Romita/Kane/Andru periods (collectively, well over a decade's worth of issues), where the character was quite the moody, or even grim hero...and it was not all tied to famous deaths, such as Captain Stacy or his daughter.

Marvel's 1960/70s PR and licensing did more to promote that joke-machine version of Spider-Man than anything that could be fairly tagged to the source. It was a way to make the character's personality more kid friendly in adaptations such as the Grantray-Lawrence cartoon (1967-70), and his thought-ballooning addition to The Electric Company (and its Marvel adaptation in the form of Spidey Super-Stories). The avoidance of the incessant joking is one of the reasons the Raimi Spider-Man films captured the feel of the character to a near-perfect degree, as opposed to the rubber-room / too insecure to be believed nonsense of Garfield's portrayal.

Okay. For full disclosure purposes, if Spider-Man being jokey was a later edition, it was a good one. I do very much like the more chatty version of the character. In the case of the original movies, I found that the tone compensated for it and since the joking is not the number one reason I like the character, I didn't mind that it was toned down.

It was poor and seemed to be catering to a minority of comic fans who (in the past decade or so) wish to paint all characters--particularly on the young end--as misfits or suffering from issues that would have forced Freud to switch to raising Guppies.

If I understand correctly, the official explanation is that since a geek or a nerd wouldn't be the outcast in today's culture that they would've been in, they were trying to translate the character in a way that made sense. They were also trying to ostensibly adapt Ultimate Spider-Man, not 616 Spider-Man.

In regards to the former, I respect that they had a reason for what they did, but I think they missed the point that Peter Parker being bullied in school is a bigger part of his characterization then him being bullied for being a nerd.

In regards to the later, as a Ultimate Spider-Man fan, they botched the adaptation, IMHO.

Interesting side-note: Assuming Peter Parker is 16 in Spider-Man: Homecoming, and assuming that the film takes place in 2017, that means this version of Peter Parker was born in 2001 (aka, one year before the original Sam Raimi film was released in real life); that he was 7 when Tony Stark became Iron Man; that he was 11 when Captain America was revived and Loki and the Chitauri invaded New York; that he was 13 when SHIELD collapsed and Hydra was revealed; etc. It means that Iron Man and superhumans have been a part of his world basically for 56% of his lifespan.

Very interesting.

Or the version of the story that feels like it's boiled down the different variations to their essentials. It's like how the original Superman movie boils down the Superman mythos to its most essential elements, the parts of the mythos that just have to be there for it to be a Superman movie. Or like how there are many variations, but there's an essential set of elements that just have to be there if you're doing a version of the Santa Claus mythos.

I grew up on the 1990s Spider-Man cartoon, and then later on the Raimi films and Bendis's Ultimate Spider-Man run. So, to me, yeah, Peter and Mary-Jane are the elemental coupling of the Spider-Man mythos -- even though I always preferred the dark and troubled version of Gwen Stacy from the USM line.

I agree. I also liked USM's take on Gwen Stacy as a character (although not the idea of her being Peter's girlfriend briefly).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

In fairness, their brief time dating was portrayed as deliberately fucked up.

 

[Venardhi]

I believe Peter's age is 15 in both Civil War and Homecoming, in keeping with Sony's (and, by proxy, Marvel Studios) desire to have the character remain in High School for the duration of the 6 films that are being produced - currently - under the partnership deal they and MS signed.

Where's the source on this? I've seen several quotes that they want to explore his high-school heroics for at least a couple films, but that is far from declaring he will never move on from it.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I can't find a source now, but I know back when/shortly after the Marvel/Sony partnership deal was announced, both Kevin Feige and Sony execs went on record stating that the plan was to do a trilogy of solo movies featuring Peter/Spider-Man as a High School student.

 

[WebLurker]

In fairness, their brief time dating was portrayed as deliberately fucked up.

I'm not that familiar with that part of the Ultimate Series (I've really only read the Death of Spider-Man and it's prelude from the post-Ultimatum Peter-centric comics so far). So, I could be missing something, but my main thing was (besides the fact I was rooting for Mary Jane), that I'm not sure that Peter dating Gwen really seemed to offer any story points or explore the characters in a way Peter's previous two breakups/reconciliations did.

One thing I do kind of appreciate about that little story thread is the way it kind of forces us to reexamine some of the earlier material. From the pre-Ultimatum comics, we do know that MJ was initially convinced that Gwen was in love with Peter (implied in the Double Trouble trade paper back and confirmed in the Public Scrutiny trade paperback). Gwen herself denies the theory in the Carnage story, however, I was under the impression that Gwen initiated things with Peter post-Ultimatum (at any rate, when breaking up, she seems to think she manipulated him into it, which suggests that she had approached him).

So, those few points raises an interesting question: Was Gwen lying to MJ in the Carnage story about how she felt? Gwen emphasizes the point that Peter clearly has eyes for MJ only, so it could be possible that she realized that any feelings she had were unrequited and so it wouldn't do anyone any good to say that.

I can't prove that (the only real details we get about Gwen's thoughts on her and Peter was that she couldn't tell if she loved him in a familial or romantic way and also realized that MJ was the only woman Peter was truly in love with, which would be the case either way), but it's interesting to think about.

 

[HarryCanyon1982]

the trailer was pretty terrible. its looks like another generic mcu kids movie. I miss sam raimi's spiderman series

Well i'm glad Spider-Man is home with Marvel, Marvel is more mature than DC on film and Singer's X-Men.

 

[DigificWriter]

Well i'm glad Spider-Man is home with Marvel

It's long past time for people to stop claiming that Marvel has the rights to Spidey back because it's 100% provable that they don't, and that they're essentially 'leasing' the character and other related characters from Sony.

Getting to use the characters and work for/in concert with Sony creatively is not and never will be the same thing as getting the rights to the character(s) back, and people should really stop acting like it is.

As an aside, we now know when Marvel Studios gets to directly profit from an onscreen appearance of the character again: 2018 (since we've had it confirmed that he'll be involved in Avengers: Infinity War).

 

[Christopher]

It's long past time for people to stop claiming that Marvel has the rights to Spidey back...

HarryCanyon1982 didn't say anything about the rights, just that Spidey was "home with Marvel." I take that to mean that he's part of the MCU continuity now, which is true.

 

[DigificWriter]

A phrase like "home with Marvel" really can't mean anything other than "Marvel has the character back". It's a very specific phrase with a very specific connotation, and is the single biggest misconception that exists with regards to the partnership deal that Marvel and Sony negotiated, even though it can be easily verified as false.

 

[Christopher]

A phrase like "home with Marvel" really can't mean anything other than "Marvel has the character back". It's a very specific phrase with a very specific connotation...

Yes, creatively. Most people don't know or care about the legalities of who owns what; they're just thinking about the stories they see. As far as what we see on the screen is concerned, Spidey is "with Marvel" now, in that he's part of the larger film universe that includes the majority of Marvel's characters. The only one here who's assuming that can only refer to the behind-the-scenes legalities is you. I didn't take his statement that way at all, so clearly there is more than one thing it can mean.

 

[DigificWriter]

The fact that Sony still owns the character rights to Spider-Man even after the establishment of this partnership with Marvel Studios is not some obscure fact; it's an easily discoverable core piece of the current arrangement, which is why it is so damnable that people continue to make comments/statements that ignore it/imply otherwise.

 

[Tosk]

So what? Spidey is in a Marvel film, and has another coming soon.

And what actual difference does it make if there are people out there who misunderstand the deal? Half of them probably didn't know Spidey wasn't already a Marvel MCU character anyway.

 

[Christopher]

The fact that Sony still owns the character rights to Spider-Man even after the establishment of this partnership with Marvel Studios is not some obscure fact; it's an easily discoverable core piece of the current arrangement, which is why it is so damnable that people continue to make comments/statements that ignore it/imply otherwise.

And HarryCanyon1982 did not make any such statement. He just said "home with Marvel," which absolutely can be interpreted more than one way. You are not telepathic; you don't know what he actually meant. You're just guessing, based on a bizarrely rigid interpretation of an ambiguous phrase. So you have no right to "damn" him for your own speculation. You're being inexcusably rude to him for no remotely good reason, and I think you owe him an apology.

 

[The Old Mixer]

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

That's because he was an unnecessary reboot of the Danny Seagren Spidey.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

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

Fifth.

But what made Spider-Man innovative when he was introduced was that he was a teenager who was an actual solo superhero rather than the sidekick of an adult hero. The closest thing in comics before then was probably the preteen Billy Batson turning into the adult Captain Marvel

Well, there was Superboy, but he was a derivative version of an adult hero.

and his thought-ballooning addition to The Electric Company (and its Marvel adaptation in the form of Spidey Super-Stories)

At least somebody remembers!

 

[WebLurker]

Well i'm glad Spider-Man is home with Marvel, Marvel is more mature than DC on film and Singer's X-Men.

Can't speak to DC (haven't seen any yet), but I think the X-Men movies have a few advantages over the MCU.

1. They have far better villains. Magneto (old and new iterations), Stryker (Brian Cox iteration, although the others are fine), and Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence iteration) are some of the best antagonist in comic book movies in terms of acting and motivations. The only truly good villain the MCU has gotten so far is Loki. All the others are mostly plot devices.

2. While the MCU has had pretty good casting (and has managed ensemble casts far better), there's really nothing in the league as Sirs Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan as Prof. X and Magneto.

3. Neither the MCU or X-Men have done love stories that well (MCU is better by far, though), but, in regards to character dynamics, I think the complicated friendship between Prof. X and Magneto and the surrogate father/daughter relationship with Wolverine and Rogue are better handled than most of the character dynamics in the MCU (save for Captain America's friendship with Black Widow).

4. While I do think that Captain America: The Winter Solider is the greatest comic book movie made (second only to Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy and The Incredibles), I'd argue that Days of Future Past, X2, and maybe X1, are better comic book movies than most of the MCU installments (save for the aforementioned Winter Soldier, Civil War, Guardians of the Galaxy, and maybe Avengers 1).

Now, overall, I like the MCU more, but I don't think it's more mature than other series out there, esp. since the X-Men movies have dealt a lot more with serious ideas and themes. But, hey, I like both for different reasons, so I'm glad both are around.

 

[Venardhi]

While I do think that Captain America: The Winter Solider is the greatest comic book movie made (second only to Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy and The Incredibles), I'd argue that Days of Future Past, X2, and maybe X1, are better comic book movies than most of the MCU installments (save for the aforementioned Winter Soldier, Civil War, Guardians of the Galaxy, and maybe Avengers 1).

This paragraph has more twists than a season of The Twilight Zone.

 

[DigificWriter]

So what? Spidey is in a Marvel film, and has another coming soon.

I wouldn't call 2018 "soon".

And what actual difference does it make if there are people out there who misunderstand the deal? Half of them probably didn't know Spidey wasn't already a Marvel MCU character anyway.

It makes a difference because facts matter.

@Christopher Maybe I picked a fight unnecessarily, but I'm overly sensitive sometimes when it comes to the actual facts of this Sony/Marvel Studios deal, so I will offer @HarryCanyon an apology as you suggested.

@HarryCanyon1982 Sorry for jumping down your throat on your phrasing.

 

[dahj]

I wouldn't call 2018 "soon".

Homecoming is this July.