Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

[Christopher]

The decision to rob the Garfield movie fans of another entry was no different than the decision to rob the Raimi movie fans of another entry as well. It's all a business that we can't control and just how things work.

Right. People always want to blame the executives, as if their choices were arbitrary whims, but it's really the audience's spending and viewing choices that force the executives' hands. Sony didn't reboot the Garfield series because they were mean or contrary, they rebooted it because the audience didn't respond well to it and so there was no profit in continuing it.

Besides, people have just been complaining above about how the Webb reboot was too similar to the Raimi version, how it just felt like a rehash of the same thing. That's because both were stuck with treating Spider-Man as the only superhero in his universe. Now Spidey gets to be part of the larger Marvel universe and play off other superheroes, which allows for a genuinely different approach that's more faithful to Spidey's role in the comics' universe. Plus there's the fact that Marvel Studios has been the only film studio able to consistently make well-received superhero films, so it was a smart move for Sony to turn over creative control to them while still retaining the film rights. That way, Sony profits from their quality and from the cachet of the MCU, and Marvel profits by finally getting their flagship character back. Business-wise, it's the smartest decision they could've made. And it's probably a good choice creatively too. I liked Garfield as Spidey a lot, but that doesn't outweigh all the other reasons that this was the logical decision.

 

[DigificWriter]

The Raimi film trilogy has a resolution, planned or otherwise, and the fourth film fell apart because of creative differences, whereas the TASM series ends on a cliffhanger and wasn't continued because Sony executives panicked unnecessarily and made a deal with Marvel that, while potentially immensely lucrative for them, didn't actually need to be made. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made Sony a profit, but just because it didn't make Avengers-like numbers, they decided to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when all they ought to have done was "refill the tub".

As for why I'm not keen on Homecoming, I'm largely burnt out on the MCU and just am not that impressed with the way the character of Spider-Man is being handled. I'll still go see the movie, but at this point I'll only be going to see it because of my endearing love for the Spider-Man character in general.

 

[Christopher]

The Raimi film trilogy has a resolution, planned or otherwise, and the fourth film fell apart because of creative differences, whereas the TASM series ends on a cliffhanger and wasn't continued because Sony executives panicked unnecessarily and made a deal with Marvel that, while potentially immensely lucrative for them, didn't actually need to be made.

But that "cliffhanger" didn't arise organically out of the story; it was gratuitously tacked on because the studio was trying to create its own shared-universe franchise based solely on the Spider-Man characters it had the rights to, which was an intrinsically terrible idea, because you can't really build a multi-series franchise out of something centered entirely on a single hero. I mean, doing a Sinister Six film before its individual members have even been introduced? That's the same kind of forced "we have to copy Marvel's success" decision-making that we've seen plenty of other studios try in recent years, generally without any success at all. The whole thing was very forced and contrived and mercenary. But actually becoming part of the MCU, of a shared-universe franchise that's earned its success rather than a rushed, manufactured attempt to copy a success, is a much smarter way of achieving that goal of expanding Spider-Man into a larger universe.

And I think many fans would disagree with you about the need. Spider-Man is Marvel's flagship character. He's literally the face of the company. And he's one of the most gregarious characters, having teamed up with almost everyone. He's a key part of the web (no pun intended) of interrelationships that defines Marvel -- not only him, but his supporting characters and antagonists who've gone on to have impacts on the rest of Marveldom, like J. Jonah Jameson and Norman Osborn. So there are advantages to both Sony and Marvel in incorporating Spidey into the larger whole, both creatively and business-wise.

 

[Turtletrekker]

"Panicked unnecessarily?"

Hardly. TASM2 did not perform anywhere near to expectations and Sony was right to cut and run. Speaking just for myself, I certainly wouldn't have bothered with TASM3 had it been made. Both TASM movies were bland and poorly written, and I can't see where a 3rd movie could have improved things. The dangling plot threads were irrelevant to me. The Marvel/Sony partnership is the best thing that has happened to the character.

 

[DigificWriter]

Sony made this partnership deal because they panicked; Marvel Studios was doing just fine without Spider-Man, and adding him does nothing, in the long run, to change their fortunes, particularly since they're only making money off of HALF of his appearances.

I recognize that Sony executives will likely end up getting far more out of the character of Spider-Man now than they might've without making this deal, but still feel like the deal shouldn't have been made for the reasons that it was.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

The Raimi film trilogy has a resolution, planned or otherwise, and the fourth film fell apart because of creative differences, whereas the TASM series ends on a cliffhanger and wasn't continued because Sony executives panicked unnecessarily and made a deal with Marvel that, while potentially immensely lucrative for them, didn't actually need to be made.

It did need to be made. I saw Amazing 2 on a plane for free (didn't want to see it in the theatre because I wasn't impressed with the first outing, save fantastic casting) and wished I chose something else. There's no way I was going to shell out money for a third. I'm sure others were equally turned off as well which meant damage control was pretty necessary.

Also, the reboots were falling apart even before Marvel Studios entered the picture. Sony even approached Raimi again to help with the future installments. Something was happening regardless.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

^^
Why don't you think you'll like Homecoming?

The decision to rob the Garfield movie fans of another entry was no different than the decision to rob the Raimi movie fans of another entry as well. It's all a business that we can't control and just how things work.

"Rob?"

The Garfield Spider-Man--in only five short years after Raimi's Spider-Man 3--did not do anything as a filmed Spider-Man that the Raimi films did not. If a studio (desperate to hold on to the character at the time) races to reboot a series at that pace, the drive should have been making the definitive filmed version of the character, not just keep what they thought was a gravy train going. What audiences were subjected to was Garfield ramping up some misguided, stammering, odd character about 15 minutes away from an extended stay in a rubber room. Amazing Fantasy #15--or most of the formative stories to follow nver presented a Peter Parker like that. It was as if the producers were catering to a very small minority of fans who want superheroes to be walking oddities reflecting the now routinely marketed "nerd" culture (yes, fans of that kind exist) that gained a greater foothold in the post Raimi years.

If that was not bad enough, the "Burton-izing" of the villains (e.g., Penguin in Batman Returns) making them as utterly grotesque as possible. Its not "cool" or "badass" to have all of your antagonists go the upside-down freakshow route, lacking any sort of villainous charisma against a "hero" as out of sorts (in his own film) as Garfield's Spider-Man.

In the few scenes of Holland in Captain America: Civil War and the Homecoming trailer, he's already miles beyond the thankfully buried Garfield version.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

"Rob?"

Was just using the term used in the poat I was reaponding to to make a point.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else you stated.

Regardless of the highs and lows of the previous movies, I'm excited for what's to come!

 

[The Nth Doctor]

The Garfield Spider-Man--in only five short years after Raimi's Spider-Man 3--did not do anything as a filmed Spider-Man that the Raimi films did not.

I disagree on two counts, one objectively and one subjectively. The Garfield films cast a much better Peter and a much better female lead, which in turn allowed far better on screen chemistry. My great regret for those two films is that Garfield and Stone were largely wasted with terrible scripts. Additionally, the second film, for all of its crap, it actually had the courage to kill Gwen off a la the comics, instead of just teasing the parallel like Raimi did.

 

[Christopher]

Additionally, the second film, for all of its crap, it actually had the courage to kill Gwen off a la the comics, instead of just teasing the parallel like Raimi did.

Honestly, Emma Stone's Gwen was so terrific that I would've preferred if they'd skipped her death altogether. I mean, the original Gwen was never really all that interesting a character except in terms of the impact her death had on Peter, and it's pretty much an archetypal instance of the "woman in refrigerator" trope, a female character being killed off purely to motivate the male lead -- which worked fine in the '70s, and I do really like Gerry Conway's writing in "The Night Gwen Stacy Died," but it's kind of a discredited trope now, more cliched than courageous. And Stone's Gwen was a much richer character who deserved better than to be killed by one man to motivate another man.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Besides, Civil War did the same thing you're talking about, tiptoeing around the words without actually saying them. In Peter's scene with Tony, he said something about how if you have the power to stop something and you don't, then it's kind of your fault, or something like that.

I think its also supposed to be a call back to the first Iron Man movie.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Honestly, Emma Stone's Gwen was so terrific that I would've preferred if they'd skipped her death altogether. I mean, the original Gwen was never really all that interesting a character except in terms of the impact her death had on Peter, and it's pretty much an archetypal instance of the "woman in refrigerator" trope, a female character being killed off purely to motivate the male lead -- which worked fine in the '70s, and I do really like Gerry Conway's writing in "The Night Gwen Stacy Died," but it's kind of a discredited trope now, more cliched than courageous. And Stone's Gwen was a much richer character who deserved better than to be killed by one man to motivate another man.

Fair enough, and while I agree completely with what you said, I appreciate that moment in the film because it's such an iconic moment in Spider-Man history. It was also refreshing because I was so annoyed that Raimi recreated the moment perfectly with Mary-Jane....right until Spider-Man was able to save her, which I always felt very cheap. Yeah, yeah, they can't kill the female lead, but it's also terrible to recreate that entire iconic scene and then not do the most important part of it.

 

[Christopher]

I was actually a bit disappointed with ASM2's depiction of Gwen's death. For one thing, it was overproduced -- especially that silly CGI shot of the web reaching out like fingers to grab Gwen. For another, having her head actually hit the ground instead of her neck snapping from the sudden stop didn't seem to work as well. Most of all, I'm disappointed they left out the great dialogue Conway wrote -- Spidey initially being overconfident about the rescue, then being disbelieving as the reality sank in -- "But I saved you!" Ever since I read that, I wanted to see it dramatized, but they skipped it.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I disagree on two counts, one objectively and one subjectively. The Garfield films cast a much better Peter and a much better female lead, which in turn allowed far better on screen chemistry.

Garfield's Parker was borderline loony, with his bank vault's worth of ticks and rambling. Maguire presented the kind of "found nobility" Parker had in the comics, with the right amount of resignation about his destiny now being driven by Spider-Man (refer to his V.O. at the end of Spider-Man). Garfield's performance was all over the place--the wrong places.

Emma Stone's Stacy lacked character. She was just there--Gwen in name only, and lacking any of the emotional journey / support seen in her Silver/Bronze Age counterpart. Blonde dye and knee-high boots is not all the Gwen character was about. By the way, ever since the boots were part of the character's death wardrobe, the Garfield films (and numerous comic artists since 1973) have obsessively placed her in boots, when in truth, that particular accoutrement was short lived (no pun intended).

My great regret for those two films is that Garfield and Stone were largely wasted with terrible scripts. Additionally, the second film, for all of its crap, it actually had the courage to kill Gwen off a la the comics, instead of just teasing the parallel like Raimi did.

Killing off a poorly written character lacks impact. In the comic death, there was emotional weight to her presence on the grand stage of tragedy constructed by Parker and Osborn thanks (not only) to their long, grim history, but the fact that fate led Norman to kidnap the person the readers watched grow, suffer and support Parker when he needed it most. They were each other's "better half" which made her death serve as the atomic blast to the title (and comics in general). It was not tragedy for the sake of it--just to be nothing more than visual fan-service to say, "we did the Gwen death scene!" That was how the death played out in ASM2. Just killing her off because that's what certain fans wanted / expected.

 

[Sci]

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.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

My favorite part is the cruise ship rescue scene at the end. I get more of a thrill out of seeing superheroes as rescuers than as fighters, and Spidey having to achieve an impossible feat of strength to save people is one of his classic moves.

Reminds me of the train scene in Spider-Man 2, which is probably my favourite party of the entire Toby Trilogy.

Just noticed that every Spider-Man so far has had (and will have) a crucifixion scene.

And I thought Superman was the one with the most Messiah imagery.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Inspired by the Superman costume thread, but I don't feel like making a new thread just to discuss costumes.

Spider-Man holding their masks in their first costumes.

The masks.

 

[Reverend]

Personally I feel the new costume has the best balance of features in terms of being faithful to the spirit of the source material and being credible within the context of the narrative.

I always found it hard to credit that Rami's Peter was able to fabricate such a well tailored outfit. With craftsmanship like that he would be wasted as a mere photographer! Credibility undermined somewhat by just how crude his first effort was for the wrestling scene.
Similar problem with the ASM versions, though I gather the second one gets a lot of praise for looking much more like the comics.

The new one on the other hand is made by Tony Stark, so you totally buy the expert craftsmanship and very expensive materials. Plus it looks more functional, like a proper suit while the others were simply costumes to distract and obfuscated.
From an aesthetic POV I like how they downplayed the raised black web lines so they're a lot less busy and distracting. The eye expression is a particularly nice touch, both solving the problem of expressing emotion through the mask and being able use both the Kirby & Ditko style at the same time.

 

[Christopher]

The eye expression is a particularly nice touch, both solving the problem of expressing emotion through the mask and being able use both the Kirby & Ditko style at the same time.

Kirby? I though the big-eyed design originated with Todd McFarlane. Kirby was never the regular artist on a Spidey book, was he?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Steve Ditko and John Romita Sr. were big Spidey artists back in the 60s. Kirby never did artwork for Spider-Man. Romita Sr stayed on Spidey till the 80s, I believe. Romita Jr picked up the art on Spider-Man after his father.

Ditko began the Spidey eye movement on the mask and Romita Sr kept up with it. Macfarlane in the 90s is the one who made the lenses on the mask huge.