Spoilers Spider-Man: Homecoming-- Grading and Discussion

Wouldn't use that tone but i second the notion.. Civil War was not about the 20 minutes of Spiderman screen time and the whole implications it should have. In fact i doubt the Sokovie accords will even come up again in a meaningful fashion after Thanos lays waste to the Superhuman cast of the Marvel movies, which promises quite a big change for the whole MCU including some deaths.

It was a good setup in the whole MCU and a nice way to play to the "What if x fought y and who would win?" fanboy topics but as soon as the movie was done i don't think they will bring it up much anymore as they have moved on in their story which ultimately leads to Infinity War.

As to the X-Men/Spiderman in the general Marvel population discussion:

I like that they pop up in other comicbook lines and have cameos from other superheroes, it makes the whole universe feel more of a coherent thing. Whenever half of New York gets destroyed in one book it's nice to see that other heroes reference this once in a while (with the often seen "See Issue x of [insert Superhero or Team comicbook]"). Sometimes it gets a bit ridiculous because last time i actively read comics (it's been several years) it seemed like Wolverine was in all of the major comic books.. he was an Avenger, was member of 2-3 X-Men teams, had his solo books (plural) and cameo'd in several other books.

So i don't see that the X-Men should have their own separate books without interacting with others.. it#s nice to see Beast dropping in with the Fantastic Four whenever he can't crack a science problem or the X-Men teaming up with the Avengers to defeat a particularly strong enemy. Sure the X-Men could stand alone, they have an insanely huge and well developed character base, a story background and villain cast that surpasses several other comic lines combined but still it's nice to see them be part of the whole every once in a while.

 

For me the main issue is one of thematics than anything else. If they were just another team of superheroes that go on their own wacky adventures then I'd be totally fine with them as part of a larger continuity of related stories and characters.

The thing with X-Men is that there's a fundamental underlying message about society and prejudice that is essential to the X-Men themselves. The rub is that when I try to reconcile a world where those born with superpowers are a persecuted minority while simultaneously a celebrated elite held in high regard for repeated saving the world, it causes me significant cognitive dissonance. In the comics they seem to tend to skate on past this during crossovers, try not to draw attention to it and just hope nobody notices.

Another complication is that history plays a big part in the X-Men's narrative. In their world, mutants and their persecution are not a brand new thing, it's something with a long history that's always threatening to boil over. On the face of it this seems directly at odds with the world as presented in the MCU.

 

Well, the thing is that there have been periods of time where the X-Men were NOT hated by people and were treated just like any other vigilante group. Like the Dark Phoenix Saga. There have been plenty of times where it looks like they were making real progress on the Human/Mutant Tensions until some hack writer comes along and regresses the whole thing.

In the original run, the Mutant Hatred didn't exist until the first Sentinel story.

 

Matt Fraction's run on the X-Men, where they moved to San francisco and were respected and liked by most people, was a great run that showed the X-Men can work fantastically even without everyone hating them. There were still anti-mutant bigots and groups, and some tension at times, but the general population accepted the X-Men and it didn't hurt the storytelling at all. They can work fine without having what seems to be the whole world hating them.

 

We actually saw the first anti mutant sentiment as early as X-Men 7, when they fought Unus the Untouchable. Hank and Bobby were chased by a mob who saw them use their abilities. And the first Sentinel story was in X-Men 15, so yeah, the anti mutant sentiment has pretty much been there from the start.

 

Speaking of that scene, this makes 3 Community cast members that we've now seen in the MCU. I'm super hoping that Infinity War will bring in the rest and explain what Abed's plan has been this whole time. *squee!*

Yeah. Me too. Few elements of the MCU get me truly emotionally engaged but I am an unashamed Tony/Pepper 'shipper!

Garfield actually had 2 suits. The one in ASM1 was more of just a leotard without the more textured 3-D elements of the Maguire suits. Also, the eyes were darker and more reflective. In ASM2, he switched to a suit that was much more like the Maguire suits but with slightly bigger eyes.

I hated high school when I was in it. It's generally not my go-to setting for escapism. (Although I'm fine with it when it's well done: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Easy A, Roswell, Veronica Mars, etc.)

I expected that the trailers were over-inflating Stark's presence in the film. It's like how I was surprised that everyone else was surprised that the Joker wasn't really in Suicide Squad that much. They're baiting you by putting the popular character in the trailers. Haven't you figured that out yet?

 

Well, that one's not entirely fair since it sounds like there was a lot more Joker originally.

 

The Joker still wasn't involved much in the main plot, so he lifted right out.

For some other examples of misleading trailers overemphasizing a popular character who is barely in the actual thing, there's Tony Stark's minuscule cameo in "The Incredible Hulk" or Commander Riker in the Voyager episode "Death Wish."

 

There was a trailer that made his cameo seem like a guest-starring role? Was it possibly a later promotional trailer, 'cause I certainly had no idea he was in it until I saw it in the cinema.

 

The one on the "Iron Man" DVD.

 

So yeah, a "Buy it on DVD!" type promo, not the trailer.

 

You certainly are consistent in your opinions. I didn't look at the poster's name and knew this was you after the second line of the second paragraph.

 

Why would someone be INconsistent in their own opinions...

 

You clearly haven’t met half the people I’ve ever known (and after nearly thirty years of teaching, I’ve known thousands of people).

 

Like someone else said, why would you think someone would just become inconsistent with their opinions? I like some things a lot, and I dislike things to a great extent, too. This isn't the worst movie ever, but its pretty crap. Not Amazing Spider-Man levels of crap, but easily the worst MCU film and the first outright bad one in my opinion. Just tween crap you'd see on the Disney channel or Nickelodeon but with better effects and slightly better acting.

 

When was this confirmed? In what scene? Or are we supposed to assume this? And Peter, Tony and Ross would accomplish this . . . without May Parkr's knowledge or consent? I've checked the MCU Wiki websites. Not once did they mention that Peter had signed the Sokovia Accords or that Ross knows about him.


But you know what? Spider-man and the Sokovia Accords wasn't the movie's real problem for me. The real problem was Adrian Toomes. Why did he become a villain in the first place?

I don't agree with you. I rather liked the two Garfield films. And frankly, I believe they were better written than "Spider-man: Homecoming". I don't think the 2017 movie was well written. In fact, I'm not sure if it has much of a plot in the first place.

Is this your way of saying that we're supposed to turn a blind eye to any signs of bad writing?

 

A Blue Collar Joe who felt screwed over by the system and was willing to do villainous stuff to keep his family from ruin. Think Walter White except instead of cancer it was that he lost his source of normal income.

As opposed to the usual "Science experiment drove them insane!" approach Raimi used.

No, but a little thinking never hurt any audience member. There's no need to feed you every little detail.

 

It's confirmed that Tony is working for Ross in multiple scenes. It's confirmed that he makes no effort to hide Peter's involvement in multiple scenes. It's confirmed that Tony did not get his butt handed to him for recruiting an illegal agent. It's confirmed that Peter is a well known figure with a well established home area. It's confirmed that Peter is not being hunted for using powers without signing up. There is no possible explanation for these facts other than that Peter's involvement is legal. The fact that you insist on having what is blatantly obvious from all the basic facts spelled out to you is your problem, not the movie's.

 

All of the above plus the fact that he had to check in with Happy on a daily basis.

 

Why didn't the Blue Collar Joe get back the money he had spent to salvage the Chitauri tech for the City of New York? And if the city and the Federal governments were reluctant to compensate him, he could have easily filed a lawsuit.

And why was Toomes' business solely dependent upon the Chitauri job for the city?

It's the movie's problem. It's also the franchise's problem. It was confirmed that Tony was working for Ross back in "Captain America: Civil War". I do not recall Tony ever informing Ross about Peter in "Civil War". Worse, Tony had to blackmail Peter into helping him in the fight in Berlin. And Peter could not sign the Sokovia Accords without May's consent.