Spoilers Spider-Man: Homecoming-- Grading and Discussion

We don't need to see every single thing, sometimes we can just figure things out for ourselves from context.
I don't really even see why it matters since Ross and the Sokovia Accords have absolutely nothing to do with the events of Homecoming.

 

Because he had a small company, probably scraping by like most small companies, and he laid out a ton of cash up front for a job he never got paid for?

Besides, it doesn't matter whether his business was solely dependent on that or not. He felt he'd been stepped on by the world one too many times and he decided he was done playing by the rules. This is not some bizarre, previously unheard of motivation for a villain.

It was confirmed in civil war that Ross was watching what Tony was doing. Your suggestion that he never noticed the presence of a brand new player at the airport is ridiculous.

Tony is indeed a naughty, naughty boy. What does this have to do with Peter's registration status?

I'm sorry, where is the scene in the movie where this is confirmed? You have no idea what the Sokovia Accords' provisions are for dealing with minors, yet you apparently have no problem making what you believe is the logicial assumption here. So why does the movie need to spell it out for you that Ross knows Peter exists even though any contrary assumption would be total nonsense.

And for the record - I have no problem believing that Peter probably needed some unusual procedure re: the accords due to his age. I could even get on board with the possibility that Iron Man fudged records and reports to hide the fact that he's a minor from the governing body. But no matter which way you slice it there is only one logical conclusion: Peter is, in some way, registered and approved, and even if that registration isn't above board, the govt. doesn't know it.

 

He overextended himself, and it would take even more money to set up a lawsuit that would likely take years during which his family would be ruined anyways. These sort of "Blue Collar Guys getting screwed" things happen all the time.

He says in the movie itself he spent most of the money on the extra equipment for the job. These sort of screw-ups by small company heads happen.

It's not their problem you need to be spoonfed.

Ross has eyes, he can SEE Peter. Tony didn't need to tell him anything he didn't know.

Newsflash, Tony Stark isn't a pristine do-gooder with no flaws.

How do you know that the Accords don't have special requirements over underage superbeings?

 

No dear. I don't need to be spoon fed. I just recognize bad writing when I see it. And as far as I'm concerned, "Spider-man: Homecoming" had bad writing. Which is probably why I thought it was a bad movie.

For me, this is just a bad excuse for someone to become a villain, especially since he had a way to get his money back. Instead, Adrian Toomes decided to become a villain right after he lost the contract salvaging the Chitauri tech. Who ever wrote this screenplay was sloppy, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Bad writing to you is when the movie won't spoonfeed you.

Let me guess, you think Spidey only works when he's utterly alone in the Universe and no other superheroes exist.

As pointed out, these sort of things really happen (Government agencies screwing blue collar workers) and a lawsuit wouldn't help him because it would just cost him more.

There was a several year gap between the Chitauri attack and SMH. We don't know when he exactly chose to put on a suit himself.

And it's a better motivation than "My AI Arms are controlling me!" for Doc Ock or Sandman's sick daughter stuff in SM3.

 

Honestly? You always ask questions about why things weren't explained better in long dialogue. A lot of this stuff is just things you can asume with basic knowledge of the how the world works, and extrapolate from there. You don't need unnecessary expose. And that's what it would have been; long dialogue that slows down a scene.

 

Insulting me isn't going to change my mind. In fact, I find it an immature move on your part.

I'm not asking for a long explanation on why Adrian Toomes became a villain. I'm pointing out that I found his reason to do so was irrelevant, considering that he had other means to get his money back from both the City of New York and the Federal government.

 

*I'm assuming you mean something like a special fund for victims of the Chitari attack much like the special fund for victims of the World Trade Center attack, or perhaps you mean that the City of New York or the Federal Government has submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court of claims for the jurisdiction.

If the first, it is unlikely that Toomes' injury is compensable by the Chitari fund. In the 9/11 fund there had to be a proximate causal link between the attack and the injury. Toomes' loss of the contract occurred after the attack, and while possibly linked, was too tenuous to be proximate.

In the second, it is likely that the courts would not have jurisdiction in the matter. The U.S. government rarely submits themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts - there has to be federal law giving the courts jurisdiction, or the question has to concern a fundamental (constitutional) right. Perhaps there was a property right that was affected by the loss of the contract so that Toomes could make a due process claim? Even if so, this would take considerable time.

For New York City, they also may also be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. It is likely that the legislation that granted Stark Industries the contract on the cleanup also shielded Stark Industries, the City of New York, and any other organization named in the enabling legislation or allowed by the rules of the agency or the practice of the agency, from the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to their actions related to the operation of the agency. (If I were a legislator, or were a lobbyist for Stark, I would certainly have wanted immunity from every action of the agency. I certainly wouldn't want every Tom, Dick, or Adrian suing me for the application of validly enacted laws.)

*Nothing in this posting should be taken as legal advice (or even as truth for that matter). If you are the victim of a Chitari attack or have lost a contract to another salvage company involved in the cleanup resulting from a Chitari attack, seek the advice of qualified counsel.

 

I suppose if he had AI wings that took over his mind it would've sufficed?

 

I'm seriously not trying to be a dick here, but dude..... Do you honestly think that's what happens in real life? That fucked up shit happens, and the government says "here you go buddy, we'll help you out"? If that was actually true, do you think poverty in any country in the world would actually be a thing???
Where do you think criminals come from? Only a small portion of criminals do it for fun and being cool or bad-ass like the movies. The rest of them feel they have no other choice but to steal and rob from others, because they can't get a job, they DON'T get help from any government. They are trapped in a fucked up circle of shitville, and are trying to stay alive.

Sure, the way it's portrayed in this movie is the Hollywood version of the husband/father doing awesome in his life of crime, hiding it from his loved ones and doing great for several years. But the basics of it.... The working person, getting f***ed and now trying to find some damned way to get food on the table.... That's why so many prisons in so many countries are full.

 

Apparently Toomes would be a fine villain if a gas drove him crazy or if his wings were an AI that took over his mind.

 

Would any Canadian forum members like a Movies Anywhere Digital HD code for this movie? I acquired it in a game of chance, but it isn't working with my US account. PM me!

 

Joe Russo calls the "eight years later" line "incorrect".

 

Thank goodness. The way some people were trying to bend over backwards to make that screw-up fit was absurd.

 

Doesn't entirely fix the problem since part of the reason for the gap being 8 years was so that it'd be credible that the drawing Toomes was looking at in the prologue was Liz's, since on that timeline she would have been about 7 or 8 years old. It's a bit problematic (though not insurmountable) if she's more like 11 or 12 at the time.
I guess they can say there was a younger sibling off screen somewhere and that's who really drew it, but it's a bit of a stretch given that nobody so much as mentioned them.

 

Watched it finally last night. Thought it was okay. Better than the last two amazing Spider-Man movies. Probably on par with the first Spider-Man movie.

 

Off screen little sister.

Honestly though, at 9 or 11, it still isn't really clearly a good or bad drawing. I see art every day by design majors who are in their late teens or early 20s who can't draw much better.

 

I haven't seen it since it was in theaters, so I don't remember it very well. What exactly did he say about the picture?

 

Nothing that suggests age, it's just the quality of the drawing looks more like something a little kid would draw.

 

Did he say how old the drawing was? I was wondering if there was some for it to be an old drawing that he dug up somewhere.