• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Spider-Man: Homecoming-- Grading and Discussion

How do you grade "Spider-Man: Homecoming"?

  • Total voters
    93
  • Poll closed .
It couldn't be from before Avengers, since it was clearly a drawing of them fighting off the Chitauri.
 
Venardhi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's not insurmountable but the tone, composition and presentation of the piece is clearly meant to look like the artist is around 7 or 8. Bumping her age up somewhat undermines the intent of that scene and Liz's character in general.
JD said:
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?
Click to expand...
See for yourself. ;)
 
Reverend said:
Like I said, it's not insurmountable but the tone, composition and presentation of the piece is clearly meant to look like the artist is around 7 or 8. Bumping her age up somewhat undermines the intent of that scene and Liz's character in general.
Click to expand...
Seriously, ask the average 11 year old to draw the Avengers for you and see what it looks like. You've probably seen some excellent art done by kids of that age, but they're absolutely the exception. Look at these for examples of what normal drawing skills are at that age without special training:
http://graphics.wsj.com/migrant-childrens-drawings/
http://estonianworld.com/life/er96-...stonia-through-the-eyes-of-children-drawings/
 
Hell, my drawing skills as a 36-year old is about on the same level (it's no wonder I became a photographer instead). I wouldn't have a hard time believing a 11-year old would draw it.
 
I used to be a sketch artist, so I really don't need to be lectured on comparative drawing skills, thanks. The point (which I assumed was obvious, but evidently not) is that Liz *is* exceptional for her age, that's why she ends up in that school. Indeed that's largely what's motivating Toomes (or so he tells himself.)

Again; it's less about skill and more about tone and composition. There's a certain way younger children look at the world that's distinct and recognisable. Doesn't matter if it's stick figures or the work of an artistic prodigy, it's baked in at a psychological level. You tend too loose that as you get older (and Liz happens to be a very serious, focused individual who had to consultant a book about rule breaking!) so she likely lost that view of the world earlier than most.

And for the third time: it's not insurmountable. I don't think we ever saw any other indication of Liz's artistic side, so sure, you could just say she was just an OK artist for a 12 year old. But there's no getting around the fact that it directly undermines the intent of the scene. It's a retcon and one that lessens Liz's character.
 
Thanks for posting the clip, and it does seem like she'd have to be pretty young for it to work. It definitely seems like the intent was for it to be an impressive drawing for someone her age, and that doesn't work as well if she's 11 or 12.
 
JD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm curious too. My wife keeps drawings on the fridge for years after my kids made them.
Correction, just watched the scene.
 
LOL. This guy can't keep a secret.

Holland already knew the plot of the Jurassic World sequel BEFORE Chris Pratt did. Tom Holland and J. A. Bayona know each other from "The Impossible

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
When Ned tells Peter he has the Lego Death Star set, I thought Peter’s “What? No way!” reaction was a bit over the top. But just now I looked for that set online. It sells for around $500. Wow. Peter’s reaction is justified after all.
 
I don’t remember LEGO being priced like that when I was a kid. Then again, I wasn’t the one paying for it, so maybe I wouldn’t.
 
Captrek said:
I don’t remember LEGO being priced like that when I was a kid. Then again, I wasn’t the one paying for it, so maybe I wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the price is relatively reasonable because the set contains 3803 pieces, which comes down to 13 cents per piece. That might have gone up a little over the decades, but I think that's a sensible scale.
 
There's a 7541 piece Millennium Falcon set that is $799.95 on Amazon.
I'm not sure, but I think it might be the biggest, most expensive set LEGO has ever released.
 
JD said:
There's a 7541 piece Millennium Falcon set that is $799.95 on Amazon.
I'm not sure, but I think it might be the biggest, most expensive set LEGO has ever released.
Click to expand...
It definitely is. There was some fanfare regarding that when it was released. Plus, that's cheaper per piece than the Death Star, costing 10.6 cents per piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top