Spoilers Spider-Man: Homecoming-- Grading and Discussion

[LJones41]

"Oh nose! Stupid Marvel kiddie movies, always making jokes! Why can't they take things seriously?"

It's starting to get like that . . . excessively. Although the MCU still manages to infuse serious drama.

People got upset about Man of Steel because it was the original, unbeatable superhero at the heart of that destruction and because the film was made in such a way as to constantly throw the destruction in the audience's face, yet also never actually address it in any way.

Apparently you didn't see "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN".

 

[JD]

That doesn't mean that the schools had to use the PSAs using Steve, while he was a wanted man.

This whole thing smacks of contrived writing that reminded me of that story arc featuring Steve's failure to tell Tony about HDYRA's murder of the latter's parents in "Civil War".

It's only been two months since Steve became a wanted man, I doubt very much the policies would have changed that quickly, and it was pretty clear the teacher really didn't give a shit any ways. The US public school systems just aren't efficient, or supported enough to make those kind of changes that quickly.

You were telling me all the stuff that I wanted could be in the sequel, but they probably won't be.

We really don't know enough about Sony and Marvel's plans for the Spider-Man to say what will or won't be in the next movie, expect what was set up in the mid-credits scene. While Marvel has made some pretty significant changes to their characters in other movies, they still tend to leave the core elements of the characters in tact. I find it very, very hard to believe that stuff like Uncle Ben, and the Daily Bugle will never appear in these movies.
The only reason we didn't get them in Homecoming was because they were purposefully trying to avoid some of the stuff that we got in the first two Spidey series. Now that they've solidly established a unique identity for their take on the character, which will only be more solid by the time the second solo movie comes out, I wouldn't be surprised if more familiar elements start being incorporated into them now.
One thing that could be a bit problematic, would be Peter getting the Daily Bugle job because of how he was able to get such good Spider-Man pictures. With so many people carrying around high quality camera phones these days, there's probably going to be a lot more good pictures of Spider-Man floating around on a daily basis. They can obviously still find a way to get him there, but it will probably be something a lot more modern than just some pictures.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

There were none of those thing, instead we have constant Tony scenes which felt like ads for Avengers Infinity War. That is becoming a problem in general with MCU films.

Am I forgetting all of Tony's scenes? Because I remember him in the opening montage, after the Vulture's introduction, at the Ferry and at the press conference. And that's it. He also didn't do a single thing in the entire movie that wasn't directly related to the story of this movie. Even the proposal joke with Pepper was designed to tell the audience more information about Peter (that he was actually being offered an Avengers spot). This was not even remotely like Wonder Woman watching security videos or Thor's vision quest.

If you think four scenes in the whole movie (the middle two being kind of short scenes, even) is 'constant' and you got 'ad for infinity war' from these completely integral scenes, then it sounds to me like you just don't like the concept of a shared universe, or else you just don't like Iron Man.

Apparently you didn't see "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN".

I held off judgement on MoS's ending for years precisely because I hoped they would deal with this in the sequel. But the truth is, they threw in a single shot of Bruce Wayne saving a kid and then completely forgot that MoS ever happened. BvS is entirely driven by Lex Luthor's machinations and it does not make even the slightest attempt to confront Superman with the choices he made in MoS (instead preferring to confront him with being treated alternatively like a god or a demon - not because of what he did, but just because of what he is).

 

[Anwar]

That doesn't mean that the schools had to use the PSAs using Steve, while he was a wanted man.

This whole thing smacks of contrived writing that reminded me of that story arc featuring Steve's failure to tell Tony about HDYRA's murder of the latter's parents in "Civil War".

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Overall, I liked the movie a lot. I'm not sure I would rank it ahead of the first two McGuire movies, but those movies had the advantage of doing the origin and Doc Ock.

I didn't really like Flash Thompson. I get what they tried to do, but I think the traditional Flash Thompson is better than the modernized version.

I think it was fine that they didn't have Mary Jane in the movie or a real love interest for Peter.

Where I feel they went right was having Peter always put his duties as Spider-Man over his personal life, even though he could totally make his own life better if he focused more on it.

Peter always lets the girl down, not by choice, but because something happens that requires Spider-Man, and Peter always puts his "great responsibility" first.

The movie got that better than all the other ones.

While this wasn't my favorite Spider-Man movie, I think they have set themselves up for great things in the future, and hopefully, Marvel will keep the rights to the character to expand his role in the overall MCU.

Spider-Man is Marvel's flagship character. He belongs in the MCU. I wish they could figure something out with the Fantastic Four, and figure out how to make a good Hulk movie.

I would have liked to have seen a little more Iron-Man as a mentor. It's clear he likes this kid a lot, but he really didn't master the mentor thing very well. I guess that's a Tony Stark flaw, but Peter is the type of kid that "because I said so" isn't enough. He's a reasonable kid with a level head, and if Tony took the time to explain his logic on several issues, a lot of the things that happened in the story could have been avoided. No one is born with wisdom--it's acquired. So a student like Peter would soak in what Tony had to say if he was told not just what to do, but why.

Looking forward to the future of Spider-Man.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Flash I kind of got, because it hadn't really occurred to me before, but if he was just some lunkhead jock, why would he be taking the same courses as Peter?

The mentoring thing I think they got right for the purposes of the story...it left Peter eager to prove himself, but forced to act on his own initiative, and to screw things up some, which is a fundamental Spidey characteristic.

 

[Tosk]

I was totally down for the new Flash. Jock bully is so last millennium.

 

[Venardhi]

This Flash is easier to understand as a character, which means he has potential to be more than a one-note minor antagonist. Rich kid superiority + high expectations academically (he clearly isn't nearly as smart or interested as the other decathlon kids so is probably there because of family pressure to excel) + desperation to be noticed/important (he DJs, drives a flashy car, puts down Peter very publicly, etc) = A relatable yet unsympathetic modern bully who can still be redeemed in the short term.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Spider-Man: Homecoming--

Like Doctor Strange before it, this introduction film cannot shake the impression that it only exists as the result of a perfunctory exercise--to catapult for the character to appear in the "event" films to come. That is not an uncommon feeling generated by this third phase of MCU films. Unlike Sam Raimi's still character defining Spider-Man 1 & 2, the latest reboot of the character is there just to there--serving the unforgettable needs of Marvel/Disney & Sony, but not feeling like a story that had to be produced.

This movie was okay...

Tom is charming, Keaton was good, and the humor was well done.

But it kind of failed in other places. No origin, no Uncle Ben, no Daily Bugle, no photographer job. Not even a mention of Ben, he might as well not exist. This is some kid who just happens to have Spidey's suit and powers.

Clearly, Sony & Marvel wanted to avoid the origin, but that robs Peter Parker of his one great motivation for fighting crime; here. he's just a do-gooder, but there's no moral charge, no great inner character as the reason he's a superhero. There's one line about Peter not wanting to cause any problems for May "after what she's been through" (paraphrasing) suggesting some traumatic event--smart money says its Ben's murder--but if its ever referred to or used in the form of a flashback, all of its potency--value to the heart of Peter is lost, when Homecoming sold the idea that he's just a do-gooder desperate to join the Avengers in the way some teenager might want to work for Apple--because its cool, not due to his learning a powerful lesson about the consequences of selfishness and irresponsibility, which sets his crusade in motion.

Another pointless bit was changing his Civil War reaction to Giant Man from the original "Holy shit!" It almost seems the line was changed to make this film's Peter seem more innocent, instead of his obviously comfort with cursing.

The female characters were badly done. Either they were reduced to poorly developed love interest (Liz), only there for other characters to make jokes about how hot she was (May), on just there to be an annoying quippy hipster joke dispenser that ended up trolling the audience were her last line (Michelle).

Michelle is the end result of the producers trying to make this Spider-world "relevant" with a long-past-its-shelf-life "non-conformist" / would-be "soft" radical which (ironically enough) is an overused stereotype. Her bad attitude and firing off one inane "I'm sooo deep, yet its a shield for...." after another was a terrible way to establish this "MJ" attempt to be some political observer with a dark side (you just know that will be one of the sequel's sub-plots).

Also Spidey's main plot was kind of terrible. Trying to impress Tony and his goal of becoming an Avengers was lame. He should be his own hero not someone looking for approval.

Agreed. The film borrows many moments from the comics, but misused them--the most glaring example was Spider-Man pinned under the rubble. Taken from The Amazing Spider-Man #33 (Feb., 1966) story "The Final Chapter" --

--where Spider-Man finds the courage, will and duty to free himself in order to retrieve medicine (just out of reach) his Aunt May desperately needs to survive. The drama of this well-remembered issue came from the time (years) and care it took to show just how loving/loyal Peter was to his aunt, while not wanting to fail her as he failed Ben, and needing to live up to his abilities. This kind of drama did not happen overnight, so when this series of pages played out, the drama, the emotion of it all was intense, and (once he frees himself) enormously gratifying. You cannot say that about Homecoming, as his reason for fighting to escape had nothing to do with guilt, love and his moral duty to those who meant the most to him, or living up to his abilities. Instead, the motivation was Stark's line, which was (ultimately) a watered down kind of CliffsNotes version of the famous Ben Parker line, with none of its importance for Peter's life in the most personal, defining way.

I hated the tech suit. At least the previous Spider-Men made their own suits instead of depending on a JARVIS wannbe computer voice.

The basic design of the suit was probably the only thing I'm willing to say was superior to previous live-action versions on TV and film. The AI was not much of a bother--as long as he's not relying on that every step of the way going forward.

Being part of the MCU is this movie's greatest strength both also its greatest weakness. The references were nice, but the forced crossovers end up hurting a movie's ability to stand alone. After the 4th Tony Stark appearance, I was wishing the writers were focusing on Peter's high school cast instead.

Their hands were tied; if this Spider-Man was going to be a part (to whatever degree) of the MCU, cameos or direct connections could not be avoided--but key parts of what makes Peter fight crime should not have been avoided just to jump to the full-on, "superhero-ing" phase out of the gates in Captain America: Civil War.

Maybe you never want to see his origin again, but Peter's origin is a big deal because without it he could have turned into a selfish A Hole that only uses his powers for money.

There were none of those thing, instead we have constant Tony scenes which felt like ads for Avengers Infinity War. That is becoming a problem in general with MCU films.

That was the problem with Marvel films from the beginning, since the template was always about some "event" involving numerous characters like some superhero-ized WWE show.

In any case, there were several positive parts of the film:

• The casting of Tom Holland, who made a good high school age Peter--walking that fine line between confidence (from having Spider-powers) and still being very much a work-in-progress concerning his social status. The Garfield movies were only concerned with Peter being some sort of misfit who would seem more comfortable in the local asylum, while the Maguire version was just as good as the Holland interpretation, but it its only "failing" was not spending much time on this chapter of his life.
• Iron Man silencing those Cap haters about the airport battle--and Cap's ability overall when he poured cold water on Peter's would-be credit by saying, "If he wanted to lay you out, he would have." So, for all of his raw strength, Spider-Man is not a match for Captain America.
• The racial diversity of Peter's school and neighborhood was a realistic touch to shape the world he lives in--far different than some TV superhero series, where you more likely to see diversity by way of tokenism, than an effort to show a truly multiracial/cultural society.
• Tomei's Aunt May was a bit ditzy from time to time, but she's a more in tune with Peter as a teenager than previous versions, which were more about being the kindly finger-shaker than trying to relate to the nephew as a person. BTW, so May's supposed to be Italian--or was that the shop owner just assuming?
• Tyne Daly's Anne Marie Hoag seems to be (as other observed) set up to (possibly) become the MCU's version Amanda Waller. There's just the ring of that in her performance, as if there's an undercurrent of something not quite right.
• Michael Keaton's Vulture requires more work, because his "Me--a workin' guy was screwed over, sos I want ta pay youse back" schtick was cartoony stereotyping of blue-collar individuals & culture. There should have been other reasons why anyone would use alien tech for their own benefit (pick one of a million). In any case, he was certainly believable as the villain...unlike his horrifying turn as the most miscast Batman in cinema history.

Spider-Man: Homecoming--what is the takeaway? It was not breaking new ground or setting a new standard of quality for superhero films. Its jjust there, but it should have been more, not the "Its just a set up for the sequel, when it really gets going" excuse used by some of the extreme MCU fans. Tom Holland deserved a better debut film.

Grade: C.

The worst thing about the entire production is the involvement of that racist POS Amy Pascal. I guess the entertainment business' famous liberalism puts on blinders when necessary.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They exist as comedy. They're cheesy and outdated and the teachers don't care. The gym teacher's line suggests that Cap's current status is somewhat in the air, but clearly public opinion hasn't turned on him. That is the entire point. It was a clever way to further illustrate that this is a world where superheroes are just a fact of life (down to its daily monotony) the way that the threat of nukes dropping from the sky was during the Cold War or "Terrorism" is today.

Right on point.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Clearly, Sony & Marvel wanted to avoid the origin, but that robs Peter Parker of his one great motivation for fighting crime; here. he's just a do-gooder, but there's no moral charge, no great inner character as the reason he's a superhero.

Sure there is, it's just that they trust that after two origin movies in the last 15 years (whatever continuity they were in), the audience knows by now why Peter is doing what he does, and didn't feel the need to reiterate it. It's no different than in the ongoing comic book series--Spidey's origin and Uncle Ben weren't touched upon every issue to explain his motivations for being a hero. This is the sixth Spider-Man film in 15 years...no need whatsoever to go there again. I applaud their choice to go with an early and learning but "in media res" take on the character.

I thought Michelle was decent enough as quirky comic relief. Where they go with her after the "MJ" reveal remains to be seen.

You cannot say that about Homecoming, as his reason for fighting to escape had nothing to do with guilt, love and his moral duty to those who meant the most to him, or living up to his abilities. Instead, the motivation was Stark's line, which was (ultimately) a watered down kind of CliffsNotes version of the famous Ben Parker line, with none of its importance for Peter's life in the most personal, defining way.

His motivation for freeing himself worked perfectly fine for the narrative of this film. This version of Aunt May isn't an elderly person with major recurring health issues, so trying to set the moment up to mimic its purpose in the original comic story wouldn't have worked.

(And let me echo the chorus...yeah, this Aunt May is smokin'....)

BTW, so May's supposed to be Italian--or was that the shop owner just assuming?

I'd assume the former...Parker is her married name, it matches the actress's ethnicity, and Peter's casual knowledge of Italian would support it.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Flash I kind of got, because it hadn't really occurred to me before, but if he was just some lunkhead jock, why would he be taking the same courses as Peter?

He wouldn't be. But he could go to the same high school as Peter. Flash had room to develop. Yeah, he was a jerk to Peter, but he wasn't one dimensional and all bad. Spider-Man was actually his hero. Ironic of course, but Flash was a big fan of Spidey.

The cartoon took Flash to a new level by having him not only mix with Venom, but he actually became the first one to control the symbiote rather than the other way around, turning Flash into a hero himself. He matured.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

This is the sixth Spider-Man film in 15 years...no need whatsoever to go there again. I applaud their choice to go with an early and learning but "in media res" take on the character.

Its the sixth Spider-Man film, but reboots often treat the subject as if it was a first time production, and should, since they have their own established audience, and should never assume everyone's been there before. With Spider-Man being a character with a call to service based on irresponsibility leading to tragedy, that is a significant motivator to brush aside, or as I predict, will be some throwaway reference or flashback in the sequel.

His motivation for freeing himself worked perfectly fine for the narrative of this film. This version of Aunt May isn't an elderly person with major recurring health issues, so trying to set the moment up to mimic its purpose in the original comic story wouldn't have worked.

I'm not saying the Tomei May needed health problems--my reference to The Amazing Spider-Man #33 was to point out the gravity of what motivated Parker to free himself. In Homecoming, Stark's weak speech was not what one would expect to motivate anyone to do anything of that magnitude. As a result, there's not nearly as much drama (or at all, frankly) to support that feat of strength as in the comic which inspired it.

(And let me echo the chorus...yeah, this Aunt May is smokin'....)

More like a spent match. Tomei had her day (probably between her lone season of A Different World and My Cousin Vinny), but she's--at best--a somewhat attractive older woman.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Its the sixth Spider-Man film, but reboots often treat the subject as if it was a first time production, and should

I completely disagree. The main sin of the Garfield reboot (from the half that I saw of it and what I heard about the other) is that it retread too much of the same material too soon. We may be dealing with three different continuities, but to the casual moviegoer, this is Spider-Man 6. It was well overdue to get past the twice-covered origin beats.

In Homecoming, Stark's weak speech was not what one would expect to motivate anyone to do anything of that magnitude.

Proving his worth as a hero, survival, and being the only one who could stop the bad guy weren't enough?

More like a spent match.

We definitely have to disagree there.

 

[Noname Given]

That doesn't mean that the schools had to use the PSAs using Steve, while he was a wanted man.

This whole thing smacks of contrived writing that reminded me of that story arc featuring Steve's failure to tell Tony about HDYRA's murder of the latter's parents in "Civil War".

No - they're just not taking themselves SOOO damn seriously that they expect every person viewing this film to have an in-depth knowledge about everything going on in the MCU. As to Steve not telling Tony "hey, BTW my friend Bucky killed your parents" - I still think that was a conscious decision of Steve's part because Steve want's to save Bucky; and doesn't hold him responsible for actions taken while he was mind-controlled.

 

[Noname Given]

Apparently you didn't see "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN".

It's interesting you want to claim a lot of 'lazy writing in "Spiderman: Homecoming" while obstensivly claiming no real lazy writing was done in that film:

Intersting since in BvS - when Lois and Superman recovered the Kryptonite spear..WHY did Superman have to be the one to use it to destroy Doomsday and sacrifice his life? I mean hell, I wasn't the only one in the group of peope, i saw it with thinking - "Hey toss the spear to Wonder Woman and let her take care of it!"
^^^
But no they wanted to do the "Death of Superman"

Oh, and as to the Superman funeral scene in BvS itself: I'm sorry, but given the events in the film itself; and how THAT world viewed Superman and his actions, I seriously doubt Superman would have gotten a funeral like that IN that world/reality, IF the writers were paying attention. It's lie the writers were channeling how the actual Superman from the comic book would have been treated for 70 years of saving the world - and not writing the scene to conform to the Superman they had created in MoS.
(YMMV of course.)

 

[LJones41]

That's your complaint? That it was Superman who used the Kryptonite spear to kill Doomsday . . . when Wonder Woman was struggling to keep the latter under control using her lasso and Batman was trying to maintain his distance, while shooting Kryptonite gas at it?

Okay. That bothered you. And the Captain America PSAs (along with a few other things) bothered me. Are we in accord to disagree?

Oh, and as to the Superman funeral scene in BvS itself: I'm sorry, but given the events in the film itself; and how THAT world viewed Superman and his actions, I seriously doubt Superman would have gotten a funeral like that IN that world/reality,

I don't understand the above comments. What kind of funeral would he have been given after being the one to destroy Doomsday?

I completely disagree. The main sin of the Garfield reboot (from the half that I saw of it and what I heard about the other) is that it retread too much of the same material too soon. We may be dealing with three different continuities, but to the casual moviegoer, this is Spider-Man 6. It was well overdue to get past the twice-covered origin beats.

Really? I thought it was Gwen Stacy's death that bothered a lot of people. They complained about it . . . so much. I found this ironic, considering that many had been anticipating her death after the first Garfield movie. And I don't recall the Maguire films exploring the impact of Richard Parker's death like the Garfield movies did.

 

[Trekker4747]

The biggest problem with TAS2 was not the stuff with Gwen Stacy, which was the better handled stuff, it was pretty much everything else. The stuff with Norman Osborne, the stuff with Harry Osborne ("Oh! Hey! By the way, I have this rich friend who's now back in town!") making the Green Goblin, the stuff with Electro and setting up the Sinister Six it was just way too damn much for one movie.

 

[Anwar]

There were some people pissed with Gwen dying, because they felt it made all the hard work Stone and Garfield put into their relationship a waste since they ended up killing her off.

They don't seem to get that the point was to make it such a good relationship you'd feel bad they killed her off.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The biggest problem with TAS2 was not the stuff with Gwen Stacy, which was the better handled stuff, it was pretty much everything else. The stuff with Norman Osborne, the stuff with Harry Osborne ("Oh! Hey! By the way, I have this rich friend who's now back in town!") making the Green Goblin, the stuff with Electro and setting up the Sinister Six it was just way too damn much for one movie.

There was also the sub-plot about Peter's parents that no one cared about.