Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Movies
Byrne Robotics > Movies << Prev Page of 23 Next >>
Topic: SPIDER-MAN: Far From Home ~ SPOILERS begin pg 8 Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Adam Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 July 2017
Posts: 1175
Posted: 15 July 2019 at 12:09pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

The end of FFH indicates, at least to me, that the next Spider-Man movie will be moving into more traditional/comic-accurate Spider-Man territory.

In the comics, Spider-Man appeared before Iron Man. In the MCU, Iron Man appeared years before Spider-Man. So it doesn't surprise me all that much that Peter would be a sort of Stark protege. I could deal with it as long as it wasn't permanent. 

Stark is now dead. Peter's going to have to be his "own man" for now on (yes, Happy Hogan will help him when his suits get torn up, but the webshooters and web-fluid are still Peter's inventions.)

I don't doubt that Hogan is going to get the "Iron Spider" suit out of Peter's home immediately, given what happened at the end of FFH. 

I could really do without "Ned Leeds" (at least reveal that "Ned" isn't his real first name or something) but we're stuck with him. Unless he's transferred to another school, leaving Peter alone (Michele Jones excepted). I'd approve of that.

I really would like more overt reminiscences of Uncle Ban. Have May break down and cry on the anniversary of his death. Peter too. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 349
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 8:14am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

As I said in another thread, Garfield's awkward emo-skater boy is more faithful to the angry, arrogant outcast that Peter was in the Lee/Ditko issues than Maguire's socially inept nerd. 

Just reading "emo-skater boy" and "faithful to the Lee/Ditko issues" together makes my brain hurt.

Both Garfield and Holland capture Peter's DIY genius much better than Maguire's Peter who was just a nerd who managed to create an expensive costume somehow. 

Wow, webshooters go a long way, huh? They should've called him WebShooter-Man. If only the fact that the Holland SM made the webshooters compensates for Tony Stark making his various costumes and technologies for him and giving him a butler to cater to all his needs (very faithful to the Peter Parker character!) they must be REALLY important. 

After all, everybody knows that a poor kid that makes his own costume is far less of a genius than another kid who gets gifted all this billions of dollars in tech. 

Both Garfield and Holland portray the fun, quippy Spider-Man versus Maguire's silent, brooding one.

If you read those Lee/Ditko issues carefully you might notice that while his quips are memorable and happen from time to time, he's not a joke machine (a la Deadpool) and the stories are quite melodramatic and his mood is, more often than not, brooding. Because a lot of stuff happens to this kid. It's not entirely "fun" for him to be Spider-Man. It's kind of the point. That feeling was only reflected correctly in the Raimi movies.


Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12883
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:38am | IP Logged | 3 post reply


 QUOTE:
Just reading "emo-skater boy" and "faithful to the Lee/Ditko issues" together makes my brain hurt.

The emo-skater boy was more faithful to the Lee/Ditko issues than Maguire's dorky Peter.


 QUOTE:
Wow, webshooters go a long way, huh? They should've called him WebShooter-Man. If only the fact that the Holland SM made the webshooters compensates for Tony Stark making his various costumes and technologies for him and giving him a butler to cater to all his needs (very faithful to the Peter Parker character!) they must be REALLY important. 

After all, everybody knows that a poor kid that makes his own costume is far less of a genius than another kid who gets gifted all this billions of dollars in tech.

If I meant webshooters, I would have said webshooters. Don't believe THE BIG BANG THEORY. Being socially inept is not shorthand for being a genius or even just being smart.


 QUOTE:
If you read those Lee/Ditko issues carefully you might notice that while his quips are memorable and happen from time to time, he's not a joke machine (a la Deadpool) and the stories are quite melodramatic and his mood is, more often than not, brooding.

I agree. Also, not what I'm talking about.

Peter is brooding. But no one but the reader can read Spider-Man's internal monologue. Whether quipping or serious, Spider-Man is talking. He's engaging his opponents as he fights. He's not grim and silent, as Raimi's Spider-Man was more often than not.


 QUOTE:
Because a lot of stuff happens to this kid. It's not entirely "fun" for him to be Spider-Man. It's kind of the point. That feeling was only reflected correctly in the Raimi movies.

All the movies reflected the personal toll that being Spider-Man takes on Peter. It was not entirely fun for any of them.


Back to Top profile | search
 
Craig Earl
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 July 2019
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 37
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 12:32pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

We have to look at these things in context. 'Spider-Man' hit the big screen in 2002. Did I like everything about it? No (especially the organic webshooters and the Goblin/Power Rangers get-up). But for the most part, I could tell that it was a labor of love for Raimi, a well known, card-carrying spider-fan. He got some things wrong but a lot of things right, and let's all be clear, Sony were playing hardball at this time. This was seventeen years ago, people.

Since Iron Man in 2008, the MCU has taken the chance to grow organically and take more risks off the back of their success. That's why, with Spidey, I feel like we've taken a backward step. Sure, the teenage Peter makes complete sense (and I'm on board with Holland), but the ridiculous casting of the support characters and the 'Tony Stark's teenage sidekick' angle have lost me.

Growing up, Spider-Man was always my favorite comic book character. As for the screen version, I'd be happier with a Hawkeye movie than another Jon Watts Spidey offering.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12883
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 1:15pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply


 QUOTE:
We have to look at these things in context. 'Spider-Man' hit the big screen in 2002. Did I like everything about it? No (especially the organic webshooters and the Goblin/Power Rangers get-up). But for the most part, I could tell that it was a labor of love for Raimi, a well known, card-carrying spider-fan. He got some things wrong but a lot of things right, and let's all be clear, Sony were playing hardball at this time. This was seventeen years ago, people.

No one is asking anyone to justify Raimi's SPIDER-MAN. It's just the idea that Maguire's portrayal should be considered any sort of benchmark that I find risible. He was a mediocre Peter and a poor Spider-Man, and whatever other things Raimi got right about Spider-Man's world doesn't change that.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 349
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 3:54pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

I like Holland as Spider-Man and Peter a lot more than Tobey Maguire. I dislike Maguire as an actor in general. I'll also throw Dunst in the mix, she is miscast as MJ and the character itself isn't properly handled.

But having said that, those movies are still (far and away) more faithful to the Lee/Ditko character and his world than the current ones. To say they aren't is IMHO crazy talk, sorry.

In the current films (which as a I've said I've grown into sort of liking) EVERYTHING, every aspect of the character and his world is changed except him being a white male named Peter Parker.

In fact, those were the rumored "conditions" the Kevin Feige team at Marvel Studios got: he must be a white teenager named Peter Parker (the rumor also had it that they wanted to use Miles Morales instead for a while). Everything else, go wild. They did.








Back to Top profile | search
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 349
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 4:09pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

The end of FFH indicates, at least to me, that the next Spider-Man movie will be moving into more traditional/comic-accurate Spider-Man territory.

I hope that's true. But it's just that, hope.

We've seen this version already in five movies and that didn't happen. That's a lot of leeway Marvel Studios is getting (on the back of their tremendous success, so justifiably so).

I wonder what would happen if Raimi or Webb came back saying "please let me do another one, THIS one I'll get right". I'm guessing the majority of the fandom would say no but they keep their hopes up for THE NEXT Marvel Studios Spidey film. I just find it curious.

Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 2192
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:59pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

I started reading Marvel comics in the mid-Eighties, so "my" Spider-Man was pushing thirty and married. (Actually, my first exposure was the Nicholas Hammond on TV in the Seventies, who was nearly thirty, too.)

For my entire comic reading life, I've heard fans insist Peter Parker should never have graduated from high school, but I was almost thirty myself before I read those issues in the Masterworks reprints, so I'm not attached.

I think MCU Spidey is an improvement over the previous five films, as well as most of the Spider-man comics I read between 1986 and 1991, which wasn't many, because I didn't particularly like the book, Peter's sad-sack misery, his droning economic loserism, or the perpetually moribund Aunt May, who appeared to have her own extensive supporting cast of aged dotards; it was a drag. There were a few standout stories, but mostly the bright spots were the parties Mary Jane occasionally threw with her hot friends, and of course the work of artists like Sal Buscema and JRJr. It's definitely better than what I've read of the Clone Saga.

The biggest loss has been Peter's money troubles. While I didn't care for the ongoing desperation, a little taste of limited resources would set Spider-Man apart from the 1% douchebags and government budgets dominating every other superhero movie. Aunt May could be a little less healthy (people in their fifties have heart trouble), but at least she's not a burden. I miss the Daily Bugle, but the utilization of the high school setting, as opposed to it merely serving as a backdrop, makes up for it. (And how many supporting casts does a superhero need?)

Homecoming and Far From Home gain focus by giving space to aspects of the mythology, rather than checking boxes to acknowledge 50 years of continuity ("And now Betty Brant has a line.") Structuring like teen comedies makes for inspired entertainment. Overall the films are about as faithful to what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created as the comics I grew up reading.

Conclusion: I endorse MCU Spider-Man.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12883
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 12:12am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I was a Spider-Man fan since I was four or five, but didn't start collecting Spider-Man comics until I was around 10 or 11. /My/ Spider-Man had a secret pop-up crime lab and computer built by Tony Stark and two mutant roommates who knew his secret identity, so the MCU Spider-Man having StarkTech and sidekicks who know his secret don't really phase me.

When I started reading Spider-Man, it was all dark shit like "The Death of Jean DeWolff " and "Kraven's Last Hunt", so I switched over to Marvel Tales for a while.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33140
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 12:13am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

 Rodrigo Castellanos wrote:
Because a lot of stuff happens to this kid. It's not entirely "fun" for him to be Spider-Man. It's kind of the point. That feeling was only reflected correctly in the Raimi movies.

One wonders if you've even seen HOMECOMING or FAR FROM HOME. Hell, I wonder if you even seen the two Webb movies.  All four make a point about how hard it is to balance being a kid, a teenager, with fighting crime.  All of them.  To say that that feeling was "only reflected correctly in the Raimi movies" is, to be generous, a serious misreading of the films that came after.  At worst?  It's putting movies you personally enjoy ahead of films you don't and are using bad faith arguments as a defense.  I can point to several scenes and monologues in FAR FROM HOME alone that entail Peter questioning balancing just being a kid with the responsibility he feels comes with his great power.  It's all there. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33140
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 12:28am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

 Rodrigo Castellanos wrote:
I like Holland as Spider-Man and Peter a lot more than Tobey Maguire. I dislike Maguire as an actor in general. I'll also throw Dunst in the mix, she is miscast as MJ and the character itself isn't properly handled.

But having said that, those movies are still (far and away) more faithful to the Lee/Ditko character and his world than the current ones. To say they aren't is IMHO crazy talk, sorry.

Bullshit.  

When you've got Peter/Spider-Man as a passive hero in the original SM 2 and, instead, have Doc Ock (OF ALL PEOPLE) saving the day at the end of the movie, I'd say that's so far afield of faithfulness to the Lee/Ditko characters as to be laughable.

When a sympathetic Sandman is thrown into the mix of Peter's origin in the Raimi films, that's not being faithful AT ALL to the character.  

When the first two reboot films post Raimi (AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and HOMECOMING) showcase a Peter Parker who is miles ahead in academia than the three Raimi films combined, you have to laugh at the notion that Raimi's films were "more faithful to the Lee/Ditko character and his world than the current ones".

When the films after Raimi have Peter vacillate between utter joy at being Spider-Man and questioning it in complex and nuanced terms that the comics achieved beforehand but the Raimi films never did, then I'm sorry but no, THAT'S when you've achieved "crazy talk" for putting the original trilogy heads and tails above anything else.

You say you've seen the films after.  You say you enjoy moments in them.  But then you dismiss them outright as unfaithful and anyone who supports them as speaking "crazy talk".  I could, by the way, go on about the unfaithful nature of the characters in the Raimi films, but I think I've said enough.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 349
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 12:50am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Conclusion: I endorse MCU Spider-Man.

That's great, and I relatively agree. The MCU Spider-Man films are good.

Some of the changes I dislike, because they mess with what I feel like are fundamental traits of the character (he's supposed to be sort of an outcast, both as Peter and as Spider-Man in the superhero community). 

Being Spider-Man is not supposed to be fun, it takes a big toll on his personal life. And his life is a complicated one, with constant money trouble and an elderly aunt he is supposed to take care of.

But a some stuff does work well in the MCU version, like the high school setting. The scene in FAR FROM HOME when he has to leave because of Fury calling him and let Brad take his seat in the opera house with him giving him the finger is the closest we get to that classic Spider-Man tension.

Another classic theme is him having some kind of relationship with his villains in his personal life, and the contradictions and doubts that generates on him. They did this very well in HOMECOMING with The Vulture being the father of the girl he was crushing on. 

But those classic Spidey themes are infrequent in this iteration, his aunt is hot and healthy, he has the backup of the world's biggest corporation and he's a well adjusted kid in his environment, his biggest problem being Flash Thompson dissing him lightly once per movie or having to deal with the pressure of being Iron Man's successor which has nothing to do with anything in the comics.

But in this forum there's a lot of talk of being "faithful to the original" as the non-plus ultra of a good comic book adaptation. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think we could all agree that the MCU Spider-Man is not it.

If the Spider-Man you like is not brooding or conflicted, is not portrayed as a shady character in the press and therefore is not fully trusted by the public, has no money troubles and Aunt May is not a burden and is instead a FUN, FUN, FUN, machine gun quipping acclaimed superhero with no issues and all the money in the world then you don't like classic Spider-Man.



Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 23 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login