Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Spider-Man: No Way Home *spoilers from post 185*

123457

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    The scene in the first one where he apprehends the car thief springs to mind, I know Spider-Man is meant to be quippy but he was just being plain mean imo and taunting the thief way beyond what was necessary. It felt especially sour after Uncle Ben had already given him the speech after the Flash incident. I'm not going to comment on ASM2 but even at the end of ASM when he decides to break his promise to Gwen's dad so easily but maybe that's addressed in the messing Gwen around you referred to. Anyway it's just a personal opinion, as I said I enjoyed him in NWH.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,012 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    It is now the 12th biggest grossing movie of all time and the biggest non Avenger movie of the MCU and should pass Ultron by the end of next week as it is only $38m shy of it today.


    The biggest Sony movie ever as well so no way they will want to lose this kind of box office.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I've seen ASM precisely one time so my memory could be shot to hell ... but that film was one of the few blockbusters where you could really feel the committee or executive notes leaping off the screen. As you say, I found that Spidey a bit of a díck, not charming or relatable - but the film struggled to merge said happy go lucky mentality with the obvious Angsty Family Drama the aborted series tried to fashion out of Peter's past. The studio wanted Parker to be cool and nerdy at the same, neither coming out fully baked. That was the least of the film's problems mind you, and to be fair Garfield and Stone had a nice chemistry, but the film was cynical garbage, ultimately.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭santana75


    I only watched The amazing spiderman and the amazing spiderman 2 over the Christmas break and I have to say I really enjoyed both movies. The 2nd one seems to have been overloaded with characters and various plot threads that didn't get resolved but I thought Andrew Garfield did a great job and the chemistry between him and Emma Stone was legit. I think Garfield is the best spiderman and he really pulled it out of the bag in no way home. I'd love to see him get one more movie for himself, I reckon Sony would not be adverse to milking that cow one more time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Meant to post this previously. I really enjoyed that. I'm not going to poke holes at the inconsistencies/problems with the world forgetting him. Just go with it or not. A wizard did bring a lizard guy and electric guy from another world so I'll live with the vagueness of the world forgetting about Peter Parker.


    But yeah, I enjoyed that very much and you can see that all involved did too. Garfield was the highlight, for me. Like most, I thought his Spiderman movies were the weakest (I don't think I saw his second one in one sitting even, I was that un-bothered). But obviously the makers of this knew the general opinion. Knew that he got the sh*tty end of that stick. I could happily have watched the three of them chat about their lives for another 30 mins. ("You were in the Avengers? Are they a band? You were in a BAND???!!!).

    I enjoyed the fact that the guys weren't simply cameos. (And I loved the small reference to Miles Morales). Don't know did Hayden Church do the Mo-Cap for Sandman or was it someone else. It seemed that they may have almost used unused footage for him (not as sandman) and Rhys Evans (Again, human). Which, I suppose, is fair enough. It really was about Spider-men versus the other three.

    Oh and that Charlie Cox cameo!!!! There was actually a huge gasp and cheer in the audience. I mean we all assumed that Garfield was going to be in it. But I think everyone just thought they were reaching too far for Charlie Cox cameo. The last time I heard a cheer in an Irish audience was the end of Endgame. And can't remember before that.

    So REALLY enjoyed that. Thought it was a great cap to a fun trilogy. I know they are planning more but..... if they said no more, then I'd be happy with that. But don't tell me they didn't rip off Spider-verse end credits :) Nor roll on Spiderverse 2 & 3!!!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Not to bring the Goblin thing back up, but only seen this now. To claim he's a rung down from Silver Surfer, Doctor Doom etc is simply untrue. Magneto the only other villain with his standing, Venom too.

    Hes the central villain to Marvel's biggest hero. Whether as the Goblin, Osborn or even Oscorp, their dynasty has gone from being Spidermans main villain to being consistently the main Marvel villain to all the hero's in some form or another. Very few major cross over events without him being a player or the puppet master.

    3 reboots of Spiderman films, and it always comes back to the Green Goblin one way or another, his son or company. How anyone can claim otherwise I don't know. No villain has hurt any major hero to the extent the Green Goblin has Spiderman over the years, and consistently so. Even had kids with Gwen. Unquestionably Marvel's flagship villain, the counter point to their flagship hero



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Can't really remember the ins and outs of that film but was it not a hereditary disease Harry got passed, that came and went, until it finally killed him anyway?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,484 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    If you read my post fully I said he wasn't a big name until the Raimi trilogy and i mean big name as in coming into the mainstream the regular every day cinema goer either knows or probably cares what Osbourne has done in the comics I'm a huge fan and I love how we ran the Dark Avengers and basically turned Shield into Hammer but again all of that is double dutch to most people


    In my own experience the 1st marvel heros I heard of was Hulk , probably because of the live action TV show and Spiderman cos he was everywhere , 1st villain I remember hearing of was Doom cos of that distinctive look and he was in all the cartoons and kids annuals and stuff 1st time I saw the Goblin was the awesome 90s animated series anyway it's just my own perspective



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Green Goblin has always been front and centre of the Spider-mans world, for decades, long before the Raimi trilogy. TBH I was sick of him by the time the 90's animated series came along. From my own experience, he's always been front and centre of things, to the point of over exposure, in some form or another. Can't really see how you missed him tbh. Most life defining moments for Peter has been at the hands of the Green Goblin for decades.

    Green Goblin has creative license no other Marvel villain has. The hero's always save the day. The exception is the Green Goblin, someone important always dies. Did more damage in the MCU in ten minutes than any other villain over 20+ films, in terms of a deep personal kill with weight to it.

    Post edited by The Golden Miller on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    It's a hereditary disease that affects the Osborns, and was part of what drove Norman to try different experiments with animals and insects, such as Richard Parker testing with spiders, and Connors testing with lizards. Norman was trying to find something that could heal him. Norman died from it and told Harry it'd affect it him too. Harry then started being affected by it (which was stupid because Norman lived to mid-50's to 60's with it, yet it started affecting Harry almost instantly after he finds out about it and he is rushing to find a cure immediately). Harry was given Norman's secret files about his research and realised he needed Spiderman's blood to try and cure him. But he didn't know that Richard Parker had used Parker DNA in his experiments and so the healing properties of his experiments would only work on someone with Parker DNA. Harry got some of Spiderman's blood and used it to try and cure himself, but it made him worse and turned him into the Green Goblin.

    Harry was still alive by the end, he says the effects of the Goblin potion he took comes and goes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Ye only watched it once as I thought the two films were rubbish, apart from the clocktower scene.

    I suppose the Osborn disease storyline comes from how do you portray the Goblin and give him a face in terms of live action. A normal face in the comics, pulls a mask over his face and that becomes an actual face too. Can't really do that in film



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Yeah, it just comes back to my main criticism of TASM films which is that they had some good ideas, but taken a few steps too far.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,484 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    The Osborne disease thing was going to come from the Ultimate Spiderman thing where eventually Norman would have come back as a monster goblin obviously they never got that far into the amazing Spiderman films to realise that , i'm sure that would been part of any 3rd film



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    Really enjoyed the movie but more because of the Spider-Men interactions than the villains. Made me realise that apart from mysterio all the Spider-Man villains have been pretty cartoonish with quite hammy acting, especially Green Goblin. I like the way they had the Garfield peter Parker sort of getting some redemption for saving MJ. Also for once didn't find MJ annoying.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭santana75


    Saw some interview with Andrew garfield on YouTube where he says he's relieved he can finally talk publicly about No way home. He also said that he and Toby Maguire snuck into a theatre on opening night, both wearing baseball hats and masks, to experience the movie with the public. I dunno this just made my day, imagining sitting in a theatre on opening night watching a movie you're starring in and nobody is any the wiser.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,012 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Just moved above The Avengers to become the 8th biggest movie of all time.

    The only MCU films ahead of it now are Infinity War and Endgame.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Sony are on a roll, this, cobra Kai and Ghostbusters

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I'm really happy for Andrew Garfield in particular. Given how hated his SM films were to the point where he didn't get a third film and Sony's struggles with the films (and their proposed spin-offs) ended up causing them to get together with Marvel, for Garfield to be getting so much love now for his NWH appearance is great. The issues with the TASM films were never his fault and he and Emma Stone were always lauded for their roles, but he does seem like the kind of actor who would take stuff like that to heart.

    The love he's getting for his appearance and the redemption his character gets for saving MJ is fantastic, and whether or not they do go for a third TASM film or does lead to further appearances, I think this has helped bring him up to a similar level to Maguire and Holland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Yeah, he was shafted by those movies. Everyone at the time thought "Rebooting? Didn't.... Didn't we just DO this? How many times does Uncle Ben have to die?". I mean, the films were fairly poor but, as you said, really wasn't his fault or Emma Stone's fault. (Apart from being FAR too good-looking to be average "teenagers" 😀).

    So yeah, it was great to see him get some kudos and love from the fans





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I think people say his Peter Parker was a bit of a d*ck, and that's true in a sense. Particularly once he gets his powers, he became very over-confident and played around with the guy he caught a bit too much before the cops came. But I think that's natural enough in a way, that he was a kid being bullied and now has all this strength and power. There was a clear shift though when he saved the kid in the car on the bridge, I think his confidence balanced out a bit more and he realised the responsibility he had. After that, I had no real issue with either his Peter or his Spider-Man, I thought he was excellent in both roles. Definitely more of the quippy, sarcastic side of the character than the nerdy, unlucky side that Maguire's character focused on. Also I think he moved a lot more like Spider-Man than any of the others.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    I suppose they over emphasised the Garfield Spiderman with quips etc, because they were non existent in the original trilogy. The perfect Spidey/Parker would be Mcguire under the Parker guise, and Garfield as Spiderman.

    My woman even said to me, she didn't enjoy the new trilogy, Spiderman portrayed as too kiddy. Said Dafoe was the films saving grace, brought menace and a darkness to an otherwise kid's film



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Too kiddy in what way? He's meant to be 17. I think Maguire and Garfield's Spider-Men have dealt with bigger themes you could tell they never felt like the teenager Parker is supposed to be. Holland I think comes closest to thay as teenager and not just because of his looks, I think he's much better at being the awkward nerd.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Parker in the early comics was supposed to be quite young, which is what Marvel went for here. In practice he always held himself in a similar fashion to the Mcguire take on Parker in the comics. Even when Parker was young, he was nothing like the Holland take on him.

    The films are very teenage/kiddie because of that, children's films as opposed to a serious film imo. The menace and darkness Dafoe brought to the latest film saved it imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,924 ✭✭✭✭Zero-Cool


    Holland was ruined because marvel/Sony felt like they had to tag on an avenger to each film, even far from home, he's basically Tony jr with the gadgets and living in his shadow. Calling everyone sir, just wasn't the Spidey i grew up with and loved. Agree with above, Tobey nailed Peter and Andrew almost nailed Spidey. He definitely nailed him in No Way Home and overshadowed Tom imo.

    The only saving grace for Tom was the ending, clean slate on his own has me really excited for the next Trilogy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Agree, Maguire and Garfield's versions rushed through the younger Spider-man which to me was lazy and a complete waste of the character, especially with the Garfield iteration as we'd already seen the fast jump to post high school in the original trilogy. Disney unsurprisingly made the smart decision to explore the younger Parker and use him as a contrast his perspective with the older superheroes - it worked and it is why it revitalised the character from the stale Sony approach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Well, my knowledge of Peter Parker's Spiderman was (Rightly or wrongly) that he was a kid somewhere between 15-17. Was a bit dorky and self-conscious when not Spiderman but pretty quippy and more confident when in suit.

    As a result, for me, while I enjoyed Toby Maguire's films to various degrees, most of that was down to my enjoyment of Sam Raimi and the villains. I always thought Tobey Maguire looked too old for the part. He always looked like his biggest problem wasn't teenage angst but keeping up mortgage payments :)

    Also, while Garfield was more into the quips as Spiderman, I thought he was also slightly too old and more traditionally handsome to be an average self-conscious geeky teenager.

    Having said that, it was fantastic to see them both in the movie and did bring a laugh and smile to my face (Especially, as I said before, Garfield. He was awesome and I could have watched the three of them chat for another hour. lol) ,

    So for ME (A non-reader), I thought Tom Holland was a great choice. He looks about the right age. Looks sufficiently "Hollywood Average" and portrays the right amount of awkwardness. (And, especially in Civil War, the tight amount of banter. Not so much quippy but banter).

    But, once again: NON reader.



  • Registered Users Posts: 523 ✭✭✭Full_Circle_81


    I'm curious to see if Raimi can hold his own against the Marvel machine for Dr. Strange 2 and give us something thats more uniquely him. It always bugged me that, even after two wildly successful Spiderman movies, he was forced to make so many studio-mandated compromises with Spiderman 3.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    They pretty much reboot most of the comics every decade or so, so at times in the comics he's high-school late-teens, at other times he's working as a photographer to put himself through college, and at times he's been mid-to-late 20's working as a scientist. His personality kinda shifts and evolves over the years in the same way too. Then they reboot the comics universe in some way and start again.

    So all versions of him that we've seen are pretty much right in some way or are pulling from certain eras or styles of the character, but everyone has different familiarity with it and will recognise some parts of the character and not others. But it really boils down to something I've said previously about things like comparing Joker or Batman actors; they each suit the films they were in and probably wouldn't have been as good as others. Maguire's Spider-Man/Peter wouldn't have suited Garfield's films and vice-versa. Tom Holland is actually a good mix of the two and I think he probably would have been good in the other SM films, but probably still wouldn't have been as good as Maguire/Garfield.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Are you saying that Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy wouldn't fit with Nolan's Batman Trilogy or that Tommy Lee Jones is somehow an inferior Harvey Dent to Aaron Eckhart?


    Shame on you *


    ( * Not really 😀 )



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭Fred Astaire


    I would struggle to find many runs to point at with Holland's Spiderman in mind.

    In Homecoming he gets all the tech and the main conflict in the movie is stopping a man who was legitimately wronged by Tony Stark from stealing from him. Really fail to see why Peter Parker is so concerned with this. It's not an issue that Spiderman should be so worked up about - just the concept of siding with the billionaire vs the working man is so anti - Peter Parker. Yes I know there have been plenty of runs with Iron Man and Peter but that isn't who the character really is and it shows me a complete misunderstanding of him.

    The replacement of Uncle Ben with Iron Man was just not right.

    In Far From Home he is given access to Super Glasses which he frivously gives away and then gets to build a new suit on a super jet before fighting the bad guy.

    He shows up late all the time and it's played off as a joke. What Raimi really nailed is the consequences for Peter of juggling his two lives. There is never a sense of that in any of the Holland movies.

    Added to the fact that he is a legitimate idiot who created his own problems in both No Way Home and Far From Home and he is a poor representation of the character. And Aunt May as this cool aunt, who in Far From Home was pimping him out as Spiderman for personal gain is probably the last thing an actual aunt May would ever do. In any run.

    Spiderman 1 and 2 are still the best on screen representation of Spiderman.

    Says a lot that the current movie felt it had to bring back villains and better Spidermen scripted by better writers to carry it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭Busi_Girl08


    Basically the Home trilogy was Holland Spidey's origin story, and it all landed with a wallop in the conclusion of NWH, namely in him finally getting his defining 'Uncle Ben' moment with Aunt May and time on his own. He had the 'luxury' of making mistakes along the way and repairing them, sometimes with help (Tony, Happy, etc). Garfield and Maguire didn't.

    He briefly (barely) referenced Ben in Civil war (referencing mistakes being made although we still don't know for sure what happened in this instance (correct me if I'm wrong!)) and then again in this movie, but comparing to Garfield and Maguire where their Uncle Ben moments had way more resonance with them. Granted they were a bit older than Holland's Spidey when we first saw him, but the had to grow up a lot quicker than he did, because they faced the hard consequence of their actions (Uncle Bens, Gwen).

    They all went through the same origin journey, Holland's just took longer and was much more eventful.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Has Ben ever been mentioned by name in the Home trilogy? You'd think when Maguire and Garfield were speaking about their Bens, our Peter might have said something and there was a conspicuous lack of Ben on May's gravestone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,414 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I don't think so. There was a suitcase with his initials on it that Peter had in Far From Home, but I don't think his name was ever actually spoken.

    I think while he did exist and died, his role in Peter's life isn't the same as the Maguire/Garfield ones. He likely died a fair bit earlier and so Aunt May has taken on the role of both May and Ben.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,832 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I think the MCU relies a lot on the actors being charismatic in lieu of actual interesting characterisation. I'd put Tom Holland’s Spidey in that category - obviously a good screen presence, but I don't believe his trilogy has much of a novel or focused 'take' on Spider-Man (unlike Raimi's films). But again that's a wider problem with the MCU.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,012 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    I don't think Marvel or Disney see it as a problem at all considering they have made over 20 billion in box office profits from 27 movies and that profit will continue to grow no matter what they churn out over the next decade.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    He was never even an Avenger really. Pushed into the MCU team up for the sake of it, Spiderman and all his properties. Avengers was a b team to X-Men, for second rate heroes who couldn't stand on their own.

    Since it got huge due to the MCU, Spiderman and his properties are still too big to need the Avengers or MCU. Spiderman acting as a protege to Iron Man was a joke..

    Before I wanted Marvel to get the rights to Spiderman back, now I'd prefer Sony hold onto them. He and his properties are far too big to be a MCU sideshow, nor do they need it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Strange post. You pick certain traits to suggest the first two actors didn't nail Spidey/Parker, they almost did, but not fully, from how you envision Parker.

    Then you praise the incarnation who was least like him. You say you didn't read the comics, but seem aware of how an early Parker was portrayed. So I don't see how you could view Holland's take as good, he was nothing like Peter at that age



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    As a side note, I think it should be acknowledged just how popular Spiderman has become since his creation. An enduring popularity never seen before really. To this day, the everyman, who everyone can relate to.

    There are huge franchises like Star Wars, Harry Potter or whoever. Global brands. But purely from an individual level, one singular character, nothing has ever had the continued impact and appeal of Spiderman.

    My mate put it to me one day, he loved Iron Man and his films. Into cars, could relate to the tech stuff or whatever. A few years later said the character bored him, a fad or phase.

    Spiderman for decades, transcends that and continues to do so, regardless of what's the in thing. His enduring popularity as the everyman is something everyone can relate to and is timeless.

    People may role their eyes but I think it's fascinating. My daughter, now 6, watched his cartoons as a toddler, interested, and now watches them in a manner where she understands them. A large proportion of every demograph and minority relates to him on some level, an unintended, huge reaching appeal no other character has ever encompassed, or had that impact.

    I'm confident you could reboot his films every year for the next 20 years with the same origin story over and over again, and people would still go to see it. I always thought the characters persistently huge and widespread appeal is incredible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    How is Raimi's take novel deemed novel? It was the first time the character was really on the big screen and basically the second blockbuster comic book movie - everything at that point was novel.

    I don't see it as being based on them being charismatic, MCU do a great job in making their heroes likeable and having the audience care about them. Their characters then take interesting archs that the audience is invested in - some seem to put 'interesting' over engaging. MCU did a better job engaging the audience with Garfield's Spider-man over a few minutes on screen than Sony did with 2 movies.

    MCU's take on a younger Spider-man is far more novel and interesting than what Sony did with Garfield's iteration, which was basically lets do a rethread but throw in some weird stuff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,278 ✭✭✭✭flazio


    Remind me, wasn't the spell "the whole world will forget Peter Parker"

    Well what about those not on the world. Nick Fury, Peter Quill, Nebula etc. They still remember him don't they?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭Busi_Girl08


    I think the assumption is that it's universe-wide.

    MCU universe-wide though...



  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    Not a zealot of these comic movies myself but did find this an interesting overview of the history of the Spider-Man movies and how the Sony deal with Marvel drove the releases and influenced Marvels moves into production




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,208 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Finally saw it tonight. I enjoyed it but thinking that being late to the party kinda ruined it. As I knew about the three spideys and aunt may.

    Lesson learned I guess is to see these movies pretty quick.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,012 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    I felt the two shoving the snow in Sanctum Sanctorum should have been Shang-Chi & Katy,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭seraphimvc


    Finally get to see it last week - I have heard bits and bobs beforehand but pretty much has no impact to my experience.

    So ya nostagia factor to the max, DocOct and Willem dafou stole the show hard, and not to my least surprise that we have 3rd installment of Tom Holland's spiderman and he is still not the 'core' character in this another movie supposedly about himself/spiderman.

    I enjoyed it overall (nostalgia warmy feeling and god damn DocOct and Willem performances are on another level), but I just can't help to feel pity on this writing with so many missed opportunities. My god they were given a big pile of amazing source materials and this is how they did it - nothing get fleshed out (again DocOct Willem truly stole the show with their limited screen time), rushed and lazy plot devices throughout the film. I mean, the project basically cannot fail due to the massive source materials given to it and somehow it makes me felt disappointed. Well, why do I get my expectation up for a marvel film aha.

    The film feels cringey at times like Tom Holland calling himself spiderman 1 and it is so american that 'oh i will fix you' - seriously did no one tell them by doing that they are fcking up the multiverses/timelines further lol. The death of Aunt May - i am sorry the scene just felt forced since she has been a comic relief all these times - and ya come on adrenaline rush or not, they let her live to do that scene after the point blank explosion...And I don't know why but that Michelle-Jones pissed me off lolol - why is she the only one with such different name vs other people in multiverses? Oh ye subverting expectation huh.

    And oh so smart that the whole trilogy is Tom Holland's spiderman origin story - ya you know when Strange casted the spell to make everyone forgets Spiderman = Peter Parker - why is that not impacting to other Peter Parkers? Oh because Tom Holland's spiderman apparently is the Main timeline now? I mean sure it is so convenient Strange's spell send back the other Peters and the villains, that's it. That spell is the strongest (plot device) ever that it could delete all media footage of Spiderman = Peter (just imagine the spell is able digitally delete some pictures of the newspapers records lol), and also apparently stopping Tom to write down the facts right there for MJ and Ned.

    Anyway, I am just glad that Sam Raimi didn't work on this - I think Multiverse Madness fits his dark/grimmy style better and most importantly less attachments like a spidey movie nowadays.

    And ye you know what, I would recommend Into the Spiderverse even more after watching this - now THAT is how a good project on spidey multiverse looks like, with so much fun and thoughts put together.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭The Phantom Pain


    So, finally caught this on Apple TV and all I have to say is, Andrew Garfield:




  • Registered Users Posts: 34 TryingNot2Lie


    Saw it tonight and loved it.

    After a really tough day, I wanted some switch-ff-mind kind of entertainment.

    I've been a huge Spidey fan for over 30 years, so obviously know alot about the canon, but despite veering from canon in places (Aunt May should not be that hot), I still loved it, and the nods to the previous movies in their various incarnations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,112 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    A bit confused but do The green Goblin and the others actually stay alive in there universes ?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Finally caught this, finally, and yeah a very enjoyable ride, even if it was powered by a huge amount of nostalgia. One of the stronger, recent MCU films; the obvious takeaways were the other Spider-Men, both effortlessly playing the role again - with Andrew Garfield kinda stealing the show. I was sad to see them go. But then that was also kind of a problem: yet again, we had a Tom Holland Spider-Man where he wasn't really the lead of his own story. At least here it was down to it being more of an ensemble piece - than a Tony Stark tale, featuring Spider-Man along for the ride.

    Specific props too for taking Alfred Molina's Doc Ock and redeeming him; it was something of a small quibble of Raimis own film, letting him die a villain than have his young friend save his soul. Molina and Dafoe both left their mark, and reminded that memorable, punchy villains remains a sticky problem with the MCU.

    Also, might just be me but while the cinematography was as blah as ever, it felt like they got rid of the drab colour grading. Seemed a more colourful film than usual in the series. The colours stronger, richer but maybe it was just me.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement