Amph "You think you're the only superhero in the world?" - The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Would anybody like some big changes in the MCU Spider-Verse? Like MJ dies instead of GS? How about no female version of SM at all?

 

Sorry!

 

What did I just watch?

 

I genuinely get a lot more out of ASM's Gwen than SM3's Gwen. SM3 has Gwen doing a modeling shoot when she's introduced which is sort of cut and pasting 616 MJ's modeling career onto Gwen, which I kind of found weird. But she's mostly just sort of there, and Bryce Dallas Howard is an actress I really, really like but she's just kind of a random person who is there to make MJ jealous and then leaves the movie . ASM Gwen interestingly takes the "Gwen the Science Genius" angle from the "Spectacular Spider-Man" cartoon to make her more of a scientific peer with Parker (and even a bit higher than him, maybe) which does flesh out the character more. 616 Gwen was kind of the other girlfriend and then got tossed off a bridge. Generally, I kind of like how ASM Gwen ends up helping out a bit more at the climax of ASM2 and Stone is just really great at all of her interactions with Garfield and basically she works the way Gwen should work. She's has an air of tragedy hanging around her but super sympathetic and likable . And then she gets killed. Admittedly, her death isn't exactly like the 616 classic version but I think it's close enough and the death scene itself is really well done. Which is why I'm okay with the ASM series by viewing it as a two-movie Death of the Stacys series. Dark but, hey, I think it pays off.

Which is, to bring it all the way back to MCU Spider-Man, I'd be happy if they went with, like Betty Brant or Liz Allan as Peter's love interest this time. I think both the Raimi and the Webb movies have done the respective love interests (MJ and Gwen) actually really well. Puny Parker did get a lot of ladies for awhile there, just cycle through the roster.

 

Fair enough.

Don't really agree, but fair enough.

Fair enough.

Hey, I find the idea of Gwen being Peter's girlfriend weird. MJ and Gwen have been swapping traits for a long time in adaptations, so that didn't bother me that much. In fact I found it kind of amusing, to be honest, but that is subjective.

What would you have liked to have seen done with Gwen? They couldn't have done the Peter/Gwen relationship in this series, since the trilogy had already set up MJ as the love of this Peter's life. IMHO, I think she was fine as was. She also factored into the Venom story as another reason that Eddie Brock hated Peter, so she did have more that one use. (Would thinking of Gwen as an Easter egg of sorts help?)

I guess.

I think Stone was perfectly cast, but I wasn't sold on the Peter/Gwen relationship, so I have a hard time appreciating the characters interactions, since they seemed really superficial, IMHO. As far as Gwen helping at the end, I couldn't help thinking that she was being incredibly dumb for getting involved in a battle she wasn't rated to fight in (although Stone did make her ire really funny). So, when she bought it, part of me was thinking: "What did you two seriously think was going to happen?"

Beyond her lack of common sense, sure, I think she was likable enough. However, I never felt like she had an established character beyond being "the girlfriend." Also, given that I think the Peter/Gwen relationship in this movie is chronically unhealthy, I think she was kind of weak-willed in not moving on, but that's just my take.

I must be one cold-hearted guy, since I felt nothing when she bought it. To be fair, I think the actors gave it their all, and I think it was just me not being able to get into it. I think we were supposed to see it as Peter loosing the love of his life, but for me, I never felt like they had anything other than a shallow crush on each other, so it rings really hollow. If I was invented in the duo, I'm sure it would've worked for me.

Liz would probably be the better choice, since Brant would be uncomfortable, given the age difference there would be in today's version of it.

Okay. I think I'd like to see the MCU add MJ eventually. I think it would be really neat to see Peter grow up onscreen and maybe adapt the Peter/MJ married years, too.

 

Glad for the Spidey change. ASM films were pretty awful (the writing of Orci and Kurtzman seems to ruin everything it touches), and "Hot Hipster" Parker just ain't what Parker is supposed to be. On that front, the first two Raimi films were easily superior, even if Emma Stone's performance and presence made the ASM movies far more watchable, since MJ is barely a character in Raimi's films.

It is kind of sad to chuck out their fantastic chemistry, though.

That being said, I'm on board for the new version and loved what bits he had in Civil War, even if they were completely pointless to the plot and made Tony a hypocrite, considering what his stance was on taking responsibility for his actions whilst simultaneously throwing a teenager into his little war. Ah well, fun characters can make me forgive a lot, but I still think Age of Ultron and Civil War were bloated affairs with too many subplots and spinoff set-ups getting in the way of the central story of each film.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you think Raimi MJ was barely a character? I'm kind of the opposite, since I think she's one of the better-written girlfriend characters in the Marvel franchise, and think that Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is more of a plot device than an actual character.

As far as Iron Man putting Spider-Man in the fight, I took it that they didn't have a lot of options. Also, Iron Man's instructions were to keep his distance and web them up from afar. Spider-Man is the one when jumped into close quarters fighting. Still, it is an interesting point.

Personally, I think Civil War was pretty tight and is one of my favorites, but your mileage may vary.

 

She's terribly underwritten, and only there as the focus of Peter's attentions. I don't really blame the actress, but she wasn't given much of anything to work with. MovieBob recently did a much better breakdown and analysis of this weakness on his youtube channel, and I recommend checking it out.

As for Civil War, I did like it. I had no major complaints. I just... didn't feel the need to see it again in theaters. It did balance the too many subplots issue better than Age of Ultron did. Both were fun movies with a lot of positive in them, I just found them... overloaded. Same thing with Batman v Superman, too, though while the Marvel films had interesting, likable characters to redeem them in my eyes, and a plot that made general sense, BvS had none to speak of. As others have pointed out, it was all montage and no scenes. Before I saw it, I thought, ooh, a trial, this will get into the meat of all the issues I had with MoS and how Clark is viewed! ....nope. Wheelchair bomb and Granny's Peach Tea. Meanwhile, Civil War gives us amazing scenes like the one between Tony and the mother of the boy who died in Wachovia.

 

The problem with both Mary Jane and Gwen Stacy in the films is the need to include them in the final battle somehow, by having the villain realize that they're important to Peter and thus uses them to try and serve as a distraction. In the first Raimi film and in the third film, this works when it comes to villains like the Green Goblin and Venom who know Peter's identity and falls in line with what has happened in the comics. But even with Venom, he considers MJ to be an innocent and wouldn't use her. With Gwen, there was no need to have her as involved in ASM 2 until it was time to kill her.

The overall problem is that whereas Lois Lane is a journalist whose presence is kinda mandatory, the Superman films did a better job of integrating her or not using her in the finale. The first Donner film had Lois away from the bulk of the action and only in peril incidentally. Both version of the second film were more precise with the idea of using her as bait and as a shield. The third film kept Lois and Lana out of the final battle, likewise with Lois in the fourth film. Lacy was in danger, but most of the time she was kept out unless you watch the deleted scenes. The Singer film did integrate her throughout the bulk of the third act. With the Snyder films, Lois is involved, but she does more than just needing to be rescued. Same with Pepper Potts in the Iron Man films.

I fear again that this could be the case in "Homecoming".

 

I suppose movies are different, but I never have felt the 'girl' had to be there. They mostly have not been in the comics. Contrary to what the first Raimi film told us: This story is not about a girl. It's about Peter Parker. Plus it gets repetitive like a lot of stuff they do. You can have MJ in jeopardy in one movie, aunt may in the hospital in the next one, and some other jeopardy in the next. It doesn't have to be mj hanging by a thread at the end of every film. I just hope now that marvel is running the show they take a longer range view finally and don't rush through all the material like fox always has.

 

I'll take a look. As a rebuttal, I would point out that all supporting characters are there because of how the main character relates to them. Even so, I think MJ has a few advantages over others. She has a fleshed-out backstory that isn't directly connected to her role in the plot. She has story arcs over the series (her struggles with low self-esteem and other baggage from her verbally abusive childhood, her career aspirations) that have little to nothing to do with Peter's story (to the point that, using only info from the movies, a script for a MJ-centric movie could be written even without Peter being present). She also has her share of strengths and flaws that play out over the stories, plus a few consistent quirks.

Even as just a girlfriend character, she doesn't fair too badly. The relationship is shown to progress over the course of the movies, starting as kind of a high school crush and ending with the couple getting serious. The first film very patiently shows why MJ falls in love with Peter (if you watch closely, you can even tell what stage she's at in each scene) and sets groundwork that they can relate to each other as people before romance enters the picture. They're also shown discussing stuff that's important to them, and a lot of the relationship problems they have are the kind of stuff that could happen in real life (trouble communicating, for one). Finally, the relationship is shown to be a two-way street. While the first movie may focus on Peter being supportive to MJ (although he is shown to seek her out when felling low, so he clearly finds support, too), she's shown to be willing to pull her own weight in it (check the scene where she talks to him after it comes out that Sandman has escaped). We even see how the relationship affects and changes MJ over the series, instead of being a case where the relationship only exists to develop the lead character.

So, did every element of Raimi's MJ Watson hit the mark? No, there are a few scenes that don't and a couple stuff that are a little weak, but she was given a lot of character development over the series, was defined outside her role as the love interest, and even the love story itself was used to develop the character rather than just being a way for her to further the main character's story. It's on those grounds that I disagree and maintain my opinion that she was not only a good character, but also that there have been few, if any, love interest characters in the franchise since that have been given the same level of development. I'd argue that even Pepper Potts and Peggy Carter (two of the better such characters in the MCU) are still not in the same league.

About Venom:

A.) As an adaptation, things don't need to be 100% the same as in the source material and can be different if consistent with the adaptation itself. Movie Venom's plan is consistent with the character as presented in the movie. He even explains his reasoning:

(The novelizations do expand on this, although the details are a little confusing in regards to what we see onscreen and what is said.)

B.) In the original comics, Venom is a hypocrite. While he claims to not involve innocents, he repeatedly will kill them if it suites his purposes. So, even according to the source material, Venom's plan in the movie would be in character if he thought that killing MJ would assist him.

I think that stuff was overall botched, too, but what can you do?

I think this had more to do with the fact that the movies made the couple's relationship an important part of the plot than anything else. Peter does get story arcs that are separate from his love life, too.

I think in the case of the Raimi movies, while they did get a bit repetitive, it was needed for the story and not exactly done just for thrills. The first movie was retelling the Green Goblin story, so it was needed. The second movie uses it to show how MJ learns that Peter is Spider-Man (also, Doc Ock isn't using her as bait or really care about her as long as she can't call the police). In the third one, the capture/rescue is sandwiched between Peter backhanding MJ (after successfully trying to emotionally hurt her) under the influence of the symbiote and the couple repairing their relationship. For that last scene to ring true after the jazz club incident, there would need to be something that would show MJ that Peter had worked through his demons and that he still loved her. The construction scene allowed that to happen.

 

I'll take a look. As a rebuttal, I would point out that all supporting characters are there because of how the main character relates to them. Even so, I think MJ has a few advantages over others. She has a fleshed-out backstory that isn't directly connected to her role in the plot. She has story arcs over the series (her struggles with low self-esteem and other baggage from her verbally abusive childhood, her career aspirations) that have little to nothing to do with Peter's story (to the point that, using only info from the movies, a script for a MJ-centric movie could be written even without Peter being present). She also has her share of strengths and flaws that play out over the stories, plus a few consistent quirks.

Even as just a girlfriend character, she doesn't fair too badly. The relationship is shown to progress over the course of the movies, starting as kind of a high school crush and ending with the couple getting serious. The first film very patiently shows why MJ falls in love with Peter (if you watch closely, you can even tell what stage she's at in each scene) and sets groundwork that they can relate to each other as people before romance enters the picture. They're also shown discussing stuff that's important to them, and a lot of the relationship problems they have are the kind of stuff that could happen in real life (trouble communicating, for one). Finally, the relationship is shown to be a two-way street. While the first movie may focus on Peter being supportive to MJ (although he is shown to seek her out when felling low, so he clearly finds support, too), she's shown to be willing to pull her own weight in it (check the scene where she talks to him after it comes out that Sandman has escaped). We even see how the relationship affects and changes MJ over the series, instead of being a case where the relationship only exists to develop the lead character.

So, did every element of Raimi's MJ Watson hit the mark? No, there are a few scenes that don't and a couple stuff that are a little weak, but she was given a lot of character development over the series, was defined outside her role as the love interest, and even the love story itself was used to develop the character rather than just being a way for her to further the main character's story. It's on those grounds that I disagree and maintain my opinion that she was not only a good character, but also that there have been few, if any, love interest characters in the franchise since that have been on the same level. I'd argue that even Pepper Potts and Peggy Carter (two of the better such characters in the MCU) are still not in the same league.

About Venom:

A.) As an adaptation, things don't need to be 100% the same as in the source material and can be different if consistent with the adaptation itself. Movie Venom's plan is consistent with the character as presented in the movie. He even explains his reasoning:

(The novelizations do expand on this, although the details are a little confusing in regards to what we see onscreen and what is said.)

B.) In the original comics, Venom is a hypocrite. While he claims to not involve innocents, he repeatedly will kill them if it suites his purposes. So, even according to the source material, Venom's plan in the movie would be in character if he thought that killing MJ would assist him.

I think that stuff was overall botched, too, but what can you do?

I think this had more to do with the fact that the movies made the couple's relationship an important part of the plot than anything else. Peter does get story arcs that are separate from his love life, too.

I think in the case of the Raimi movies, while they did get a bit repetitive, it was needed for the story and not exactly done just for thrills. The first movie was retelling the Green Goblin story, so it was needed. The second movie uses it to show how MJ learns that Peter is Spider-Man (also, Doc Ock isn't using her as bait or really care about her as long as she can't call the police). In the third one, the capture/rescue is sandwiched between Peter backhanding MJ (after successfully trying to emotionally hurt her) under the influence of the symbiote and the couple repairing their relationship. For that last scene to ring true after the jazz club incident, there would need to be something that would show MJ that Peter had worked through his demons and that he still loved her. The construction scene allowed that to happen.

 

Time to rename this board.....

"You think you're the only web slinger in the world?" The SM cinematic universe.

 

So is Tony going to date Aunt May?

 

No, but he might set up a date between her and Rhodey

 

Zemo set it up so Stark would specifically get it. He gets to Moscow first so he has a head start and then Zemo calls the hotel concierge and orders his usual room service knowing that she will have to go in, find the body and it will hit the news which Stark will then get directly because he's involved in the investigation.

He used Bucky to get to Cap so that Cap would already be divided from the others and he knew that by that time at least Falcon and Cap suspected his involvement. But once he's in Moscow and sees they still aren't on his trail, he speeds things up by having them find the dead doctor.

Friday reports it all to Tony who realizes Cap was right. He goes to Sam and gets the location but if that had failed, I'm sure Tony would have done some type of scans to find Cap and Bucky. Given that Zemo had more than enough protection between himself and Cap, he was probably content to wait as long as he needed to for Tony to arrive (Cap and Bucky are strong but there are no Hulk or Iron Man). Because Tony was the main star. And without Tony it was only Cap & Bucky and Zemo could play the waiting game. If it came to it, he could have reprogrammed Bucky again to kill Cap and let them fight it out in hopes of drawing Stark there.

Basically he only needed to get Cap, Bucky and Tony. He had Bucky because he led Bucky to believe he wanted to activate the other soldiers. And he knew Bucky would need Steve's help given he was a wanted fugitive. He first draws Bucky out by setting up the bombing in Vienna. Then activates him and pretends to care about the other soldiers. The he heads off to Moscow and waits. Once things are at their head (which he can easily check on any news station. I imagine there was something about half of Cap's team being arrested while Cap and Bucky were still at large), he calls the hotel and let's the news get back to Tony. And then it's just sitting back and waiting for everyone to show up for movie night at the old soviet base.

The plan seems convenient in the film, but it actually is pretty well calculated. Zemo even mentions that he spent over a year studying them and determining how to destroy them. So he didn't leave it to chance, he saved the dead doctor purposely so Tony would be baited into coming for him.

 

No prob. May I ask where that thread it?

 

I like how HISHE SM told HISHE IM "I'm not ready for you to be my Uncle-Dady"

Notice how Aunt May keeps getting younger? Next reboot she'll be late 20's!

 

Peter Parker is a high school student, his aunt should be like 40-50. Marisa Tomei is at the right age.

 

That's not quite a hypocrite. He'll kill innocents if they do nothing to help stop someone who is a destroyer of innocence. Such was the case when he got upset at the people who weren't pointing out where Carnage went, during "Savage Genesis". But overall, he'll leave innocents alone. Venom in the Raimi films was Venom in name only and that's because Raimi wasn't a fan of the character.

Not **** it up in the first place.

No, May is supposed to be in her sixties or seventies. That's not the right age since she doesn't come across as fragile and frail.

 

Well those who complain AM looks too young. People are looking younger than ever before.

Look at average 60 year Olds from 100 years ago compared to average 60 year olds now.

Heck look at Chuck Norris. He is PUSHING 80!

 

This essay pointed out several cases where Venom ignores his "principles" when it suites him. I've also seen discussion on other forums cite original comics as evidence that Venom is a hypocrite.

Raimi also went on record that he was able to appreciate the character after researching him for the movie. Also, just because the character isn't identical in every way makes them totally off. Venom's feud with Spider-Man defines the character far more than his attitude toward those he judges to be innocent does, and the former is accurately portrayed.

No, May is supposed to be in her sixties or seventies. That's not the right age since she doesn't come across as fragile and frail.[/quote]

The movies's take seems to be based on Ultimate May Parker, who was somewhat younger than the 616 version (not to the extent of Marisa Tomei's age, though). And for what it's worth, the Ultimate version worked well.

 

Actually... Venom is a symbiote.

Kidding, but yeah, he's volatile and unpredictable.

As for Aunt May, I just feel disturbed that I'm now attracted to the new Aunt May. Just feels wrong to me. I do agree though, that 60 is the new 40. Yay science!