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

Well, the point of sequels is to give an audience the stuff that they liked the previous time. I can't really fault it on that basis. Rather, the fault in Vol2 is that it tries to add more dramatic weight than is needed, but it does so in too much of a hamfisted way. Rocket has to shout out (to other characters and the audience) that he is an a-hole because he was experimented on. Nebula has to shout out that she's angry at her sister because all she wanted was a big sister. There's all the subtlety of a hammer hitting at brick walls.

However, I really like Ego (I think he's a far more compelling antagonist than... Ronan is it?), the family dynamic that's introduced both in terms of the father, the mother (the core of the Starlord character seems to be his relationship with his mother, and this film really expanded on that) and with Yonda, and a lot of the humour lands for me. It's more comfortable.

And to be honest, I much prefer goofy comedy with characters that I have no deep connection to as opposed to a childhood favourite like Thor, who is turned into a joke with Ragnarok.

 

Thanks for recommending the video as it was very intriguing and comes from a different perspective. From what I gathered, Lindsay Ellis' perspective differs from mine own in that she's having superhero fatigue and has a female point of view.

Her breakdown of the characters is pretty spot on and I totally agree that the strongest theme of the film is the family dynamic. I didn't pick up "ego" (aka hubris) being a driving force in the film the way she did, but I do see it now and it's an interesting way of looking at the movie.

Lindsay goes into length on how egotism equals immaturity and it's the narrative in the film and the primary reason why Peter and Gamora never kiss, which I'll circle back to, just like Lindsay in her video.

She believes the "entire" plot revolves around Peter's immaturity (a major character flaw) as she states that around the 8:43 mark of her video (which has a clip from Vol.2 where Peter and Gamora are shouting at each other and reference the TV show "Cheers"), and (paraphrasing her comments) "that the film equates Peter love for pop-culture with the fact he needs to grow up."

Ms. Ellis notes that toxic masculinity (aka detrimental [penis]-wagging) is a major flaw with most of the male characters and has a great impact on the film's plot. That toxic masculinity is brought about because little boys are taught to cry at very early age and thus they have the inability to properly express their feelings when they get old. Additionally, toxic masculinity serving as Peter's and Rocket's major flaw causes all the problems in the film, which nearly cost them their lives, citing the scene where Peter and Rocket have a "detrimental [penis]-wagging" contest while piloting the ship through an asteroid field. To which after, Gamora shouts at the them (paraphrase), "if they were flying with their heads instead of what's between their legs we wouldn't be in such a mess." I probably did not catch on to this notion because I don't have the female perspective and thus just viewed it as "a guy thing."

Ms. Ellis breaks down the "abusive parents" theme and how the characters are effected by it. I won't get into this because I don't think it really drives the plot.

Anyway, after Lindsay explains how immaturity, toxic masculinity and being abused by their parents effects the characters, she circle back on how this correlates to the main plot being driven by Peter's character flaw. She notes that the film never challenge Peter's immaturity as an obstacle or is much of a character flaw. That Vol.2 presents Peter as the "loveable immature manchild" and that most Hollywood films, the "loveable immature manchild" get the girl at the end of the film. And since Peter and Gamora do not hook up by the end of the film, she feels this is perhaps why many people feel the narrative to be unsatisfying (as noted around the 26:35 mark of her video).

Ms. Ellis reiterates the notion that Peter's love for pop culture and his ego gives him a sense of entitlement and cited this in her video around the 23:25 mark; that like in the TV show "Cheers" he should get the girl. And because of this and Gamora's own issues are the reasons why they're not together, yet; they are not complete people (as cited around 24:08 mark of her video).

So, I truly get a sense of Lindsay Ellis' point of view and why she feels the plot is driven by the characters' flaws. That this film is about dealing and working through personal "scar tissue" and coming to terms with losing a parent (something both Ms. Ellis and I have in common) rather than stopping the evil machinations of an all powerful being. And therefore, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is more of a character study than an action and adventure film; thus all the emotional feels.

While, I understand and see her point of view, I don't agree with the notion that the characters dealing with their short comings are the central plot of the film because it doesn't drive the movie and the narrative forward. Ego's (Kurt Russell's character) evil plan is what drives the story forward. I mean, if Vol.2 ended like Iron Man 3 where it's revealed that the main characters were sitting in a lounge chair discussing their feelings, then I would agree with that notion.

I think the reference to the TV show "Cheers" was for nostalgia and to provide insight Peter's immaturity as Ms. Ellis pointed out. However, I don't believe that Peter and Gamora don't hook up is because they are both incomplete people. Actually, it's because of their incompleteness they find each other so attractive. It's the ideology behind "opposites attract." In "Cheers" the main male and female characters are Sam and Diana, which could be considered the templates for Peter and Gamora, as Sam is the womanizing "lovable immature manchild" and Diana is the stern and discriminating female co-worker, and it's this opposite dynamic that creates the tension and heat between the characters. Additionally, the defining characteristics of the characters, are is what's lacking in their counterparts, thus the attraction to make them complete. Sam and Diana never really evolve into "complete characters" as they still flaw back to their basis designs of immaturity and discriminating tastes, respectively and I don't expect Peter and Gamora to evolve completely either. They'll always be flawed and each other's opposite. And so, I don't see their character evolutions to be the basic plot of Vol.2.

I do think the revealing the characters' flaws and revealing secrets of their backstories does provide a richness and depth and certainly impacts on how the characters interact with each other and their decision making process, but again, it does not drive the narrative of the film forward. Meaning, the characters themselves aren't on a path of self improvement. Certainly, there's character growth and personal epiphanies, such as Rocket discovering he's much like Yondu and pushes people away before they push him away, but then discovers he found a true family with the Guardians. However, it's very doubtful that Rocket will change his rudeness, condescending persona and egotistical ways, nor Peter, as this is the defining characteristics; much like a scruffy looking nerf herder from a galaxy far, far away.



My point is, there are reasons why characters are flawed and incomplete. It create contract between the characters, as well as drama and relationship dynamics. And although there's a certain amount of character growth, the characters are always remains true to their core characteristics. Therefore, the plot cannot be the evolution of the characters, per se, meaning that alone is not enough to movie the forward, nor does it provide any type of real ending. It's the task at hand that drives the film forward.

Vol.2 did not revolve finding a resolution to Rocket stealing batteries from the Sovereign, but it was a catalyst for setting a certain and limited path of the film. Nor was the film about the Guardians fighting and defeating the Sovereign. The film wasn't about Peter maturing (because as Ms. Ellis notes, it doesn't happen); nor was it about Yondu finding redemption; nor was it about Gamora's and Nebula's sisterly relationship. All of those things were either a setup or revealed to be a side effect of villain's evil plan. I mean, the Guardians initial mission was to obtain Nebula and deliver her to the Nova Corp to claim the bounty on her head. Rocket stealing the batteries side tracks that mission, but that mission would have been side track or superseded with Ego's villainous plan. See, aside from Rocket's stealing of the battery, everything else is depend on Ego's machinations. Without Ego needing Peter for his plan, the Sovereign would have killed off the Guardians as need around the 4:50 mark of this clip.

 

honestly i should probably watch the movie again (as i only saw it in the theater and ellis's video essay is really my only recent exposure to it) before i defend lindsay's point of view or decide if it's worth defending. but i think maybe the point is that yes ego's machinations drive the story, but they also provide the backdrop for the internal struggle of the characters and that's what the film is primarily concerned with, that defeating ego is really a means to personal growth and self-actualization more than anything. again, i'm not sure i agree but i think that's what she was getting at. i appreciate your thoughts regardless.

 

That's why I think films are truly pieces of art. Films are subjective. And there's not really a "Marvel formula" so to speak.

Subjectivity is an important part of interpreting and experiencing a film, just like looking at a painting.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 hit Lindsay in an emotional way, as she notes in the beginning of her video that she was experiencing "superhero fatigue" but her own experiences, such as her father passing away, played a huge factor on her emotional connection to the film.

And my opinion in disagreement with Lindsay opinions regarding the plot of the film in no way diminishes hers or decreases the merits of the notions she presents, but rather just illustrates that people can have differing opinions about a movie and each hold value. I mean, Lindsay found Vol.2 to be quite enjoyable, but her reasons for that are different from my own. And I think that's interesting and provides me with a different point of view of the film. It's what sparks conversation.

That's why I typically roll my eyes when I read comments of the MCU just being "formulaic" or say "Marvel film suck" without much support as it doesn't really offer a personal point of view of why it sucks. It doesn't invite a conversation.

Yeah, if you ever rewatch Vol.2 or Lindsay's video, please tag me and let me know what you think. I really do enjoy reading or watching other people's comments. Usually, after I watch a successful critical or box office blockbuster film, I like to watch multiple spoiler reviews of said film on YouTube to get other people's perspective. I mean, I find Man of Steel incredibly frustrating to watch to where it makes me very angry, but one of my favorite YouTube movie pundits, Jon Campea, finds it a work of art masterpiece. I disagree with this opinion but I totally respect it because he provides and elaboration and support for his point of view and how the film hits him emotionally. And so, while I disagree with Lindsay's point of view regarding the plot of Vol.2, I totally respect and understand it as it's very well explained and presented. So, big kudos to Ms. Ellis.

 

I agree with this so much. Ms. Ellis' ideas are not in my wheelbarrel either, but her opinions are very eloquently put.

 

Personally, I've found the Guardians movies to be among the best of the MCU films. I think the characters feel a lot more real, the stories seem more character-driven, and they seem to balance being part of the larger franchise while still keeping their own identity and being their own thing.

 

Ya know, that's exactly what the X-Men films should be. And as such, one of biggest complaints of Singer's X-Men films.

 

I did like those movies a lot, but I can see the point.

 

I watched the first Guardians film a week or two ago, and it was on TV again last night so I watched it again. I couldn’t help myself. I just love the Guardians so damn much.

 

I'm able to appreciate Bryan Singer's first two X-Men films on a certain level, but because of my fanboy baggage, I see all the wrong creative decisions and they become the proverbial "the fly in the ointment" and causes frustration and anger during my viewing of those films.


I wanted to touch on a few things regarding Doctor Strange that I didn't elaborate on or forget to mention in my previous post. First, is the Eye of Agamotto and the missed opportunity to help develop Strange's character and quality as a hero. Typically, there's a moment in a hero's origin story where the hero demonstrates an act or moment where he/she is worthy to receive a power, training, knowledge, etc. In Doctor Strange, Stephen is not really given that opportunity until after the death of the Ancient One. Even after the Ancient One take him in and trains him in the mystic arts, Stephen's goal is mend his broken hands and return to his old life and perhaps ways of being an arrogant jerk. IIRC, this was noted sometime shortly after the attack on the New York Sanctum Sanctorum, Stephen tells Mordo and the Ancient One he doesn't want to be part of their war with Kaecilius around the 8:55 mark of this video, which Mordo tells Stephen that he killed not in defense of the Sanctum but to save his own life.



So, the fact, that pretty much could hold the Eye of Agamotto, which Stephen does to no amazement or astonishment by any of the other characters, diminishes the value of the "Eye" as a method to build up Strange's worthiness. In other words, the Eye of Agamotto wasn't use as the proverbial "sword in the stone" or Thor's hammer, whereby "whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Of course, that use of symbolic story telling was demonstrated in the Thor films and in Avengers: Age of Ultron to show Vision could be trusted with the Mind Stone. Doctor Strange didn't give Stephen really that "sword in the stone moment."

The second thing I wanted to mention about Doctor Strange was the musical scoring, which I thought was pitch perfect for the film and character. I love the stripped down version of Strange's theme.



And speaking of theme music, Guardians of the Galaxy has a great one too. It's as memorable as the Avengers.

 

@Sith_Sensei__Prime - I do not seem to be as bothered in regard to Stephen earning the Eye of Agamotto for a couple of reasons, first: The Ancient One stole mystical abilities as well (Tapping into the eternal energies of the Dark Dimension to stay alive; perhaps even giving something of herself to Dormammu (she had the sigil on her brow before dying). Both of these lead Mordo astray which is a very pivotal character moment. If Strange earned the Eye, would Mordo have gone awry by the end of the first movie? I am not sure he would. Mordo convinced the Ancient One to take on Strange after she refused, fearing she'd create another Kaecilius. She listened to Mordo. They trusted each other implicitly. While I am sure the revelation of her lie would have sent Mordo toward the path he is on now, seeing his teacher and the new student he had faith in both rebel against the natural laws (to say nothing of Kaecilius and his followers) was enough to break the good man Mordo had become since arriving at Kamar-Taj.

Yes, that was a long winded version of the first reason, now the second reason why I am not so bothered about the Eye. I mentioned the Disney-like nature of the Cloak of Levitation in my initial response, I see a little bit of the Fantasia Sorcerer's Apprentice in Stephen secretly teaching himself how to use the Eye of Agamotto (and other spells a novice initiate would find too complicated). He's sneaking behind the Masters' (The Ancient One and Wong too) back. There's something both mischievous and arrogant about that, which plays into the person Stephen was and will become later.

All that said, I understand your point of view in wanting that "sword int he stone" moment for Stephen.

The Marvel soundtracks haven't been all that Marvelous to me, though I loved the use of Earth, Wind and Fire and Pink Floyd in the DS score. I do not remember the rest. Glad you enjoy it though.

 

Continuing on the road to Infinity War, next up Spider-Man: Homecoming
Release Date: July 7, 2017 - Worldwide Box Office = $880,166,924


Now, the road for Spidey to stand along the sides of other Marvel characters like Captain America and Iron Man, was a very, very, very long road for me, as I been a "true believer" of the character ever since I could remember.

Fans of my age, remember the days where the only live action version of the character appeared on the kid TV show, The Electric Company, in the "Spidey Super Stories" back in the 1970s. Despite the campiness and lack of voice of Spider-Man, it was sheer delight to see a live action version of the character.




However, later in the 70s, the live action version of the character got worse as fans were giving the made for TV Spider-Man: The Chinese Web. It was a veryh poor costume design for Spidey and the budget and special effects for the character weren't good enough to do the character justice.


The rights to make a Spider-Man movie has been in and out of Marvel's hands since 1985's as super hero films weren't considered to be profitable and of course the bankruptcy problems the company faced as noted in this CNN article:

Of course, until Sony's Spider-Man hit the screens, it was DC super heroes that were mainly considered to be proven box office hits with their earlier Superman and Batman films. Marvel's Blade and X-Men did well before the Web-head made his silver screen debut, but they weren't household names like Batman and Superman, nor was Marvel an established brand. Therefore, Marvel still did not have household pop-icon character in cinema.

Finally, in 2002, (about 25 years since the "Spider Super Stories" on the Electric Company and 40 years since the character's debut in Amazing Fantasy #15 comic book in 1962), Spider-Man swung into movie theaters. Comparatively speaking, the 2002 Spider-Man was equivalent to the Superman: The Movie in 1978 as the character was given the proper treatment until then. For a more recent comparison, it would be the 2008 original Iron Man film. It was an amazing success with Marvel fanboys and the general audiences.


And then like Superman 3, along came Spider-Man 3 which was the equivalent of Superman 3 and Batman and Robin with studio interference.

So, with the success of Nolan's Dark Knight and the critical and fan stamp failures that was Spider-Man 3, Sony rebooted the character with the Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield and directed by Marc Webb. And thus, the fans were given a darker and gritter version of the character.




So, with the MCU rising with their films and the poor response for The Amazing Spider-Man, Sony course corrects with the franchise and produces another version of Batman and Robin by having characters like this:




Additionally, Sony incorporated more humor into the sequel and more daytime scene featuring Spider-Man.


Additionally, the Amazing Spider-Man 2, tried to rushed the series into a shared Spidey universe by laying the foundation for a spinoff, Sinister Six.




None of that helped the Amazing Spider-Man cinematic series from being cancelled, as the North American box office numbers dipped by $62 million from the original to the sequel. A large amount of Spider-Man fans were unhappy with the Sony product. However, Sony still held the rights to Spider-Man and there were reports that Sony was going to move ahead with a Sinister Six film, along with solo films for Black Cat and Venom. Additionally, the MCU was killing a the box office and established itself as a brand name without the Wall Crawler, and therefore didn't need him for either box office success or for story telling. To which, Kevin Feige told Wired in 2012 regarding the rights of Spidey being with Sony:

So, without any real motivation to obtain the rights to Spider-Man and Sony reportedly moving with their plans for a Spider-verse, there was little to no hope for Spider-Man to be part of the MCU. Which is a real damn shame as Spider-Man is literally the face of Marvel comics. And thus, it was only a fanboy's dream to see Spidey fight along the side of the Avengers.




But then around October 2014, hope was given to Marvel fans with news of Sony emails being leaked and much of it were regarding Spider-Man as noted in this CNN article:

Although, the article notes the talks never came to fruition, it provided a great deal of hope in that Sony and Marvel had been in talks for sharing the character.

Of course, as noted in my Captain America: Civil War recap, on Feb. 9, 2015, Marvel announced it had reached a deal with Sony to share the character and Spider-Man would be coming home, so to speak.

So, next thing fans where wondering was if Andrew Garfield would reprise his role as the webslinger and if not, who would be cast as the new Peter Parker? Or even if Marvel would use Peter Parker as Spider-Man since Miles Morales has been very popular as Spider-Man in the comic books and the public push for more diversity in Hollywood. This news would certainly give the fans an idea on what to expect for the MCU's version of the character.

I certainly wouldn't have mind Miles Morales as Spider-Man.

A few months later, around April 2015, Kevin Fiege confirms Peter Parker; Talks High School Spidey in this Collider article:

On June 23, 2015, in a joint press release Sony and Marvel announce the actor and director for the MCU's Spider-Man.

Now, not everyone was excited for yet another Spider-Man movie. I mean, some of my favorite movie pundits were "Spider-Man out" having already seen five movies with not much difference to offer in their minds. But then Captain America: Civil War happened and the "true believers" get this...




Spider-Man/Peter Parker in the same room as Tony Stark. That's something that none of the previous Spider-Man films had; a world where other super heroes existed. It was amazing.

Additionally, this version of Spider-Man was cast really young as Tom Holland was 19 years when he announced as Spider-Man and rushed to the set of Civil War to immediately be part of the shooting for the movie. Holland's youth and enthusiasm was quickly used and on display giving this iteration of Spider-Man a difference flavor from the other incarnations.


So, with the very successful reboot/debut of Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War, fanboys and the general audiences were looking forward to the 6th Spider-Man movie, aka Spider-Man Homecoming.

I love Spider-Man Homecoming, but not as much as Spider-Man 2, but that's no slights as Spider-Man 2 has been widely considered as one of the best super hero films ever made. Homecoming is definitely at the top of MCU films and at the list comic book movies.

Spider-Man Homecoming (aka, the longest Marvel One Shot film ever, which was once held "Item 47" be sure to check out it's video as it very much goes hand-in-hand with Homecoming), starts off with the 1960's Spider-Man theme, which tingled my fanboy senses, and opens with a scene that takes place shortly after the Avengers first assemble and battle a Loki lead alien invasion in the original Avengers film as Michael Keaton's character, "Adrian Toomes" and are contracted to clean up the mess. However, the newly formed Department of Damage Control, takes over the job and dismisses Toomes. And then we get a titled card that says "8 years later" that screwed with the fanboys minds to this day.

Anyway, I love how the film then cuts to Peter and Happy in the car on their way to the airport with Peter filming everything on his phone. I'm sure with will look so outdated 30 years from now, but whatever. It was brilliant to have Peter film the part where he battles Team Cap in Civil War.




After returning from Berlin, Peter can't wait until the next "Stark intern retreat" but Tony tells him just to stick to what he's been doing and keep in contact with happy. The film does an excellent job of showing off Peter as "the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." Which goes a along way from distinguishing Spider-Man from other super heroes, as he often interacts with the people in his neighborhood both in costume and out. He's a very relatable character as such.





The film is very self aware about casting Marisa Tomei as Aunt May and plays with it when ever there's a chance like at the Thai restaurant where May is given dessert on the house, or when Peter goes to the deli and understands that the clerks are commenting on Aunt May even though it's in a different language. Having Marisa Tomei cast as Aunt May certainly shakes up the Spider-Man mythos and adds a new dynamic, as the character is played more like an aunt rather than a grand-aunt.




The movie also delivered on the modern day high school life and captured in the same way John Hughes did in his films back in the 1980s. The cast is diverse and the characters interact naturally. Setting Spider-Man in high school for a number of films is certainly a change of pace from the previous films and I'm sure it will serve the character and story well. There's scene where the student play a version of [Sex], marry, kill. I like this aspect very much because it depicts differently. He's not a social outcast and well adjusted, even though Flash calls him Penis Parker. And I like his best friend, Ned, is very similar to Miles' buddy Ganke and therefore very unlike to become a foe or a goblin.




Initially, I wasn't on board with Stark giving Spidey the suit, but I ended being fine with it because the film uses that element as part of the story and Peter's development. And yes, it's pretty cool.



For the early part of the film, Peter is buying his time until Tony call him for his next mission. Which is play off for chuckles as Peter continuing pings Happy to his dismay. Peter's big goal is to get the call to join the Avengers, which is a different mindset from past Peter Parkers, as they were trying to find a balance of being a super hero and a regular life. This version doesn't have much of an issue, other than missing a couple of social events. This Parker sees a great future as being Spider-Man.

So, while waiting for Happy to call, Peter runs into one of Toomes crew out in the suburbs of New York, where he learns about highly advanced weapons are being for criminal use, like the bank robbers he faced off earlier in the film. He interferes with the deal and it leads him to run in with the Vulture, and therefore changes Spider-Man's motivation from wanting to join the Avengers to stopping these weapons from getting onto the streets, like "Item 47."

After having Ned hack into the Spidey suit and removing the "training wheels" protocol, Peter has full access to the suits capabilities. Again, this adds another dimension to the story telling and development of the character. Here's a new trick for Spidey; combat mode.



However, the new abilities provided by the suit to Peter causing him to fail in capturing the back guys as it causes him all kinds of problems. Therefore, Peter ends up trapped in a very secure storage facility of Damage Control. The film made good use of that time while Peter was trapped as he learned more about his suit and discover his own "Jarvis" in "Karen." After discovering that Ned is endanger, Peter breaks out and make sure no harm comes to his friends at the Washington Monument. He succeeds with the help of the suit and the drone.

After failing to capture the bad guys in DC, Peter tracks down Donaid Glover's character, Aaron Davis. Which is a fun scene as it notes that the suit has an interrogation mode and that this Spider-Man has a long way to go to becoming the character of legend.



But that scene with Aaron Davis was also a nod to fanboys of the existence of Mile Morales, as Davis mentions he's rooting on Spidey to make the neighborhood safe as he has a nephew, which should be Mile Morales. Anyway, Davis does provide Peter with the tip as to where to find Toomes, but is another disastrous venture as the attempt to capture Toomes ends up with a ferry boat filled with passengers nearly sinking.

Putting the public at danger causes Peter to loose the suit.



I like the fact that Peter lost the suit, as it humbled him a bit and brought the character back to the basics of just his abilities and webshooters. It also play out later. And since Peter blew his chances of becoming an Avenger anytime soon, he refocuses on high school and asks his crush, Liz, to the homecoming dance and she accepts. Here we get some nice moments of interaction between Aunt May and Peter like teaching him how to dance. It reminds the audience that Peter is still a kid and isn't the coolest kid in school, making him the "every man."



On the night of the homecoming dance, Peter is dropped off at Liz's house and where we see Toomes open the door. This was a real twist for me upon first viewing. Initially, I thought Toomes found out about Spider-Man's true identity and is hold Liz and family as hostage, so it was another twist for me to learn Toomes is Liz's father. And the ride to the Homecoming dance is arguably the movie's most compelling and intense scene as Toomes start putting the pieces together that Peter is Spider-Man. Those moments are well portrayed by Keaton as shown in this video:




Of course, the realization by both Toomes and Peter lead to the next show down. And Peter suffers another defeat at the hands of the Vulture. It's this defeat where a building collapse on top of him, but there's no one around to help him. So, Peter has to look at himself for rescue, and in that scene he literally does. This scene gives Spidey-fans one of the biggest fanboys tinglies of all as it's a tribute to one of memorable and icon images of Spider-Man from the comic book issue, Amazing Spider-Man #33.

It's as beautifully played out in the movie as it was in the comic book as shown in the video clip around the 2:42 mark:



Of course, Spider-Man frees himself from the rubble and has his final confrontation with the Vulture and wins. To which, Tony Stark offers him a place with the Avengers and a new suit. Tony tells Peter on the other side of the wall are tons of reporters waiting to hear the announcement of the latest member of the Avengers.




Peter turns Stark's offer down and decides to be a "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." Tony then uses the press conference to announce his engagement with Pepper Potts, which as a surprised considering the last time we saw Tony he said that he and Pepper broke up. And reports that Gwenth Paltrow would come back to play the character.

We see Peter back in high school and resolving or dissolving his relationship with Liz. And then meeting up with the debate team where we get this...


That line shock up the fanboys, as we were trying to make sense of it and somewhat are still trying to.

The view ends with the best way possible. Tony gives Peter the suit back and providing that "sword in the stone" moment that this iteration of Spidey needed, as it didn't have the death of Uncle Ben to provide a character growth arc for the character. So, it smartly used the suit for something that Peter had to earn and grow as a character back into. The final symbol that Peter was worthy of the Spidey suit. So, in that bright shiny moment of worthiness, the film ends with this...



Perfect!

Spider-Man Homecoming delivers a reboot of the character that was desperately needed after Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man films. And it also bring a high level of freshness to the character with the tech suit and supporting characters. It also answers the questions of "how come Spider-Man" isn't an Avenger? And the glimpse of the Iron Spidey suit in the film creates another element of anticipation of Infinity War. Additionally, because of the MJ thing and how Homecoming ended with Aunt May finding out Peter is Spider-Man (or at least that's why we are lead to believe), many are looking forward to the direct sequel. Which incidentally the first film of Phase IV and will be set very shortly after Avengers 4.

Spider-Man has come home in a amazing and spectacular way.

Excelsior, true believers!!!

 

You know, I hadn't seen this movie since it's run in cinemas but your post makes me want to go and watch it immediately.

 

I was trying to avoid the most recent Infinity War trailer, but it played before my film today and I couldn’t resist. I don’t regret anything, that was absolutely amazing. I bought my tickets today as well. I’m going on the first day (Wednesday 25th in New Zealand).

 

Nice review as always @Sith_Sensei__Prime. I am not big on Spider-Man, but your review makes me want to see Homecoming (whenever it is available for rental - guess I will be waiting on that for awhile).

 

Nice write up, SSP. Really makes me feel like I'm missing something having not seen it.

Note: the only Spider-Man Movie I have seen is ASM

 

You're bad and you should feel bad.

 

Personally, I think that one and it's sequel are the weakest of the movies to date. IMHO, the Raimi movies are the strongest ones overall (I will concede that SM3 is weaker than its predecessors, but I do like it anyways) and Homecoming was really good in its own right.

 

Homecoming helped turn me into a massive Spider-Man fan. A lot of that can be put to Tom Holland’s amazing performance.

 

I wanted to come back and touch on this, because it was the same for me too. (and mav when I showed her the film)

It's absolutely something we should see coming -- and I'm sure a lot did --- but for me the movie was so well-constructed I didn't even know it was coming until he opened the door and then I did this:



and said "Of course!!!" (internally... I was on a plane)

It's a rare movie -- especially even-rarer a superhero movie -- where you don't see something like that coming because even though they've made sure to drop hints and telegram it (especially with the guys tracking down the tech in the school "Boss would flip if he knew where we were..."), Toomes is such a good villain and the movie does such a good job with moving the pieces around that I was honestly surprised by it.

Also, fun "easter egg" / fact: Karen was voiced by Jennifer Connolly ... aka Mrs. Jarvis (Paul Bettany). So co-AIs.

Lastly, one of the things I liked about Spider-Man: Homecoming is it made an actual effort at diversity. It looked like Queens. There were minorities of all ethnicities and genders in main roles and in the background, both as heroes and as villains. Yes, I am aware there are complaints about colorism with regards to the African-Americans in the cast, but it honestly seems like folks made an effort here.

 

Since, the Eye of Agamotto is an Infinity Stone, the Time Stone to be specific, I don't believe on to itself to be a violation of Natural Law. I think the film made it clear that Mordo was against the use of any kind "magic" that violated the order of natural law. Mordo, like Anakin, was dealing in absolutes, which the Ancient One noted to Strange upon her death when she stated that Mordo was too rigid, whereas Stephen was more flexible. As such, Mordo was going to leave the fight against Kaecilius but Strange convinced him to stay in the fight and he could leave after they deal with Kaecilius and Dormammu. So, I don't feel Stephen's use of the Eye of Agamotto played any part on Mordo as he was set on the path towards the darkside when he learned the truth of the Ancient One.

I still haven't see the latest Infinity War trailer. Even though it played before Ready Player One, I had my earbuds on and closed my eyes when the trailer appeared on screen. I really found my movie going experience better off when l limit and avoid seeing additional footage after the first full trailer.

Yeah, the Amazing Spider-Man isn't the best cinematic iteration of the character because of the Dark Knight influence. Peter Parker takes an "avenging" Spider-Man approach to the death of Uncle Ben as oppose to a guilty one, as he doesn't get the "with great power comes great responsibility" spiel until way after the fact at the end of the movie.

I still like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man and sequel, as it uses the Superman: The Movie template where the story is really character driven and captures the essences of the character that have been a mainstay. Additionally, Raimi's original Spider-Man starts off the film with a very simple and sweet premise, and that it's a story about a girl. And then the movie organically builds from there.

To finish up thoughts on Homecoming, there are a few things mentioned in the film that were kind of "throw away lines" that the average movie goers didn't pick up, but the fanboys totally caught. A couple of them were by Happy when they were moving items out of the Avengers tower like Cap's new prototype shield and Thor's magical belt. Those items will probably play a factor in the upcoming films. And speaking about moving out of the Avengers tower, we still don't know who bought the building from Stark. Speculation was that Norman Osborne bought the building at the time. Some think it was bought by Leland Baxter, and Avengers Tower will be renamed the Baxter Building. I'm sure the new occupants of the Avengers Tower will be reveal in the sequel to Homecoming.

Of course the first end credit scene of Homecoming suggested that Mac Gargan will be the Scorpion and possibly in the sequel film.



And the second end credit scene was very meta and made fun of how the MCU trained people to stay until the very end as Cap mentions sometimes it isn't worth it, which in the video above. Which reminds me, I love how they sprinkle the Cap PSA videos throughout the movie, where they're used as teaching and motivation aides, like the one played before gym and during detention.

 

From the first Hulk movie (2003), starring Eric Bana as the Hulk. Liv Tyler played Betty Ross in the MCU's Hulk movie in 2008.