Is Spiderman: Homecoming even remotely good?

[jademunky]

Yeah I feel like that's pretty much the reason. While old aunt may is more...comic accurate, there really isn't any logical reason for the AUNT of a 16 year old to be pushing 95. She needs to be his parents age, and she was.

Aunt may aside, I enjoyed homecoming simply because while they threw in 900 connections to the mcu, they didn't really do much to set up future Spider-Man movies. Which, after the Amazing Spider man movies spent 90% of their running time set to up sequels and spin offs, was a refreshing change.

At most there was a scene in prison with the scorpion cameo? But it was like 20 seconds that did more to establish the vultures character so it wasn't a big deal

Dunno if I should find it refreshing or terrifying that Disney is confident enough of the inertia of their MCU that they don't need to throw out sequel-hooks for all their films.

Also the final post-credit was also just amazing. Just love the mental image of Cap being talked into doing those. (and you KNOW he'd just go along with it)

 

[Tanis]

Was it as good as the first two?
No.

Was it better than the third, fourth, and fifth film?
Yes.

A solid 'C' of a fill.

 

[GalanDun]

Yeah, it's nothing compared to the previous five Spider-Man films, and that's mostly down to the casting.

 

[COMaestro]

I enjoyed Homecoming. I liked that Tom Holland actually looked and felt like a teenager. The Spider-Man in this movie is barely starting out, but was jumped up to the major leagues by Tony Stark for Civil War, and then essentially thrown back into the minors for reasons he didn't understand. So, he continually tries to impress the object of his hero worship to get back to the majors. He's book smart, but lacks the patience and wisdom that comes with age, and it showed, and it fit the character perfectly. Add in an excellent villain in Keaton's Toombs and you have a pretty damn good film, different from, but on par with Raimi's first two films and miles ahead of the third abomination.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Oh jeese, it's Samtemdo banging on about Marvel films again... Haven't checked this place in a while, and I suppose nothing ever changes.

And what's with the thread title - do you work for Buzzfeed? Given the box-office, the critical reception, and the general audience reception, methinks the extraordinarily simple answer to that question is 'Duhhhhyes'.

And yet today I don't see people still talking about this movie or its impact today, and even if he's in the MCU now I don't know how big of an impact he will have in the team up films like what is he gonna do against Thanos?

What do you specifically mean by "impact"? Why should people "still" be talking about a film from last year?

Than I look at Spiderman: Homecoming's trailer and I am just un-impressed: / ...something I doubt Homecoming acknowledges from all the characterization I have heard of him

So you've not see it? Maybe, oh I dunno, watch the damn film and then post your thread?

My own subjective opinion's ultimately as irrelevant as everyone else's, but I greatly enjoyed it. The Raimi films (or at least one of them. two at a push) were good and of their time (Spider 2 was hugely influential, but it hasn't exactly aged that well). And the new film's great in its MCU context, and for actually casting the main role well and therefore being able to pull off the highschool narrative far more convincingly. Tom Holland's own background gave the role a more accurate fidelity to Spidey's physicality than ever before, so that also helped.

That said, I've never been a fan of the actual character, so it was never going to be one of my favourites from the MCU. No matter how well crafted something is, if the character doesn't really click with me, it's not going to stay with me (ditto'd with Thor Ragnarok, even if that was the best of the Thor films so far).

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Oh jeese, it's Samtemdo banging on about Marvel films again... Haven't checked this place in a while, and I suppose nothing ever changes.

And what's with the thread title - do you work for Buzzfeed? Given the box-office, the critical reception, and the general audience reception, methinks the extraordinarily simple answer to that question is 'Duhhhhyes'.

And yet today I don't see people still talking about this movie or its impact today, and even if he's in the MCU now I don't know how big of an impact he will have in the team up films like what is he gonna do against Thanos?

What do you specifically mean by "impact"? Why should people "still" be talking about a film from last year?

Than I look at Spiderman: Homecoming's trailer and I am just un-impressed: / ...something I doubt Homecoming acknowledges from all the characterization I have heard of him

So you've not see it? Maybe, oh I dunno, watch the damn film and then post your thread?

My own subjective opinion's ultimately as irrelevant as everyone else's, but I greatly enjoyed it. The Raimi films (or at least one of them. two at a push) were good and of their time (Spider 2 was hugely influential, but it hasn't exactly aged that well). And the new film's great in its MCU context, and for actually casting the main role well and therefore being able to pull off the highschool narrative far more convincingly. Tom Holland's own background gave the role a more accurate fidelity to Spidey's physicality than ever before, so that also helped.

That said, I've never been a fan of the actual character, so it was never going to be one of my favourites from the MCU. No matter how well crafted something is, if the character doesn't really click with me, it's not going to stay with me (ditto'd with Thor Ragnarok, even if that was the best of the Thor films so far).

The thread title is from the perspective of a person who has not seen the movie, but watched and liked the older movies and has doubts about the direction the current movie takes and the reception in garnered.

And partially I made this thread as a way of people convincing me to give this movie a chance by seeing people's honest opinions on it. Because I was watching the trailers for the Raimi Spiderman movies and I feel like watching Spiderman. And Homecoming just came into mind.

 

[Auron225]

It doesn't leave the same impression that Raimi's Spiderman movies did, but I'd argue it's almost unfair to compare them in the first place.

Yes they're all Spiderman movies, but Raimi was the first to make a superhero movie that did everything right. First impressions are important, and everyone's first impression of his movies (the first 2 a lot more so than the 3rd) is "Holy crap, it's a superhero movie that anyone can watch and very much enjoy, this is unheard of and AMAZING". Naturally, this was before superhero fatigue had set in (which many are experiencing now).

Homecoming on the other hand? We're over 10 years in to some really really good superhero movies now - most of which belong to the MCU, or Marvel at least. Even though they are all still very good movies, people are starting to get bored with the MCU formula. If Homecoming had come out when Raimi's Spiderman did (as in, instead of it) people would have gone nuts and heralded it as the greatest Spiderman ever because it'd have been the first superhero movie to "do it right". We're in a weird situation where "getting it right" is so common that it's boring, particularly with the MCU. That's why Logan stood out so much - it was great but for completely different reasons that are impossible to replicate. It's also what makes DC's utter failure at making anything competent all the more laughable.

It's probably for the best the Marvel wrap up the MCU sooner rather than later, or people will just lose patience for it.

But yeah as for Homecoming - I really enjoyed it. A little forgettable, but I liked it overall. They were right to leave the Uncle Ben storyline (which people are bored of) out of it, it was nice seeing Peter being the "friendly neighbourhood Spiderman" rather than the chosen one, it was genuinely funny, Keaton's performance was great, the twist was nice, and RDJ had the perfect amount of screen time in it (not too little that it's a shameless sell-tickets cameo, and not too much that he's hogging it). He was an actual mentor-type character for Peter. It wasn't mindblowing, because it wasn't the first superhero to get it right for the first time ever and we've had a dozen of those since, but it's certainly worth watching if you like Spiderman or the MCU or superheros in any way.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

The Sam Raimi trilogy is a dozen times better, even cosidering that 3 wasn't all that. They had heart, characterisation, people you cared about and a the right mix of humour, action, realism and superheroism. Homecoming is an OTT MCU film no different than those that have come before. Michael Keaton is the highlight as the villain and there are a couple of good jokes, but it is a social-justice purveying, special effect extravaganza without the heart or soul.

I remember Moviebob in one of his superhero film reviews, I forget which (I think it might have been Superman DC related, or maybe Amazing Spiderman) where he suggested we may need to just draw a line under Sam Raimi's Spiderman films just as we have with Richard Donner's Superman. We should relegate them to a bygone era and stop judging these newer films against a yardstick to which they're unlikely to measure up. I don't know if I agree or not. The point has merit...the fact is Man of Steel isn't remotely in the same league as Superman 2, Amazing Spiderman 2 and Homecoming are similarly not remotely in the same league as raimi's Spiderman 2 (a movie that I maintain is probably one of, if not the best superhero film). Christopher Nolan's Batman...I don't know...I still think Michael Keaton was a better Batman, but The Dark Knight really was a good film, and not even by superhero movie standards, an actual top film.

Homecoming is mediocre, sadly. It's greatest merits are that it's part of a the larger tapestry that is the MCU, despite that it doesn't really do any actual worldbuilding. I was really into the phase 1 films, but they didn't maintain the same level. Thor 3 was frankly average at best and pretty bad at worst, with Thor being reduced from a Valhallan God to a glib, Joss Whedon-y bantering dick. I didn't bother with Doctor Strange at the cinema, and was sad to realise that the 3D was the only good thing about the film. Black Panther I didn't bother with either. Guardians 2 I started watching on streaming, gave up after 20 minutes it was so boring, a shame when the first was pretty good.

I'll be most curious to know if anything changes with the XMen franchise now that it's been bought by Disney, the owners of Marvel. Will they be incorporated into the MCU now? Maybe Avengers Vs XMen? Still, we have Deadpool 2 ahead there and HOPEFULLY the Gambit movie I've been waiting YEARS for.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I heard good things about it so some people clearly liked it, but I personally really hated it. It's pretty much the only Spider-Man movie without a remotely decent action scene. They tried to tone it down and it's much more a Peter Parker story than a Spider-Man story. The director actually cited Ferris Buller as one of his biggest inspirations. I guess it worked for some people but to me the comedy misfired more than it landed and I just found myself really annoyed with it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Yes they're all Spiderman movies, but Raimi was the first to make a superhero movie that did everything right. First impressions are important, and everyone's first impression of his movies (the first 2 a lot more so than the 3rd) is "Holy crap, it's a superhero movie that anyone can watch and very much enjoy, this is unheard of and AMAZING". Naturally, this was before superhero fatigue had set in (which many are experiencing now).

Homecoming on the other hand? We're over 10 years in to some really really good superhero movies now - most of which belong to the MCU, or Marvel at least. Even though they are all still very good movies, people are starting to get bored with the MCU formula. If Homecoming had come out when Raimi's Spiderman did (as in, instead of it) people would have gone nuts and heralded it as the greatest Spiderman ever because it'd have been the first superhero movie to "do it right".

Exactly. The Raimi movies got hit hard with "Who came first" syndrome as I like to call it. They and Spider-Man 2 in particular are considered superior to every Spider-Man movie that's come after it if not every superhero movie that's ever come after it simply because they were the first superhero movies to be even halfway decent, not because they actually are. People have become so obsessed with these movies that the fact that every Spider-Man movie after it had been objectively superior in most if not every way isn't something that registers to them, and they'll deny it and hate on the Spider-Man movies that have come after them for no real reason. The Spider-Man 2 video game got the same treatment, being the first open world Spider-Man game and doing so much right that plenty of people still call it the best Superhero game ever despite the fact that not only have many other superhero games since done open world better than them, but every other aspect of it, including most of the Spider-Man games after it. Amazing Spider-Man 1&2 and Homecoming both would have ended up being praised to high heaven had they been released first.

 

[Hawki]

Part of Caps origin story was doing like 500 musical war bond shows where he lifted motorcycles and punched hitler

the videos were probably his idea

He was roped into it, I doubt he'd volunteer for that stuff.

And what's with the thread title - do you work for Buzzfeed? Given the box-office, the critical reception, and the general audience reception, methinks the extraordinarily simple answer to that question is 'Duhhhhyes'.

It's a legitimate question. As someone who has a dim view on the MCU as a whole, them being critically acclaimed has meant very little for me. Everyone has something that they like/dislike when they're in the minority.

but it is a social-justice purveying,

I really, really, REALLY should know better than to ask but...sigh, how?

I'll be most curious to know if anything changes with the XMen franchise now that it's been bought by Disney, the owners of Marvel. Will they be incorporated into the MCU now?

Probably. Which sucks.

Hardly much of an X-Men films fan (Logan aside), but they at least had their own sense of identity separate from the MCU.

Honestly, going back and watching the first two Raimi movies kinda shows how...mediocre they are. Like Doc Oc gets praised a lot for being a great villain..but is he? Visually yeah he's pretty unique but motivations? He's mind controlled by his tentacles.

Same with Green Goblin, he was mentally controlled by the green joker gas he used on himself.

It's telling that the writers couldn't come up with a proper motivation for not one, but both of their signature villains other than "they aren't in control of themselves"

While both are under external influence, it's not the be-all and end-all of their character.

Both are examples of tragic characters, in the literary sense. For a tragedy to be considered as such, the character's misfortune needs to come down to an inherent flaw, usually in the character themselves.

Osborne's tragedy is his ambition/insecurity. He uses the gas on himself, which alters his personality, but his choice to do so stems from his own character flaws. Likewise, he's shown to have a fraught relationship with his son and mentor relationship with Peter - he genuinely cares for Harry, but is terrible at showing it. So while he is a cackling villain with murderous intent, that isn't the be-all and end-all of his character.

Likewise, Octavius. Of the Rami trilogy, the second movie's theme really does epitomize "with great power comes great responsibility," and Doc Oc is an example of this. He does have great power (the fusion device), but falters in his responsibility - he's shown to be quite blase about the arms he uses. He's shown to be genuinely excited about his invention (for good reason, given what fusion power could give to the world), but slips up, and because of that slip up, loses his wife and sense of self, only to finally redeem himself in the end.

In essence, while both characters are under influence, the how's and why's of that are down to inherent character traits - there's elements of tragedy and humanity within their characters that many similar villains in these films lack. That's not to say you can't have a great villain who really is an irredeemable monster (see the Joker for instance), but, at least in my case, that goes a long way to explain why they're examples of well done villains.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Honestly, going back and watching the first two Raimi movies kinda shows how...mediocre they are. Like Doc Oc gets praised a lot for being a great villain..but is he? Visually yeah he's pretty unique but motivations? He's mind controlled by his tentacles.

Same with Green Goblin, he was mentally controlled by the green joker gas he used on himself.

It's telling that the writers couldn't come up with a proper motivation for not one, but both of their signature villains other than "they aren't in control of themselves"

I think it's less about their motivations, and more about how they're performed and realized. Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina are always a treat, and they do a great job with these villains.

They also had some teeth (like the movies themselves); They acually flat-out murder people. And it shows they don't mess around and are a significant threat to the hero. I can't say I ever felt any sort of threat or tangible sense of danger emanate from the MCU villians.

And Spider-Man villians in general aren't that deep or motivated by anything other than 'I'm a bad guy, and I'm gonna do bad things'.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Honestly, going back and watching the first two Raimi movies kinda shows how...mediocre they are. Like Doc Oc gets praised a lot for being a great villain..but is he? Visually yeah he's pretty unique but motivations? He's mind controlled by his tentacles.

Same with Green Goblin, he was mentally controlled by the green joker gas he used on himself.

It's telling that the writers couldn't come up with a proper motivation for not one, but both of their signature villains other than "they aren't in control of themselves"

To be fair at least Wilem Dafoe's performance and handling of that characterization is way better than Alfred Molina's.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Honestly, going back and watching the first two Raimi movies kinda shows how...mediocre they are. Like Doc Oc gets praised a lot for being a great villain..but is he? Visually yeah he's pretty unique but motivations? He's mind controlled by his tentacles.

Same with Green Goblin, he was mentally controlled by the green joker gas he used on himself.

It's telling that the writers couldn't come up with a proper motivation for not one, but both of their signature villains other than "they aren't in control of themselves"

I think it's less about their motivations, and more about how they're performed and realized. Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina are always a treat, and they do a great job with these villains.

They also had some teeth (like the movies themselves); They acually flat-out murder people. And it shows they don't mess around and are a significant threat to the hero. I can't say I ever felt any sort of threat or tangible sense of danger emanate from the MCU villians.

And Spider-Man villians in general aren't that deep or motivated by anything other than 'I'm a bad guy, and I'm gonna do bad things'.

The Spiderman franchise is the only Marvel franchise where spidey has a recognizable Rogue's Gallery:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/misterz173/lists/enemies-of-spider-man/15138/

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Spiderman franchise is the only Marvel franchise where spidey has a recognizable Rogue's Gallery:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/misterz173/lists/enemies-of-spider-man/15138/

I don't know, X-Men has a good roster, and the villains there usually have a bit more going on then just 'I'm the bad guy'.

 

[Natemans]

Honestly, going back and watching the first two Raimi movies kinda shows how...mediocre they are. Like Doc Oc gets praised a lot for being a great villain..but is he? Visually yeah he's pretty unique but motivations? He's mind controlled by his tentacles.

Same with Green Goblin, he was mentally controlled by the green joker gas he used on himself.

It's telling that the writers couldn't come up with a proper motivation for not one, but both of their signature villains other than "they aren't in control of themselves"

To be fair at least Wilem Dafoe's performance and handling of that characterization is way better than Alfred Molina's.

I disagree. I think both villains are fantastic in terms of character and performance.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Honestly, going back and watching the first two Raimi movies kinda shows how...mediocre they are. Like Doc Oc gets praised a lot for being a great villain..but is he? Visually yeah he's pretty unique but motivations? He's mind controlled by his tentacles.

Same with Green Goblin, he was mentally controlled by the green joker gas he used on himself.

It's telling that the writers couldn't come up with a proper motivation for not one, but both of their signature villains other than "they aren't in control of themselves"

To be fair at least Wilem Dafoe's performance and handling of that characterization is way better than Alfred Molina's.

I disagree. I think both villains are fantastic in terms of character and performance.

Hmmm.....no: