SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING starring Tom Holland (7/28/17) 3 3

[Bosco685]

Final weekend numbers are in. Excellent opening weekend results!

[Azkaban]

3 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Zendaya's character isn't Mary Jane.  Feige explicitly said they may still introduce Mary Jane into the movies, and if they do, it won't be Zendaya.  She's just another potential love interest.

I figured Happy's job essentially was to make sure Peter didn't do anything to rise to a level where the Sekovia accords would apply to him.  Yes, theoretically, Stark could be asked to bring Peter to justice, and if he were I assume he'd go to Peter and say "stop fighting crime, or join the Avengers, or we're coming after you."  But as long as Peter is going after individual criminals and not Thanos, what he's doing doesn't rise to an international scale, so the people who enforce the Sekovia accords probably don't even know he exists.

So we will have two MJ's that would be lame, surely that's not the case

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Azkaban said:

So we will have two MJ's that would be lame, surely that's not the case

Feige confirms this 'MJ' and ' Mary Jane Watson' are not the same characters.

Kevin Feige Talks Zendaya's Spider-Man: Homecoming Character

Quote

One of those alterations comes in Zendaya’s portrayal of Michelle, who many assumed was a new character until an ending scene reveals that she actually goes by a very familiar set of initials: M.J. Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige recently spoke with Den Of Geek about that particular change from the typical version of Mary Jane Watson.

 

“In setting up this will be a very different thing, she’s not Mary Jane Watson, that’s not who the character is,” Feige said. “But giving her the initials that remind you of that dynamic certainly is intriguing about what could go forward.”

But Michelle and Mary Jane will have something in common in how they observe Peter Parker’s disappearances and excuses.

 

“Clearly, she says she’s not obsessed with him, she’s just observant,” Feige said. “But she’s there. And to have fun with that while at the same time having it be different characters that can provide a different dynamic [is the point].”

 

“Peter’s had a lot of friends over the years in the comics, and a lot of schoolmates and characters he’s interacted with,” Feige said. “It wasn’t just Mary Jane Watson; it wasn’t just Gwen Stacy; it wasn’t just Harry Osborn. So we were very interested in the other characters, and that’s where Liz came from and that’s where the version of the character Michelle came from.”

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

The Onion review nails it - if you were watching a different movie. And nuts!

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

This was a power I was wondering if it was going to show itself...and didn't. For now.

Jon Watts on the absence of one of Spider-Man's key abilities in Homecoming

Quote

While speaking with Collider, SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING director Jon Watts addressed the absence and explained why Spidey's spider-sense wasn't a part of his film after being such a big part of the previous SPIDER-MAN movies.

 

"The idea was, again, just you want to make this movie be less about things you’ve already seen before, and you’ve definitely already seen a spider sense sequence done extremely well in Marc [Webb]’s and [Sam] Raimi’s movies. It could be something that develops over time or we can do it in a different way. It’s something that seemed like maybe there’s a cool thing to do with that eventually, but let’s not crowd this movie with something we’ve already seen before… That could be … I’m just making things up right now, but it could be something like you’re saying that develops over time."

 

Witnessing Peter Parker's spider-sense develop over the course of several movies may be an interesting avenue to explore, and Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has indicated that they may go that route. The Marvel honcho spoke with IGN to comment on the lack of spider-sense in SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING, but Feige believes that Peter Parker "has it with or without that suit." Feige added that how they explore the ability in a cinematic sense will likely change from what we've seen before.

 

"I think how we explore it in a cinematic sense will change. I mean, that was sort of a big showy part of previous versions and we thought that we’d make it more of an internal, sort of second nature thing for him. But there are ways coming up that will slowly hint at that and also just make it part of his, you know, his natural abilities. But we don’t know that if it will be — I think we’ll explore it further down the line, but [it’s] definitely him not the suit."

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bosco685

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

This was a power I was wondering if it was going to show itself...and didn't. For now.

Jon Watts on the absence of one of Spider-Man's key abilities in Homecoming

 

(explanation here)

That's a legit explanation...plausible...reasonable.  I hope he gradually develops it because that's an important part of the Venom storyline

 

[Prince Namor]

Saw it and thought it was ok, certainly better than those god awful Garfield movies.

I winced, when I found out the Vulture 'angle' in the story, but.... man, Keaton was so good, he actually made it a great part of the film.

I don't know... they still haven't topped the 2nd movie.

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Chuck Gower

[Turtle]

6 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Stark was clearly intending to suck him into the Avengers throughout the film, and that explains it.  The Washington Monument incident could be what tipped the scale for the reason you outlined more than what he did against the Vulture.  The real question is why he allowed him to decline the Avengers invite without giving him a Sekovia Accords speech.

If Tony were intending to fold Peter into the Avengers from the start, why not just enlist him during one of the countless times Peter asked to join?

[Turtle]

15 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Almost as if he were an immature 15-year old.  

What I like about the early years of the character of Spider-man is he initially acted like I imagine most of us would act...being reasonably free with the newly acquired powers including using them for personal gain (wrestling for money).  Then, because of a decision he made that was rooted in immaturity, he lost his Uncle Ben.  From that moment on, the crushing weight of responsibility fell onto his 15-year-old shoulders.  He was required to make some very mature decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions, for better or for worse. 

So the fact that he was only 15 doesn't excuse him from not feeling remorse for his actions.  Responsibility should permeate every decision he makes and he must live with the consequences.  It's the core of the character of Spider-man.  Sam Raimi understood that and incorporated it well in the first 2 movies.  That same theme isn't really present in Homecoming, but I'm guessing that was deliberate to keep it as light as some of the MCU movies that came before it, which is fine.  It worked well.  The movie was enjoyable and it pretty seamlessly into the ever-expanding MCU.  I find both Raimi's take and Homecoming very enjoyable, but Raimi showed a clearer understanding of the motivations of the character. 

 

[fantastic_four]

9 hours ago, Turtle said:

If Tony were intending to fold Peter into the Avengers from the start, why not just enlist him during one of the countless times Peter asked to join?

He explicitly told him he didn't think he was ready.

[fantastic_four]

14 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

14 hours ago, piper said:

I think it's a top 5 MCU movie for me, maybe even WInter Soldier or Iron Man good. 

Wow! It didn't have that impact on me. But that doesn't detract from your feelings about the movie. Just depending on the individual and what they expect I guess.

But I do agree Spider-Man: Homecoming was a good movie, and between Tom Holland and Michael Keaton they had nailed some top actors.

It doesn't crack my top five superhero films, but it might hover around five just considering Marvel films.  The best superhero films are, in order, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Logan, and X-Men: First Class.  Homecoming probably fits somewhere from 6 to 10, although given more time to think about it I could see it passing First Class, not sure yet.  It's not passing into that top four though.

[Turtle]

Just now, fantastic_four said:

He explicitly told him he didn't think he was ready.

Agents of SHIELD shows that enhanced individuals who wish to use their powers the way Spider-man does get supervised training once they sign the Sekovia Accords.  Just letting Peter do his own thing doesn't really flow with what the Accords are trying to accomplish.  In fact, the document was born as the direct result of Cap and his team doing what they felt was right...which is exactly what Spider-man does.

[Turtle]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

It doesn't crack my top five superhero films, but it might hover around five just considering Marvel films.  The best superhero films are, in order, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Logan, and X-Men: First Class.  Homecoming probably fits somewhere from 6 to 10, although given more time to think about it I could see it passing First Class, not sure yet.  It's not passing into that top four though.

Solid list! 

[fantastic_four]

7 minutes ago, Turtle said:

12 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

He explicitly told him he didn't think he was ready.

Agents of SHIELD shows that enhanced individuals who wish to use their powers the way Spider-man does get supervised training once they sign the Sekovia Accords.  Just letting Peter do his own thing doesn't really flow with what the Accords are trying to accomplish.  In fact, the document was born as the direct result of Cap and his team doing what they felt was right...which is exactly what Spider-man does.

Wasn't Stark supervising him throughout the film?  That seemed to be the entire point of him being in the film, and most of the point of the suit he gave him.

[Turtle]

By "supervised training", I mean a controlled environment.  I'm guessing the Accords don't condone on the job training when they consider some powered individuals to be walking weapons of mass destruction.  And even if we consider that Iron Man was "supervising" Spidey, was his supervision enough to curb the destruction of the deli?  Or all those school buses?  Or the damage to the Washington Monument?  I imagine that in the global climate portrayed in Civil War, an enhanced individual involved with blowing up a small building in NYC would be enough to bring Spider-man to trial under the Accords, let alone anything that happened later. 

[fantastic_four]

4 minutes ago, Turtle said:

By "supervised training", I mean a controlled environment.  I'm guessing the Accords don't condone on the job training when they consider some powered individuals to be walking weapons of mass destruction.  And even if we consider that Iron Man was "supervising" Spidey, was his supervision enough to curb the destruction of the deli?  Or all those school buses?  Or the damage to the Washington Monument?  I imagine that in the global climate portrayed in Civil War, an enhanced individual involved with blowing up a small building in NYC would be enough to bring Spider-man to trial under the Accords, let alone anything that happened later. 

I don't watch Agents of SHIELD, so you know far more about the Accords than I do; all I know is what I recall from the Civil War comic, which isn't much and is clearly different since those required revealing secret identities, and what I recall from the Civil War movie, which is spotty now.  And we're both engaging in our own fictional ponderings anyway, but it's all good and the notion of realistic politics for superhero action is definitely interesting.  So with that...given the way the Accords are structured, could it be that Stark is just being trusted to create that controlled environment?  We know he's averse to such authority or control, so it's no surprise that he's actually not watching Peter all that closely.

The main question there is whether or not Stark has the authority to deploy Spider-Man to fight crime.  Does he?  I don't know.  If he does, he might just be claiming he sent him to that deli, or to the Monument, if asked.  And he realized he was tired of having to cover up for him, so he pulled him into the Avengers.  And when he got turned down, he wasn't sure what he'd do next to reign him in.

[fantastic_four]

8 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

the notion of realistic politics for superhero action is definitely interesting

To me, anyway.  I suspect it isn't to most people, which is why those constraints weren't an active part of the Homecoming story and why we likely won't see them at the forefront of many Marvel movies.

I know most people found the political aspects of the Star Wars prequels boring with the way Darth Sidious was playing both sides, but I enjoyed it.   Which is why I'm generally interested in the Sekovia Accords as well.  I expect we won't see much about them, but I can't rule out that whoever is keeping this stuff straight is making an effort to do so.  Previously I would have said the Marvel Creative Committee is probably doing it, but these days, the only entity I can point at is Kevin Feige.  

[Turtle]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

I don't watch Agents of SHIELD, so you know far more about the Accords than I do; all I know is what I recall from the Civil War comic, which isn't much and is clearly different since those required revealing secret identities, and what I recall from the Civil War movie, which is spotty now.  And we're both engaging in our own fictional ponderings anyway, but it's all good and the notion of realistic politics for superhero action is definitely interesting.  So with that...given the way the Accords are structured, could it be that Stark is just being trusted to create that controlled environment?  We know he's averse to such authority or control, so it's no surprise that he's actually not watching Peter all that closely.

The main question there is whether or not Stark has the authority to deploy Spider-Man to fight crime.  Does he?  I don't know.  If he does, he might just be claiming he sent him to that deli, or to the Monument, if asked.  And he realized he was tired of having to cover up for him, so he pulled him into the Avengers.  And when he got turned down, he wasn't sure what he'd do next to reign him in.

I think you could be on to something.  Stark, despite being the pro-registration poster child, has shown an open disdain for people who try to assert authority over him.  As such, I can see him bending the rules of the Accords as he sees fit. 

But based on what I remember from Civil War, the answer to your main question is no, Stark would not have the authority himself to send Spidey to fight crime.  If enhanced individuals were able to send other enhanced individuals to do whatever the felt like, the Accords would be pretty pointless.  From Civil War, missions for enhanced people would be decided on by committees, not individuals. 

And you're right, these are fictional ponderings and all in good fun.  I think the concept of realistic politics in a world of Superheroes is interesting and the reason I think the Civil War comic did so well upon release.  I'm not sure there will be a satisfactory in-universe answer to why the Accords didn't apply to Spidey in this movie.  It would get in the way of the plot...which I can live with.  The burden of continuity.  If the cost of seeing years worth of fun, shared universe movies is overlooking some small plot holes created in other films, so be it.  I'll still be buying my movie tickets. 

[fantastic_four]

What the Avengers do is the equivalent to what national armies do, but what Spider-Man does is more what cops do.  I'm generally intrigued with the idea of meta-humans as cops; wouldn't it be easier for Peter to find crime to fight if he had a central dispatcher deploying him to do it?  The Sekovia Accords seem to be an international framework for global threats, so when you've got a local crime-fighter, do they even bother with such matters?  The United Nations has no idea what's happening locally in Queens, so I'm not sure why the international body enforcing the Sekovia Accords would.  The UN concerns itself with crime or injustice on a broad scale, not an individual one.

Locally, the cops go after Spider-Man when they see him.  Even Stan depicted law enforcement doing that back in the 60s.  Is there reason to think the Sekovia Accords guys would care about local events in the Marvel Universe any more than the United Nations does about local crime?

[Straw-Man]

2 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

It doesn't crack my top five superhero films, but it might hover around five just considering Marvel films.  The best superhero films are, in order, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Logan, and X-Men: First Class.  Homecoming probably fits somewhere from 6 to 10, although given more time to think about it I could see it passing First Class, not sure yet.  It's not passing into that top four though.

spidey 2, dk and the avengers sit tied atop the medal stand for me--because of my life-long love for the character, spidey 2 is probably first among equals.