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

[fantastic_four]

I saw MANY instances where it was obvious his spider-sense was working, they just didn't explicitly call attention to it like they did in the previous origin films.  How many times does that power have to be explicitly rendered on-screen before we just accept it's part of everything he does?

[piper]

26 minutes ago, kimik said:

@piper Hey, how come you got so upset with my views on the turd that was Ant-Man but are being so nice with other boardies? 

Touché!

I guess I can be a  to my friends? (I promise to be nicer in the future when sharing my movie critiques with you )

[kimik]

2 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I saw MANY instances where it was obvious his spider-sense was working, they just didn't explicitly call attention to it like they did in the previous origin films.  How many times does that power have to be explicitly rendered on-screen before we just accept it's part of everything he does?

All they need is to have a cool sound when it clicks on and have him say "my spider-sense is tingling". 

 

[kimik]

5 minutes ago, piper said:

Touché!

I guess I can be a  to my friends? (I promise to be nicer in the future when sharing my movie critiques with you )

Thanks. You know how sensitive I can be about things like this. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by kimik

[fantastic_four]

2 minutes ago, kimik said:

5 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I saw MANY instances where it was obvious his spider-sense was working, they just didn't explicitly call attention to it like they did in the previous origin films.  How many times does that power have to be explicitly rendered on-screen before we just accept it's part of everything he does?

All they need is to have a cool sound when it clicks on and have him say "my spider-sense is tingling". 

Even Stan and Ditko knew that would be annoying.  Maybe they need to edit in the spider-sense lines with CGI...yea, that wouldn't be unrealistic at all.

[fantastic_four]

The same issue exists with Daredevil's radar sense...they show it in the origin, but not afterwards, and that's totally fine.  They're passive abilities from our perspective anyway, but when you see them react to things not in their line of sight, you know their spidey or radar sense just kicked in.

Why people keep feeling compelled to have a third origin is strange, particularly since a change in production or actors isn't that different than a change in authors or artists in the comics.  When they did it in the first Garfield movie, it was done as a marketing gimmick to draw new interest to the film, not because you have to reboot every time there's a switch in production or acting.  But I never expected a reboot when Ditko switched over to Romita, which itself is fairly close parallel to an acting change from Tobey to Garfield or Garfield to Holland.

[Get Marwood & I]

40 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I saw MANY instances where it was obvious his spider-sense was working, they just didn't explicitly call attention to it like they did in the previous origin films.  How many times does that power have to be explicitly rendered on-screen before we just accept it's part of everything he does?

Maybe I missed them when I was yawning....? 

[Bosco685]

6 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Maybe I missed them when I was yawning....? 

I don't think I ever noticed it in Homecoming.

I liked how Raimi did it so casually, blending it in with the scene. That would have been a less distracting approach compared to the old animated show having to clearly call out "My spider-senses are tingling!"

 

 

[Artboy99]

52 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I saw MANY instances where it was obvious his spider-sense was working, they just didn't explicitly call attention to it like they did in the previous origin films.  How many times does that power have to be explicitly rendered on-screen before we just accept it's part of everything he does?

I will see the movie again when I buy it and watch for it. I don't recall seeing it. I have even read an article where the director discusses not including spider-sense and that it will be something Peter develops later in subsequent films.

http://www.slashfilm.com/spider-man-homecoming-spider-sense/

Edited July 19, 2017 by Artboy99

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I don't think I ever noticed it in Homecoming.

I liked how Raimi did it so casually, blending it in with the scene. That would have been a less distracting approach compared to the old animated show having to clearly call out "My spider-senses are tingling!"

 

 

I don't think it was there. You know old FF, he has to disagree with everything for the sake of it. The Raimi approach was perfect. That one clip above is more akin to Spidey than anything in that fast evolving horror that was Homecoming.  

[Artboy99]

1 minute ago, Marwood & I said:

I don't think it was there. You know old FF, he has to disagree with everything for the sake of it. The Raimi approach was perfect. That one clip above is more akin to Spidey than anything in that fast evolving horror that was Homecoming.  

I know it wasn't there, especially when the director says he didn't include it.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Artboy99 said:

I know it wasn't there, especially when the director says he didn't include it.

I didn't go there yet. But there was an article on this posted a few weeks back.

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

I know it wasn't there, especially when the director says he didn't include it.

So we're all agreed then - @fantastic_four is wrong. I repeat, wrong. Alert the Tribal Elders! 

[tv horror]

The only time it was sort of a way used was the ferry scene when the laser cannon went wild you could see he was clearly dodging the beams. 

[Gatsby77]

Not sure why folks are already calling this a financial failure.

12 days into its run it's already surpassed the inflation-adjusted domestic total of Amazing Spider-Man 2.

And if you don't adjust for inflation (which is stupid, but Forbes and the Hollywood trade pubs sometimes don't), it's running less than $13 million behind where 2002's Spider-Man was after 12 days.

I agree that it may not hit $300 million domestic, but if anything it's not due to lack of quality -- rather, I think that would stem more from potential audience disinterest after three mediocre Spidey films in a row.

Spider-Man 3 grossed nearly $900 million worldwide based mostly on audience goodwill and expectation after the two prior films.

We've got the opposite scenario here -- where the two prior films -- and arguably, Spider-Man 3 itself -- were let-downs, therefore dampening general audience interest in this one, Iron Man or not.

It's the same reason another FF film -- even one totally under Disney control, with all of the Avengers, etc. -- would likely do middling box office at best -- the well's already been poisoned by three mediocre films.

[Bosco685]

It's 2.7X production budget already. That means it could easily cover domestic revenue sharing, most international revenue sharing, and still have the beginning of profit. And it hasn't even opened in all markets.

Remaining Release Schedule:

- Belgium: 19 July 2017

- Spain: 28 July 2017

- Japan: 7 August 2017(Tokyo) (premiere)

- Japan: 11 August 2017

- China: August 2017 (??)

[reddwarf666222]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

It's 2.7X production budget already. That means it could easily cover domestic revenue sharing, most international revenue sharing, and still have the beginning of profit. And it hasn't even opened in all markets.

Remaining Release Schedule:

- Belgium: 19 July 2017

- Spain: 28 July 2017

- Japan: 7 August 2017(Tokyo) (premiere)

- Japan: 11 August 2017

- China: August 2017 (??)

You give too much credit to foreign box office.  The film gets 20 to 25 cents for every dollar spent after taxes and conversion fees are done. What matters is domestic to where the film gets 50 to 60 cents of every dollar spent.

[Bosco685]

Just now, reddwarf666222 said:

You give too much credit to foreign box office.  The film gets 20 to 25 cents for every dollar spent after taxes and conversion fees are done. What matters is domestic to where the film gets 50 to 60 cents of every dollar spent.

- USA: 50% market split

- China: 25%

- General International: 40%

Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter have noted this a few times recently on Hollywood economics. So I wouldn't generalize the international box office into a China revenue share model.

[reddwarf666222]

6 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

- USA: 50% market split

- China: 25%

- General International: 40%

Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter have noted this a few times recently on Hollywood economics. So I wouldn't generalize the international box office into a China revenue share model.

Again you have to add in conversion fees so it is closer to 25 cents to the dollar. To rely on foreign market is crazy once they get tired of these films and used to these effects they will stop coming as well

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Again you have to add in conversion fees so it is closer to 25 cents to the dollar. To rely on foreign market is crazy once they get tired of these films and used to these effects they will stop coming as well

When the industry sees where the large growth is even over a few years, it is probably difficult for studios to ignore that much potential value. With $3.3B growth from 2012 to 2016 compared to the domestic trend of $600M, it's a tough walk-away.