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

[MustEatBrains]

Saw it, enjoyed it, a little campy, a few very humorous lines injected throughout. Great for the youngins.  Keaton was the king of this movie.  I personally liked WW a little more but 2 both are really solid flicks.

[fantastic_four]

19 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

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/

Feige isn't saying Peter will develop spider-sense in your linked article, he's saying they may develop cinematic ways to communicate his use of spider-sense in later films.  He explicitly says in your linked article that he has spider-sense in Homecoming.

Edited July 20, 2017 by fantastic_four

[piper]

26 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Feige isn't saying Peter will develop spider-sense in your linked article, he's saying they may develop cinematic ways to communicate his use of spider-sense in later films.  He explicitly says in your linked article that he has spider-sense in Homecoming.

I'm personally glad they didn't show it in some cheesy way.

[1Cool]

The first 2 spider-man movies resonated well with pretty every age group since they were fantastic movies all the way around.  I can see why the current Spidey was annoying to pretty much everyone over the age of 21 and a decent portion of the movie felt like one of the Instagram videos my 13 year likes to watch.  I didn't hate the latest spidey but I'm too old at 44 to appreciate a lot of the teenage humor and the movie felt jumpy and contrived in spots.  I rewatch the 1st 2 spidey movies and I still love them as much as I did at a younger age.

[kimik]

16 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

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.

The FF would do poorly because the property sucks. Even the first two movies, which had some moments and some decent names, did not do well at the box office. Not even a Tony Stark/RDJ appearance could save a new FF flick.

While the past two films bombing did not help, IMHO another big issue with this Spidey movie is the casting. Tom Holland does not have the charisma as a lead that Tobey M did, and it shows. He is a decent supporting actor, but not a superhero leading man. The same could be said for the last guy in the role (I can't remember his name). Some of the other cast members (Zendaya?) appeared to just be blatant attempts to attract a targeted audience and it does not seem like it is working.

The fact that there is mixed word of mouth is hurting this film as well.

[jsilverjanet]

Keaton was so great I'd be more interested in Vulture 2 than Homecoming 2

[Gatsby77]

6 hours ago, kimik said:

The FF would do poorly because the property sucks. Even the first two movies, which had some moments and some decent names, did not do well at the box office. Not even a Tony Stark/RDJ appearance could save a new FF flick.

While the past two films bombing did not help, IMHO another big issue with this Spidey movie is the casting. Tom Holland does not have the charisma as a lead that Tobey M did, and it shows. He is a decent supporting actor, but not a superhero leading man. The same could be said for the last guy in the role (I can't remember his name). Some of the other cast members (Zendaya?) appeared to just be blatant attempts to attract a targeted audience and it does not seem like it is working.

The fact that there is mixed word of mouth is hurting this film as well.

Agree with you 100% on FF. I actually think the property is one of the most difficult -- if not impossible -- to translate to the screen, because it's _so_ 1960s cheesy. Probably The Incredibles is the closest we'll ever see to it done well -- and that worked because it was a) animated and b) embraced the cheese.

100% disagree with you on Spidey.

1) What "mixed word of mouth?" It's at 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes with a 91% audience score. That's a win, clearly ranking as second-best among critics. Compare to:

Spider-Man 2: 94%

Spider-Man: 89%

Amazing Spider-Man: 72%

Spider-Man 3: 63%

Amazing Spider-Man 2: 52% 

I've been surprised by some of the negative reviews on this board, but they mostly seem to be from 35-45 year-olds who don't like that this Spidey is a legit teenager here.

2) And yes - Holland has the charisma to pull off Spidey, as did Garfield.

To me, Garfield's best work is still his break-out role in The Social Network, where he stole every seen he was in, but he has shown far more range and charisma in a very short career than has Tobey Maguire -- who has never really evolved beyond his "aw shucks" wide-eyed Peter Parker schtick. That could be okay, but (for instance) Maguire was woefully miscast in the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby, just by virtue of being friends with Leonardo DiCaprio. Ugh.

Compare to Garfield in The Social Network, 99 Homes, and even Silence...his career has arguably already out-stripped Maguire's and he's been in the game 1/3 as long.

I stand by Homecoming being the second-best Spidey film after Spider-Man 2 -- because I believed Holland in the role _and_ it was better written than any of the films save that one.

[paperheart]

24 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Agree with you 100% on FF. I actually think the property is one of the most difficult -- if not impossible -- to translate to the screen, because it's _so_ 1960s cheesy. Probably The Incredibles is the closest we'll ever see to it done well -- and that worked because it was a) animated and b) embraced the cheese.

100% disagree with you on Spidey.

1) What "mixed word of mouth?" It's at 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes with a 91% audience score. That's a win, clearly ranking as second-best among critics. Compare to:

Spider-Man 2: 94%

Spider-Man: 89%

Amazing Spider-Man: 72%

Spider-Man 3: 63%

Amazing Spider-Man 2: 52% 

I've been surprised by some of the negative reviews on this board, but they mostly seem to be from 35-45 year-olds who don't like that this Spidey is a legit teenager here.

2) And yes - Holland has the charisma to pull off Spidey, as did Garfield.

To me, Garfield's best work is still his break-out role in The Social Network, where he stole every seen he was in, but he has shown far more range and charisma in a very short career than has Tobey Maguire -- who has never really evolved beyond his "aw shucks" wide-eyed Peter Parker schtick. That could be okay, but (for instance) Maguire was woefully miscast in the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby, just by virtue of being friends with Leonardo DiCaprio. Ugh.

Compare to Garfield in The Social Network, 99 Homes, and even Silence...his career has arguably already out-stripped Maguire's and he's been in the game 1/3 as long.

I stand by Homecoming being the second-best Spidey film after Spider-Man 2 -- because I believed Holland in the role _and_ it was better written than any of the films save that one.

it's the A Cinemascore that's confusing him. A in Canada means something much different than it does in the US.

[Ken Aldred]

8 hours ago, piper said:

I'm personally glad they didn't show it in some cheesy way.

Spider sense.

Given how advanced CGI is these days it would be easy to show some wavy force lines emanating from his head.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[kimik]

2 hours ago, paperheart said:

it's the A Cinemascore that's confusing him. A in Canada means something much different than it does in the US.

In Canada we don't settle for A or AA, it is only AAA. A in USA = C up here. 

The mixed word of mouth I am referring to is the mixed reviews here on the boards and from people locally I know that have seen the film. My friends that are non-comic fanboys and colleagues at work that have seen it are mixed on it. The common theme is that they all liked WW and GotG 2 much more than this film, but with some saying Homecoming is good and others saying it is meh.

Edited July 21, 2017 by kimik

[kimik]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Agree with you 100% on FF. I actually think the property is one of the most difficult -- if not impossible -- to translate to the screen, because it's _so_ 1960s cheesy. Probably The Incredibles is the closest we'll ever see to it done well -- and that worked because it was a) animated and b) embraced the cheese.

100% disagree with you on Spidey.

1) What "mixed word of mouth?" It's at 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes with a 91% audience score. That's a win, clearly ranking as second-best among critics. Compare to:

Spider-Man 2: 94%

Spider-Man: 89%

Amazing Spider-Man: 72%

Spider-Man 3: 63%

Amazing Spider-Man 2: 52% 

I've been surprised by some of the negative reviews on this board, but they mostly seem to be from 35-45 year-olds who don't like that this Spidey is a legit teenager here.

2) And yes - Holland has the charisma to pull off Spidey, as did Garfield.

To me, Garfield's best work is still his break-out role in The Social Network, where he stole every seen he was in, but he has shown far more range and charisma in a very short career than has Tobey Maguire -- who has never really evolved beyond his "aw shucks" wide-eyed Peter Parker schtick. That could be okay, but (for instance) Maguire was woefully miscast in the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby, just by virtue of being friends with Leonardo DiCaprio. Ugh.

Compare to Garfield in The Social Network, 99 Homes, and even Silence...his career has arguably already out-stripped Maguire's and he's been in the game 1/3 as long.

I stand by Homecoming being the second-best Spidey film after Spider-Man 2 -- because I believed Holland in the role _and_ it was better written than any of the films save that one.

I am glad that you liked it, but my reference to word of mouth is that non-comic fanboy people I know, as well as the comments here on the boards, are mixed re: whether it is a good film or not.

As far as Holland, we will agree to disagree.  I feel the same way about him as I do about Paul Rudd as Ant-Man. I don't care for either as leading actors. They are better suited for supporting roles IMHO.

[Artboy99]

12 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Feige isn't saying Peter will develop spider-sense in your linked article, he's saying they may develop cinematic ways to communicate his use of spider-sense in later films.  He explicitly says in your linked article that he has spider-sense in Homecoming.

Yes Spider-man has the ability of spider-senses, but they didn't show it. It isn't in the movie.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Artboy99

[reddwarf666222]

3 hours ago, kimik said:

I am glad that you liked it, but my reference to word of mouth is that non-comic fanboy people I know, as well as the comments here on the boards, are mixed re: whether it is a good film or not.

As far as Holland, we will agree to disagree.  I feel the same way about him as I do about Paul Rudd as Ant-Man. I don't care for either as leading actors. They are better suited for supporting roles IMHO.

Almost everyone I know liked the film. If they didn't like the  film it was because they could not look past the one gimme in the film aka the suit. It was not an origin film so the suit was fine and ultimately a learning tool to help Peter learn and later turn down the Iron Suit. Why is this film failing domestically?

Simple the U.S. public is tired of remakes, reboots, and sequels. No one asked for this film.

Why is Wonder Woman succeeding?

The public has been asking for this film for over 20 years. The number of women going to see this film with their daughters, grandkids, and more is high. The film does not fit that category. I'm still amazed even today the number of kids I am seeing come in cosplay to Wonder Woman. Simply put give us something original we'll come treat us like we are zombies and will watch anything see what happens to your box office.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

22 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

Keaton was so great I'd be more interested in Vulture 2 than Homecoming 2

He was awesome I agree. This also shows we the older audience can relate to the Keaton character more than the Holland character.

When Parker was going to take Keaton's daughter to the prom I was relating to being a dad,while 20 years ago I would have related to being Parker going to the prom.

So for most of us hard core Spider-Man fans we can relate to the older Keaton character now than the young teen Spider-Man.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

He was awesome I agree. This also shows we the older audience can relate to the Keaton character more than the Holland character.

[ComicConnoisseur]

10 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Why is this film failing domestically?

Simple the U.S. public is tired of remakes, reboots, and sequels. No one asked for this film.

I think the reason is not just with this movie,but most movies. 

An example is the latest Planet of the Apes flix WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES . Three years ago I would have rushed out to see it,while now I will just wait to see it on Netflix or Amazon Prime. This is a movie with a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes yet it will still not entice a big domestic overall box office.

The movie industry is just starting to go thru what the music industry has experienced in that the days of movies always doing big as a domestic blockbuster are slowly coming to an end like top cds regularly selling 5 million copies.

Of course there are outliers,but for most part we shouldn't expect big domestic box office like we saw 5-10 years ago,as the movie industry is rapidly changing because of modern technology.

So when a movie like Spider-Man:Homecoming or  WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES doesn't break box office records they shouldn't be seen as a failure do to new ever-changing standards.

Edited July 21, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[reddwarf666222]

14 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I think the reason is not just with this movie,but most movies. 

An example is the latest Planet of the Apes flix WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES . Three years ago I would have rushed out to see it,while now I will just wait to see it on Netflix or Amazon Prime. This is a movie with a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes yet it will still not entice a big domestic overall box office.

The movie industry is just starting to go thru what the music industry has experienced in that the days of movies always doing big as a domestic blockbuster are slowly coming to an end like top cds regularly selling 5 million copies.

Of course there are outliers,but for most part we shouldn't expect big domestic box office like we saw 5-10 years ago,as the movie industry is rapidly changing because of modern technology.

So when a movie like Spider-Man:Homecoming or  WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES doesn't break box office records they shouldn't be seen as a failure do to new ever-changing standards.

Yet they should be seen as a failure. Hollywood has gotten complacent and the domestic box office is saying that. As a public we are bored of sequels, reboots, and remakes we are begging for original stuff, but as a public we are unsure what to see.

[Prince Namor]

I think it's also being considered a.... well, it's not a failure, but a minor disappointment, because Spider-man sells more merchandise than ANY American Superhero in the world... so his movies, should do Batman numbers....

They DID, when TM played the part and Sam Raimi was directing... adjusted for inflation, even the 3rd movie almost broke $400MiL domestic.

And I'm tired of the reboot excuse....

Rebooted Batfleck in BVS broke $300Mil domestic, something this movie won't do.  Can it even beat Man of Steel's $291MiL domestic? Weren't the Dark Knight movies reboots? They ROCKED the box office.

Marvel looks at Spider-man as their number one selling franchise worldwide, they have to be wondering why the movies aren't making more money.

https://www.newsarama.com/22711-spider-man-marvel-dominates-batman-dc-in-licensing-revenue.html

[Get Marwood & I]

48 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I think it's also being considered a.... well, it's not a failure, but a minor disappointment, because Spider-man sells more merchandise than ANY American Superhero in the world... so his movies, should do Batman numbers....

They DID, when TM played the part and Sam Raimi was directing... adjusted for inflation, even the 3rd movie almost broke $400MiL domestic.

And I'm tired of the reboot excuse....

Rebooted Batfleck in BVS broke $300Mil domestic, something this movie won't do.  Can it even beat Man of Steel's $291MiL domestic? Weren't the Dark Knight movies reboots? They ROCKED the box office.

Marvel looks at Spider-man as their number one selling franchise worldwide, they have to be wondering why the movies aren't making more money.

https://www.newsarama.com/22711-spider-man-marvel-dominates-batman-dc-in-licensing-revenue.html

 

I think it's obvious why it's not doing the numbers Marvel were hoping for. It's just not a very good film. I saw the first two Raimi films several times at the cinema. Twice on one day. They were great films with heart, strong characterisation, good plots and clever action scenes. Homecoming (I hate that title) was none of these things and it wouldn't bother me if I ever saw it again.  I don't actually remember much about it, so underwhelming it was. Did it not start with a home video from Peter that went on for ages? What a terrible way to open a film. 

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the 15 year old me would not have liked it either. A few admittedly quirkily scripted scenes do not add up to a satisfying whole. Where was the drama?  Where was the game changing "whoah" scene? Where was the danger? Marvel were supposed to be 'bringing Spidey home' so the expectation for a satisfying tale was high. I can't begin to say how badly they did it, and how poorly conceived the whole film was.

But I'll try if anyone wants to goad me! ?

[jsilverjanet]

I also think Marvel was expecting Spider-Man to be their Iron Man for the next phase of their movies. I suspect that this under performance will not make them so sure of their plans