|
Post by mr. excellent on Mar 7, 2016 19:30:42 GMT -5
It really doesn't make a lot of sense. Could it be that maybe we know less about the deal that was made between Sony and Marvel than we realize? Think about it, why would Sony want to keep Venom unrelated to the MCU? Weren't they going to be sharing characters? You can't do that if the movie has no connection to the rest of the superheroes. To me, I can't fathom Sony doing this to themselves unless Marvel wasn't willing to share to begin with. But if that's the case, why the hell would they pursue this?
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Apr 13, 2016 10:24:05 GMT -5
First off, we should probably get the name of this thread changed. I like the name. Fitting in a number of ways. And the logo looks almost like the classic one, which works with the costume we've seen. I wouldn't have gone with the curve though. Just seems weird considering the other Marvel logos have been flat.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Apr 13, 2016 20:10:34 GMT -5
Maybe it's supposed to be like a high school banner/poster that the spirit club would hang up at school or something? I like the title too though. It's getting a little hate, but I love how it has multiple meanings. High School homecoming, there's the rumors that it'll use elements from the Homecoming story line from the 80s (after Secret Wars), then of course there's addressing the fact that Spider-man is essentially back home*. Speaking of which, I think Feige just said what we all wanted to hear: Kevin Feige Suggests that Marvel still has control over the Spider-Man Reboot: www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-man/kevin-feige-suggests-that-marvel-still-has-creative-control-over-the-a137449Sounds like this is going to be like when Paramount was producing all the phase 1 films. Awesome!!! *Not too long ago, jokes were being made in a semi-serious tone about the title being "Marvel Studios' Spider-man"
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Apr 13, 2016 20:20:03 GMT -5
Not a huge fan of the name. I know it's taken, but I feel just "Spider-Man," plainly, would've been best. Now it sounds like a TV episode title, and it's his debut. I dunno, not my jam.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Apr 13, 2016 20:58:46 GMT -5
That's reasonable. Too bad Amazing Spider-man is already taken. I was happy when they used the title back in 2012, but the movie didn't exactly live up; after repeat viewings I've finally settled on that for myself anyway. IMHO it was more along the lines of "pretty good" than "amazing". Some parts were wonderful for sure.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Apr 13, 2016 21:00:35 GMT -5
Michael Keaton reported to play the villain of the movie: www.newsarama.com/28834-batman-to-play-spider-man-homecomings-viillain.htmlRumor is that the villain will be Vulture, which I guess would be okay. Still would have gone with Mysterio, but I guess it's nice to have his first supervillain has his first movie villain (I know it was technically Chameleon, but it would be hard to make a movie around him in my opinion). I could see Keaton playing him too; it wouldn't be too much a stretch from Birdman. Ha ha. Then again, it does say "a villain". Maybe he could be Norman Osborn actually? Gotta build up the Goblin somehow.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Apr 13, 2016 21:05:13 GMT -5
That's reasonable. Too bad Amazing Spider-man is already taken. I was happy when they used the title back in 2012, but the movie didn't exactly live up; after repeat viewings I've finally settled on that for myself anyway. IMHO it was more along the lines of "pretty good" than "amazing". Some parts were wonderful for sure. I think Spectacular Spider-Man would have been good title here too, considering the name is already synonymous with a good Spider-Man thing. You know, I've had a hard time bringing myself to watch the Amazing films. Besides the fact that we'll never know how the story ends, it's just sucks watching Garfield and his great portrayal as Spidey and knowing that he won't be with the Avengers. I'm sure Holland will be great, but you know, what could have been.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Apr 13, 2016 21:18:21 GMT -5
I know what you mean. I keep thinking back to his great performance at SDCC 2013 when the cast showed up for TASM 2. The movie didn't turn out the way we'd hoped, but the way Andrew inhabited the character for the Hall H panel... Man, he riffed up there on that stage in character, and it honestly felt like a mix between Ultimate Spider-man and Amazing Spider-man come to life. Tom Hiddleston ended up doing the same thing the next day and sort of stole everyone's attention. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that Hiddleston has that shine, but Garfield doing that felt like a gift and I wish it had resonated as much as his gag from 2011's SDCC did.
Garfield's Spider-man didn't get the love he deserved from a lot of the fans online. To each their own, and respect to those who are able to articulate in a reasonable, respectful manner on why they feel the way they do. Most of the online conversation based on Garfield's Peter Parker however resorted to labeling him a douche bag because he was "mean to a carjacker". It was seriously the dumbest shit the character would get criticized over. People actually sympathized with the carjacker because Peter had some fun at his expense, even though Captain Stacy revealed the guy was a serial car thief. I suppose if these critics had a car that was being stolen, they'd protest a badass for putting the thief in his place with style before the authorities arrived... but I digress.
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Apr 14, 2016 17:48:52 GMT -5
I agree, The Amazing Spider-Man could have just been The Pretty Good Spider-Man. It's unfortunate that every amazing thing about it is matched by something equally unamazing.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Apr 21, 2016 15:13:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Apr 21, 2016 23:53:53 GMT -5
Do you guys think Homecoming's gonna be a great film? I know it's waaaay to early to make any sensible predictions, but I'm not really feeling it.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Apr 22, 2016 12:22:09 GMT -5
At this point, I’m drinking the cool aid. It’s gonna rock. If next year is an off year, or if Dr.Strange is a catastrophy I might be a little worried. It seems that for now we have another 2014 on our hands. Anthony and Joe Russo directed the much maligned “You, Me, and Dupree”, and then they changed the game for Marvel Studios. The studio seems to have learned a lot of lessons on how they collaborate with their talent. Many expected these lessons to be learned by the time phase 2 rolled in, but as we saw, some lessons take a little longer to set in. We’re in phase 3 now, so while nothing’s ever guaranteed to be perfect, I think they’ll be able to shepherd Jon Watt’s Spider-man movie to some great results. If anything, I’m worried about the screenwriters.
Oddly enough, I feel that there was always going to be more potential for a Spider-man movie at Sony. They really just need to focus on one movie at a time. The problem was, ever since Spider-man 3, they had a bad habit of negatively influencing their Spider-man movies by chasing trends. With regards to Marvel at Disney, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed every single film they’ve produced. While some movies are more cookie cutter and somewhat forgettable than others, there’s a steel baseline their movies never fall through. Here’s hoping (for me at least) that Spider-man is more Guardians’ and Iron Man than Ant Man and Iron Man 2.
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Apr 22, 2016 13:43:43 GMT -5
Not odd at all. I completely agree, I believe Spider-Man has most potential when he's in his own bubble. If he's one of many superheroes in New York, he doesn't have the world on his shoulders; his responsibility is greatly diminished. And you know what makes Spidey Spidey: uncalled for responsibility. So far, both confirmed decisions they've made for the film - the title and the fact that Iron Man will be in it - don't reassure me.
But I'm still hopeful. We still have too little information. Hell, we haven't even seen Civil War yet!
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Apr 22, 2016 19:10:48 GMT -5
Tell you what, I think Netflix's Daredevil is a good place to look for optimism. DD functions in the same universe as the films, yet he's not dealing with cosmic/global level threats. However, the show still manages to put the "weight of the world" on his shoulders, and as an audience member I can respect and admire the character's struggle. What he does matters and it effects people like myself because he's a street level hero. The fact that these other heroes are out there dealing with cosmic level stuff is actually a strength to the show because it sets up a contrast. Iron Man being an international celebrity should create a nice dichotomy. Spider-man is supposed to be the every man's hero, so it sort of becomes this question of relatability: what do you relate to more? Ferraris or Mustangs? Lamborghini's or Chargers? Porsche's or sup'd up Honda Civic's?
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Apr 23, 2016 0:51:25 GMT -5
Damn... You do make a very solid argument.
|
|