Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 1:13:17 GMT
I remember how exciting it was to see the SpiderMan 2002 and SpiderMan 2 trailers... Then the movies delivered. For some reason older incarnations are always bashed by new fans but Raimi's series was nothing short of spectacular (excluding 3 of course).
This new trailer on the other hand looked very "meh".
MCU movies are always at least decent so it probably won't be terrible, but as one clever/astute poster said above: it's Iron Man 4: SpiderMan Cameo.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 22, 2017 1:30:06 GMT
I remember how exciting it was to see the SpiderMan 2002 and SpiderMan 2 trailers... Then the movies delivered. For some reason older incarnations are always bashed by new fans but Raimi's series was nothing short of spectacular (excluding 3 of course). This new trailer on the other hand looked very "meh". MCU movies are always at least decent so it probably won't be terrible, but as one clever/astute poster said above: it's Iron Man 4: SpiderMan Cameo. So in other words, some people STILL have trouble accepting the Shared Universe concept. That characters can cross over ANY TIME they want now and it doesn't always have to be in the Avengers films. Look people, as interconnected as the movies are now the characters are always going to be criss-crossing without it being an Avengers movie. You just have to learn to accept it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 2:37:42 GMT
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you just lost your "be taken seriously" privileges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 19:26:47 GMT
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you just lost your "be taken seriously" privileges. Because of what exactly? I said MCU movies are at least decent. Meaning many of them are far better than that, some are excellent. And thats actually being quite generous because Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 kind of suck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 19:30:09 GMT
I remember how exciting it was to see the SpiderMan 2002 and SpiderMan 2 trailers... Then the movies delivered. For some reason older incarnations are always bashed by new fans but Raimi's series was nothing short of spectacular (excluding 3 of course). This new trailer on the other hand looked very "meh". MCU movies are always at least decent so it probably won't be terrible, but as one clever/astute poster said above: it's Iron Man 4: SpiderMan Cameo. So in other words, some people STILL have trouble accepting the Shared Universe concept. That characters can cross over ANY TIME they want now and it doesn't always have to be in the Avengers films. Look people, as interconnected as the movies are now the characters are always going to be criss-crossing without it being an Avengers movie. You just have to learn to accept it. That is not my point though. Spider Man is Marvel's best and most popular character hands down. It just seems odd to me to put Stark in a major mentor role instead of simply letting Spidey shine on his own as the A list character he is. My issue has nothing to do with the shared universe. I really liked Civil War and think Hulk's role in Thor Ragnorak is an inspired idea. I just think Spidey should be able to carry his own movie without support. I mean lets be honest here, Downey is in this movie to draw audiences that are otherwise weary of another reboot.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 22, 2017 19:33:47 GMT
So in other words, some people STILL have trouble accepting the Shared Universe concept. That characters can cross over ANY TIME they want now and it doesn't always have to be in the Avengers films. Look people, as interconnected as the movies are now the characters are always going to be criss-crossing without it being an Avengers movie. You just have to learn to accept it. That is not my point though. Spider Man is Marvel's best and most popular character hands down. It just seems odd to me to put Stark in a major mentor role instead of simply letting Spidey shine on his own as the A list character he is. My issue has nothing to do with the shared universe. I really liked Civil War and think Hulk's role in Thor Ragnorak is an inspired idea. I just think Spidey should be able to carry his own movie without support. I mean lets be honest here, Downey is in this movie to draw audiences that are otherwise weary of another reboot. Because that's not how Shared Universes' work. Characters aren't "standalone" in that they pretend no other Marvel characters exist anymore.
Honestly, if no other MCU characters were even mentioned in his movie people would think "How lazy, why isn't anyone else who lives in New York investigating the Vulture?"
So they bother answering that, and still get complaints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 19:45:47 GMT
That is not my point though. Spider Man is Marvel's best and most popular character hands down. It just seems odd to me to put Stark in a major mentor role instead of simply letting Spidey shine on his own as the A list character he is. My issue has nothing to do with the shared universe. I really liked Civil War and think Hulk's role in Thor Ragnorak is an inspired idea. I just think Spidey should be able to carry his own movie without support. I mean lets be honest here, Downey is in this movie to draw audiences that are otherwise weary of another reboot. Because that's not how Shared Universes' work. Characters aren't "standalone" in that they pretend no other Marvel characters exist anymore.
Honestly, if no other MCU characters were even mentioned in his movie people would think "How lazy, why isn't anyone else who lives in New York investigating the Vulture?"
So they bother answering that, and still get complaints.
Most MCU movies are stand alones though. The truth is that Stark is in this movie to compensate for the fact that it's the third Spidey franchise in little over a decade. They don't just throw characters in because they can. They do it for a reason. It's always calculated. If this were the first Spidey movie ever I promise you Iron Man would not be in it.
|
|
|
Post by King Conan on Mar 22, 2017 20:02:08 GMT
Its really annoys me, that Stark will be in Spider-Man. Theres no need for him. Spidey can master his own adventure alone.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 22, 2017 21:09:59 GMT
Because that's not how Shared Universes' work. Characters aren't "standalone" in that they pretend no other Marvel characters exist anymore.
Honestly, if no other MCU characters were even mentioned in his movie people would think "How lazy, why isn't anyone else who lives in New York investigating the Vulture?"
So they bother answering that, and still get complaints.
Most MCU movies are stand alones though. The truth is that Stark is in this movie to compensate for the fact that it's the third Spidey franchise in little over a decade. They don't just throw characters in because they can. They do it for a reason. It's always calculated. If this were the first Spidey movie ever I promise you Iron Man would not be in it. Most MCU Movies aren't. If they were true standalones they would pretend the rest of the MCU didn't exist, but there are clear references in all of them.
Even Dr Strange, the most recent standalone of the movies, still remembers the rest of the world exists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 21:12:23 GMT
Most MCU movies are stand alones though. The truth is that Stark is in this movie to compensate for the fact that it's the third Spidey franchise in little over a decade. They don't just throw characters in because they can. They do it for a reason. It's always calculated. If this were the first Spidey movie ever I promise you Iron Man would not be in it. Most MCU Movies aren't. If they were true standalones they would pretend the rest of the MCU didn't exist, but there are clear references in all of them.
Even Dr Strange, the most recent standalone of the movies, still remembers the rest of the world exists.
And the thing of it is, when all your characters live in the same universe, what's going on elsewhere tends to matter, at least a little.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 21:20:48 GMT
Most MCU movies are stand alones though. The truth is that Stark is in this movie to compensate for the fact that it's the third Spidey franchise in little over a decade. They don't just throw characters in because they can. They do it for a reason. It's always calculated. If this were the first Spidey movie ever I promise you Iron Man would not be in it. Most MCU Movies aren't. If they were true standalones they would pretend the rest of the MCU didn't exist, but there are clear references in all of them.
Even Dr Strange, the most recent standalone of the movies, still remembers the rest of the world exists.
In that regard sure. I'm not suggesting that it ignore the universe or anything like that. I just personally don't like the idea of other characters being featured heavily in SpiderMan movies. I think his mythology is strong enough to work without a major cameo. I guess it really just depends how big Stark's role is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 21:48:52 GMT
Most MCU Movies aren't. If they were true standalones they would pretend the rest of the MCU didn't exist, but there are clear references in all of them.
Even Dr Strange, the most recent standalone of the movies, still remembers the rest of the world exists.
In that regard sure. I'm not suggesting that it ignore the universe or anything like that. I just personally don't like the idea of other characters being featured heavily in SpiderMan movies. I think his mythology is strong enough to work without a major cameo. I guess it really just depends how big Stark's role is. I think we need to see what they have planned first. There might actually be a very good reason to have Tony in the film aside from bolstering its theater money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 21:51:32 GMT
In that regard sure. I'm not suggesting that it ignore the universe or anything like that. I just personally don't like the idea of other characters being featured heavily in SpiderMan movies. I think his mythology is strong enough to work without a major cameo. I guess it really just depends how big Stark's role is. I think we need to see what they have planned first. There might actually be a very good reason to have Tony in the film aside from bolstering its theater money. Could be. His role might also be far less than it seems. His prominence in the trailer may just be for marketing purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 21:55:00 GMT
I think we need to see what they have planned first. There might actually be a very good reason to have Tony in the film aside from bolstering its theater money. Could be. His role might also be far less than it seems. His prominence in the trailer may just be for marketing purposes. I'm thinking that, too. I won't say anything too concrete, but I get the feeling that since Spider-Man had a huge role in the original Infinity Wars story, they're setting something up.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 0:24:02 GMT
How is Disney greedier and more exploitative than Sony or Fox, exactly? At leas they aren't going for that sell-out "grounded" approach that nearly destroyed Comic Book Movies. colden in general seems to be afraid of the "take us as we are" approach Marvel is taking with the MCU. Not afraid, just bored. It was novel during Phase One and peaked in The Avengers. Beyond that, it got stale and formulaic and recycled and a bit trite and forced and lame. In my view.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 23, 2017 2:10:14 GMT
colden in general seems to be afraid of the "take us as we are" approach Marvel is taking with the MCU. Not afraid, just bored. It was novel during Phase One and peaked in The Avengers. Beyond that, it got stale and formulaic and recycled and a bit trite and forced and lame. In my view. If you're into that sell-out "grounded' approach instead of anything wondrous. And once again someone brings up the ever-present "formula" no one has ever been able to define.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 2:13:05 GMT
Not afraid, just bored. It was novel during Phase One and peaked in The Avengers. Beyond that, it got stale and formulaic and recycled and a bit trite and forced and lame. In my view. If you're into that sell-out "grounded' approach instead of anything wondrous. And once again someone brings up the ever-present "formula" no one has ever been able to define. And never will, outside of Marvel's audacity to just faithfully translate their works to screen and actually give their audiences halfway upbeat films.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 2:36:04 GMT
Not afraid, just bored. It was novel during Phase One and peaked in The Avengers. Beyond that, it got stale and formulaic and recycled and a bit trite and forced and lame. In my view. If you're into that sell-out "grounded' approach instead of anything wondrous. And once again someone brings up the ever-present "formula" no one has ever been able to define.I literally googled "MCU formula," and this came up third from the top: "Personally, I was tired of the standard Marvel formula by the time the first Avengers film was over. And since then we've had Guardians of the Galaxy, Ultron, Ant-Man, and Civil War all tell basically the same story. Not to mention Agents of SHIELD, which takes the same tone and approach and drags it out for a full tv season. Thor 2 might also fall in the same category, though its been so long since I watched it I dont [sic] recall. The villains are always poorly developed and badly disguised mirrors for the heroes' inner conflicts. They all try (with varying degrees of success) for that combination of high-octane action and humor, with just enough drama mixed in to keep you from thinking you're watching a comedy."
- tell basically the same story
- same tone and approach
- villains are always poorly developed
- [villains are] badly disguised mirrors for the heroes' inner conflicts
- all try (with varying degrees of success) for that combination of high-octane action and humor
- just enough drama mixed in to keep you from thinking you're watching a comedy
And that took... less than one minute to, excuse me, formulate. I'm sure further effort could be devoted to expounding upon and contributing additional points of commonality between the McMarvel films, but that's a hell of a start. Now, hurry up and express your apoplexy in the form of ad hominem arguments, weird tangential snipes about "wonderment" and "shame" that evince a lack of fluidity in the English language, and other such nit-picks against that rough list as if (a) I even made it myself and/or (b) care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 2:46:55 GMT
Okay, yeah, anyone who claims that Guardians, Ultron, Ant-Man, and Civil War are all the same thing is talking out their anus. But, please, colden, continue to humiliate yourself and make yourself an entertaining disaster to watch. I know you think you have one over of us, but really, we're just laughing at you.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 2:48:40 GMT
Okay, yeah, anyone who claims that Guardians, Ultron, Ant-Man, and Civil War are all the same thing is talking out their anus. But, please, colden, continue to humiliate yourself and make yourself an entertaining disaster to watch. I know you think you have one over of us, but really, we're just laughing at you. Sure, kid. Whatever gets you through the night.
|
|