|
Post by Nalkarj on Aug 12, 2018 13:08:20 GMT
It was a good movie but not a memorable one and certainly won't be remembered to the same extent as the first two Spider-man movies. That they were the first will of course always give it an advantage anyway. What gives the original Spider-Man movies the advantage is that they were better-written and better overall movies than SMH. The scene in the first Spider-Man movie when Spider-Man catches up to the thief who killed Uncle Ben in the warehouse and sees his face and realizes that it's the same guy he let get away earlier was just a really powerful scene. SMH has nothing close to that. SMH is the worst movie adaptation of Spider-Man ever. SMH turned Peter into a show-off whose only motivation for being a hero was to impress Tony Stark. And on top of that, SMH made Peter a thief who stole from his community. See, I was all ready, unironically, to “like” this post—until that last paragraph. Curses, foiled again by the fickle figure of DC-Fan!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 12, 2018 15:35:03 GMT
So why didn't you list them? Idk if anybody wanted me to post them You're the guy who keeps comparing the MCU to Batman & Robin, so what's stopping you from listing SM3 and ASM2?
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Nov 8, 2018 17:51:48 GMT
It does seem pretty forgotten. You could say that it was overshadowed by Infinity War which came put a pretty short time after, but I still see active discussions on several other MCU movies still going on. I thought I was losing my mind when it first came out and everyone was going on like it was the greatest thing ever and even "on par with The Dark Knight" (lol), but that faded rather quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 18:02:23 GMT
It does seem pretty forgotten. You could say that it was overshadowed by Infinity War which came put a pretty short time after, but I still see active discussions on several other MCU movies still going on. I thought I was losing my mind when it first came out and everyone was going on like it was the greatest thing ever and even "on par with The Dark Knight" (lol), but that faded rather quickly. I didn't fade quickly at all. And people do still love it. Oh, and it is on par with "The Dark Knight." Dark Knight's not as great as you remember it. No, what actually happened is that the MCU simultaneously hit a landmark (10 years), and changed the genre again (Infinity War). As good as Homecoming is, those other two things take priority over it.
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Nov 8, 2018 18:17:23 GMT
It does seem pretty forgotten. You could say that it was overshadowed by Infinity War which came put a pretty short time after, but I still see active discussions on several other MCU movies still going on. I thought I was losing my mind when it first came out and everyone was going on like it was the greatest thing ever and even "on par with The Dark Knight" (lol), but that faded rather quickly. I didn't fade quickly at all. And people do still love it. Oh, and it is on par with "The Dark Knight." Dark Knight's not as great as you remember it. No, what actually happened is that the MCU simultaneously hit a landmark (10 years), and changed the genre again (Infinity War). As good as Homecoming is, those other two things take priority over it. *sigh* This is probably my own fault for needlessly resurrecting a year old thread but, what the hell, I'll bite. Please enlighten me as to how it's on par with The Dark Knight. That's quite a bold claim that needs to be backed up. And this is coming from someone who thinks The Dark Knight is somewhat overrated, so I wasn't even using the typical bias when I said that. Doesn't change the fact that it's commonly regarded as the best comic book film ever made, which isn't even something I agree with. As for the second thing you said, those just sound like excuses. I didn't even really say anything about the film itself, just that it seemed like no one was talking about it that long and not very often anymore. People talked about Spider-Man 2 for years and years, and still do to this day. It holds up very well while Homecoming just seemed like a passing phase by comparison. These aren't my individual opinions, these are things I've observed with my own eyes. Granted, there was no "big event" during the time Spider-Man 2 came out, like you pointed out for Homecoming. But if what you said is true, that still shouldn't matter. A great film should hold up regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 8, 2018 18:17:43 GMT
I don't know about that. I've rewatched The Dark Knight on the 10th anniversary and it still holds up well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 18:47:50 GMT
I didn't fade quickly at all. And people do still love it. Oh, and it is on par with "The Dark Knight." Dark Knight's not as great as you remember it. No, what actually happened is that the MCU simultaneously hit a landmark (10 years), and changed the genre again (Infinity War). As good as Homecoming is, those other two things take priority over it. *sigh* This is probably my own fault for needlessly resurrecting a year old thread but, what the hell, I'll bite. Please enlighten me as to how it's on par with The Dark Knight. That's quite a bold claim that needs to be backed up. And this is coming from someone who thinks The Dark Knight is somewhat overrated, so I wasn't even using the typical bias when I said that. Doesn't change the fact that it's commonly regarded as the best comic book film ever made, which isn't even something I agree with. As for the second thing you said, those just sound like excuses. I didn't even really say anything about the film itself, just that it seemed like no one was talking about it that long and not very often anymore. People talked about Spider-Man 2 for years and years, and still do to this day. It holds up very well while Homecoming just seemed like a passing phase by comparison. These aren't my individual opinions, these are things I've observed with my own eyes. Granted, there was no "big event" during the time Spider-Man 2 came out, like you pointed out for Homecoming. But if what you said is true, that still shouldn't matter. A great film should hold up regardless. Homecoming is more tightly written and edited, lacking huge stretches of superfluous running time The Dark Knight had. Spider-Man is actually the main protagonist of his own movie, whereas Batman often felt like an incident presence in The Dark Knight. Homecoming doesn't insist on making its audience take several miles of community college level pseudo-philosophy seriously. Oh, and it's villains actually had motives. Ledger's The Joker is a blank slate without any real reason for doing what he does outside of some vague theme Nolan stuck him with. The role is entirely dependent on its actor giving his all to be interesting, because there is nothing about this Joker that's interesting on paper. Oh, and Homecoming didn't shaft a classic villain like Two-Face by creating an abbreviated "greatest hits" version of it. AND there was no tacked sudden second third act climax in Homecoming. Homecoming DOES hold up, and I have evidently had a very different experience than you. Yes, people generally like Spider-Man 2 more, but... No one ever said that the human population at large was an accurate measuring stick of quality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 18:48:20 GMT
I don't know about that. I've rewatched The Dark Knight on the 10th anniversary and it still holds up well. And I think it's an over-bloated mess with its head up its own ass. Convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Nov 8, 2018 19:04:32 GMT
*sigh* This is probably my own fault for needlessly resurrecting a year old thread but, what the hell, I'll bite. Please enlighten me as to how it's on par with The Dark Knight. That's quite a bold claim that needs to be backed up. And this is coming from someone who thinks The Dark Knight is somewhat overrated, so I wasn't even using the typical bias when I said that. Doesn't change the fact that it's commonly regarded as the best comic book film ever made, which isn't even something I agree with. As for the second thing you said, those just sound like excuses. I didn't even really say anything about the film itself, just that it seemed like no one was talking about it that long and not very often anymore. People talked about Spider-Man 2 for years and years, and still do to this day. It holds up very well while Homecoming just seemed like a passing phase by comparison. These aren't my individual opinions, these are things I've observed with my own eyes. Granted, there was no "big event" during the time Spider-Man 2 came out, like you pointed out for Homecoming. But if what you said is true, that still shouldn't matter. A great film should hold up regardless. Homecoming is more tightly written and edited, lacking huge stretches of superfluous running time The Dark Knight had. Spider-Man is actually the main protagonist of his own movie, whereas Batman often felt like an incident presence in The Dark Knight. Homecoming doesn't insist on making its audience take several miles of community college level pseudo-philosophy seriously. Oh, and it's villains actually had motives. Ledger's The Joker is a blank slate without any real reason for doing what he does outside of some vague theme Nolan stuck him with. The role is entirely dependent on its actor giving his all to be interesting, because there is nothing about this Joker that's interesting on paper. Oh, and Homecoming didn't shaft a classic villain like Two-Face by creating an abbreviated "greatest hits" version of it. AND there was no tacked sudden second third act climax in Homecoming. Homecoming DOES hold up, and I have evidently had a very different experience than you. Yes, people generally like Spider-Man 2 more, but... No one ever said that the human population at large was an accurate measuring stick of quality. Okay, fair enough. I'd say you did a good job of comparing it to The Dark Knight, of which I agree with all those criticisms, especially the pseudo-intellectual "trying too hard to sound deep" theme throughout. The constant monologues that everyone spat out and dramatic soap opera style situations definitely got old and, by TDKR, I think mostly everyone was sick of it. It was exhausting. Honestly though, I'd point out that these two movies are very different in tone and thus, hard to compare. I know I'm guilty of this as well, having practically done so in my original post. I'd also argue that The Joker, as a character, never really did have much motivation other than insanity and wanting to "cause chaos for the fun of it". Hell, I'd even say that Nolan gave him too much motivation if anything, with the whole anarchy theme. And in regards to Batman "feeling like an incident presence" in his own movie, I agree, however he did get a very thorough and extensive study in the preceding film (Batman Begins) so that's a little more forgivable. I'd further argue that Spider-Man sort of felt that way too (an incident presence) in Homecoming, next to Iron Man. I know Tony Stark only had like ten minutes of screen time overall and Peter Parker was very much the clear protagonist, but Iron Man's presence sort of controlled the whole movie. Almost everything that happened was tied to him or about him in some way. Even the Spider-Man character himself seemed to only want to be a hero to impress Tony and be an Avenger, which is so much less emotional and engaging than the much more complex and intricate Uncle Ben origin. And that's one of the things that bothered me the most, next to Homecoming straying pretty far from the comics, much more than most die hard MCU fans care to admit. Also, before you get the wrong idea, I'm very much an MCU fan. I like The Avengers a lot better than The Dark Knight. The only MCU movie I actually disliked so far was Iron Man 3. That is why I was so disappointed with their long awaited handle on the Spider-Man character (my favorite Marvel hero), which was not up to par with their earlier work and not a definitive take on the character at all in my opinion. It didn't respect the source material enough and sort of did its own thing.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 8, 2018 19:04:39 GMT
I don't know about that. I've rewatched The Dark Knight on the 10th anniversary and it still holds up well. And I think it's an over-bloated mess with its head up its own ass. Convince me otherwise. That's like... your opinion man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 19:22:02 GMT
And I think it's an over-bloated mess with its head up its own ass. Convince me otherwise. That's like... your opinion man. You dared people to change your mind about Harry Potter being better than the MCU and Star Wars yesterday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 19:41:02 GMT
Homecoming is more tightly written and edited, lacking huge stretches of superfluous running time The Dark Knight had. Spider-Man is actually the main protagonist of his own movie, whereas Batman often felt like an incident presence in The Dark Knight. Homecoming doesn't insist on making its audience take several miles of community college level pseudo-philosophy seriously. Oh, and it's villains actually had motives. Ledger's The Joker is a blank slate without any real reason for doing what he does outside of some vague theme Nolan stuck him with. The role is entirely dependent on its actor giving his all to be interesting, because there is nothing about this Joker that's interesting on paper. Oh, and Homecoming didn't shaft a classic villain like Two-Face by creating an abbreviated "greatest hits" version of it. AND there was no tacked sudden second third act climax in Homecoming. Homecoming DOES hold up, and I have evidently had a very different experience than you. Yes, people generally like Spider-Man 2 more, but... No one ever said that the human population at large was an accurate measuring stick of quality. Okay, fair enough. I'd say you did a good job of comparing it to The Dark Knight, of which I agree with all those criticisms, especially the pseudo-intellectual "trying too hard to sound deep" theme throughout. The constant monologues that everyone spat out and dramatic soap opera style situations definitely got old and, by TDKR, I think mostly everyone was sick of it. It was exhausting. Honestly though, I'd point out that these two movies are very different in tone and thus, hard to compare. I know I'm guilty of this as well, having practically done so in my original post. I'd also argue that The Joker, as a character, never really did have much motivation other than insanity and wanting to "cause chaos for the fun of it". Hell, I'd even say that Nolan gave him too much motivation if anything, with the whole anarchy theme. And in regards to Batman "feeling like an incident presence" in his own movie, I agree, however he did get a very thorough and extensive study in the preceding film (Batman Begins) so that's a little more forgivable. I'd further argue that Spider-Man sort of felt that way too (an incident presence) in Homecoming, next to Iron Man. I know Tony Stark only had like ten minutes of screen time overall and Peter Parker was very much the clear protagonist, but Iron Man's presence sort of controlled the whole movie. Almost everything that happened was tied to him or about him in some way. Even the Spider-Man character himself seemed to only want to be a hero to impress Tony and be an Avenger, which is so much less emotional and engaging than the much more complex and intricate Uncle Ben origin. And that's one of the things that bothered me the most, next to Homecoming straying pretty far from the comics, much more than most die hard MCU fans care to admit. Also, before you get the wrong idea, I'm very much an MCU fan. I like The Avengers a lot better than The Dark Knight. The only MCU movie I actually disliked so far was Iron Man 3. That is why I was so disappointed with their long awaited handle on the Spider-Man character (my favorite Marvel hero), which was not up to par with their earlier work and not a definitive take on the character at all in my opinion. It didn't respect the source material enough and sort of did its own thing. Thank you for your thoughtful response, and I apologize for getting the wrong idea about you. Glad to see someone agrees with me about The Dark Knight for once. On The Joker: I'd rather they had gone with "chaos for the fun of it," because that IS a motive. This Joker seemed to have a point to make, but his point was constantly muddled, and it didn't seem to be the intent. I didn't feel that Spider-Man felt incidental in Homecoming at all. This Spider-Man exists in a universe that's had other superheroes impacting and changing it for almost ten years now, and the film decides to fully acknowledge that there is a bigger world around him. I rather enjoyed seeing a film with a story that is a consequence of the first Avengers film. I never got the impression that Spider-Man only wanted to be a hero just to impress Tony, because he was already a hero in "Civil War" and he stopped his reasons for it there. In this film, he just wanted to be TAKEN SERIOUSLY, which is a typical teenager thing to do. Hell, he even turned down Tony's offer to join The Avengers. I disagree with your stance on Homecoming completely. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best Spider-Man film, period. It HAD to do its own thing, because the Raimi series followed the source material pretty well, and every other Spider-Man to come after that had to differentiate itself.
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Nov 8, 2018 19:47:36 GMT
Okay, fair enough. I'd say you did a good job of comparing it to The Dark Knight, of which I agree with all those criticisms, especially the pseudo-intellectual "trying too hard to sound deep" theme throughout. The constant monologues that everyone spat out and dramatic soap opera style situations definitely got old and, by TDKR, I think mostly everyone was sick of it. It was exhausting. Honestly though, I'd point out that these two movies are very different in tone and thus, hard to compare. I know I'm guilty of this as well, having practically done so in my original post. I'd also argue that The Joker, as a character, never really did have much motivation other than insanity and wanting to "cause chaos for the fun of it". Hell, I'd even say that Nolan gave him too much motivation if anything, with the whole anarchy theme. And in regards to Batman "feeling like an incident presence" in his own movie, I agree, however he did get a very thorough and extensive study in the preceding film (Batman Begins) so that's a little more forgivable. I'd further argue that Spider-Man sort of felt that way too (an incident presence) in Homecoming, next to Iron Man. I know Tony Stark only had like ten minutes of screen time overall and Peter Parker was very much the clear protagonist, but Iron Man's presence sort of controlled the whole movie. Almost everything that happened was tied to him or about him in some way. Even the Spider-Man character himself seemed to only want to be a hero to impress Tony and be an Avenger, which is so much less emotional and engaging than the much more complex and intricate Uncle Ben origin. And that's one of the things that bothered me the most, next to Homecoming straying pretty far from the comics, much more than most die hard MCU fans care to admit. Also, before you get the wrong idea, I'm very much an MCU fan. I like The Avengers a lot better than The Dark Knight. The only MCU movie I actually disliked so far was Iron Man 3. That is why I was so disappointed with their long awaited handle on the Spider-Man character (my favorite Marvel hero), which was not up to par with their earlier work and not a definitive take on the character at all in my opinion. It didn't respect the source material enough and sort of did its own thing. Thank you for your thoughtful response, and I apologize for getting the wrong idea about you. Glad to see someone agrees with me about The Dark Knight for once. On The Joker: I'd rather they had gone with "chaos for the fun of it," because that IS a motive. This Joker seemed to have a point to make, but his point was constantly muddled, and it didn't seem to be the intent. I didn't feel that Spider-Man felt incidental in Homecoming at all. This Spider-Man exists in a universe that's had other superheroes impacting and changing it for almost ten years now, and the film decides to fully acknowledge that there is a bigger world around him. I rather enjoyed seeing a film with a story that is a consequence of the first Avengers film. I never got the impression that Spider-Man only wanted to be a hero just to impress Tony, because he was already a hero in "Civil War" and he stopped his reasons for it there. In this film, he just wanted to be TAKEN SERIOUSLY, which is a typical teenager thing to do. Hell, he even turned down Tony's offer to join The Avengers. I disagree with your stance on Homecoming completely. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best Spider-Man film, period. It HAD to do its own thing, because the Raimi series followed the source material pretty well, and every other Spider-Man to come after that had to differentiate itself. No worries, I probably jumped pretty quick too so I'm at fault here as well. I see what you mean about Homecoming too. That's actually a pretty good point about them having to do something different after the Raimi series already closely adapted the source material. I hadn't really considered that. And I feel like Tom Holland did a great job as well and he's probably my favoeite Spider-Man/Peter Parker actor overall. He definitely has loads of potential. I think the character himself was pretty close to the comics, motivations aside, what with the wise cracks and one-liners (which were sorely missing from the Raimi films). I had my issues with the film, but Holland and Keaton were both fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 8, 2018 20:05:44 GMT
That's like... your opinion man. You dared people to change your mind about Harry Potter being better than the MCU and Star Wars yesterday. I was referencing the meme :/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 20:14:04 GMT
Comparing Homecoming to The Dark Knight is a new level of ridiculousnessness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 22:00:55 GMT
Comparing Homecoming to The Dark Knight is a new level of ridiculousnessness. Only to people who severely overrate The Dark Knight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 22:03:44 GMT
Thank you for your thoughtful response, and I apologize for getting the wrong idea about you. Glad to see someone agrees with me about The Dark Knight for once. On The Joker: I'd rather they had gone with "chaos for the fun of it," because that IS a motive. This Joker seemed to have a point to make, but his point was constantly muddled, and it didn't seem to be the intent. I didn't feel that Spider-Man felt incidental in Homecoming at all. This Spider-Man exists in a universe that's had other superheroes impacting and changing it for almost ten years now, and the film decides to fully acknowledge that there is a bigger world around him. I rather enjoyed seeing a film with a story that is a consequence of the first Avengers film. I never got the impression that Spider-Man only wanted to be a hero just to impress Tony, because he was already a hero in "Civil War" and he stopped his reasons for it there. In this film, he just wanted to be TAKEN SERIOUSLY, which is a typical teenager thing to do. Hell, he even turned down Tony's offer to join The Avengers. I disagree with your stance on Homecoming completely. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best Spider-Man film, period. It HAD to do its own thing, because the Raimi series followed the source material pretty well, and every other Spider-Man to come after that had to differentiate itself. No worries, I probably jumped pretty quick too so I'm at fault here as well. I see what you mean about Homecoming too. That's actually a pretty good point about them having to do something different after the Raimi series already closely adapted the source material. I hadn't really considered that. And I feel like Tom Holland did a great job as well and he's probably my favoeite Spider-Man/Peter Parker actor overall. He definitely has loads of potential. I think the character himself was pretty close to the comics, motivations aside, what with the wise cracks and one-liners (which were sorely missing from the Raimi films). I had my issues with the film, but Holland and Keaton were both fantastic. OH, THANK YOU! Too few people acknowledge the lack of spunk from Maguire's Parker as a flaw. Anyway, glad we came to an understanding. I would also have preferred no Tony Stark, too, but I suppose it comes with the territory of the MCU being in the middle of its equivalent of the "Civil War" arc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 22:03:44 GMT
Comparing Homecoming to The Dark Knight is a new level of ridiculousnessness. Only to people who severely overrate The Dark Knight. Do you think Ant Man is better than The Dark Knight?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 22:04:15 GMT
Only to people who severely overrate The Dark Knight. Do you think Ant Man is better than The Dark Knight? Yes, because it lacks the sheer pretentions of The Dark Knight. It doesn't feel the need to constantly preach at me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 22:05:05 GMT
Do you think Ant Man is better than The Dark Knight? Yes, because it lacks the sheer pretentions of The Dark Knight. It doesn't feel the need to constantly preach at me. What about Thor The Dark World?
|
|