|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 20:30:39 GMT
They did, when Peter is talking to Ned about why he doesn't want May to know he says it's because "She's been through so much". That's a reference to Ben. They just don't hit you over the head with it the way DC does with the Waynes. That's a pretty oblique, throwaway line Not if you're familiar with the character. The ASM and Raimi movies being not too long ago meant that most are. Again, they don't need to at this point.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 20:33:44 GMT
That's a pretty oblique, throwaway line Not if you're familiar with the character. The ASM and Raimi movies being not too long ago meant that most are. Again, they don't need to at this point. Okay, so you've confirmed my assumptions about the laziness and irresponsibility of the film. Thanks, mang. We obviously disagree about the bare minimum of recognition the character of Uncle Ben deserves and the reasons for including (or excluding) him, so we can close the file on this one. Let's go argue about Twin Peaks in the other thread!!!!1
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 20:34:33 GMT
Not if you're familiar with the character. The ASM and Raimi movies being not too long ago meant that most are. Again, they don't need to at this point. Okay, so you've confirmed my assumptions about the laziness and irresponsibility of the film. Thanks, mang. We obviously disagree about the bare minimum of recognition the character of Uncle Ben deserves and the reasons for including (or excluding) him, so we can close the file on this one. Let's go argue about Twin Peaks in the other thread!!!!1 The lazy and irresponsible thing would've been showing us Ben's death all over again. Or giving us the sexist portrayal of May as the helpless old lady.
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Oct 5, 2017 20:38:11 GMT
i'm still not with the adamant need to continually exposit Spidey's origin. Spidey's still a fledgling but Homecoming wasn't meant to be an origin story. does every issue of the book require namedropping Uncle Ben as well?
i might agree that mentioning it explicitly another installment or three down the line would be beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 20:39:03 GMT
Okay, so you've confirmed my assumptions about the laziness and irresponsibility of the film. Thanks, mang. We obviously disagree about the bare minimum of recognition the character of Uncle Ben deserves and the reasons for including (or excluding) him, so we can close the file on this one. Let's go argue about Twin Peaks in the other thread!!!!1 The lazy and irresponsible thing would've been showing us Ben's death all over again. Or giving us the sexist portrayal of May as the helpless old lady. We're going in circles, Sam I Am. Why is everything so dichotomous with you, buddy? Why do they have to go Full Raimi and make the ENTIRE movie about the origin story OR... never mention that Peter even HAS an Uncle Ben? There's a hell of a lot of narrative room between those extremes.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 20:39:27 GMT
i'm still not with the adamant need to continually exposit Spidey's origin. Spidey's still a fledgling but Homecoming wasn't meant to be an origin story. does every issue of the book require namedropping Uncle Ben as well? i might agree that mentioning it explicitly another installment or three down the line would be beneficial. Tom Holland said he does want to see it, and he was hoping they'd cast someone like Ralph Macchio as Uncle Ben.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 20:40:23 GMT
i'm still not with the adamant need to continually exposit Spidey's origin. Spidey's still a fledgling but Homecoming wasn't meant to be an origin story. does every issue of the book require namedropping Uncle Ben as well? i might agree that mentioning it explicitly another installment or three down the line would be beneficial. They should treat the character as though he's new to MCU audience and make the film in a way that's as timeless as possible.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 20:40:34 GMT
The lazy and irresponsible thing would've been showing us Ben's death all over again. Or giving us the sexist portrayal of May as the helpless old lady. We're going in circles, Sam I Am. Why is everything so dichotomous with you, buddy? Why do they have to go Full Raimi and make the ENTIRE movie about the origin story OR... never mention that Peter even HAS an Uncle Ben? There's a hell of a lot of narrative room between those extremes. He has an Aunt, he mentions she's gone through a big loss...pretty obvious by this point. Holland said they'll probably do it later but they wanted his first movie to NOT be the origin. That way it stands out and can be timeless without doing the same old.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 20:42:53 GMT
We're going in circles, Sam I Am. Why is everything so dichotomous with you, buddy? Why do they have to go Full Raimi and make the ENTIRE movie about the origin story OR... never mention that Peter even HAS an Uncle Ben? There's a hell of a lot of narrative room between those extremes. He has an Aunt, he mentions she's gone through a big loss...pretty obvious by this point. Holland said they'll probably do it later but they wanted his first movie to NOT be the origin. That way it stands out and can be timeless without doing the same old. Circles. Edit: Is it future? Or is it past?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 20:46:55 GMT
He has an Aunt, he mentions she's gone through a big loss...pretty obvious by this point. Holland said they'll probably do it later but they wanted his first movie to NOT be the origin. That way it stands out and can be timeless without doing the same old. Circles. Edit: Is it future? Or is it past? What year is this?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 20:48:09 GMT
Circles. Edit: Is it future? Or is it past? What year is this? Let's bicker over the ending of Season Three until it devolves into skin failure and blow jobs. What do you think EVEN HAPPENED in the finale?!
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 20:51:35 GMT
Let's bicker over the ending of Season Three until it devolves into skin failure and blow jobs. What do you think EVEN HAPPENED in the finale?! We got Lynched.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 20:55:20 GMT
Let's bicker over the ending of Season Three until it devolves into skin failure and blow jobs. What do you think EVEN HAPPENED in the finale?! We got Lynched. You should've been a blow job, you fu -- oh, wait, we're not there yet. Whoops. ... ... well, no doubt we got Lynched! But what's your personal, subjective interpretation of the stuff we got onscreen?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 21:02:55 GMT
You should've been a blow job, you fu -- oh, wait, we're not there yet. Whoops. ... ... well, no doubt we got Lynched! But what's your personal, subjective interpretation of the stuff we got onscreen? I got a few ideas. Some good, some bad. 1) The most common interpretation: Cooper messed up the timeline in his attempt to save Laura, and in response Judy (the entity in Sarah Palmer) tossed Laura into an alternate Universe where she's the waitress who killed a guy. Cooper and Diane go after her, but it turns out that they themselves have alternate personas in other world called Richard and Linda. Diane's personality is overwritten by the Linda personality and she leaves after sleeping with Cooper because "Linda" is disgusted with how "Richard" has changed (Cooper DOES act more ruthless and violent in the other world, Richard's persona trying to assert itself). Cooper doesn't realize how different this other world is until he tries to take Laura to her old home, at which point he asks "What Year is this?" as things start to fall apart and realizes what he's done. 2) Same beginning as the above, but with a better ending. Judy is behind it all, and other Lodge entities are in on it too (the people who own the House have the names of Lodge Entities) but Laura's memories DO come back at the very end when she screams. The lights going out is to show that Judy has been foiled, and Cooper WILL be able to bring her back to normal and get Diane back somehow. 3) There's also that theory of the last two episodes being concurrent with one another but I haven't looked into that very much. Off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 5, 2017 21:11:08 GMT
You should've been a blow job, you fu -- oh, wait, we're not there yet. Whoops. ... ... well, no doubt we got Lynched! But what's your personal, subjective interpretation of the stuff we got onscreen? I got a few ideas. Some good, some bad. 1) The most common interpretation: Cooper messed up the timeline in his attempt to save Laura, and in response Judy (the entity in Sarah Palmer) tossed Laura into an alternate Universe where she's the waitress who killed a guy. Cooper and Diane go after her, but it turns out that they themselves have alternate personas in other world called Richard and Linda. Diane's personality is overwritten by the Linda personality and she leaves after sleeping with Cooper because "Linda" is disgusted with how "Richard" has changed (Cooper DOES act more ruthless and violent in the other world, Richard's persona trying to assert itself). Cooper doesn't realize how different this other world is until he tries to take Laura to her old home, at which point he asks "What Year is this?" as things start to fall apart and realizes what he's done. 2) Same beginning as the above, but with a better ending. Judy is behind it all, and other Lodge entities are in on it too (the people who own the House have the names of Lodge Entities) but Laura's memories DO come back at the very end when she screams. The lights going out is to show that Judy has been foiled, and Cooper WILL be able to bring her back to normal and get Diane back somehow. 3) There's also that theory of the last two episodes being concurrent with one another but I haven't looked into that very much. Off the top of my head. 1. Yeah. This is the most "literal" interpretation of what we were shown. And I'm using that word liberally, for lack of a better one. 2. This is what's known as the "scream-bomb" theory. 3. Some producer from the show on a Reddit AMA said the simultaneous screenings aren't intended, but what does s/he know? From what I've seen of the synch-up it's at the very least compelling to watch, particularly the last few minutes. 4. What about the utterly depressing "Dallas" idea? This is the one I can't seem to shake: that when Carrie Paige screams to end the series, the next thing that happens is that Laura Palmer wakes up in her bed on the morning after the was murdered in the other timeline, and the entire underlying "mythos" of Peaks is the imagined fantasy of an adolescent victim of brutal incestual sexual abuse. Somehow I find this more messed up than even #1's sort of bleak, Kafkaesque "cliffhanger."
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 5, 2017 23:15:18 GMT
I got a few ideas. Some good, some bad. 1) The most common interpretation: Cooper messed up the timeline in his attempt to save Laura, and in response Judy (the entity in Sarah Palmer) tossed Laura into an alternate Universe where she's the waitress who killed a guy. Cooper and Diane go after her, but it turns out that they themselves have alternate personas in other world called Richard and Linda. Diane's personality is overwritten by the Linda personality and she leaves after sleeping with Cooper because "Linda" is disgusted with how "Richard" has changed (Cooper DOES act more ruthless and violent in the other world, Richard's persona trying to assert itself). Cooper doesn't realize how different this other world is until he tries to take Laura to her old home, at which point he asks "What Year is this?" as things start to fall apart and realizes what he's done. 2) Same beginning as the above, but with a better ending. Judy is behind it all, and other Lodge entities are in on it too (the people who own the House have the names of Lodge Entities) but Laura's memories DO come back at the very end when she screams. The lights going out is to show that Judy has been foiled, and Cooper WILL be able to bring her back to normal and get Diane back somehow. 3) There's also that theory of the last two episodes being concurrent with one another but I haven't looked into that very much. Off the top of my head. 1. Yeah. This is the most "literal" interpretation of what we were shown. And I'm using that word liberally, for lack of a better one. 2. This is what's known as the "scream-bomb" theory. 3. Some producer from the show on a Reddit AMA said the simultaneous screenings aren't intended, but what does s/he know? From what I've seen of the synch-up it's at the very least compelling to watch, particularly the last few minutes. 4. What about the utterly depressing "Dallas" idea? This is the one I can't seem to shake: that when Carrie Paige screams to end the series, the next thing that happens is that Laura Palmer wakes up in her bed on the morning after the was murdered in the other timeline, and the entire underlying "mythos" of Peaks is the imagined fantasy of an adolescent victim of brutal incestual sexual abuse. Somehow I find this more messed up than even #1's sort of bleak, Kafkaesque "cliffhanger." There's another theory similar to #4. All of Twin Peaks is just a psychotic break a middle aged FBI Agent named Richard is having, he's really this unimpressive guy whose never done much at the FBI so he imagined himself as a super-Agent who was investigating this awesome case with Extradimensional beings and serial killer ghosts. The ending was him simply breaking out of his delusion.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 6, 2017 3:21:25 GMT
1. Yeah. This is the most "literal" interpretation of what we were shown. And I'm using that word liberally, for lack of a better one. 2. This is what's known as the "scream-bomb" theory. 3. Some producer from the show on a Reddit AMA said the simultaneous screenings aren't intended, but what does s/he know? From what I've seen of the synch-up it's at the very least compelling to watch, particularly the last few minutes. 4. What about the utterly depressing "Dallas" idea? This is the one I can't seem to shake: that when Carrie Paige screams to end the series, the next thing that happens is that Laura Palmer wakes up in her bed on the morning after the was murdered in the other timeline, and the entire underlying "mythos" of Peaks is the imagined fantasy of an adolescent victim of brutal incestual sexual abuse. Somehow I find this more messed up than even #1's sort of bleak, Kafkaesque "cliffhanger." There's another theory similar to #4. All of Twin Peaks is just a psychotic break a middle aged FBI Agent named Richard is having, he's really this unimpressive guy whose never done much at the FBI so he imagined himself as a super-Agent who was investigating this awesome case with Extradimensional beings and serial killer ghosts. The ending was him simply breaking out of his delusion. That's weird and weirdly interesting. So who the hell is "Carrie Paige," then, in this scenario? Some random chick from Odessa?!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 6, 2017 5:30:18 GMT
Its the worst since Spidey 3. ASM is the best Since 2. Btw there is no point in Spidey being in the mcu he is now isolated from most of his characters. He needs to be in amd only in the Sony verse to fight Hardys Venom Agreed. Homecoming is the worst Spider-Man movie ever made.
SMH's shallow and uninspiring portrayal of Spider-Man's motivations make SMH the worst movie adaptation of Spider-Man ever. Without outright mentioning Uncle Ben's death, Peter being Spider-Man is reduced to a simple show-off. There's nothing driving him other than wanting to look cool and impress Tony Stark - and that's a shallow reason which betrays his true comic origins.
Superman is shown by Jor-El how he can unite the human and Kryptonian species and bring hope to Earth. Batman is driven by the death of his parents and vows to do everything in his power to stop crime in Gotham. Wonder Woman feels that it's her duty to end war and bring peace to Mankind.
Those are noble reasons which are inspiring. Spider-Man is in 1 of the 4 most iconic comic-book superheroes along with Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. But his motivation for being Spider-Man in Homecoming isn't because he believes he has a "great responsibility" to use his powers for good (as he learned from his failure to prevent Uncle Ben's death when he could've) but simply because he's hoping to get a reply from Happy Hogan.
How is that aspect omitted? Peter very much cares about the people in his community and thinks The Avengers have forgotten about the little guy -- Which is WHY he rejects Tony's offer at the end so he won't be used specifically for big scale threats. He wants the freedom to act on his own because he feels he has responsibility for his city. This pretty much enforces "with great power comes great responsibility" without actually saying it word for word. Also, after two widely known origin films that showed Uncle Ben's murder and how it affects Spider-Man and coupled with the fact that Spider-Man is one of the most famous pop culture icons of all-time it is not necessary to re-do the whole origin story beat for beat. Pretty much everybody on the planet knows his origin and his relationship with Uncle Ben, it's perfectly alright to skip ahead after he's gotten his powers and how the death of his uncle made him choose to use his powers wisely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 5:32:54 GMT
Agreed. Homecoming is the worst Spider-Man movie ever made.
SMH's shallow and uninspiring portrayal of Spider-Man's motivations make SMH the worst movie adaptation of Spider-Man ever. Without outright mentioning Uncle Ben's death, Peter being Spider-Man is reduced to a simple show-off. There's nothing driving him other than wanting to look cool and impress Tony Stark - and that's a shallow reason which betrays his true comic origins.
Superman is shown by Jor-El how he can unite the human and Kryptonian species and bring hope to Earth. Batman is driven by the death of his parents and vows to do everything in his power to stop crime in Gotham. Wonder Woman feels that it's her duty to end war and bring peace to Mankind.
Those are noble reasons which are inspiring. Spider-Man is in 1 of the 4 most iconic comic-book superheroes along with Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. But his motivation for being Spider-Man in Homecoming isn't because he believes he has a "great responsibility" to use his powers for good (as he learned from his failure to prevent Uncle Ben's death when he could've) but simply because he's hoping to get a reply from Happy Hogan.
How is that aspect omitted? Peter very much cares about the people in his community and thinks The Avengers have forgotten about the little guy -- Which is WHY he rejects Tony's offer at the end so he won't be used specifically for big scale threats. He wants the freedom to act on his own because he feels he has responsibility for his city. This pretty much enforces "with great power comes great responsibility" without actually saying it word for word. Also, after two widely known origin films that showed Uncle Ben's murder and how it affects Spider-Man and coupled with the fact that Spider-Man is one of the most famous pop culture icons of all-time it is not necessary to re-do the whole origin story beat for beat. Pretty much everybody on the planet knows his origin and his relationship with Uncle Ben, it's perfectly alright to skip ahead after he's gotten his powers and how the death of his uncle made him choose to use his powers wisely. Not to mention all the animated Spider-Man shows skip Uncle Ben's death, too.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 6, 2017 5:34:47 GMT
How is that aspect omitted? Peter very much cares about the people in his community and thinks The Avengers have forgotten about the little guy -- Which is WHY he rejects Tony's offer at the end so he won't be used specifically for big scale threats. He wants the freedom to act on his own because he feels he has responsibility for his city. This pretty much enforces "with great power comes great responsibility" without actually saying it word for word. Also, after two widely known origin films that showed Uncle Ben's murder and how it affects Spider-Man and coupled with the fact that Spider-Man is one of the most famous pop culture icons of all-time it is not necessary to re-do the whole origin story beat for beat. Pretty much everybody on the planet knows his origin and his relationship with Uncle Ben, it's perfectly alright to skip ahead after he's gotten his powers and how the death of his uncle made him choose to use his powers wisely. Not to mention all the animated Spider-Man shows skip Uncle Ben's death, too. Not all though, the 1960's cartoon did have it, although it was later in the series. Ralph Bakshi helmed that one.
|
|