Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
That's generally my view. I think Holland is a much better Spider-Man and that Keaton was awesome as the villain, but the movie itself was much more complacent and formulaic than Spider-Man 2.
It's definitely the best Spider-Man movie we've had since Spider-Man 2, but that's kind of damning with faint praise.
edited 11th Feb '18 3:55:15 PM by comicwriter
![]()
This and ![]()
![]()
this.
Spider-Man 2 has stronger characterization overall, Homecoming is a more faithful adaptation of the character. SM 2 is deliberately formulaic, in that it sets out to capture that day-in-the-life quality of Spider-Man stories, which Homecoming also does more briefly before putting it to one side later on. Which sort of defeats the purpose.
If Raimi had been making Homecoming, there would have been another short act between foiling the Vulture hijacking the Quinjet and their identities being revealed. There's a sense of the passage of time in the Raimi movies that I think works well for Spider-Man.
edited 11th Feb '18 4:12:12 PM by Unsung
Ragnarok allowed Thor to showcase more Guile Hero tendencies since he couldn't rely on Mjolnir to just beat and blast his enemies into submission with sheer strength, and now he can shoot lighting without his weapon, which is not the biggest deal but a noticeable step up in terms of power progression. His new axe might also have some other powers we don't know about. It's too early to judge.
He didn't seem any stronger in the final fight after unlocking his "true" power, and if he was supposed to be, he wasn't really presented as such. Plus, he just felt... stupider. Him, Bruce, Loki, Odin. Everyone was the stupidest, goofiest version of themselves.
My various fanfics.Most of his dialog just sounded like a dumb person.
Oh, yeah, and VALKYRIE WAS NEVER NAMED ON SCREEN, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
My various fanfics.Those Boisterous Bruiser tendencies were always there in all the Asgardians. Faux-Shakespearean doesn't have to mean stuffy.
The new axe's haft looks like it might have grown together that way. Yggdrasil?
edited 11th Feb '18 4:04:02 PM by Unsung
The question of quality aside, I'm not sure about the idea that Homecoming is a better adaptation of Spider-Man than the others. It does an amazing job of updating the world and setting Spider-Man operates in, but the character himself is very altered - not just in terms of simple personality, but in regards to the central themes and ideas that make the character who he is.
It's a good adaptation and a great movie to be sure, but it's not any better an adaptation than, say, Amazing S-M 1, or Raimi S-M 2.
edited 11th Feb '18 5:03:18 PM by KnownUnknown

My main reason why I didn't watch the third movie was because the franchise kept resetting the characters. In a way they all got more immature with each instalment.
Anyway, I don't think that it matters. currently there is a spiderman most people like in the role (weather moviebob likes the notion or not), and I doubt that we have worry about circular storytelling in the MCU. It always moves its characters forward.