@Count:
! But he had no established personality before that scene. We never learned about any how any of the other villains besides Vulture act after that scene when they rendezvous at the base. I can still overlook it given how hard they tried to sell how much of a stupid move that was and how Vulture wasn't overlooking the weapon deal. As for following the weapon emission to the school, I might have missed that part. I don't mind them meeting Spidey at all, it's showing up at his school of all places that looked a little too convenient. But I have seen WAY worse plot convenient coincidences in superhero stories, so these are more nitpicks than actual complaints.
! We see him be the slacker and sloppy type since the opening and his characterization his that until his death. And after 8 years of business it's not surprising that he would be less careful than someone like Vulture. For the emission tracing, they had their thingie and Peter even confirms it(I think Vulture mention it to but I don't remember). No one in the movie knew Spiderman was a kid except Tony so it would be weird to hang at a school.
! It is. And… Eh. The rest of the movie is solid, but the first two-thirds of the movie simply don't wow me for some reason. Nothing strikes me that much, especially on the humor side, besides slightly appreciating how the movie is cementing in the "Friendly Neighborhood" aspect of his character more in how interacts with the ordinary citizens day-to-day. But even in that sense, I wouldn't have minded some of those characters showing up more than once and having names/nicknames so that the city feels like it has more of a charismatic identity, especially when destructive events later in the movie happen that put these returning bystanders at risk. Like having the old lady Peter gave directions to show up on the boat. Or the guy who cheered for Spider-Man and Iron Man showing up on the news briefly after Vulture is defeated. The Netflix Marvel shows actually do this in a cool and subtle way (of course, they have much more leeway to do so in having thirteen forty minute episodes instead of only one two-hour and a quarter movie).
! I was talking about Vulture specifically when saying it was solid.
! I think the movie chose a subject "Peter Parker struggling at being an effective superhero" and sticked to it. Which is a credit to the story but that focus makes it more difficult to make a great product. Most movies have highs, lows and scattered themes while homecoming try to keep it tight to the vest which makes it procedural in his approach. I think it is an interesting approach to the thing and helped them truly make a spiderman but it means the movie is on a flat line. The only places they really take a chance is that weird death of the first shocker and Michelle that keeps popping. But the first seems weird while the second is pretty much outside of the movie.
! And I guess seeing Spider-Man act like a beginner was interesting.
! I still see it as a departure of what what presented but considering the execution I am fine with it. People seems uncomfortable to start with an established hero. I think it sacrifice rewatchability and search of greatness in order to create their vision of spiderman and that take some pretty high level of commitment.
! That type of characterization could have worked if we didn't see him immediately get over killing Shocker #1, left Peter to drown in a net that kept pulling him further under the lake, let a boat filled with innocent civilians most likely die without any sign of remorse after his own super powered weapons trade gone bad caused the ship to start sinking, threatening Peter with a gun inside of the limo before dropping him off at the Homecoming dance, and gleefully left him in the rubble of a collapsed building where he had to have known that Peter would have died in.
! If it one one or two of those events in the movies existed, then I could have convinced myself that Toomes didn't want to kill a boy who was the same age as his daughter. But all of that packed on top of each other, with the last two events happening after Toomes learns Peter's secret identity? Nah.
! He left before Peter got tangled in his own parachute and Peter is the one that split the boat in two. He also left Peter the choices to walk away in the last situations but Peter refused.
! I don't think he is filled with remorse when someone is killed. I think he would rather not kill but if he has to he will. He rescued his merchandise then when Peter got freed he let him go with the parachute because the merchandise is now safe. Then Peter screw up a second job and becomes a recurrent problem that hinders the operation even in other states. Only then he decides Spidey has to be eliminated. Even at the Ferry his priority is to escape with his partner and nothing else. Peter is the one to screw with the bombs. Then when he discovers he is a young boy he decides to give him a chance to walk away which Peter doesn't take. Then again at the hideout he tried to make Peter see his point about but doesn't succeed.
! I can Vulture being sad a kid got killed on TV. I don't see him going throught some big trauma because he had to kill a kid for his business. He wouldn't do it for the fun but he would do it to continue to protect the lifehood of his family.
! While I agree that returning audiences are probably desensitized to the impact of villain deaths, since this is a Spider-Man reboot and thus its own franchise, I don't think it's completely fair to hold the newest Spider-Man movie series to that standard if they can sell a villain's demise tragically for the benefit of the story. Also, unlike any of the other villain deaths of the MCU, Vulture is the one and only somewhat sympathetic villain in the MCU (besides maybe Aldritch Killian in Iron Man 3, but he only has that intro scene of him being an ignored geek in the intro while the whole rest of the film is only Evil McEvil so any potential there is tapped out before it can even begin). On top of that, the sadness mainly comes from not him, but both Liz and Peter dealing with the ramifications of his death. Teenage kids feeling traumatized, responsible, and/or betrayed.
! I think refusing to acknowledge the experience of your audience is a bad idea. You aren't writing a movie for 20 years in the future. You are writing it for now. Nick Fury being "dead" then alive isn't lame because of the movie itself but because of the MCU isn't going to kill Nick Fury in that manner and the audience knows it.
! Also Vulture death isn't great for the story. It isn't exactly really bad(except for a repeating the MCU & Spiderman patterns people are to familiar with) but it isn't that good either. The movie simply hasn't build up to it. There might be some good drama if Liz was his girlfriend but she is just the crush that keeps getting blown off by him. As for Liz herself, her life has clearly been fucked by the end of the movie. She just so happen to not be important enough to leave great impact.
! And that last line is my point. it would be easy to have Peter feel bad that his sucess comes at the price of ruining the life of a loved comrade and that's why he wants to stay in the ground. There's plenty of option that does not come from killing Vulture. But mostly the movie doesn't build up to it. And the history of the franchise it is rob it from the impact of a surprise death. The survival isn't the error(the movie doesn't earn that death) or the one to rob you from bitter sweetness. The problem is fromhow the explosion is handled and/or how the aftermatch is handled.
! If the first Spider-Man movie can get a bittersweet ending out of Peter killing cringeworthy scene-chewing Willem Dafoe (who wasn't sympathetic at all besides those cheesy glimpses of Norman being tormented by the Globulin Formula at first) in how Harry was affected by Norman's death and Peter refusing to start a relationship with Mary Jane for her safety, then this film could have easily had the same effect.
! The first Spiderman didn't have history or franchise to bog it down. But mostly it actually had the Harry-Peter friendship built-up so that the break-up felt meaningful. The bittersweet wasn't that Green Goblin died but that Peter lost his best friend. This Spidey doesn't really have that build up.
! But like I said before. If that feels like too much of a rehash of Spider-Man 1, I understand. But in that case, I still call for that scene of Vulture going kablooey from those Chitauri bombs and yet still coming out completely alright being removed in favor of either Peter barely winning (Peter refusing Tony's offer still works due to failing to avoid major collateral damage again and almost repeating the same mistake he did with the boat) or saving Vulture from the explosion BEFORE he gets hit (actually, that would have been really cool. Defeating a villain not offensively but through saving him. Just have the bomb explosion be close enough to still wreck his wings so he can't fight anymore).[[/SPOILER]
! >! Peter should have save him. I mean when Peter didn't I just assumed they decided to kill another MCU villain. But I guess they were trying to play with watchers expections to kill another MCU villain.
! I have the idea that they put so much thoughts into their tight spiderman than any other elements end up suffering from major brain fart. Marvel's quirkiness? You get that weird shoker death. Playing with expectations? You get that weird survival.
! > >! It's not like I actually want or need Vulture to die. I came into his movie hoping that Spider-Man's rogues gallery could be preserved, and maybe form the Sinister Six one day by Spider-Man 4 if each movie has at least two villains like this film did (although Sony's plans seem to be making that near-impossible). But because that scene exists, I feel like I was cheated out of having legit interesting dark story/characterization consequences for once in an MCU movie outside of Iron Man and Captain America's established mentalities going into Civil War.
! >! Lucky you. I saw the scene and only thoughts I could get was "So they are killing the marvel villain again eh?"
! But yes the scene is stupid. Not only for the survival(I'm not sure Loki's make more sense) but in how blatant it is in counting on you believing he is dead for 10 seconds and the miss opportunity to have Peter save him.
! > >! You don't hype up two tragically unknowing bomb explosion scenes only for both groups of bombs to go off and both victims coming out A-okay. Maybe once, but DEFINITELY not twice (and in the final battle climax no less). It even looks more surreal when you realize how Ned only survived because the bombs conveniently release their explosions upward and Vulture was carrying a whole cargo box of those bombs from above.
! >! As soon as that thing blew the monument I assumed that it couldn't kill human and that why they survive. So it can kill humans? Because then that elevator scene in 10 times more then Vulture.That bomb was in his backpack for god sake. trapped in a enclosed elevator. At least Vulture had high tech wings and open area.
! > >! But he did grow. Superbly so. In his first encounter with the Vulture, Peter got stuck in a net and almost drowned in a lake until Iron Man pulled him up from the water. If not for Iron Man, he would have died even though he has his advanced suit on at the time. Fast forward to the rubble scene, and we see Peter panic only to build up the strength and self-confidence to pull himself up after remembering Tony saying "If you're nothing without this suit, then you shouldn't have it." By looking at the puddle in front of him showing a reflection of half of his face being Peter Parker and the other half being his mask in the water, he realized that he didn't just need to be Spider-Man externally, but internally in a spiritual sense. By lifting the rubble, and while in his prototype attire no less, he showed that he had the resolve to escape a dangerous situation despite failing at that earlier in the movie. He showed that he could be Spider-Man as a person and without a high-tech suit as a crutch (like Tony Stark in Iron Man 3), thus showing that he lived up to Tony's expectations of what makes a hero.! Then comes his second big failure also related to the Vulture. Failing to save the sinking ship until Iron Man luckily arrived due to being suspicious about the earlier phone call with Peter ending abruptly. Peter redeemed himself for this by redirecting the plane to land in an unpopulated beach instead of into urban grounds full of pedestrians.
! It's these moments that make Peter's efforts still feel satisfactory and his victory still being more than sheer luck even though he couldn't beat Vulture until he exploded but then somehow didn't die just because. All the movie needs to do for maybe emphasizing these as moments that showed Peter improved is do small things like show a brief montage of news reports thanking Spider-Man for redirecting the plane and defeating the Vulture (if they can have that recurring gag about those two high school students reporting on things, they can do this). Maybe have somebody else also be present in the rubble when Peter lifts it up.
! >! Expect his motivation was never in question. He is motivated from the first scene until the last. The question is how does he perform. I like the scene but for me it is more about remembering that he is still a kid struggling with those things. His big failure in the first encounter isn't that he was not motivated enough to be Spiderman but that that he wasn't ready yet to take on such threat.
! That's what makes the plane scene and Vulture defeat the real payoff. This where his motivation accomplishes good results. For once he isn't responsible for the screw up(even the elevator was his bomb). and truly saved the day.
! It is also kind of hard to sell every superhero being superheroes after killing their enemies but somehow this timee you are suppose to consider Spiderman failed because a villain killed himself. "I know all of our heroes kill their opponent and are still considered great but this time you should totally care that the villain got killed again and you should totally consider the hero failed because of it despite it not being his fault."
! > >! Actually, I think that would've made Stark still critical of Peter. We never really saw Stark get over how responsible he felt, and all of his talks with Peter are about Peter learning to be better than Tony and Peter wanting to be like Tony.
! Hm, Ned dying… I feel like it might be a bit too early in the story for that, especially since he only just started helping Peter as a tech buddy. And I still don't really like him that much or feel invested in his bond with Peter. So I wouldn't really feel as much of an impact as I should have besides solely being invested in how it affects Peter and the consequences going forward. I also don't think it's all too early in the story to kill off a villain, but that doesn't mean you get away with an accidental death tease copout which makes little-to-no logical sense.
! And if we're eventually going to have civilian death twist in one of these movies, I think the best choice would be Flash. But they'll have to make him a likable character soon instead of staying as the type of scum that leaves his classmates and teacher in the elevator, but makes sure the trophy is safe before he everybody else including himself. Then again, I would also really like for Peter and Flash to actually become friends eventually like they do in the comics after high school. And dammit, I still wish that they went the route of making Flash a Spider-Man fanboy (not that it's necessarily too late yet). I always love seeing him act like that one very adaptation for giving him more humorous and ethical depth as a character. Especially since Flash is actually inspired by Spider-Man to join the army, lose his legs, and become Venom for a while.
! >! That's forgetting the plane scene at the end and getting rid of Vulture which would come after the death.
! If Peter lose someone but saved everyone else, he is still the hero that grow to be able to face those threats but he suffered casuality to get there. It perfectly explains why he stays and it could give a real bitter sweet ending with Tony saying something "Sometimes you do all you can but you can't save everyone" and quickly glance at photo of the incident as Peter goes away.
! It is also something the movies have avoided except for Coulson in the avengers who never come back in any movie.
! Why flash tho?
! > >! And that's it. Nothing in Homecoming that possibly enlightens us about where that came from or how it's relevant in Peter's characterization. Or why he's somehow responsible enough to refuse the temptations of hanging out with his friends and showboating his superhero status besides just apparently being a responsible teenager (even though he's naive enough to feel conflicted about whether he should reveal his secret identity to a high school crush he hasn't even gone on a date with yet). Homecoming still works fine as a film without tying in Uncle Ben or the spider bite origin (although there was that conversation with Ned about how how the spider that bit Peter died as a gag) by starting out with Peter already being Spider-Man, but I find it really really weird how much it still relies on us knowing about Peter Parker's origin story from other adaptations to not question where his powers came from while every other hero gets their origin explored only because they aren't as publicly recognized as Spider-Man. You could get away with that in Civil War because he operated very small in only tackling minor, street-level crimes that would be off from most of the Avengers' radar like the Defenders and Punisher, as well as the story being focused on Captain America and the Avengers instead of a random kid from Queens. We're familiar with superheroes enough to get the idea that they can exist all over the place, so an explanation doesn't need to happen right away. But that excuse kind of evaporates when you get to showing the first big story centric around a superhero.
! The movie's essentially saying that if you want to learn about Peter's origin story, you need to be familiar with other versions of the character. Meaning that you need to possibly already know spoilers about Spider-Man. Which just doesn't jive well with my standards for storytelling in how every adaptation should stand well on its own without needing to rely on outside sources for understanding a a character. What if the MCU is the first exposure that future generations get for Spider-Man instead of any of the previous movies or an animated series? I can't really agree with telling them that you should have watched something else about them. That's like saying you should have read the book before watching a movie adaptation of a popular series like Harry Potter if they also skip out on the origin. You can bet that Black Panther's origin is going to be addressed in his movie even though he debuted in Civil War without it being elaborated on. Even if you say that they could save learning more about an origin story to be revealed in a sequel, that doesn't really justify completely ignoring it as if to say that is isn't important without building any suspense or intrigue in the first installment about it. Especially when superhero powers come from all sorts of sources instead of a universal one that is all over the place like Devil Fruits in One Piece.
! >! I think Homecoming works fine as a movie with a super hero. He is a responsible kid just like he is a genius kid.His power comes from a spider which later got killed. He is at the beginning of his career and struggling. Any bits you feel is missing is mostly from already knowing his story. It's not any more weird to be missing an uncle that it is living with his aunt rather than parents. You infer he is orphan living with his aunt.
! Also spiderman is a character while Harry Potter is a story. And stuff like his shitty family are things that always come back. Of course yoou could do a movie on the third book that would skip on the adventures of the first two and go with he has a shitty family and is on his third in that magic school.
! Although I never understood the obsession for origin stories. I mean do people requires origin stories for spies and cops? I like a good one but I don't consider them necessary or rather not extensive ones.
! > >! As silly as it sounds, I've gotten into situations in the past where people get accidentally spoiled about big movie reveals like the Darth Vader twist in the Empire Strikes Back, the end of the original Planet of the Apes (the movie's ending is literally spoiled on the cover image of the DVD box), Voldemort's Horcruxes in Harry Potter, well-known events in Dragon Ball Z, and shows that have ended years ago like Avatar: The Last Airbender. While most of these can be expected to be publicly known and frequently alluded to in public conversations, especially by geeks, people can get passionate about being spoiled. And while I feel like you shouldn't hold people too responsible for accidentally spoiling these things since they are all over pop culture in references, homages, and parodies, I also feel like it's also a bit wrong to say that they don't have a right to be pleasantly surprised by some of the greatest twists of all time only because of having no control over being born in a contemporary generation. Especially if they have complex personal reasons for not being exposed to entertainment media over the years.
! >! I'm the first to defend the right to not be spoiled. But in this particular I don't think there is much you can go search to get spoiled. It's not like the movie winked at you on some secret you should know. I doubt you can get spoiled on Spidey by searching where is Peter uncle except you keep digging after your answer. I'm not even sure what would constitute spoiler since the movies aren't adapting a specific thing.
! > >! This doesn't mean that I don't agree with most of the world being tired of seeing the same old story of Peter getting bitten on a field trip, using his powers for money while letting a petty thief escape, getting into an argument with Uncle Ben, Uncle Ben dying, and Peter chasing after Uncle Ben's killer only to find out it's the same pretty thief he voluntarily let escape. I in no way need the first twenty-thirty minutes of the movie to be dedicated to reimagining that again lol. I still don't think that means it's okay to completely ignore the origin either though. Instead, I would have liked one of the three options below instead:
! >! 2 or 3 would have been nice. My problem with uncle Ben wasn't that he didn't get mentioned but that he got teased."After all that happened with aunt May…." After that comment without any name dropped I knew they wouldn't use it.
! > >! I completely agree about how terrible the Raimi trilogy ages, although I will always love Doc Ock in every adaptation he gets. I hope he comes back in the third Spider-Man MCU film, which is about the right time to start reintroducing/redeeming Spider-Man villains used in previous films.
! >! I tend to consider movies in their time period.