State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I'd say he does learn.....a little.....maybe ?

But yeah, the new Spider-Man is a real screw up in comparison - I mean, remember the end of Spider Man when Tobey/Peter is getting his ass kicked by GG, and then the Goblin shoots his mouth off about MJ and Peter unleashes a case of whoop-ass !? Well, Tom Holland ain't there yet. Hell, even Andrew Garfield was much more competent in his first outing.

Have to say though, I kind of liked that - because it highlighted that despite his genius intellect, this version of Spider-Man still thought like a kid, and let's face it, he is just a kid.
Kids can accomplish more and be less reckless. For the horrible mistakes this version makes I don't excuse him for being young and inexperienced.

I hated homecoming too. They just turned Spidey into this annoying geek craving for attention and desperate for approval. It was the most pathetic adaptation of a superhero character I've seen since Superman Returns.
Total wackness!
I don't hate the movie itself, because Michael Keaton does good in it. I really hate how this version of the character gets as much pass as he does.
 
I don't hate the movie itself, because Michael Keaton does good in it. I really hate how this version of the character gets as much pass as he does.


hahaha! I love Keaton but he didn't save this movie. And I'm actually very sour that they used him to play Vulture and not Norman Osborn. Totally a squandered opportunity there.

What do you mean about him getting a pass?...In what way?
 
What do you mean about him getting a pass?...In what way?
"He saved the character. The best on film Spider-Man. THANK YEH MAHVEL :awesome:"

These comments complimenting and celebrating a bad character. He STEALS and wrecks stuff, and is praised for being likable.
 
"He saved the character. The best on film Spider-Man. THANK YEH MAHVEL :awesome:"

These comments complimenting and celebrating a bad character. He STEALS and wrecks stuff, and is praised for being likable.

It's interesting hearing other views on Holland's Spider-Man. Do you feel more aggrieved about the storyline, or the performance?

Personally, I found it worked, but yeah he was very reckless - the ferry scene highlighted that. No other MCU hero character that I can think of (other than the Hulk after Scarlet Witch messed with his mind) has caused so much collateral damage....except of course for Tony's creation of Ultron (and all the weapons he made when he was an international arms dealer and didn't give a **** ! ) l
 
Last edited:
It's interesting hearing other views on Holland's Spider-Man. Do you feel more aggrieved about the storyline, or the performance?
Tom is fine as a performer, but I really hate the storyline. I'm not fond of Spider-Man in Cap: Civil War, but when I think of how powerful and competent he is there causing minimum damage, I see a massive downgrade with his solo movie and I don't like him.

Personally, I found it worked, but yeah he was very reckless - the ferry scene highlighted that. No other MCU hero character that I can think of (other than the Hulk after Scarlet Witch messed with his mind) has caused so much collateral damage....except of course for Tony's creation of Ultron (and all the weapons he made when he was an international arms dealer and didn't give a **** ! ) l
That's true. Speaking of Ultron, I was thinking how much of it is Tony's fault, he's easy to blame, and I thought he deserves the blame, then I remembered he took a gem after some hex messed with his mind a bit, and thought this could change that possible outcome. Seeing a program in the gem was unexpected, it eating J.A.R.V.I.S. and building up its own body was even less expected.
 
Ya know, I actually thought the same thing, that Spider-Man actually seems more competent in Civil War than he does in Homecoming. Like they retroactively make him more bumbling for comic relief.

In Civil War he doesn't beat Cap, but he at least does a decent job taking him on, he helps take down Giant-Man, etc, he's a worthy combatant against some very powerful enhanced people, while in Homecoming he can barely hold his own against Vulture, who's not even especially skilled himself and is kind of flying by the seat of his pants the same as Spidey is. He actually never even defeats Vulture, Vulture inadvertently defeats himself.
 
"He saved the character. The best on film Spider-Man. THANK YEH MAHVEL :awesome:"

These comments complimenting and celebrating a bad character. He STEALS and wrecks stuff, and is praised for being likable.

I'm not entirely sure why this is a problem. The kid already operates outside the law as it is. I'll take a flawed but likable interpretation over incredibly angsty or wooden interpretations any day.

If you're ok with the fact the character puts on a mask and beats people up without any legitimate sanctioned authority to do so then collateral damage and auto theft shouldn't be that big of a deal to you.
 
Last edited:
Even strait-laced Captain America (well, before becoming an international fugitive) bashed his way through about a dozen office spaces and doors chasing The Winter Soldier, and later steals a car. Plus they all blow up an airport pretty willy nilly. They all cause plenty of collateral damage, actually most of them more than Spider-Man.
 
I'm not entirely sure why this is a problem. The kid already operates outside the law as it is. I'll take a flawed but likable interpretation over incredibly angsty or wooden interpretations any day.

If you're ok with the fact the character puts on a mask and beats people up without any legitimate sanctioned authority to do so then collateral damage and auto theft shouldn't be that big of a deal to you.
Beating some thugs threatening the neighborhood is illegal, but I can bite pride over it if he's preserving property while doing so.



Even strait-laced Captain America (well, before becoming an international fugitive) bashed his way through about a dozen office spaces and doors chasing The Winter Soldier, and later steals a car. Plus they all blow up an airport pretty willy nilly. They all cause plenty of collateral damage, actually most of them more than Spider-Man.
I forgot that bit. I'll remember to make fun of this next time I watch the movie.

I'm not a fan of the airport fight scene due the damage they caused, and like that Ross addressed that to Tony.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of the airport fight scene due the damage they caused, and like that Ross addressed that to Tony.

Well Tony does blow up a whole row of small planes and helicopters.

But you also have Scarlet Witch flinging cars around willy nilly, and Giant-Man throwing all kinds of stuff around. Both sides caused plenty of destruction there.
 
Beating some thugs threatening the neighborhood is illegal, but I can bite pride over it if he's preserving property while doing so.



I forgot that bit. I'll remember to make fun of this next time I watch the movie.

I'm not a fan of the airport fight scene due the damage they caused, and like that Ross addressed that to Tony.


There's a disconnect here I don't get. You're ok with a teenager physically imposing his own inherently fascist brand of Justice on criminals, but collateral damage and theft are the problem? That seems incredibly nitpicky considering the larger implications of the character's actions all throughout media.
 
Well Tony does blow up a whole row of small planes and helicopters.

But you also have Scarlet Witch flinging cars around willy nilly, and Giant-Man throwing all kinds of stuff around. Both sides caused plenty of destruction there.
I realize that much, and both sides are annoying, that's why that fight scenes is cool as a spectacle, but it's more annoying than enjoyable due to the heroes acting foolish and reckless. Still they managed to avoid and contain damage outside of what they did in that scene of stupidity.
Spider-Man in previous movies is not that reckless or destructive. Almost all the damage done in Homecoming (after 20 minutes count) is because he was somehow involved, best exception I can think of is the Vulture's lair being destroyed by Toomes himself.
 
There's a disconnect here I don't get. You're ok with a teenager physically imposing his own inherently fascist brand of Justice on criminals, but collateral damage and theft are the problem? That seems incredibly nitpicky considering the larger implications of the character's actions all throughout media.
You chose to a fascinating topic to discuss, one I still have no answer for.

EDIT: You got this guy who likes to call himself a hero, he continues to fail to stop criminals, and property damage happens mostly because he intervened by jumping blindly. This guy who looks up to a rich man that "supported" the accords saying they need to be supervised to cut down the damage, and the main character is the most reckless one, and the first reckless version of the character on film.

The previous two versions proved to be both more careful (except for one scene in that movie three years ago) and better at what they do. I didn't find them to be angsty or wooden, and I like them a lot.
 
Last edited:
I dunno if this is unpopular, but I really hate patriot porn movies. I'm talking about stuff like American Sniper, the Deepwater Horizon movie, the Boston Bombing movie and the Yarnell firefighter movie coming out soon. I feel like it's a cheap move to get the Fox News audience riled up and worshiping America with even more fervor.
 
I never got a patriotic overkill vibe on those, just a lot of people going out of their way to help others, especially Deepwater horizon.
 
I dunno if this is unpopular, but I really hate patriot porn movies. I'm talking about stuff like American Sniper, the Deepwater Horizon movie, the Boston Bombing movie and the Yarnell firefighter movie coming out soon. I feel like it's a cheap move to get the Fox News audience riled up and worshiping America with even more fervor.
Agreed. Forced, oscar baity b.s. Deepwater Horizon was at least competent and i thought the back and forth between the characters was pretty good, but they all end up feeling the same to me. They overdo it with the acting or adding crap to the events that didn't happen just because it's Hollywood and they need one of their A-listers like Marky Mark to come off as a badass hero or something.
 
You chose to a fascinating topic to discuss, one I still have no answer for.

EDIT: You got this guy who likes to call himself a hero, he continues to fail to stop criminals, and property damage happens mostly because he intervened by jumping blindly. This guy who looks up to a rich man that "supported" the accords saying they need to be supervised to cut down the damage, and the main character is the most reckless one, and the first reckless version of the character on film.

The previous two versions proved to be both more careful (except for one scene in that movie three years ago) and better at what they do. I didn't find them to be angsty or wooden, and I like them a lot.

I could see this as a potential issue if this wasn't directly part of the plot of the film in both its hero and its villain. Stark directly calls him out on this stuff as well. It's not like Man of Steel where there was a complete disregard for collateral damage that was only addressed in the sequel because everyone called them out on it. This is also the youngest incarnation of the character that we've seen on screen which also plays s big part in why this version is the way he is.

If you're going to be that critical, the fact that a high school kid is doing this at all should bother you.
 
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) was better than the original and probably the best horror remake.

The Manchurian Candidate
remake was, despite the so-so ending, great, better than the original and probably the best remake.
 
I could see this as a potential issue if this wasn't directly part of the plot of the film in both its hero and its villain. Stark directly calls him out on this stuff as well. It's not like Man of Steel where there was a complete disregard for collateral damage that was only addressed in the sequel because everyone called them out on it. This is also the youngest incarnation of the character that we've seen on screen which also plays s big part in why this version is the way he is.

If you're going to be that critical, the fact that a high school kid is doing this at all should bother you.

In Man of Steel you have one amateur God-like hero against multiple god-like powered people.

In Homecoming you have a kid who by the time and events of the movie in which it takes place, actually has experience being a hero and faces zero enemies on his power level And the ego on this kid plays a huge part of the collateral damage. That wasn't the case with Man of Steel at all.
 
In Man of Steel you have one amateur God-like hero against multiple god-like powered people.

In Homecoming you have a kid who by the time and events of the movie in which it takes place, actually has experience being a hero and faces zero enemies on his power level And the ego on this kid plays a huge part of the collateral damage. That wasn't the case with Man of Steel at all.
Man of Steel is actually worse. After the fight in Smallville, Clark should have had a solid idea of the destructive power of his enemies therefore after he took out the world engine his first priority should have been navigating the fight out of a major population center. That's not inexperience, that's a lack of basic common sense that Clark isn't called out on until the reactionary sequel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"