Homecoming What happens if this movie fails?

[JOE]

It's just so oddly specific that you seem to ask for the bullies to think he's gay because he's puny, short and nerdy. Is there some kind of scene you have in mind where he stands up for gay people? Or is it to justify Isaac as Peter because he looks feminine?

 

[Oscorp]

My point is what bullies think and do. They find an easy prey in someone who looks weak and different.
Again, the character would neither be gay or appear to be, in order for bullies to claim he is.

It's nothing to do with me having Isaac as my second choice. Why do you think so?
Because you have the opinion that he's feminine? I can't remember me ever having said that though.
But do you know what? Holland could also be teased for the same if he plays Peter, actually. He's short and no jock type.

Then I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish with these posts. Are you trying to prove some kind of point? As far as I can tell, Peter has never been portrayed like someone who'd be mistaken as being gay.

 

[Airwings]

It's just so oddly specific that you seem to ask for the bullies to think he's gay because he's puny, short and nerdy. Is there some kind of scene you have in mind where he stands up for gay people? Or is it to justify Isaac as Peter because he looks feminine?

No, I don't need Peter to support homosexuals. I'm telling you that bullies are good at making other people's life a misery. Try to think like one now. Wouldn't it be great if you called that weird Peter kid a gay so that everybody in school would laugh at him?

And again, you call Isaac feminine. Why are you stuck up on that?

 

[Airwings]

Then I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish with these posts. Are you trying to prove some kind of point? As far as I can tell, Peter has never been portrayed like someone who'd be mistaken as being gay.

He doesn't need to be mistaken for gay. Bullies could still call him that.

 

[harryoscop]

 

[Oscorp]

No, I don't need Peter to support homosexuals. I'm telling you that bullies are good at making other people's life a misery. Try to think like one now. Wouldn't it be great if you called that weird Peter kid a gay so that everybody in school would laugh at him?

And again, you call Isaac feminine. Why are you stuck up on that?

It's hard for me to think like someone who thinks being gay is something negative in itself. There's no reason for the bullies to call him gay unless he looks like a stereotype, which I don't want him to look like. I just don't want Peter to be gay because that's a drastic change that would be a cheap shot at expanding diversity.

He doesn't need to be mistaken for gay. Bullies could still call him that.

You're deviating from your original post in which you said: "They could have Flash Thompson and some other guys think Peter's gay because of his looks. Would that also be too much?"

Which implies that Peter would "look gay", to which I answered that no, he shouldn't "look gay". Being puny and nerdy isn't "looking gay", whatever the heck that is. Then you altered your point to be that bullies can call him gay anyway because bullies are mean. Yeah, so? They can call him anything that is mean intended.

 

[Airwings]

Oscorp: Even from the beginning, I meant they they should call him that just to be mean. The later posts didn't deviate from the topic. I tried to clarify my meaning all along.

 

[Oscorp]

Oscorp: Even from the beginning, I meant they they should call him that just to be mean. The later posts didn't deviate from the topic. I tried to clarify my meaning all along.

OK! The bullies can call him whatever they want that suits a PG13 film, so yes they can call Peter gay if that doesn't mean that Peter would look like a stereotype. I don't care what they call him and I see no point in going into single words like that. It's not like I'd think "Oh no they called him gay, it's like Peter is portrayed as a homosexual person!!".

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

I'm sorry, but you just can't tell me Thor 1/2, Cap 1, IM 2/3 are better movies than TASM (regardless of personal dislikes in the movie).

Well...they are.

 

[SM71]

Well...they are.

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't have said that as a definitive statement. Although I 100% believe it, it is still an opinion.

Idk, me personally, I've rewatched TASM many many times and enjoy it every time. And all those MCU films, they're 1 and done with me. I literally find myself unable to rewatch those. They're decent films, but there's just nothing truly gripping at all about them to me. Such little character development. The characters are always (or at least usually) around just to serve the plot, instead of the character being the plot themselves

Spider-man films have always centered around what's happening to Peter Parker, what he's going through and learning. With the exception of IM1 (Cap1 almost went there), all the MCU movies are about what major, earth threatening event is happening. And while that can be entertaining, it's just not enough for me to really love and connect with a movie, personally and emotionally

 

[UltimateWebhead]

In order to accurately answer the OP's question, I would need to qualify exactly what is meant by a 'fail.' Are we talking yet another ASM2? As in a movie that has a bad critical rating and continued decreasing profit? Or like a lower tiered success in terms of what Marvel has accomplished so far? i.e. Thor 2, IM2, etc. (Both of those I would consider better than ASM2). I think knowing this makes a difference.

But in general, I think it's safe to say, thanks to Sony's efforts of dragging Spidey through the mud, there's a tremendous amount of pressure on the delivery of this next solo movie. We've seen how a great success, i.e. DoFP, can restore faith and the fan base in a product after dismal movies, i.e. X3 and Origins. Spidey is currently in that same sinking boat. Marvel really needs a winner--a film that is fun, technically sound, and good for the character, to bring back the diminishing bases. I would say anything less than that would be deemed some kind of 'fail.'

 

[Venom 1988]

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't have said that as a definitive statement. Although I 100% believe it, it is still an opinion.

Idk, me personally, I've rewatched TASM many many times and enjoy it every time. And all those MCU films, they're 1 and done with me. I literally find myself unable to rewatch those. They're decent films, but there's just nothing truly gripping at all about them to me. Such little character development. The characters are always (or at least usually) around just to serve the plot, instead of the character being the plot themselves

That's funny, I have the opposite feeling with the ASM movies lol. I saw them once but do not feel compelled to ever see them again. The only MCU movie that I can compare that to is IM2.

 

[Oscorp]

In order to accurately answer the OP's question, I would need to qualify exactly what is meant by a 'fail.' Are we talking yet another ASM2? As in a movie that has a bad critical rating and continued decreasing profit? Or like a lower tiered success in terms of what Marvel has accomplished so far? i.e. Thor 2, IM2, etc. (Both of those I would consider better than ASM2). I think knowing this makes a difference.

But in general, I think it's safe to say, thanks to Sony's efforts of dragging Spidey through the mud, there's a tremendous amount of pressure on the delivery of this next solo movie. We've seen how a great success, i.e. DoFP, can restore faith and the fan base in a product after dismal movies, i.e. X3 and Origins. Spidey is currently in that same sinking boat. Marvel really needs a winner--a film that is fun, technically sound, and good for the character, to bring back the diminishing bases. I would say anything less than that would be deemed some kind of 'fail.'

Yeah I agree. When I say they'll likely keep it safe, what I really mean is that I don't think they'll take liberties on the characters like the TASM franchise did. Hopefully they realise that the reason Spider-Man is among the top 3 most beloved comic book characters in the world is because the source material is so good. Don't fix what ain't broken.

At the same time, they really need to put their everything into this. The character portrayals need to be top notch, the action needs to be fun and thrilling, the humour needs to be on point, the story needs to make sense while hopefully having some thoughtful message in there. It can't deviate too much from Spider-Man's comic book origin, and it can't be a run of the mill popcorn film. Spider-Man is Marvel's greatest character and it needs to show.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Yeah I agree. When I say they'll likely keep it safe, what I really mean is that I don't think they'll take liberties on the characters like the TASM franchise did. Hopefully they realise that the reason Spider-Man is among the top 3 most beloved comic book characters in the world is because the source material is so good. Don't fix what ain't broken.

At the same time, they really need to put their everything into this. The character portrayals need to be top notch, the action needs to be fun and thrilling, the humour needs to be on point, the story needs to make sense while hopefully having some thoughtful message in there. It can't deviate too much from Spider-Man's comic book origin, and it can't be a run of the mill popcorn film. Spider-Man is Marvel's greatest character and it needs to show.

This is money. I sure hope Feige reads this.

 

[Oscorp]

This is money. I sure hope Feige reads this.

Thanks man! Haha, I don't think he needs to, he's already made comments about the film that makes me feel comfortable that he knows all this already. I think Spidey is in good hands as long as Sony keeps their dirty paws off.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Yeah I agree. When I say they'll likely keep it safe, what I really mean is that I don't think they'll take liberties on the characters like the TASM franchise did. Hopefully they realise that the reason Spider-Man is among the top 3 most beloved comic book characters in the world is because the source material is so good. Don't fix what ain't broken.

At the same time, they really need to put their everything into this. The character portrayals need to be top notch, the action needs to be fun and thrilling, the humour needs to be on point, the story needs to make sense while hopefully having some thoughtful message in there. It can't deviate too much from Spider-Man's comic book origin, and it can't be a run of the mill popcorn film. Spider-Man is Marvel's greatest character and it needs to show.

How does one define a run of the mill popcorn film?

Beside that, I agree with this post.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Thanks man! Haha, I don't think he needs to, he's already made comments about the film that makes me feel comfortable that he knows all this already. I think Spidey is in good hands as long as Sony keeps their dirty paws off.

I too have faith that Feige is aware of what's genuinely important when it comes to the character. I just really liked your post

 

[Oscorp]

How does one define a run of the mill popcorn film?

Beside that, I agree with this post.

Good question. I guess when it's all about action and without nuance. With the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll bring up Thor: The Dark World again since it's so fresh in my memory. That's an example of a run of the mill comic book movie. It follows the formula of a villain wanting power or dominance and the film leading up to a final spectacle. It doesn't have much, if anything, in between. It doesn't explore Thor as a character. No character is really going through any personal development. The film's ambition doesn't go beyond Thor fighting a villain, basically. At the end of the film I didn't feel like the characters had moved in any way besides Thor deciding he doesn't want to be a king. In Iron Man 3, for example, the film lead to Tony's realization of him needing to let go. The Avengers and GotG were about a team of different personalities having to work together and put aside their differences for for a common good. The Winter Soldier finds Captain America taking his step from the past to the present, from his world to a different world. Thor TDW is about Thor defeating Malekith. EDIT: It has, coupled with the first Thor, perhaps explored Thor's feeling of responsibility for not just one world, but two worlds. It was in my opinion though not explored enough. EDIT 2: Like, in Guardians of the Galaxy Quill gets the question from Rocket why he wants to go out and save the universe. "Because I live in it" Quill answers. It was played out like a humorous moment in GotG, but I'd like a similar question to be thematically asked in the Thor films. Why can't he just stay in Asgard and let humans take care of themselves? Does he take on the responsibility of two whole worlds just because of a woman that he barely sees? I like that Age of Ultron touched upon the question of if Thor is the only one worthy, isn't for example Cap as worthy or perhaps even more than Thor? The first Thor played on that worthy theme but there is room for more exploration.

While not over-ambiguous, the story of Spider-Man needs to be more than just "Spider-Man vs. X villain". Feige said that the film will revolve around the theme of With great power comes great responsibility. It sounds like they have an actual plan and ambition with this film, which remains to be seen. EDIT 3: A question that could be raised for example is - is it really your responsibility to put New York on your shoulders because you were given powers by (un)luck when you didn't even ask for it? The film should in my opinion lead to Peter realising that no, he didn't ask for his powers, but by chance or not he has been given the opportunity to make a choice to do good and make a difference, whereas there are others who are given no such choice at all. The one choice that would make him a good person would be to do good with his powers, to protect others from getting hurt the way he and his family got hurt. It's basically similar to Raimi's films, but that's also why they worked so great among other factors. I hope the villain in the film will reflect that theme. Either by having the villain being given the same opportunity and chosing to do bad. Or by having a villain that acts the way he does because life hasn't given him the same opportunity.

Sony could have gone that route with Electro in TASM2. Electro has been given power by complete (un)luck, literally being struck by lightning. What makes him chose to take a different path than Peter Parker? Is it because some people are inherently good and others bad in nature? Or is it because of the contexts of their lives? Peter has developed in a family of care, warmth and strong sense of responsibility, whereas Max has grown up in a family of mistrust and doubt. Is Peter a hero because he alone chose to be, or because his family created a hero in him? Is Max a villain or is he a victim of his own life?

 

[ernesth100]

It won't fail, Spider-Man+Marvel=success.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

It won't fail, Spider-Man+Marvel=success.

We hope. I do not think I can handle third terrible Spider-Man movie in a row lol.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

OP:

2.5 years then another reboot.

Then if that one fails, 1.25 years before another (direct-to-video) reboot.

If that fails we get another reboot .625 years later (this one a television special on ABC).

When that one inevitably fails we'll get new half-hour long reboot 3 months later on youtube.

 

[Mai]

This movie will be a guaranteed success due to Marvel's name being involved with Sony.

Simple as that and also no need to panic, dear friend.

I think this is right.

However, if by some chance the movie does fail, it kind of shows that no matter what, the majority of people will just never be happy with a Spiderman movie.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Spoiler

Good question. I guess when it's all about action and without nuance. With the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll bring up Thor: The Dark World again since it's so fresh in my memory. That's an example of a run of the mill comic book movie. It follows the formula of a villain wanting power or dominance and the film leading up to a final spectacle. It doesn't have much, if anything, in between. It doesn't explore Thor as a character. No character is really going through any personal development. The film's ambition doesn't go beyond Thor fighting a villain, basically. At the end of the film I didn't feel like the characters had moved in any way besides Thor deciding he doesn't want to be a king. In Iron Man 3, for example, the film lead to Tony's realization of him needing to let go. The Avengers and GotG were about a team of different personalities having to work together and put aside their differences for for a common good. The Winter Soldier finds Captain America taking his step from the past to the present, from his world to a different world. Thor TDW is about Thor defeating Malekith. EDIT: It has, coupled with the first Thor, perhaps explored Thor's feeling of responsibility for not just one world, but two worlds. It was in my opinion though not explored enough. EDIT 2: Like, in Guardians of the Galaxy Quill gets the question from Rocket why he wants to go out and save the universe. "Because I live in it" Quill answers. It was played out like a humorous moment in GotG, but I'd like a similar question to be thematically asked in the Thor films. Why can't he just stay in Asgard and let humans take care of themselves? Does he take on the responsibility of two whole worlds just because of a woman that he barely sees? I like that Age of Ultron touched upon the question of if Thor is the only one worthy, isn't for example Cap as worthy or perhaps even more than Thor? The first Thor played on that worthy theme but there is room for more exploration.

While not over-ambiguous, the story of Spider-Man needs to be more than just "Spider-Man vs. X villain". Feige said that the film will revolve around the theme of With great power comes great responsibility. It sounds like they have an actual plan and ambition with this film, which remains to be seen. EDIT 3: A question that could be raised for example is - is it really your responsibility to put New York on your shoulders because you were given powers by (un)luck when you didn't even ask for it? The film should in my opinion lead to Peter realising that no, he didn't ask for his powers, but by chance or not he has been given the opportunity to make a choice to do good and make a difference, whereas there are others who are given no such choice at all. The one choice that would make him a good person would be to do good with his powers, to protect others from getting hurt the way he and his family got hurt. It's basically similar to Raimi's films, but that's also why they worked so great among other factors. I hope the villain in the film will reflect that theme. Either by having the villain being given the same opportunity and chosing to do bad. Or by having a villain that acts the way he does because life hasn't given him the same opportunity.

Sony could have gone that route with Electro in TASM2. Electro has been given power by complete (un)luck, literally being struck by lightning. What makes him chose to take a different path than Peter Parker? Is it because some people are inherently good and others bad in nature? Or is it because of the contexts of their lives? Peter has developed in a family of care, warmth and strong sense of responsibility, whereas Max has grown up in a family of mistrust and doubt. Is Peter a hero because he alone chose to be, or because his family created a hero in him? Is Max a villain or is he a victim of his own life?

Good answer.

OP:

2.5 years then another reboot.

Then if that one fails, 1.25 years before another (direct-to-video) reboot.

If that fails we get another reboot .625 years later (this one a television special on ABC).

When that one inevitably fails we'll get new half-hour long reboot 3 months later on youtube.

I was tempted to say reboot, but nah, we'll probably not get something like Hulk instead of kicking Spidey out of the MCU.

 

[Webhead2006]

for me if the film is not a success enough for sony. They will likely wash there hands of spidey and give the rights back fully to marvel. But since marvel(kevin) has his hands on this, and if like many think its more marvel's movie with sony just having the final ok and also sony name on the product. I cant see it being a huge failure like asm2 ended up. For all we know it could become a hit the size of say winter solider/guardians. Ideally it would be great if it can do im/avengers numbers. But i think we should shoot for guardians/winter solider numbers and we would have spidey back in good place.

 

[PeterBenParker]

I think this is right.

However, if by some chance the movie does fail, it kind of shows that no matter what, the majority of people will just never be happy with a Spiderman movie.

That's true, but I think people are willing to give this one a pass due to another name added in the mix.

If this was 100% Sony, then there'd be a lot of doubt.