What the fuck was this movie's problem?

What the fuck was this movie's problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cqMGa4QoqCI
youtube.com/watch?v=5FOeBU6228c
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It wasn't made with the intent of being a Spider-Man movie; it was made with the intent of being a springboard to a "Spider-Man Cinematic Universe".

Rather than focusing on a solid plot or a good story, they decided to shoehorn in a continuation of the Green Goblin, toss in the Rhino, work in various nods to the Sinister Six, possibly maybe hint at Black Cat...Oh, and continue the "Peter's parents were agents" storyline.

Basically the same problem as Spider-Man 3; it tried to cram in way too many storylines and didn't focus enough on one of them.

If they really wanted a Spider-man cinematic universe, they should've just made it clear that Spider-man was set in the same world as X-men and Fantastic Four. Then you could've had crossovers naturally.

Sony are so fucking stupid.

Fox owns the movie rights to both of those things.

quips

Part this. Also like with the Batman movies up to TDK there's some executive going down a list of what villains have to be in each movie.

Just like Lizard didn't fit at all with the story the screenwriters were actually telling in the first movie and Vulture doesn't make any sense as a pick for Homecoming, Electro had no business being in this movie, and the writers clearly were trying to make a Night Gwen Stacy Died movie.

So in practice you get a movie that's one third having to work in the Goblin's origin and development, one third having to shoehorn in Electro and one third trying to set up a Sinister Six sequel, and none of those worked at all.

The way villains are used is the WORST trend in superhero movies. Ever since the Batman series you have to have a new villain in each movie with a celebrity actor. These movies could benefit so much from using a villain developed over multiple films who has a relationship with the hero instead of just one plot that gets foiled and the villain dies at the end.

>X-men and Fantastic Four
You just made yourself look like a huge jackass.

It tried to be *really* cheesy, but also *really* dark, and also continue the plotline of Peter's parents whom no one gives two shits about, and also establish sequels for more movies.

There was a good movie in there somewhere, and most of the performances are good. The script was the problem.

>Vulture doesn't make any sense as a pick for Homecoming

What is Homecoming about anyway? The worst thing you could say for Vulture is that pretty much any Spider villain could take his place.

Vulture makes sense as a new "starting point" since nobody wants another origin story movie and execs would never greenlight the space shuttle plot, Chameleon, or the Tinkerer.

What doesn't make sense is the way they're doing it.

Pretty much. He's just worked in as a guy who is there to cause mayhem and then be defeated, while also being not prominent enough. Can't waste a big Spider-Man villain on this.

>These movies could benefit so much from using a villain developed over multiple films who has a relationship with the hero instead of just one plot that gets foiled and the villain dies at the end.
I believe that was originally the plan for Ledger's Joker after TDK.

It was a setup for a cinematic universe first before anything. he gets it.

>Chameleon
In all honesty, How can you make Chameleon be an enemy of this kid Spider-Man? He'd be a guy who specializes in political intrigue and covert ops. And Peter's just a fucking kid; they would simply never meet.
Unless you like bring Scarjo, have her be almost killed by him in New York, Spider-Man saves her and get involved, she bangs him in the end... Dammit, now I'm writing this.

What's wrong with Vulture?

Like what about Homecoming's plot says "this needs someone else that's not Vulture"?

>The way villains are used is the WORST trend in superhero movies. Ever since the Batman series you have to have a new villain in each movie with a celebrity actor. These movies could benefit so much from using a villain developed over multiple films who has a relationship with the hero instead of just one plot that gets foiled and the villain dies at the end.
Where Marvel's concerned, Loki seems to be the exception to this, but at the same time he's suffering from over-exposure; he hasn't really changed at all.

Also I'm still waiting for them to bring the Red Skull back, seeing as how he vanished while using the Space Gem...

The same way as in ASM #1, where Peter was like 16???

What's wrong is that he's not worked into the story, from what it seems. You could exchange him for Shocker or Kraven or Mysterio and have the same movie. This is the Holland chats with RDJ movie.

Though I do hope they use Kraven and Mysterio in good movies...

Never read Ultimate, user. How did that go?

>Peter takes an internship at Oscorp
>Notices there's one employee who always sets off his spider-sense just by being around.
>He's not going to show up as Spider-Man one day and beat the guy up, so he accidentally drops a vial of liquid plot convenience off an escalator one day and it splashes on said employee's head.
>Employee's disguise begins to melt as he screams and the security/other employees responding realize it's a spy/saboteur.
>Chameleon's arrested, but knows that it was Peter who exposed him.
>vial of liquid plot convenience causes the disguise he was wearing to slowly melt into his flesh and somehow gives him the power to alter his appearance.

And that's how you have the Chameleon get involved.


Bonus points if the climax has him disguising himself as Peter to try and kill Aunt May only for pic related to happen.

I can't tell if that's condescending sarcasm or genuine misunderstanding.

Peter's 17 at most in Amazing Spider-Man #1 (he's still in high school an in-universe year later) and he fights Dimitri. No "Ultimate" about it.

This is a pretty shit storyline, actually. Classic Bendis.
I wouldn't do Oscorp internship again in movies, either. And then what, this high-stakes spy simply wants to take revenge on a high-school kid? Just hire some dudes to do a drive by in his building.

Shit! It was a misunderstanding. I actually read Ultimate for some reason. My bad, anons.
I don't really like the storyline anyway, though.

Even though it's not an origin story Spidey has no history in this. This is gonna be the first MAJOR villain he faces, and it's the fucking Vulture?

Vulture is not gonna be his nemesis, he's just a stopgap on the way to the big villains like Goblin or Ock. They should just START with them. Vulture is a "villain of the week" which are stupid choices for movies. They work for serialized/episodic storytelling, not movies that are essentially self-contained plots that cover the biggest events in a hero's life.

Just start with Goblin or Ock and develop them as a huge threat over multiple films, stop trying to make me believe that Vulture or Electro are big enough threats to warrant a two-hour movie. The reason Goblin is Spidey's NEMESIS is because he's done so much shit to him over time, not because one time he did something bad that wasn't any more of a big deal than what Vulture did that one time.

Even if you haven't read the comics, go watch Spectacular Spider-Man. Vulture, Lizard, they're villains of the week. You tell me they're making a big movie about the Vulture and I don't give a shit because their story wasn't worth telling over more than 22 pages/minutes in the first place, whereas you need multiple issues/episodes to show us how big a deal the Goblin is.

Also it's a really transparent attempt to say "come see the movie for NEW villain, that celebrity you know, and buy our new toys!".

If you're adapting comics, an intrinsically serialized genre, you're either stretching a story meant to be a single episode into a two-hour high stakes event or compressing a longterm high-stakes story into a two-hour format that will drastically lower the stakes and impact. You need to either adapt self-contained stories like OGNs or use multiple movies to make things have a real impact.

Yeah, but the point is that all you need is for Peter to stumble in on things. No grand scheme, just Pete accidentally happening upon this crazy man and shenanigans ensuing.

Isn't Shocker also in the movie?

>Even though it's not an origin story Spidey has no history in this. This is gonna be the first MAJOR villain he faces, and it's the fucking Vulture?
It was his second villain and nobody wants a Chameleon movie, so yes.

>Vulture is not gonna be his nemesis, he's just a stopgap on the way to the big villains like Goblin or Ock.
Neither were Chameleon or Tinkerer in ASM, so fucking what? Starting on your nemesis is boring as fuck.

>They work for serialized/episodic storytelling, not movies that are essentially self-contained plots that cover the biggest events in a hero's life.
Batman Begins would have been better as a Scarecrow movie.

Yeah, but I can't see a "realistic" (Take the term with a grain of salt), organic way for the two to interact. How many kids do you see in James Bond movies? Usually movie spies (Who I know have nothing to do with actual spies) wouldn't be anywhere near a place where Peter can stumble into things.

Are you honestly saying it's a bad thing we're not getting a 3rd Goblin right at the start of this reboot? Come on dude

And look at Guardians, the first villain was the "pointless" one while the second, Ego, was way more relevant to Peter, and the escalation worked just fine. Plus who's to say they're not already establishing Osborn or anyone?

Also i have the feeling Vulture may work thematically as a (non)origins Spidey movie since you could work around the fact that while Peter's learning to handle responsibilities he on the other hand is preying on the Chitauri situation and using his intellect to do crime. But that's just a hunch of mine, we'll see what will actually happen

I think the "it was all about setting up sequels" angle has been well established.
But I think another problem was that the studio changed whatever they wanted to after the first one. And the movie was less cohesive because it was trying to be a sequel and a fresh start at the same time..
you didn't even need to get the sequel and spin off plugs to notice that.

I see the MCU apologists have picked up a second wind.

Vulture was a mistake no matter how you slice it. It's just an extended version of the Spidey/Falcon fight in Civil War. They SHOULD have used Scorpion. He was Venom before Venom. He was superior before Doc Ock became Superior. He would have been a perfect foil for an amateur superhero like Spidey, and he would have been a unique villain.

I'm not talking about the comics, where it's fine to start with lower-tier villains because it's serialized and episodic. You have to have lots of stories over months and years.

With a movie you get ONE story every two years or so.

>Are you honestly saying it's a bad thing we're not getting a 3rd Goblin right at the start of this reboot? Come on dude
Yes, because neither Goblin got what made Goblin good correct. This is the mentality I'm against, that you have to have a new unique villain in each film. Goblin had to have most of his screentime taken away to make room for Electro and so he didn't feel like any more of a threat than Electro or Lizard despite being a much bigger deal.

And your example of Guardians is another good example of what I'm talking about, but a little different because you're working with an ensemble cast with unknown characters. Like with Avengers your focus in that first movie is showing the characters get together, not their development personally. In the second movie you now know who these characters are so you can start to develop them.

With Batman and Spider-Man, everyone knows these characters. I'm sick of having to retread the early years and I want them to skip to the good parts. Most of my life I've been reading Spider-Man because I'm invested in his life, and I'm invested in villains like Goblin because of their history with Spider-Man.

I'm not even going to criticize Vulture's implementation in Homecoming because they could totally make it fit thematically like was done with Sandman in Spidey 3. But we know Vulture isn't going to be a big threat to him in the long run, so they're just wasting time when they could be building up Goblin instead of cramming him into one film and expecting me to believe he's somehow more of a threat than the last villain.

>Disagree with the notion that it should start with the BIG EPIC VILLAIN OMG!!!1!
>"FUCKING MCU SHILL REEEEEEE"

Homecoming looks mediocre at best, but your suggestions are idiotic. Like, seriously, Scorpion? You wanna start with power armor Spider-Man? They aren't going to build Gargan up as a big threat over multiple movies: they would treat him like Rhino in ASM2 because his name doesn't have the pull of Ock, Goblin or Venom.

>I'm not talking about the comics, where it's fine to start with lower-tier villains because it's serialized and episodic.

Again, Batman Begins would have been a better movie if it stuck with Scarecrow, despite his not being an "epic" threat. Shit, the movie might have been even better if they went with the Falcones instead. You can tell a good standalone story without bringing in your trump card.

Not him but come on. If you're gonna make the MOVIE big and "epic" anyway, why not start with a big villain and show us WHY he's a big villain over multiple movies?

I agree that it can be done that way but the fact is these films are big blockbusters and like always they're going to go with a plot about how it's DA END OF DA WORLD and the villain tries to destroy the whole fucking city.

I'd totally love a movie like Year One where it's a low-key story about Batman's beginnings, or like Scarecrow Year One where it's just presented as one of Batman's many case files. When you try to present someone like Scarecrow as the biggest threat Batman's ever faced (see: Arkham Knight) it just feels stupid and over-the-top. Also see the Joker. The best stories of both Scarecrow and Joker are still the original Golden Age ones where they're basically just serial killers Batman has to track down as a detective.

Um, Vulture was one of Peter's earliest foes, only preceded by Chameleon, so why not?
>Just start with Goblin or Ock
Oh right, because people arent sick to death of the Osbornes at this point

If we're going with the cynical Hollywood mindset, then because it reduces returns. You can't pump out a new big name guest star as a unique, distinguishing villain for max profitability.

If we're talking writing, then because fuck that. That's what these Cinematic Universes are about: endless hype. Write a good self contained story instead.

norman can me made up to be a huge big bad in the MCU. saving him makes sense. post thanos you need some bigger villains and norman osborne is a good one.

Too many villains and plot threads. It was more a set up for the next movie rather than its own film.

It gets shit on here, but at least the Nolan movies let Scarecrow live in each one, showing he is a constant threat. Hell, if it wasn't for Ledgers death we would've seen the Joker again.

Why didn't Batman deal with Scarecrow in TDKR? That always bugged the hell out of me.

>a constant threat
Well... He was already scraping the bottom of the barrel in TDK, peddling drugs to small-fry gangsters.

I remember hearing that Kaz Hirai rewrote some parts of the script. Not sure why, since Kaz Hirai isn't a writer.

What do you mean? The entire city was in anarchy, punching Scarecrow for the 100th time wouldn't have made any difference

>What the fuck was this movie's problem?

Produced by Sony Pictures

I know, but it just bugged me. I feel like Scarecrow should have factored into the ending somehow.

Not to mention Bruce took the time to paint that giant gasoline Bat Signal on the bridge instead of stopping the bomb.

This
youtube.com/watch?v=cqMGa4QoqCI

To be fair, Norman hasn't had a real role since 2002. Compare that to how many times we've seen the Joker.

It's the Peter vs Harry they keep faling back on for some reason.

didn't learn from Spidey 3

I liked the idea of Norman being the shady guy behind all the plots in Amazing, but that degenerative dicease bullshit was terrible and the goblin look, and Harry's characterization, were very badly scripted.

>Loki is the exception

That's mainly because he's actually shown up repeatedly and given character development. Hel, the only Reason Loki isn't a one note villian is because he was lucky enough to be the main bad guy in 2 movies, and was given the chance to be a flat out dick to everyone. If it hadn't been for that, we'd consider Loki to be just one in a long line of forgettable bad guys.

I love the HarryGoblin arc of the comics but I don't think it can be bought too film.

The whole tragedy of J.M. DeMatteis's story was watching a grown family man who we'd seen overcome many personal trials slip and be dragged down one last time by his father's metaphorical ghost at the cost of his relationships to his loved ones.

Which would be a fine plot for a film of it's own but audiences are here to see a Spider-man film and there's just not enough time in 2 or so hours to weave the Spider-man necessities with the above plot.
So then we just get a generic Peter fights his sort of friend movie.

>If they really wanted a Spider-man cinematic universe, they should've just made it clear that Spider-man was set in the same world as cinematic properties not owned by Sony

>TFW Peter didn't have two cents
>TFW Uncle Ben died over chocolate milk

What the hell was Sony thinking?

youtube.com/watch?v=5FOeBU6228c

>Sony
>Thinking

>What the fuck was this movie's problem?
too much too soon

I don't know, but that poster's problem is hiding the spider-butt under a wall of text.