Anyone who thinks this is the best Spider-Man film either doesn't understand what the character is beyond surface level...

Anyone who thinks this is the best Spider-Man film either doesn't understand what the character is beyond surface level or they worship Kevin Feige.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=f7cjpeRuNQc
youtube.com/watch?v=9y-xxqKKoEQ
youtu.be/6BlFMXuGmoA?t=1m57s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I thought everyone agreed SM2 was best, why make a thread based on a false premise?

Iron Man 7 is my favorite

I thought it easily did the best job understanding the social aspects of Peter Parker's life.

Maybe you should read some comics.

It was good but it's not better than SM2.

I have a hard time putting it above SM1 either, but that's nostalgiafaggotry on my part.

It's pretty much a Bendis comic book. Iron Man worship included.

it's the best spider-man in a film. it isn't the best spider-man film.

Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man = Homecoming >>> Spider-Man 3 >>>>>>> ASM >> ASM2

It was the best Miles Morales Spider-Man movie

>Look Ma, I posted it again!

This movie was the best spidey movie because it was part of the mcu. GET OVER IT SHILL!!!

People keep saying it because its true. Tom Holland was just too chikenshit to do blackface

I worship Kevin Feige.

All the Spidey elements are there, they are just not rammed into your face in the way previous Spidey movies did.

If you pay attention you will notice he did the right thing and lost out because of it.

Garfield Spiderman is better than Ironman Jr, Parker Garfield is bad, don't know if that's the worst, the only thing that save the movie is Keaton

Anyone who doesn't think this is an interesting interpretation of the character and a great addition to the Spider-Man movies doesn't understand what the character is beyond surface level or hates Kevin Feige.

There you go OP, I made a much better thread for you.

this movie was fucking shit

>Spider-Man 1 = Homecoming
Homecoming is not even as good as Spiderman 3.

Faggots confirmed.

Here's your (you) now fuck off.

>Spider-Man 1 > Spider-Man 2 > Homecoming > 3 > ASM 1 > ASM 2

Spider-Man 3 was literally a meme movie

pffff

>Budget: $250 - 300 million

I love Garfield's Spidey and his Pete. Iron Man Jr was annoying. IM7 was trying too hard.

No one is denying that BvS was shit though.

One just hasn't aged well IMO. Not by the fault of the movie itself but it was clearly used as a template for most every solo superhero movie origin story that came after it.
It became a cliche when origin stories did.
Homecoming was an attempt to do an origin story while avoiding as many origin story cliches as possible and for that reason alone I think it's > SM1.

This movies budget was also $150 million

>B-b-but DC!!!
Like clockwork.

What is this picture even supposed to prove? That Homecoming shot is clearly a practical suit

No one was talking about DC. Fuckin loser

fucking Raimi squad, so disgusting, so predictable

>THAT
>practical suit
Pffffttttttttt HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

The choreography in this one is pretty good, far better than MCU ones.
youtube.com/watch?v=f7cjpeRuNQc
youtube.com/watch?v=9y-xxqKKoEQ

You sure user? Even if that shot was real there was a lot of really poorly done CGI in that scene. I loved the movie but even I can admit that there was some really cheaply done shots in this particular part of that scene- youtu.be/6BlFMXuGmoA?t=1m57s

spider-man films are incredibly overrated with the exception of the most recent one that has come out

that's the rule

>The choreography in this one is pretty good
Are you having a laugh?

Skip to 2:00 for the really unrealistic CGI. I think it's because they switch back and fourth between real actors and CGI several times.
Watching it again now, I feel like there might have been some issue with Garfield's costume or something in these particular shots because they did a lot of shots in CGI that didn't even need it.

to be fair this one is a sword training not a real fight.

Yet better than the 1.5 shots per second from hawkeye vs black widow

Neither, still best Spider-Man

Correct.

Exactly. They choice the shallow, casual, normie route with Tom Selfie Holland and made a mockery of what Peter is as a character. Marvel put the nail in their coffin and will burn for this.

>Calling other people a faggot while you jack off to the pretty boy who crossdressed to promote this movie

I think you're projecting there. Go suck Holland's micro dick already.

I completely agree OP. Regardless of whatever is said in this thread, you have 1 guy on your side. Also
>or they worship MCU
ftfy

All the Spider-Man films sucks they can never get him right.

I think you just started reading comics.

Anyone who thinks any Spiderman movie is good has never touched a comic.

The Raimi ones had the tone of 1960s ASM down pretty good. They were also good super hero movies. You're wrong.

It's the best Spider-Man MOVIE, but not the best SPIDER-MAN movie.

I don't see why people think Homecoming didn't get Spider-Man, there is nothing blatantly wrong about the character that is portrayed in the movie

Not really, Peter has always been an OC in these movies.
3 different franchises, 3 different Peters, not a single one of them is similar to comic Peter.

I don't know what film you watched, but Spider-Man was not in it.

because they grew up without ever reading classic comics

anyone who doesn't "worship Kevin Feige" is too busy sucking Snyder's dick to appreciate good cinema

You're wrong. There are a lot of people on the internet claiming this is the best spidey film ever. They're obviously wrong too but at least you have something in common with them.

SM2 is the best, but Homecoming is still great.

I much prefer Holland's Peter to all others. He feels like early Peter, from before all the horrible shit that comes with being Spidey really crashed down on him, who was aware of his responsibility but also pretty excited to be a superhero.

>Peter is a preppy geek instead of a social outcast
>gets everything handed to him, a new suit and all kinds of high tech gadgets that he doesnt need
>the high tech gear ditracts from Peters ingenuity and ability to improvise in tense situations
>Peters worship for Tony Stark is something Peter Parker would never do, especially as a Science student, in 616 he looked up to like Captain America, where many good moments where shared
>basicly has Miles Morales's supporting cast
>Michelle being a completely useless character that doesnt belong in a Spider-man movie, comic or anything, she feels like some generic token kid from a straight to tv disney movie walked on set
the only thing Homecoming got right was the villians

It's like seeing my very thoughts without even writing myself. Thanks user

Raimi Spider-Man is the closest I'm ever going to get to a big budget Hollywood Tokusatsu movie.

Nothing else is ever going to beat it in my heart.

>They choice the shallow, casual, normie route with Tom Selfie Holland and made a mockery of what Peter is as a character.
True
>Marvel put the nail in their coffin and will burn for this.
You are a fool

The problem is that nobody reads comics, which means nobody has actually read Ditko Spider-Man, so everyone thinks the adaptations of Bendis' USM is what Peter is, even people at the top of Marvel.

It sucks, but until you teach Americans to actually fucking read it isn't going to change.

Spider-Man 2 ≥ Spider-Man >>> Spider-Man 3 >>> TASM1 ≥ Homecoming >>> TASM2

Homecoming felt like a giant superbowl ad to me. Until the twist reveal, everything felt so...fluffy and non-consequential. I enjoyed it, but it was pretty forgettable. But some people Double Toasted really overblow it.

I really don't get why everyone loves Michelle.

>Penis Parker doesn't exactly scream "preppy"
>Everything getting handed to him sets up having everything taken away after the boat scene
>He worships Tony until Tony takes his toys away, he then has to figure out how to deal with everything himself
>The supporting cast was the worst part of the movie, I'll agree with that
Pepplw scream "not muh" but I swear they missed half the movie. The entire point was to set Peter up in a way that he has to learn how to be Spider-Man, which is exactly what happens by the end of the movie.
I'm not saying its not without flaws but Peter's character was the least of this movie's problems.

Uncle Ben might as well not have died because of Peter, what with the glaring lack of guilt/eagerness to please Stark-senpai

Uncle Ben might as well have had a heart attack before Peter got bitten

The kicker is, Civil War implied that guilt just fine without mentioning him as well, so they should have had the Russos do Homecoming or shit

He was already Spider-Man in Civil War so the whole movie is just derailing him for the sake of doing it differently, like the blond killer subplot in TASM magnified

You're saying "but his life isn't perfect" as if that's a counterpoint to what was said in the first place.

Peter's entire disposition makes no sense, because High School Peter was a goddamn antisocial nut who would have become a supervillain if not for his guilt complex. Getting his shit taken away does not change that he had most of his stuff gifted to him early in his career, changing the character and how he grows. Becoming disillusioned with Tony doesn't change that he started out worshiping Tony, which is extremely out of character.

He does not read as Peter Parker at all. Try actually reading some comics where Peter's still young.

>Peter is a preppy geek instead of a social outcast
He has one friend total, never goes to parties, and the first one he shows up to inspires a chant about how much he sucks.

>gets everything handed to him, a new suit and all kinds of high tech gadgets that he doesnt need
Which is a plot point. Or did you miss the section of the movie where he was messed up BY those extra gadgets, and spent the entire climax using his street level stuff and old homemade gear?

Jesus, I thought the whole IF YOU'RE NOTHING WITHOUT THE SUIT THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE IT bit was laying it on too thick, but apparently it was still too subtle for you.

>the high tech gear ditracts from Peters ingenuity and ability to improvise in tense situations
In this movie, Peter Parker makes web fluid in chem class, uses his high school lab to analyze alien tech, hacks his way out of a locked government facility, and sets a tracking device on two guys in the spur of the moment.

What does he do in other movies that compares?

>Peters worship for Tony Stark is something Peter Parker would never do, especially as a Science student
lol what

You've read Ultimate Spider-Man, right?

Peter's a young tech nerd and Iron Man is like... if Bill Gates had a mecha suit and fought off an alien invasion. Of course he's star-struck.

616 Peter doesn't, but he's barely any younger than Tony to begin with, so it's a totally different dynamic.

>basicly has Miles Morales's supporting cast
By which you mean "has Ganke", right?

>Michelle being a completely useless character that doesnt belong in a Spider-man movie, comic or anything, she feels like some generic token kid from a straight to tv disney movie walked on set
She has like four lines, all of which are comic relief or purely serve to push the plot forward. Why are you so butthurt over this?

>You've read Ultimate Spider-Man, right?
This movie isn't Ultimate Spider-Man.

...

>Changing his character and how he grows
That's the entire point? He grew as a character, he was a piece of shit pretending to be Spider-Man with all these toys, then he learned how to actually be Spider-Man without Tony's help. It was the entire point of the movie, Peter's character arc.
Now, if you want to talk about what the movie actually got wrong we can discuss the terrible pacing, mess of a supporting cast, and the lack of Peter's friends and family. I'm just so sick and tired of hearing about "not muh" when he was supposed to be "not Spider-Man" until the building scene.

>anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot

Are you really so illiterate that you read thought and thought I meant "character arcs are bad" and not "this is a change to what the character is and how his arc progresses compared to the original media"?

Because what you're describing is a fucking Kamen Rider arc, not Peter Parker's already existing character arcs where his arrogance and childishness highlights how he isn't actually cut out to be a true hero yet and he eventually grows as a person and into his role.

It's not even an alternate take so much as a complete disregard to the fundamental aspects of the character. He in no way resembles Peter Parker as a character. It may as well have been a Blue Beetle movie.

SM2 > ASM 1 > SM = Homecoming >> ASM 2 >>>>>> SM3

>the building scene.

In the original comic scene he was motivated to lift the rubble in order to get Aunt May's lifesaving medicine. He couldn't bear to lose her because of his own failings like he did Uncle Ben.

He wasn't motivated by fucking Stark. The movie scene is textbook surface level copying with no substance.

you must be gay here.

>Not muh

>Raimi Spidey
Good but the characterization is literally just a distillation of what normies think about Spidey. Lol Peter such a NERD and Mary Jane was the FIRST girl his life, amirite?

Why does Spider-Man need an arc about how to be a hero without another hero's help?

Peter was an opportunist early on. He was absolutely eager to join the Fantastic Four and it actually would have done him good if he did. He starred in a movie for a fat paycheck. He helped the X-Men and Avengers quite a few times.

What does "NO I MUST BE MY OWN MAN" have to do with Spider-Man outside of Peter's obsession with punishing himself, which isn't why he pushes himself away from Tony in this movie?

Raimi Spider-Man is Ditko Spider-Man made lighter and fluffier so audiences don't get alienated. Same applies to Aunt May and MJ. Mary Jane being his only love interest was a matter of distillation instead of wasting time on Betty and Liz and Gwen in the span of two movies.

>Even on the most fundamental level this doesn't resemble the character.
>NOT MUH
You're acting like a Man of Steel fag here. Nobody minds alternative takes, but you need some grounding in the original work. Otherwise you're just being a fucking hack and slapping a big brand name on your unrelated movie.

>What does "NO I MUST BE MY OWN MAN" have to do with Spider-Man
Watch the movie and find out.

>Lol Peter such a NERD
I mean that's literally what he was in high school, yes. A bookworm who the other kids picked on because he spent his time studying instead of hanging out.

But it does, he worries about May and money, has to balance his normal life and super hero life, and all through the movie he feels that Vulture is his responsibility. You just didn't like it.

I did watch the movie, you stupid fucking shill. You're not even engaging in the discussion. That arc has nothing to do with Peter Parker as a character. One of Peter's biggest faults when he's young is that he doesn't accept help when he needs it or reach out to other people.

If you watched the movie you'd know the whole arc is him learning exactly that.

Nor is it 616 Spider-Man.

Fancy that.

>has to balance his normal life and super hero life, and all through the movie he feels that [The Villain] is his responsibility.
These apply to many, many super heroes.
>worries about May and money
And these are about as surface level as you can get.

It's like saying "Alfred is there and Batman wants justice, and he has to balance being Bruce Wayne and he feels the baddies are his responsibility, this is absolutely faithful!" It says nothing about the core aspects of the character, his personality, or how his actions are framed.

It was good, had some well directed sequences and looked good for the most part, its only glaring flaw is that it was annoying. They made Spider-man annoying in not the way he was supposed to be annoying, but more like forcefully annoying, jizzing at any given moment Iron Man or other superheroes showed up. I'm guessing he's meant to represent kids who grew up with Marvel I guess, but working with kids as a sub myself, they're nothing like that. So much for Holland's method acting, he ended up being completely autistic.

It's like when everyone tries to copy Heath Ledger's joker but misses the point and over act like an edge lord, when Ledger's joker was subtle as fuck and mostly just kept it cool because he was trying to mirror Tom Waits.

I'd put it just below Spider-Man 2. It's far from a perfect Spider-Man adaption but I'd argue it works better as a complete package than Spider-Man 1. Easily better than either TASM.

>not muh
Responsibility, family, and balancing his social life are all core aspects to Peter's character in the comics. This is a movie, and those core aspects are still there. Yes, they're present in other characters but you just revealed the biggest Sup Forums secret of all most superheros boil down to the same character
It just sounds like you're bitching for no reason at this point.

May doesn't even seem to be struggling, she can get free food because she's young and hot

And Peter doesn't learn that. Ever. Like he STILL doesn't understand this in the comic books. He gets a bit better about cooperating but he never really learns that lesson.

The arc isn't an existing Spider-Man arc. It's an original idea placed into this story, which would be fine in and of itself if it didn't involve completely changing how Peter functions in the first place for this roundabout nonsense. Making him a huge fucking dicksucker for Tony is out of character, which facilitates the whole suit thing, which facilitates him learning his own weakness after deciding "Fuck Tony," which really just makes this a completely unnecessary series of events meant to shill Iron Man more.

They could have just...not fucked with his character and done an arc about reliance and responsibility. But they already wrote in that Peter got his suit from Tony during Civil War so they were fucked from the get-go.

Holy shit, Disney BTFO

It seems you grasp the basic premise of the movie but for some reason get fixated on Tony's dick.
All I'm hearing is
>It's not like my comicbooks so it's bad!
when the movie did a good job setting Peter up to learn a lesson which he does, in fact, learn by the end of it. Just because it's a "pointless" lesson in context to another medium entirely doesn't make it disappear.

In fact, they did write an arc about responsibility. Peter had to learn to deal with his problems himself, take responsibility for his choices, and not rely on others for everything. Again, just because it's not an arc that comics-Peter needs doesn't mean that a movie couldn't explore it.

>Having to balance an identity and feeling responsible for your adversaries means ALL SUPERHEROES ARE THE SAME WOOOAAAAH
Are you seriously this fucking retarded? Is that really your cop out? These elements are so goddamn basic they apply to plenty of action stories, superhero based or not.

>Guys he said something about responsibility and has a family member, it means the character isn't completely different.
Again, this is a Man of Steel tier defense. Clark feels responsible and cares very much about Pa and there are biblical elements to his character, it isn't a complete farce at all!

This movie's "Peter" isn't as big of a departure as MoS's Clark, but he's extremely different as a character. Not even "well it's an adaptation" different, just straight up astroturf nonsense. They aren't taking liberties, they made a completely new character and slapped some surface level elements on him. They have nothing to say about Peter and they haven't changed him to make a point about him, they changed him to more easily accommodate shoving Tony into the movie.

>you're bitching for nothing
Clearly I am, because you're going to just keep refusing to accept that people who actually read books can look at a character and say "Hey, I don't think this resembles this character at all." You're just going to parrot the "not muhs" and continue to try to discredit the observation because you don't like that someone disagrees with this being in any way accurate to Spider-Man.

>ALL SUPERHEROES ARE THE SAME WOOOAAAAH
Oh man, I was NOT the one to come to that conclusion first. I was just pointing out how fucking retarded you were for thinking otherwise.

>His entire argument is in comparison to other pieces of work
Can you form one single argument without referencing to the comics or another movie? They didn't make a new character, you just don't like the direction the movie went.

I have been willing to talk about what exactly they don't do but you just keep bringing up about how it's like Man of Steel and not like the comics without actually saying how or why. You wrote all that and there isn't a single actual criticism written.

>It's not like my comicbooks so it's bad!
Point to a single time I said the movie was bad.
Go ahead. I'll wait.

All I said was that this isn't Peter Parker, or at least it's as much Peter Parker as MoS's Clark Kent is Clark Kent (it's a bit closer, but not much). The entire way the movie is constructed is in service to an adaptation of Peter Parker that doesn't resemble the actual character beyond simple fluff.

>they did write an arc about responsibility
I think you misread my sentence.
>They could have just...not fucked with his character and done an arc about reliance and responsibility.
Key words: not fucked with his character AND

I understand what they did. I'm saying the way they did it was unnecessary and just alienates people who actually like what the character originally was. It's not like they lightened or gritted up the tone to work with the movie, which is common in adaptations. They changed his fundamental personality.

What was the point of Not-Flash Thompson?

>you just keep bringing up about how it's like Man of Steel and not like the comics without actually saying how or why
Because it was already discussed multiple times in this very reply chain, holy fucking shit.

>Peter's entire disposition makes no sense, because High School Peter was a goddamn antisocial nut who would have become a supervillain if not for his guilt complex. Getting his shit taken away does not change that he had most of his stuff gifted to him early in his career, changing the character and how he grows. Becoming disillusioned with Tony doesn't change that he started out worshiping Tony, which is extremely out of character.

If you want me to write a fucking essay about how Spider-Man works I'll be happy to do it for you, but I get the feeling you'll just say "LOL TL;DR"

Also

>Can you form one single argument without referencing to the comics or another movie? They didn't make a new character
How the FUCK am I supposed to tell you whether the character is accurate to the existing character without referring to previous works? Are you retarded?

so Sony couldnt do an Agent Venom movie

Fuck off tomblie.