Spiderman: Homecoming

[Bartmanhomer]

Just saw it, and I think I liked it even more than Dr. Strange. Michael Keaton was definitely a highlight...I think he played the best villain I've seen in the MCU, with the possible exception of Loki. Even then, Loki has never had the sheer presence Keaton brought. Brrrr.

Spoiler: General thoughts

Show

I was reading the other thread about superhero origins and wondering how you appease both those who don't know much (if anything) about the character and those who don't want the origin story recounted a billionth time.

This movie showed the compromise. We start off with Peter Parker playing at being a Spiderman. He's mostly in it to impress Stark and because he thinks fighting crime is cool. He isn't taking it terribly seriously.

Everybody already knows that he was bitten by a radioactive spider...but, just in case, we get a line about that. It's mentioned, they move on. Uncle Ben doesn't get brought up because he isn't important - yet. I suspect we'll see some flashbacks or discussion about his death in the next one.

Instead, the origin story is of how Peter learning how to superhero, and learning not to be reckless with his powers. By the end of the film, he's finally become THE Spiderman.

Spoiler

Show

Peter was explicitly in the wrong here. Knowing that a stash full of dangerously explosive weapons are on board, he should NEVER have attempted to stop them on his own. He could have planted more trackers in the weapons to allow them to be confiscated later, planted a tracker on Toomes to follow him back to his lair, or even just brought the video of everything back to Stark so the guys could be properly ID'd. He could have simply followed Toomes.

Instead, he gets overconfident and tries to take them down on his own, and the resulting superhero fight on a ferry boat full of explosives and civilians has the predictable result. Stark then correctly takes the suit away from him, because Peter hasn't demonstrated the maturity to use his powers responsibly.

All of that said, I'm in full agreement with you everywhere else. Peter could have done a lot of stuff earlier in the movie differently, but that's kinda the point - he's fourteen years old and kinda sucks at this. Him learning from his mistakes drives the plot. In the final battle he had precisely no choice about trying to stop Vulture then and there, and he DID attempt to call in backup and was ignored. And blaming Peter for nearly being punted into a jet engine when he was desperately trying to hang onto the outside of a freaking JET is just plain silly.

Don't forget he was a young Peter Parker back then. He didn't know any better back then.

[theNater]

Saw it yesterday, enjoyed it a lot. Wanted to get in on some of the conversations going on here.

Spoiler: Spider-Sense

Show

I always got the impression that Peter was the kind of guy who, upon hearing a shout of "Duck!", looks up to see why he should be ducking. This view has made the variable usefulness of his spider-sense seem (mostly) reasonable; it's giving him the information, and he sometimes reacts right and sometimes reacts wrong.

Spoiler: Peter's Arc

Show

Is it arguable that Peter's growth in this film is to a greater understanding of what responsibility means? At the start, he thinks it just means running towards criminals, and hoping everything works out okay. And things generally do, more or less, but only because Tony is there to bail him out. His big dramatic realization under the rubble is that sometimes there is no one else who can help, so he can't just do something, but he has to do the right thing. That would explain why his redirecting of the plane works out where his attempt to follow Karen's instructions to save the ferry don't, I think.

[Douglas]

Spoiler: Peter's Arc

Show

Is it arguable that Peter's growth in this film is to a greater understanding of what responsibility means? At the start, he thinks it just means running towards criminals, and hoping everything works out okay. And things generally do, more or less, but only because Tony is there to bail him out. His big dramatic realization under the rubble is that sometimes there is no one else who can help, so he can't just do something, but he has to do the right thing. That would explain why his redirecting of the plane works out where his attempt to follow Karen's instructions to save the ferry don't, I think.

Spoiler

Show

Really, this version of Peter Parker got a ridiculously easy start. Before Tony brought him in for the Civil War airport fight, Peter had stopped the occasional accident and ordinary crook. In the Civil War airport fight, he was fighting supers who were pulling their punches because they didn't want to kill anyone.

In Homecoming, he faces supervillain-level opponents that don't care about collateral damage, and it's the first time he's ever done that. His entire superhero career prior to this movie consisted of either outclassing his opponents so much that tactics didn't matter or fighting opponents benign enough that making a mistake has minimally serious consequences.

So yes, I'd say a major arc of the movie is Peter learning that he needs to be smart about picking when, where, and how to fight so as to avoid tragic accidents.

Toomes doesn't give him much of a choice about when and where to fight in the finale - if Spiderman doesn't stop him either in the warehouse or on the plane then Toomes gets away with a huge amount of stuff that will make him much more dangerous - but I think Peter pays a lot more attention and effort to dealing with the collateral damage problem first and the villain second than in any of his earlier fights.

[eggynack]

Spoiler: Arc stuff

Show

I think the idea with the development is less related to action and more related to motive and priorities. Peter never doesn't care about doing the right thing, at any point in the film, but he also cares about a whole lot of other things. He cares about becoming a full fledged hero, and he cares about using his awesome new suit, and above all else he cares that he be a guy that saves stuff, all over and above things getting saved. Peter's arc is the classic transition into adulthood arc. He goes from someone that has help but doesn't want it, to someone who wishes he had help but doesn't have it. And in the end, he returns to school because, while he doesn't necessarily need to be a kid anymore,
he recognizes how valuable all that stuff he was so willing to give up is. Sure, some of the stuff he does earlier in the movie is similar to stuff he does near the end, but the stuff he was doing earlier wasn't wholly bad. If he were the only hero in the world, it might've actually just been the right thing to do. But he's not, so he had other options and resources he was ignoring because of his ego. Which was, in fact, the main external thing that changed.

Spoiler: General thoughts

Show

This might just be one of my favorite superhero movies. It's so low key and small scale, with a protagonist who manages to screw up just about everything by dint of sheer stupidity, and yet remained super sympathetic and likable throughout. It's a movie whose main battleground wasn't these crazy alien weapons, because it was established pretty early in that Iron Man would swoop in and save his ass if something went too far off course, but was instead Peter's ego, a thing I genuinely cared about the maintenance of. That moment where Iron Man saves the boat is so perfect, because it manages to blend victory and defeat so well.

Then you have The Vulture, who was just an amazing villain. He took all these classic villain tropes and turned them on their head just by being kinda chill about them. He's all about class warfare, but more of the form, "Rich people are sorta *****, and I feel somewhat justified in getting mine as a result." He wants to support his daughter, but more as a normal guy trying to make ends meet than as someone who's driven by literally nothing else. He declares that he wants to kill Spider-Man, which is usually the point where the villain plot seems to feel a bit derailed by being pulled into the protagonist's orbit, but just for like a minute, and I don't know if it even comes to anything before he's like, "Eh, we're cool, guy." He kills a frigging henchman without making me think he'd be a perfectly fine person to work with (what else was he realistically supposed to do there?). And his little monologue about how Iron Man has basically done exactly what he's doing is crazy true.

I loved pretty much everything else too. Basically all the characters were great, with their massive changes from the norm justified by great acting and general characterness, the jokes and one liners landed consistently and some of the action scenes, especially his break into the Washington Monument, as well as the boat scene, were quite good. Only bad thing in the movie as far as I can tell, as others have stated, was that big chaotic action scene in the middle of the night. I thought that it'd get better when they landed, but then The Vulture started swooping about and it became unreadable again. The other night action scene had similar problems to a lesser extent. I'm not sure when folks in charge started deciding either that this is a good way for action scenes to be, or that it's not worth putting in the effort to have it be otherwise, but it's just been a bad situation.

[Lacuna Caster]

Spoiler

Show

Clearly Spidey was unable to stop Vulture before he got to the plane. Otherwise the fight on the plane would never have happened. As for hacking the plane or shooting off flares? How, exactly? Remember, Spidey never makes it inside the plane, we don't even know if the plane has flares, I'm willing to bet Spidey wouldn't know how to shoot them off anyways, and as already mentioned he was NEVER INSIDE THE PLANE...

Spoiler: @Lacuna Caster

Show

Not shifting the blame so much as pointing out what the movie is portraying. I mean... the movie is showing us that the guys are not that responsive to Peter...

Spoiler

Show

All of that said, I'm in full agreement with you everywhere else. Peter could have done a lot of stuff earlier in the movie differently, but that's kinda the point - he's fourteen years old and kinda sucks at this. Him learning from his mistakes drives the plot. In the final battle he had precisely no choice about trying to stop Vulture then and there, and he DID attempt to call in backup and was ignored. And blaming Peter for nearly being punted into a jet engine when he was desperately trying to hang onto the outside of a freaking JET is just plain silly.

Spoiler

Show

Guys, I think you're all falling into the Thermian Argument. There is absolutely nothing to stop the writers from altering these parameters. You're treating this as if it were a series of real and immutable events when it wasn't.

It takes zero effort for a script-writer to say, "Peter grabs a backup phone from <person X> and uses it to snap pictures of Vulture attacking the plane, thus convincing Tony to help." Or to write "Peter needs to hack the guidance systems to send an SOS, so let's imagine he has great hacking skills." Or to write, "Peter swings underneath the plane to dodge Vulture's attack and gets inside the cargo hold, where he finds some flares and deprives Vulture of his main combat advantage in close quarters." Or to write "Peter, spotting the cameras, stays in the plane's blind spots until it lands, then demolishes the Vulture's crew on the ground." There are dozens of ways to write these scenes that don't render the intended message nonsensical.

I don't think the situation-as-presented really does eliminate alternative courses of action for Peter, but if it did, then it's a stupid decision to write it that way.

[Rodin]

Spoiler

Show

Guys, I think you're all falling into the Thermian Argument. There is absolutely nothing to stop the writers from altering these parameters. You're treating this as if it were a series of real and immutable events when it wasn't.

It takes zero effort for a script-writer to say, "Peter grabs a backup phone from <person X> and uses it to snap pictures of Vulture attacking the plane, thus convincing Tony to help." Or to write "Peter needs to hack the guidance systems to send an SOS, so let's imagine he has great hacking skills." Or to write, "Peter swings underneath the plane to dodge Vulture's attack and gets inside the cargo hold, where he finds some flares and deprives Vulture of his main combat advantage in close quarters." Or to write "Peter, spotting the cameras, stays in the plane's blind spots until it lands, then demolishes the Vulture's crew on the ground." There are dozens of ways to write these scenes that don't render the intended message nonsensical.

I don't think the situation-as-presented really does eliminate alternative courses of action for Peter, but if it did, then it's a stupid decision to write it that way.

We get it, you want a movie that was written entirely differently and doesn't star Spiderman, but instead has sidekick Peter Parker calling in Iron Man to resolve everything.

Yes, they could a re-written the entire movie and called it Iron Man 4. They didn't do so for reasons that should be abundantly clear.

[Bartmanhomer]

It looks like Iron Man mostly clean up Peter messes and mostly did all the work in the movie.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yes, they could a re-written the entire movie and called it Iron Man 4. They didn't do so for reasons that should be abundantly clear.

I think that's a distortion. I outlined several scenarios where Peter still saves the day and beats Vulture alone- I just want him to do it without endangering scores of civilians. (One can also outline scenarios where Iron Man helps in the final conflict, but Spidey still plays a major role and demonstrates genuine competence. I'd be fine with either of those.)

EDIT: Besides, Spidey is kind of a sidekick here. That's the point. That's what he's supposed to be learning to accept and deal with. There's nothing wrong with having some other moral to your story, but that's not what most of the movie spent time building up to.

[eggynack]

I think that's a distortion. I outlined several scenarios where Peter still saves the day and beats Vulture alone- I just want him to do it without endangering scores of civilians. (One can also outline scenarios where Iron Man helps in the final conflict, but Spidey still plays a major role and demonstrates genuine competence. I'd be fine with either of those.)

EDIT: Besides, Spidey is kind of a sidekick here. That's the point. That's what he's supposed to be learning to accept and deal with. There's nothing wrong with having some other moral to your story, but that's not what most of the movie spent time building up to.

Spoiler: Counterpoint

Show

As I implied in my post, I'm not sure that's the moral or thematic core. I think the story has a lot more to do with what I said in my post (or I wouldn't have said it). In earlier parts of the movie, Peter desperately wants to go out there and do these things he thinks he's capable of, and ditch any help or supervision presented to him. In the final conflict, Peter doesn't precisely want to go out there adventure style, and he doesn't think he's capable of it, and no help is being presented to him, and he does it anyway. The moral isn't that you shouldn't go out there solo and try to save things, or that collateral damage is never worth it. The moral is that having to go out there solo sucks, that sometimes you have to do it anyway, and that, hey, maybe it ain't so bad being a lower level high school superhero.

There's also something in there about internal strength and such. Peter, for all of his desire to go it alone, thinks his power is external to him, in a sense. He doesn't want help, but that's largely to prove to himself that he doesn't need it, something he maybe doesn't quite believe. He positions himself always relative to these external powerful things, like The Avengers, Iron Man specifically, or the fancy suit. The suit is an especially obvious symbol of that, because it has a strong tendency towards making things worse rather than better. It's only when relying on himself that he's able to find success.

In light of all of that, having him just run over to Iron Man seems like it would've been actively counterproductive with regards to the film's narrative structure and theming. That would have presented an important lesson as well, that getting help isn't a bad thing, but that's not exactly the lesson of the movie in its entirety. That lesson is there too, but the transition to adulthood isn't just learning that those training wheels were pretty great. It's also sometimes not having them.

[theNater]

EDIT: Besides, Spidey is kind of a sidekick here. That's the point. That's what he's supposed to be learning to accept and deal with.

I'm growing increasingly confident this is a misread of the film.

Spoiler: Details

Show

Spidey's problem at the start of the film is that, for all he chafes under Tony's restrictions, he's operating with an assumption in the back of his mind that he is being watched, and Tony will swoop in to save the day if he screws up. This is most obvious at the ATM robbery, where he takes a minute to pose before engaging, instead of just webbing the guys up from behind. Who's he posing for?

He struggles with this conflict of relying on Tony's support vs. rebelling against Tony's restrictions, and in the end decides to forgo them both by turning down the Avengers position and the fancy new suit it comes with. While that choice may not be unambiguously correct, I think it's the only choice Spider-Man can make, because "with great power comes great responsibility".

[Dr.Samurai]

Guys, I think you're all falling into the Thermian Argument.

Ok, I just looked up the Thermian Argument, and uh, it's ****. I don't know why you're invoking it here, but it really doesn't seem to mean anything.

There is absolutely nothing to stop the writers from altering these parameters.

You have simply failed to convince anyone that these parameters *need* to be altered.

You're treating this as if it were a series of real and immutable events when it wasn't.

No, we're taking it for what it is and discussing whether or not it works. For most of us, it works. Maybe not perfectly, but it still works.

For *you*, on the other hand, the collateral damage takes away from the story. That's a criticism, for sure. But that doesn't mean what was written and filmed must be changed.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ok, I just looked up the Thermian Argument, and uh, it's ****. I don't know why you're invoking it here, but it really doesn't seem to mean anything.

It just means "invoking fictional circumstances to justify a problematic message". (Or rather, in this case, a deeply confused one that leaves me wondering what the hell is going through Tony's head.)

Sure, nothing 'needs' to be altered. It's not like the sun will go out or something if we don't ensure our movies have perfect thematic integrity. Believe me, I am very aware that I am in a pretty small minority on this point.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure, nothing 'needs' to be altered. It's not like the sun will go out or something if we don't ensure our movies have perfect thematic integrity. Believe me, I am very aware that I am in a pretty small minority on this point.

Yeah, but I don't mean "needs to be altered or the sun will go out". I mean "needs to be altered to make sense".

I think the characters were reasonable. There's a margin in which they can act, and I think they all acted within that margin. I agree with you that the ending is a little wonky to the rest of the movie, but I don't think it's as bad as it seems to be for you, to the point that rewrites are needed or we're all employing a fallacy.

[Frozen_Feet]

Having seen the movie three times now:

Spoiler

Show

In the final act, Petey stumbles up Toomes's plan by accident. He is first scared shitless, then acting in a desperate rush to stop him, without most of the resources he had earlier in the movie.

And what's his first idea? To get in contact with Stark. And it almost succeeds. Ned has Peter's back. They get in contact with Happy once. Sure, he hangs up, but get this: Ned could've tried again...

... if not for the teacher catching him.

Not soon after, Toomes collapses a building on Peter.

At that point, Peter is shit out of luck: he's pinned, his backup's gone, his phone is out of reach. He acted about as reasonably as he could in the heat of the moment, but his plan didn't survive enemy action.

So I'd say Peter did learn his lesson from the ferry incident. I see no thematic conflict with the last act and the rest of the movie.

[Arlion]

Hey, maybe this was explained somewhere, but if Toomes decided to start selling alien tech in the prologue (eight years before the actual movie), then why everyone acts as if criminals using alien weapons was surprising? Shouldn't it be old news alredy?

[Keltest]

Hey, maybe this was explained somewhere, but if Toomes decided to start selling alien tech in the prologue (eight years before the actual movie), then why everyone acts as if criminals using alien weapons was surprising? Shouldn't it be old news alredy?

Presumably it took that long for him to build enough of a power base that he could start selling them without just immediately getting jumped on by SHIELD or the equivalent. As soon as someone holds up a tech store with an alien rifle, every government agency in the world is going to be all over that, so he wants to be low profile until he can put up a fight against them when they start investigating.

[LaZodiac]

Presumably it took that long for him to build enough of a power base that he could start selling them without just immediately getting jumped on by SHIELD or the equivalent. As soon as someone holds up a tech store with an alien rifle, every government agency in the world is going to be all over that, so he wants to be low profile until he can put up a fight against them when they start investigating.

This, and also the dissolution of Shield in Winter Soldier likely made it easier to work. And it's not like he didn't sell weapons while Shield was a thing either, where do you think, say, Crossbones got all his fancy toys?

[Pex]

Hey, maybe this was explained somewhere, but if Toomes decided to start selling alien tech in the prologue (eight years before the actual movie), then why everyone acts as if criminals using alien weapons was surprising? Shouldn't it be old news alredy?

Vulture said he purposely kept a low profile because he knew if he got the attention of the Avengers he'd be toast. Everything was working out fine until Spiderman.

[Rogar Demonblud]

(Or rather, in this case, a deeply confused one that leaves me wondering what the hell is going through Tony's head.)

Some of us have been wondering that since Iron Man 1.

[Frozen_Feet]

Hey, maybe this was explained somewhere, but if Toomes decided to start selling alien tech in the prologue (eight years before the actual movie), then why everyone acts as if criminals using alien weapons was surprising? Shouldn't it be old news alredy?

Based on all the other Marvel movies, criminals using alien tech is indeed old news. This was just the first time that Spiderman, in particular, ran afoul of them.

The new news was that there was an organized group of weapons dealers stealing from Damage Control. Toomes & Co had succesfully flown under the radar themselves untill events of the movie. Who knows how many criminals they supplied in the interim?

[Dilvish]

(Or rather, in this case, a deeply confused one that leaves me wondering what the hell is going through Tony's head.)

Possibly an image of Aunt May in something skimpy.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, but I don't mean "needs to be altered or the sun will go out". I mean "needs to be altered to make sense".

I think the characters were reasonable. There's a margin in which they can act, and I think they all acted within that margin. I agree with you that the ending is a little wonky to the rest of the movie, but I don't think it's as bad as it seems to be for you, to the point that rewrites are needed or we're all employing a fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy to enjoy the movie despite thematic wonkiness (I'd probably still give it a 6/10, or thereabouts), and I'm sure your weighting on this point can vary. It's also reasonable to say 'Peter was trapped under rubble, therefore Peter couldn't beat the Vulture before takeoff.'

However... it is fallacious to say 'Peter was trapped under rubble, therefore the writers can't show him beating Vulture before takeoff'. It's the writers that decide whether he's under rubble in the first place.

[Lord Joeltion]

Saw it this wednesday, gotta say, I'm really glad I have seen it. I confess I was expecting some kind of flop, but the movie was so perfectly executed, I didn't mind most of the things that make it Not The Best Marvel Movie Evah for me. It's probably the best Spidey movie so far (I really liked amazing, but haven't seen it in a while) and it's one of the top for MCU.

I don't know if the "no origin" is a total success for me... I share the opinion of Nostalgia Critic that, while it certainly is perfect not to show an origin in THIS movie, it leaves you wondering too much about the origins of THIS Peter Parker. At least I was experiencing some "wait what/where/why/how?" moments while watching it.

It isn't like the typical "first movie" for a series, which is certainly refreshing, yet a little unsatisfactory from a fan perspective.

Spoiler: And my biggest complaint about this is

Show

Uncle Ben. After watching it, I feel like Uncle Ben isn't needed any more. Sure, you can fit him somehow in the sequel; but FWIW, Marvel may completely remove him from the mythos and this Peter wouldn't suffer from it.

I mean, neither May or Peter showed feeling his death; nor looked like the kind of people who are still recovering from a big loss. Heck, Aunt May might be that wacky Forever Single aunt, and I wouldn't mind. It fits the characters they presented in Homecoming. But no Uncle Ben (or his relevance in Peter and May's lives) doesn't fit Spiderman at all, IMHO

Michael Keaton is the best part of the movie. EVERY part with him. The man really knows how to merge Charming with Unnerving. He created the best Vulture ever. Not to mention, the writers showed some real genius by revamping/refluffing the character the way they did. It's probably the single character that was favored the most with the translation from pages to screen.

There's still one minor detail "plothole" I can't quite get off my head yet.

Spoiler

Show

The plane.

Visual Camouflage. Okeeeyyy. I'm sure nobody uses heatseeker missles since the Gulf War

Unmanned pilot. Sure, why pay a human when a drone can do it for free?

No crew at all. Wait... did everyone at the cargo bay went to pee during the fly sequence? You could afford a Drone Pilot but not a Drone Security Guard?

No surveillance team at all. Yeah, I'm sure Happy has this one too. It's not as if we were transporting the most precious equipment in the Nine Worlds

Outside cameras. Connected to the surveillance screens inside the plane. A plane with no crew.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!??

Tony should fire himself. He doesn't deserve his own company. And I know Happy was the one in charge of the plane, but came on. One man can only do one man's job. Tony is a cheap bastard.

[eggynack]

Spoiler: And my biggest complaint about this is

Show

Uncle Ben. After watching it, I feel like Uncle Ben isn't needed any more. Sure, you can fit him somehow in the sequel; but FWIW, Marvel may completely remove him from the mythos and this Peter wouldn't suffer from it.

I mean, neither May or Peter showed feeling his death; nor looked like the kind of people who are still recovering from a big loss. Heck, Aunt May might be that wacky Forever Single aunt, and I wouldn't mind. It fits the characters they presented in Homecoming. But no Uncle Ben (or his relevance in Peter and May's lives) doesn't fit Spiderman at all, IMHO

I really appreciated this aspect of the movie. His main role is generally to present the whole Spider-Man responsibility lesson, and then Peter spends the rest of the movie trying to be responsible to live up to that. Homecoming was cool because it got to the exact same place wholly organically, without necessarily having a single pivotal moment where Peter gets shot in the face with moral truth. Every scene prods at him, again and again, to be more responsible, and he's constantly learning, without it ever being stated, what exactly that means. It's the perfect expression of show don't tell, letting the movie become the lesson rather than having the movie present the lesson. And, even after Peter arrives at this truth, he's still not exactly perfect about it. He's still doing a lot of the same broad things, but he's doing those things with a deeper understanding of their weight.

[LaZodiac]

There's still one minor detail "plothole" I can't quite get off my head yet.

Spoiler

Show

The plane.

Visual Camouflage. Okeeeyyy. I'm sure nobody uses heatseeker missles since the Gulf War

Unmanned pilot. Sure, why pay a human when a drone can do it for free?

No crew at all. Wait... did everyone at the cargo bay went to pee during the fly sequence? You could afford a Drone Pilot but not a Drone Security Guard?

No surveillance team at all. Yeah, I'm sure Happy has this one too. It's not as if we were transporting the most precious equipment in the Nine Worlds

Outside cameras. Connected to the surveillance screens inside the plane. A plane with no crew.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!??

Tony should fire himself. He doesn't deserve his own company. And I know Happy was the one in charge of the plane, but came on. One man can only do one man's job. Tony is a cheap bastard.

Spoiler

Show

They're basically under the impression no one would attack the plane. The camo should be enough to completely conceal it. They don't NEED guards on the plane because if anything goes wrong they'll just send Iron Sentinels, or Iron Man will go himself, or send his suit. But since Vulture faked the signal no one at then Avengers base who's available is aware the plane is having any problems. As for how the security systems and stuff work IN the plane, with the security cameras footage on the inside...that's just stuff that's part of the plane that they didn't remove.

What they were thinking is "this is a good ass plane".

I really appreciated this aspect of the movie. His main role is generally to present the whole Spider-Man responsibility lesson, and then Peter spends the rest of the movie trying to be responsible to live up to that. Homecoming was cool because it got to the exact same place wholly organically, without necessarily having a single pivotal moment where Peter gets shot in the face with moral truth. Every scene prods at him, again and again, to be more responsible, and he's constantly learning, without it ever being stated, what exactly that means. It's the perfect expression of show don't tell, letting the movie become the lesson rather than having the movie present the lesson. And, even after Peter arrives at this truth, he's still not exactly perfect about it. He's still doing a lot of the same broad things, but he's doing those things with a deeper understanding of their weight.

I cannot overstate how good it is that they glossed over Uncle Ben's death. It's a tragic and very clear part of Spiderman's character.

It's also been put to screen five years ago with The Amazing Spiderman, and earlier with the Sam Raimi movies. We do not need to go over Spiderman's origin again. We know his origin. He definitely did get shot, and died, probably because of Peter, we know this because of Peter's words and how he says them here and in Civil War. But there is no reason whatever to retread the Uncle Ben story.

[Seerow]

I don't believe they'll actually remove Uncle Ben entirely from this version of the character. While they did gloss over it for this movie (thankfully), I am fairly sure that the moment actually played out exactly the way we all know and remember. The most telling moment for me was when Ned asked Peter why he doesn't tell Aunt May. Peter's response was something along the lines of "She's been through enough already... I can't put this on her.". That line to me felt like referencing both a recent trauma, and some degree of guilt. While it wasn't an overt reference to Uncle Ben's death, it was almost certainly an allusion to it.

Also while the movie is about Peter learning to be responsible, the idea of wanting to be responsible, wanting to become a hero and use his power to help people? That's cemented into his character from the start, and that's really what Uncle Ben's death gives him.

[Rodin]

I cannot overstate how good it is that they glossed over Uncle Ben's death. It's a tragic and very clear part of Spiderman's character.

It's also been put to screen five years ago with The Amazing Spiderman, and earlier with the Sam Raimi movies. We do not need to go over Spiderman's origin again. We know his origin. He definitely did get shot, and died, probably because of Peter, we know this because of Peter's words and how he says them here and in Civil War. But there is no reason whatever to retread the Uncle Ben story.

I suspect it will get covered in the next movie. Unless I completely spaced out, I don't think we got "with great power comes great responsibility", and Uncle Ben is kinda central to that from what I recall.

It's central enough to his character that they probably do want to go over it at some point. I think it was the right decision to delay it, but it's probably happening sooner or later.

[Vogie]

Spoiler

Show

They're basically under the impression no one would attack the plane. The camo should be enough to completely conceal it. They don't NEED guards on the plane because if anything goes wrong they'll just send Iron Sentinels, or Iron Man will go himself, or send his suit. But since Vulture faked the signal no one at then Avengers base who's available is aware the plane is having any problems. As for how the security systems and stuff work IN the plane, with the security cameras footage on the inside...that's just stuff that's part of the plane that they didn't remove.

What they were thinking is "this is a good ass plane".

And to top it all off, it falls under Tony's character. He imagines technical, gadget-related responses to things, and just does it - and that causes problems throughout the MCU on multiple occasions. Happy isn't going to contradict the boss, and it turns out that the overreliance on tech was exactly the problem.

Spoiler: As seen in the film:

Show

Happy doesn't even actively monitor the plane, but rather glances at the tablet when it's shown to him, then walks away congratulating himself. He later stares curiously at the burning plane when he sees it from the tower... he doesn't even immediately realize that it's HIS PLANE, because the transponder showed him the plane was elsewhere.

I cannot overstate how good it is that they glossed over Uncle Ben's death. It's a tragic and very clear part of Spiderman's character.

It's also been put to screen five years ago with The Amazing Spiderman, and earlier with the Sam Raimi movies. We do not need to go over Spiderman's origin again. We know his origin. He definitely did get shot, and died, probably because of Peter, we know this because of Peter's words and how he says them here and in Civil War. But there is no reason whatever to retread the Uncle Ben story.

And they didn't gloss over it completely...

Spoiler: ...

Show

Peter specifically said to Ned that his Aunt Can't know he's Spiderman and actively running towards danger... Because of what she's "already been through recently". It's a dog-whistle for those who know the Uncle Ben story, without going into a full flashback. Will we get an Instant Rice scene in one of the next 4 Spiderman MCU movies? Maybe, but I certainly hope not.

[LaZodiac]

I suspect it will get covered in the next movie. Unless I completely spaced out, I don't think we got "with great power comes great responsibility", and Uncle Ben is kinda central to that from what I recall.

It's central enough to his character that they probably do want to go over it at some point. I think it was the right decision to delay it, but it's probably happening sooner or later.

If we never see this Spiderman's Uncle Ben get killed it will be an inherently better experience on the whole. We can touch on it, yeah, we can even discuss it, but only if it's relevant. Give us Mysterio and have him mind **** Spiderman and have him maybe see things like that. That'd be workable. But I never want to retread this ground because I cannot express just how refreashing it was to not have to worry about going through all that origin stuff we all already know again and again. It's like with Batman, how they insist on always showing us his origin every single time. After awhile it's just inane and wastes time, and movies would be stronger without it.

Learning the origin of characters like Iron man or Doctor Strange, that's good. They're not well known characters, and even if you do know the origin, we've never seen it before. But we've seen Spiderman's origin elaborated on like three times, we don't need that. So starting off with Spiderman the way they did, having him "already exist", is ingenious.

[Lord Joeltion]

Spoiler

Show

They're basically under the impression no one would attack the plane. The camo should be enough to completely conceal it. They don't NEED guards on the plane because if anything goes wrong they'll just send Iron Sentinels, or Iron Man will go himself, or send his suit. But since Vulture faked the signal no one at then Avengers base who's available is aware the plane is having any problems. As for how the security systems and stuff work IN the plane, with the security cameras footage on the inside...that's just stuff that's part of the plane that they didn't remove.

What they were thinking is "this is a good ass plane".

Spoiler

Show

Tony: You can use my Kick-Ass Plane to move the McGuffins

Happy: Hell yeah! I'll call the pilot, and my ex-Shield Agents friends from...

Tony: No, no, we're good. You see, my KAP can fly itself. Also, no need for security, we have the Avengers

Happy: Uh, sir. Wouldn't be better if at least one Avenger was ON the plane, instead of a hundred miles away?

Tony: Of course not. We are all too busy saving the world.

Happy: ... Sir. We still haven't caught the Vulture, you know.

Tony: The Vulture? He's just a costumed wacko. We are a BUNCH of costumed wackos! Besides, I seen his suit. He can't reach that altitude.

Happy: Sir, we never figured out HOW and WHO gave him the equipment he used. Most of the villains you faced upgraded their capabilities to be on par with the Iron Man!

Tony: And I defeated every one of them with my super awesome army of suits.

Happy: (sigh) Can I borrow at least one of your super awesome suits?

Tony: Nope.


I don't know. Whoever came up with the idea of the Relocation, and the use of the Kickass Useless Plane, was waving around an Idiot Ball harder than the Hulk was smashing Loki

Spoiler: Origins

Show

I cannot overstate how good it is that they glossed over Uncle Ben's death. It's a tragic and very clear part of Spiderman's character.

It's also been put to screen five years ago with The Amazing Spiderman, and earlier with the Sam Raimi movies. We do not need to go over Spiderman's origin again. We know his origin. He definitely did get shot, and died, probably because of Peter, we know this because of Peter's words and how he says them here and in Civil War. But there is no reason whatever to retread the Uncle Ben story.

Spoiler: Actually

Show

I'm ok with the way it was handed in the movie, as an isolated piece of art. Uncle Ben's plot line wasn't needed for Civil War or Homecoming. In fact, it would have been too sidetracked on both if it was simply smashed just cause; because it doesn't affect the Peter's plot line in either movie.

But saying an origin is superfluous for Spiderman in MCU, because we already seen his origin "before" on completely unrelated movies is totally and objectively wrong. This isn't the same Peter Parker we seen before. It's different in many ways, from behaviour, to style and even his own past. It's ludicrous to give Uncle Ben the same status of the mutant spider. The spider we don't need to see both because we already seen it, but most importantly because the spider doesn't define Peter Parker. The spider is simply a plot device, but Uncle Ben is not. He defines Peter, he makes Peter the way he is and fuels his motivation in most of his depiction (specially the comic one).

You can't just skip Ben and pretend you haven't substantially changed an iconic character. It's not that MCU should "show us Ben or die"; but if they decide to portray a radical version of Spiderman (either one without Ben, or one that wasn't so deeply affected by his death) at least they should give us a hint; taking into account this is an introductory movie nonetheless. Sure, this is an issue totally irrelevant for the movie in and of itself, it certainly doesn't make it any less good or entertaining. But it still raises more questions than answers than you hope to find inside the average "first chapter" in a superhero movie.

And what I do hope for the good of the franchise is that the don't retcon this on the next movie and say "OH, but he was truly wounded and scarred on the inside"; because that's not at all what was shown on this movie. So they better solve this matter one way or another.

Oh, I forgot to mention before how pleasant was to watch at least one MCU movie really on-spot on the joke/action dosage.

EDIT:

And they didn't gloss over it completely...

Spoiler: ...

Show

Peter specifically said to Ned that his Aunt Can't know he's Spiderman and actively running towards danger... Because of what she's "already been through recently". It's a dog-whistle for those who know the Uncle Ben story, without going into a full flashback. Will we get an Instant Rice scene in one of the next 4 Spiderman MCU movies? Maybe, but I certainly hope not.

My problem is that they played a card of Anything Goes, even considering that scene. And I'm not complaining about the glossing itself. It's that I didn't feel May or Peter having any kind of mourning. If they were trying to portray that, then they clearly missed the shot. I hope that wasn't the intention tho, and the "happening" was long enough for them to be having already mourned everything there was to mourn about.