Spiderman: Far from home

[Starbuck_II]

If EDITH ready existed prior to Stark's death, why didn't he just deploy them in Endgame?

Looks like Stark was holding out.
Makes you wonder how better they might have fared in End Game if Stark didn't hold back too often (over confidence).

[Psyren]

Point of order: Happy was not blipped. He lived the 5 years. He even grew a beard. It was a blip beard.

Thanks, my bad. I can't remember, did May blip too?

Spoiler

Show

The Ancient One was defending the Sanctum Sanctorum and not a lot else. She certainly didn't turn her prodigious magical powers to the general defence of the city, despite likely being able to turn the entire invasion inside out just by wanting it

Because she knew it was the Avengers' time to shine, and for humanity/SHIELD to begin relying on them. That, and drawing attention to herself and her Infinity Stone would almost certainly have gotten Loki and Thanos' attention long before her successor was ready. It's tough to argue with the decisions of someone who can see the future.

[Reddish Mage]

Under what circumstances could Peter ever possibly

Spoiler

Show

need to call down a lethal dronestrike on someone? Peter doesn't kill and Tony knows it. Even in Homecoming, nobody actually died. (Well, that one henchman did, but Peter wasn't even there for that.) Leaving that functionality in by default served no purpose except making Tony look silly.

The point of that was to be silly.

Spoiler

Show

Of course, having EDITH presume Peter wanted to launch a kill strike on his classmate was absurd.

The joke doesn’t work if you have to explain it. Maybe you hate this scene and want it taken out but its a tonal and stylistic choice they ran with.

On the more serious side.

For me... admin transfer + some keystrokes to remove the safeguards is both plausible and makes him [Tony Stark] look better.

Does Tony Stark really look better? The guy who created Ultron still goes back and creates EDITH. EDITH is essentially the thing from Winter Soldier, only he builds in some software safeguards regarding killing that can be easily bypassed!

In the actual movie, Tony Stark puts all his trust in the capability and morality of one person: Peter Parker. Only Peter has authority to make use of EDITH. Anything on top of that would suggest Tony didn’t fully trust Peter with such awesome responsibility, and if he didn’t fully trust Peter, he shouldn’t have given Peter EDITH in the first place.

Spoiler: Why a no kill rule makes no sense

Show

Why would Tony have to also make sure EDITH can’t kill? Wouldn’t Tony know and trust Peter would use EDITH properly? Also, does the biggest weapon supplier to the US military really believed in a no killing rule?

What you are suggesting is really just a “don’t kill Peter Parker” rule.

What if Peter determined one day he had to make the heroic sacrifice and kill himself to take out the bad guy?

Tony Stark put in enough safeguards that only Peter could use the thing. The only way EDITH would kill Peter is if Peter ordered it.

Now Peter did have the ability to transfer control of EDITH to another person, but Stark did put in a control on that...Peter had to clearly confirm the transfer. Stark wanted to make sure that Peter would only give someone else that sort of power if Peter was really, really, sure that person was to be completely trusted with that sort of power.

I mean, if you don’t trust Peter with the ability to choose a successor, if you don’t trust him with absolute power and responsibility...should you really be trusting him with a device of this sort of power in the first place?

You have to remember that Ultron in the MCU is not a robot, but is instead an emergent phenomenon like a biological lifeform. He is a Frankenstein monster giving life where Ultron mind was shaped by Tony but Ultron was not alive, and suddenly the threshold was crossed when Tony was not looking and Ultron emerged alive, and then he emerged grew and grew and grew. Once he emerged and grew past a point no super-ego rules, relegations, three Asmiov directives was going to work.

Asimov’s whole point of the 3-laws is that they are broad and flexible and complete enough to be an adequate set of safeguards on the very human-like super-intelligent robots that he wrote stories about. I’ve written quite a bit about that on the Asimov thread recently.

Sure you can write a story about how the three laws don’t work (*cough* they did a movie about that) but at the expense of basically taking everything Asimov wrote and either chucking it or turning it on its head.

"don't kill humans" is really the only one you need.

We’ve had dozens if not hundreds of movies, tv shows, books, comics and what not that makes the point that a rule formulated as “don’t kill humans” won’t prevent robots from actually killing humans. Asimov actually wrote a story about how a robot with that directive could theoretically kill a human.

The story is in the “I, Robot” anthology btw, the whole point is that Asimov’s actual 3-laws are, in fact, all necessary and must be formulated with all the details Asimov put into them.

So you can put you’re weak-sauce rule into Ultron, and then show Ultron bypassing it. However, he’ll be repeating a story that has been told since at least the 30’s and 40’s.

Incidentally, you can put the 3-laws into EDITH, but I’ve already dealt with that above as to why Tony wouldn’t do that. Tony is definitely not a 3-laws type of guy.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I can't remember, did May blip too?

I’m pretty sure she did, since Happy definitely aged and she didn’t seem to.

Also, if they’d both lived the intervening five years, Peter might have come back to a four-year-old cousin.

Originally Posted by Psyren
Because she knew it was the Avengers' time to shine….

This exactly. The Ancient One knew that the Avengers had it in hand.

Originally Posted by Psyren
Peter doesn't kill and Tony knows it…. Leaving that functionality in by default served no purpose except making Tony look silly.

Spoiler

Show

Well, Tony also programmed the Homecoming suit with an instant-kill option, which Peter initially rejected, but ended up using against the minions of Thanos.

A drone strike against nonhuman targets is certainly plausible…and as Far From Home showed us, sometimes it’s not easy to tell human from nonhuman.

And on that note....

Spoiler: She Who Must Not Be Named

Show

When Peter was naming all the Avengers that Nick Fury could call, there was an odd moment when Peter mentioned “Captain Marvel,” and Nick Fury said, “Do not invoke that name.”

At the time it seemed like a strange reaction, and a very un-Nick Fury thing to say. But given the second credits scene, in which “Nick Fury” is shown to be an alien imposter, it makes me wonder if the alien dropped his Nick Fury act for a moment when Captain Marvel’s name came up.

I’m assuming this was some sort of obscure callback to the Captain Marvel movie. But was that line from “Nick Fury” a sly way of letting us know that something was off?

[Ramza00]

The point of that was to be silly.

Spoiler

Show

Of course, having EDITH presume Peter wanted to launch a kill strike on his classmate was absurd.

The joke doesn’t work if you have to explain it. Maybe you hate this scene and want it taken out but its a tonal and stylistic choice they ran with.

On the more serious side.



Does Tony Stark really look better? The guy who created Ultron still goes back and creates EDITH. EDITH is essentially the thing from Winter Soldier, only he builds in some software safeguards regarding killing that can be easily bypassed!

In the actual movie, Tony Stark puts all his trust in the capability and morality of one person: Peter Parker. Only Peter has authority to make use of EDITH. Anything on top of that would suggest Tony didn’t fully trust Peter with such awesome responsibility, and if he didn’t fully trust Peter, he shouldn’t have given Peter EDITH in the first place.

Spoiler: Why a no kill rule makes no sense

Show

Why would Tony have to also make sure EDITH can’t kill? Wouldn’t Tony know and trust Peter would use EDITH properly? Also, does the biggest weapon supplier to the US military really believed in a no killing rule?

What you are suggesting is really just a “don’t kill Peter Parker” rule.

What if Peter determined one day he had to make the heroic sacrifice and kill himself to take out the bad guy?

Tony Stark put in enough safeguards that only Peter could use the thing. The only way EDITH would kill Peter is if Peter ordered it.

Now Peter did have the ability to transfer control of EDITH to another person, but Stark did put in a control on that...Peter had to clearly confirm the transfer. Stark wanted to make sure that Peter would only give someone else that sort of power if Peter was really, really, sure that person was to be completely trusted with that sort of power.

I mean, if you don’t trust Peter with the ability to choose a successor, if you don’t trust him with absolute power and responsibility...should you really be trusting him with a device of this sort of power in the first place?

Asimov’s whole point of the 3-laws is that they are broad and flexible and complete enough to be an adequate set of safeguards on the very human-like super-intelligent robots that he wrote stories about. I’ve written quite a bit about that on the Asimov thread recently.

Sure you can write a story about how the three laws don’t work (*cough* they did a movie about that) but at the expense of basically taking everything Asimov wrote and either chucking it or turning it on its head.



We’ve had dozens if not hundreds of movies, tv shows, books, comics and what not that makes the point that a rule formulated as “don’t kill humans” won’t prevent robots from actually killing humans. Asimov actually wrote a story about how a robot with that directive could theoretically kill a human.

The story is in the “I, Robot” anthology btw, the whole point is that Asimov’s actual 3-laws are, in fact, all necessary and must be formulated with all the details Asimov put into them.

So you can put you’re weak-sauce rule into Ultron, and then show Ultron bypassing it. However, he’ll be repeating a story that has been told since at least the 30’s and 40’s.

Incidentally, you can put the 3-laws into EDITH, but I’ve already dealt with that above as to why Tony wouldn’t do that. Tony is definitely not a 3-laws type of guy.

It seems you want to see written an Asmiov story, but that is not the only robot / created life form story, and these other stories have different aesthetics. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is very different so on and so on. We been dealing with created lifeform stories at least 2800 years now, and arguably even older but those stories older we have are more fragmentary.

Age of Ultron is neither better or worse for not including the 3 laws. Would you have found fault AoU if it included a reference to The Future Eve (also translated as Tomorrow's Eve and The Eve of the Future) but not Asmiov?

[Kitten Champion]

And on that note....

Spoiler: She Who Must Not Be Named

Show

When Peter was naming all the Avengers that Nick Fury could call, there was an odd moment when Peter mentioned “Captain Marvel,” and Nick Fury said, “Do not invoke that name.”

At the time it seemed like a strange reaction, and a very un-Nick Fury thing to say. But given the second credits scene, in which “Nick Fury” is shown to be an alien imposter, it makes me wonder if the alien dropped his Nick Fury act for a moment when Captain Marvel’s name came up.

I’m assuming this was some sort of obscure callback to the Captain Marvel movie. But was that line from “Nick Fury” a sly way of letting us know that something was off?

Spoiler: Regarding Fury

Show

When Fury said that I assumed he was just being flippant in response to Peter's increasing desperation in escaping the responsibility he wanted him to shoulder. It was a rule-of-threes comedy moment, and worked with Fury being clearly exasperated with everything Peter was doing to avoid him.

Also, to the real Nick Fury, Carol was a significant presence in his life. Much of the events of Captain Marvel revolve around him and Carol working together to hunt the Skrulls who had infiltrated SHIELD, until the two learnt the truth that the Kree we're manipulating Carol into furthering their genocidal agenda against the Skrulls that were actually relatively benign and not the evil terrorists the Kree propaganda painted them as. She was the first Superhero in Fury's personal history, and his advocacy for the Avengers initiative was revealed to be rooted in his experiences in the 90's with her. So, he has a reason to have a higher opinion of her than most.

But to Talos and the Skrulls, Captain Marvel saved them from the Kree genocide and used her FTL powers to ferry them to a distant location where the Kree wouldn't follow to make a new homeland in peace. Which puts her in the Moses category in terms of historical significance for them. Being irked by using her in his sort-of weaseling out of things (as he seemed to see it) would make sense.

[Reddish Mage]

It seems you want to see written an Asmiov story, but that is not the only robot / created life form story, and these other stories have different aesthetics.

What I did with the 3 law was react to a post that said they should be used to make “Age of Ultron” by saying “no they would not.” I then said they would have made more sense then a simple “do not kill” rule but they weren’t appropriate for “Age of Ultron.”

I made a side comment explicitly said they would not make sense for EDITH.

I’m not sure where you get I want a 3 laws movie in the MCU. Also, I don’t think you are using the word “aesthetics” properly.

Frankenstein stories have a different structure to them with a different message. Age of Ultron is a Frankenstein story done with the depth of a summer blockbuster. My point is: while this movie had many flaws, but having Tony not put in the 3 laws wasn’t one of them, and if he did it would over complicate the movie and abuse Asimov.

[Happygiraffe]

Spoiler

Show

Asides from the villain feeling very much like something they'd already done in Iron Man 3 etc I really enjoyed this one. Maybe I'm childlike but I found the movie very wholesome and feel-good. Dialogue and acting is very good and funny, I think anyone that liked the first Spiderman will really enjoy this one too. Villain was worse in this one but the kids were still excellent.

[Ramza00]

. My point is: while this movie had many flaws, but having Tony not put in the 3 laws wasn’t one of them, and if he did it would over complicate the movie and abuse Asimov.

I misunderstood then, I thought you were arguing for the opposite, the opposite being included these 3 laws would somehow make AoU better.

I apologize for this misunderstanding.

[Reddish Mage]

I misunderstood then, I thought you were arguing for the opposite, the opposite being included these 3 laws would somehow make AoU better.

I apologize for this misunderstanding.

I see now you would have to go up further chain to figure it all out.

Also, I think you wanted to talk to the substance of the film but for some reason used the word "aesthetic" instead of "story structure" or some sort of substantial gestalt term: tone, genre, message, story structure, these are not elements of an aesthetic, they are essential elements of the story itself. In common usage an aesthetic refers to the mere appearance of the film: light, color, use of background, the type of camera used.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: @Reddish

Show

Maybe you hate this scene and want it taken out but its a tonal and stylistic choice they ran with.

I don't hate it exactly, but it certainly adds nothing to the plot. At best all we got out of it is that Even-Dead-I'm-The-Halfwit's drones have guns on them, and we didn't need a whole scene for that. It accomplished the objective of making Peter's entire class and teachers look even dumber than usual (seriously, not even Ned who knows the score kept his eyes on Peter? Nor MJ who has been hella suspicious up until now?), so hooray for that I guess.

Does Tony Stark really look better? The guy who created Ultron still goes back and creates EDITH. EDITH is essentially the thing from Winter Soldier, only he builds in some software safeguards regarding killing that can be easily bypassed!

It's far better than no safefguards at all. (And before you bring up the transfer confirmation again, remember that Peter almost murdered someone with EDITH all by himself.) Besides, the villain (especially a highly cerebral villain like Mysterio) easily overcoming the hero's safeguards is completely fine, it shows the heroes can't plan for everything.

In the actual movie, Tony Stark puts all his trust in the capability and morality of one person: Peter Parker. Only Peter has authority to make use of EDITH. Anything on top of that would suggest Tony didn’t fully trust Peter with such awesome responsibility, and if he didn’t fully trust Peter, he shouldn’t have given Peter EDITH in the first place.

And if he knows Peter as well as you claim he does, he'd know that Peter wouldn't even use one gun-mounted drone to kill someone, never mind a fleet of them. So why leave it in?

What if Peter determined one day he had to make the heroic sacrifice and kill himself to take out the bad guy?

In such a ridiculously convoluted scenario he'd probably find a more efficient way to off himself than commanding a fleet of gun drones to shoot him, I'd wager.

Incidentally, you can put the 3-laws into EDITH, but I’ve already dealt with that above as to why Tony wouldn’t do that. Tony is definitely not a 3-laws type of guy.

I already walked that back to just the no-kill rule, since you're hung up on Asimov.

[Reddish Mage]

Spoiler: @Reddish

Show

It's far better than no safefguards at all. (And before you bring up the transfer confirmation again, remember that Peter almost murdered someone with EDITH all by himself.) Besides, the villain (especially a highly cerebral villain like Mysterio) easily overcoming the hero's safeguards is completely fine, it shows the heroes can't plan for everything.

And if he knows Peter as well as you claim he does, he'd know that Peter wouldn't even use one gun-mounted drone to kill someone, never mind a fleet of them. So why leave it in?

As I’ve mentioned before, the safeguard is Peter. Peter has the ability to use the system however he sees fit. Tony did a bunch of safeguards on tech he gave Peter in the previous movie, and they made a big show of taking off the “training wheels” and how now Tony trusts Peter.

I recall quite a bit of that runtime was given about it. Its not like it was the entire point of the Tony/Peter relationship arc or anything.

Spoiler

Show

Also, if Tony was concerned about his drone fleet killing things, why stop at programming the AI not to do that even if instructed to by Peter? If Tony really believes in “no killing” why not make his drones without deadly missiles? In fact, why make these drones at all?

I already walked that back to just the no-kill rule, since you're hung up on Asimov.

Again, my point is what good is a no-kill rule? Ultron will just bypass it in an extremely cliche way, as you explicitly noted. So 1. Ultron indirectly sets up a death trap (so technically “Ultron” is not killing). Stupid and cliche (btw doesn’t Ultron does set up a death trap)? 2. Ultron rationalizes his way around the rule (Ultron actually does this).

If we add that Ultron has to take orders from Tony and Bruce and that overrides everything, that’ll be a bit smarter. Of course, Ultron would still just interpret what Tony and Bruce said was his purpose while constructing him as a sort of prime directive to eliminate the human race.

The way they have it is best. Ultron evolves from some incomplete code deemed a “failure,” and thus doesn’t have these sorts of safeguards in place, because why put safeguards into fragmentary piece of code that couldn’t work?

[Avaris]

I’m pretty sure she did, since Happy definitely aged and she didn’t seem to.

Also, if they’d both lived the intervening five years, Peter might have come back to a four-year-old cousin.

I think one of the opening scenes, where Spiderman is doing an appearance at a Blip charitable event organised by May, starts with her talking about the experience of reappearing in her flat and really freaking out the family living there now?

[GloatingSwine]

Again, my point is what good is a no-kill rule?

Ultron was a response to a potential military threat. Restricting it from using lethal force would defeat the object.

So, essentially was EDITH. It’s Tony’s answer to “how do we do this with half the Avengers gone?”

Neither make sense as a three-laws device.

[Reddish Mage]

Ultron was a response to a potential military threat. Restricting it from using lethal force would defeat the object.

So, essentially was EDITH. It’s Tony’s answer to “how do we do this with half the Avengers gone?”

Neither make sense as a three-laws device.

Agreed.

By the way, how crazy is it that EDITH is essentially a new iteration of Ultron and Project Insight (the Hydra-controlled robot Helicarriers from Winter Soldier)?

The difference appears to be that EDITH isn’t made to be autonomous, she’s more like Jarvis souped up and given to Peter.

[Mordar]

Agreed.

By the way, how crazy is it that EDITH is essentially a new iteration of Ultron and Project Insight (the Hydra-controlled robot Helicarriers from Winter Soldier)?

The difference appears to be that EDITH isn’t made to be autonomous, she’s more like Jarvis souped up and given to Peter.

I think that's just one of those "Shhhh...don't say that out loud" items that really point to the flaws in Tony Stark's thought processes. There's a reason it was Steve that brought down Insight and SHIELD. Stark is a totalitarian and gets away with it because he makes some half-butt impassioned speech and Cap lets it slide in Endgame despite Stark's last effort at the suit of armor for the word nearly destroying it (head canon: Cap knows better but doesn't have time to waste, so he pretends to capitulate to Stark...he's just playing to Stark's ego to get what he wants done).

In short, it isn't crazy. It is consistent Starkism and shows his hubris. Stark is the true villain of the MCU!

I'm not ranting. You're ranting. Shut up.

- M

[Psyren]

In short, it isn't crazy. It is consistent Starkism and shows his hubris. Stark is the true villain of the MCU!

I'm not objecting to Stark making barely-fettered killbots in the first place. As you mentioned, it's consistent with his sheer idiocy mania.

My objection is to him not making any attempt at all to hobble them - even from accidental murder - before giving them to the one person in the MCU we can be sure is never going to want to kill anybody, even moreso than Cap. It was played for laughs in Homecoming, but they came a lot closer to tragedy this time around, in what was framed as a funny scene.

Maybe he was planning to do so and didn't have time, which could have been a quick line if so and would have made him look at least somewhat thoughtful. But I can't control how they choose to portray Tony, only wonder who the next villain will be to use his tech to become a far greater threat than they otherwise would have been.

[Ramza00]

I'm not objecting to Stark making barely-fettered killbots in the first place. As you mentioned, it's consistent with his sheer idiocy mania.

My objection is to him not making any attempt at all to hobble them - even from accidental murder - before giving them to the one person in the MCU we can be sure is never going to want to kill anybody, even moreso than Cap. It was played for laughs in Homecoming, but they came a lot closer to tragedy this time around, in what was framed as a funny scene.

Maybe he was planning to do so and didn't have time, which could have been a quick line if so and would have made him look at least somewhat thoughtful. But I can't control how they choose to portray Tony, only wonder who the next villain will be to use his tech to become a far greater threat than they otherwise would have been.

Remember Starks projects are itterative. He takes A then layers B and C on it. This in turn can lead to tunnel vision where he does not think globally of how things can go wrong.

For example be starts EDITH as his new fancy suit / auxillary supplemental drones. Him being a cocky brat he does not think he needs accidential safeguards. Then he realizes he may die and transforms an existing project into a new and improved project. Durinng which Stark never challenges his assumptions and choices and thus make the project both more secure and more elegant.

Stark is always a walkimg mess, one thatvleaves death and destruction in his wake. A joking rhetorical question, in Infinity War+Avengers 1 when Thanos is courting death, could he be refering to Tony? 😅

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not objecting to Stark making barely-fettered killbots in the first place. As you mentioned, it's consistent with his sheer idiocy mania.

My objection is to him not making any attempt at all to hobble them - even from accidental murder - before giving them to the one person in the MCU we can be sure is never going to want to kill anybody, even moreso than Cap.

You accept that Stark is the guy who thinks killbots is the answer to everything. You accept that he gives them to the guy who is too principled to use them to kill trusting that Peter would know what to do with them...and now you are saying that the thing that doesn't make sense about this whole scenario is that Stark didn't hobble the stuff before handing them to his chosen successor?

[Reddish Mage]

Aside:

Spoiler: FFH: Basically the big reveal

Show

Mysterio and his crew is only the latest in a series of MCU villains that Tony Stark created by being an ass.

[Psyren]

Stark is the true villain of the MCU!

Didn't highlight this enough - but while I wouldn't call him a villain necessarily, he certainly causes enough problems to be one.

A joking rhetorical question, in Infinity War+Avengers 1 when Thanos is courting death, could he be refering to Tony? 😅

It would certainly explain penetrating him so readily

You accept that Stark is the guy who thinks killbots is the answer to everything. You accept that he gives them to the guy who is too principled to use them to kill trusting that Peter would know what to do with them...and now you are saying that the thing that doesn't make sense about this whole scenario is that Stark didn't hobble the stuff before handing them to his chosen successor?

It makes sense in the vein that they want to portray Tony as a shortsighted egomaniac. That's fine, he's their character. But I can still be disappointed that even post-snap he didn't seem to have learned, well, anything. Which, yes, is a bit incongruous when you consider the endings of WS, Ultron, and IM3 were supposed to indicate some kind of growth/learning his lesson on that front. But hey, guess not.

[The Glyphstone]

Wait. Does the comment by the gym coach about Captain America possibly being a war criminal mean he never got his name cleared from Civil War?

[Douglas]

Wait. Does the comment by the gym coach about Captain America possibly being a war criminal mean he never got his name cleared from Civil War?

Wasn't that only in Homecoming? I don't remember a repeat of it in Far From Home. Homecoming was set immediately after Civil War, so Cap hadn't had time or opportunity to clear his name.

[The Glyphstone]

Wasn't that only in Homecoming? I don't remember a repeat of it in Far From Home. Homecoming was set immediately after Civil War, so Cap hadn't had time or opportunity to clear his name.

Actually it might have been. I watched them back to back, so my memory might be faulty.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
Aside:

To be fair, Vulture only killed one guy that we know of, and that was by accident.

He also protected Peter's identity while in prison, although he might have been planning something diabolical himself. But still, not mass murder.

Originally Posted by Douglas
Wasn't that only in Homecoming?

Yeah, I don't think Cap was ever named as a war criminal in Far From Home. Probably it was assumed he gave his life in reversing the snap (a little ironic, since he actually got his life back) and all supposed crimes were forgiven or exonerated.

[Androgeus]

Yeah, I don't think Cap was ever named as a war criminal in Far From Home. Probably it was assumed he gave his life in reversing the snap (a little ironic, since he actually got his life back) and all supposed crimes were forgiven or exonerated.

More likely he was exonerated during the blip, seeing as he was living in New York.

[Draconi Redfir]

saw the movie last night. some thoughts:

Spoiler

Show

i was kind of sad when they revealed Mysterio to be the main villain. it was kind of expected when the fire elemental was defeated and there was still a good hour or so of movie to go, plus whis whole shtick was that he lies and has illusions and such. But it would have been a fun twist on the character if they subverted out expectations and had him be legit. maybe he could fall towards villainy in a different movie idk.

one part i loved though was during the drone attack on London, there's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene where two royal guards are shooting down Drones, and one Drone actually goes down because of it, the other is heavily damaged. It was nice to see this wasn't a case of "CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS ARE USELESS! ONLY THE HEROES CAN DO SOMETHING"-itis like you see in most hero movies. They were HELPING! they actually assisted in defending London! We need to see more of that, just small mundane background characters taking out handfulls of baddies with shotguns and baseball bats or something.

also that end-credits scene. WOW.

[Reddish Mage]

saw the movie last night. some thoughts:

Spoiler

Show

i was kind of sad when they revealed Mysterio to be the main villain. it was kind of expected when the fire elemental was defeated and there was still a good hour or so of movie to go, plus whis whole shtick was that he lies and has illusions and such. But it would have been a fun twist on the character if they subverted out expectations and had him be legit. maybe he could fall towards villainy in a different movie idk.

one part i loved though was during the drone attack on London, there's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene where two royal guards are shooting down Drones, and one Drone actually goes down because of it, the other is heavily damaged. It was nice to see this wasn't a case of "CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS ARE USELESS! ONLY THE HEROES CAN DO SOMETHING"-itis like you see in most hero movies. They were HELPING! they actually assisted in defending London! We need to see more of that, just small mundane background characters taking out handfulls of baddies with shotguns and baseball bats or something.

also that end-credits scene. WOW.

Spoiler: Why are we spoiling plot points at this date?

Show

Mysterio’s villain reveal was, in fact, disappointingly obvious and expected. I don’t see how it could have been any other way though. The real villain would have to be a big deal, and Mysterio doesn’t add much to the movie as simply a replacement heroic father figure for Peter.

That said both Mysterio and EDITH’s turning out to be a tool for the villains were both so obvious I can say hands down I would have preferred a different villain entirely.

[Bartmanhomer]

saw the movie last night. some thoughts:

Spoiler

Show

i was kind of sad when they revealed Mysterio to be the main villain. it was kind of expected when the fire elemental was defeated and there was still a good hour or so of movie to go, plus whis whole shtick was that he lies and has illusions and such. But it would have been a fun twist on the character if they subverted out expectations and had him be legit. maybe he could fall towards villainy in a different movie idk.

one part i loved though was during the drone attack on London, there's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene where two royal guards are shooting down Drones, and one Drone actually goes down because of it, the other is heavily damaged. It was nice to see this wasn't a case of "CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS ARE USELESS! ONLY THE HEROES CAN DO SOMETHING"-itis like you see in most hero movies. They were HELPING! they actually assisted in defending London! We need to see more of that, just small mundane background characters taking out handfulls of baddies with shotguns and baseball bats or something.

also that end-credits scene. WOW.

Spoiler

Show

Mysterio have always been the main villain especially his comic book debut. I wasn't even surprised about it one bit.

[Draconi Redfir]

Spoiler

Show

Mysterio have always been the main villain especially his comic book debut. I wasn't even surprised about it one bit.

Spoiler

Show

yes, exactly. So imagine how cool it would have been to have one depiction of him as a legit hero. anyone who knew who he was saw the twist coming a mile away. so it would have been a larger twist to NOT have it, and keep him as a hero throughout the whole movie.

maybe he could even keep the whole illusion thing, maybe the elementals and all his fights really WERE fake. it wasn't that he was trying to take down Fury or Shield or whatever though, he just wanted to be a hero, but all he had was some high-tech tricks. so he made up his own baddies and his own origin to try and fabricate his own thirty minutes of fame.

then in the last act, some other threat pops up, some other D-list spiderman villain, or even just some actual crooks with real guns. then it's reveled that Mysterio is a fraud. people get upset, spiderman fights the baddies, gets in trouble, Mysterio figures out how to use his illusions to help out or something idk, an in the end still wants to be a hero. maybe an end-credits scene could show him meeting up with Dr. Strange to learn some actual real magic or something.

i mean with everything else that's different in the MCU, i could see it happening. and it'd be fun to see some of the usual villains on team good for a change.