Comics Creators

Spider-Man: Homecoming Discussion (SPOILERS)


When you’re in a 3-way (maybe 4 nowadays, with Iron Man) tie for the most recognizable superhero outfit in the world, I don’t think a lot more honestly needs to be done to make the property last, just in terms of audience recognition. Keeping him relatively young (not necessarily high school) does a great job differentiating him from Batman, Superman, and Iron Man as well. As long as the movies are fun and not disasters, people are and will keep coming back.


Like the comics they’re based on, these movies are pop-art designed to work for audiences right now. I don’t think they need to worry too much about making them last, even though I can appreciate the desire for something standalone and timeless.


Yeah, exactly. I can get behind any person’s desire to see more of this or that, but at the end of the day, if you look at the absence of some of these things as an artistic mistake, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.


they say a hero can save us whistles in the wind



There’s always gonna be people for whom this movie will be their first substantial experience with Spider-Man. But I’m not really talking about audience recognition. I’m talking more about Spider-Man being given a generic psychology in this film because of writer/studio anxiety over where the movie stands in the present moment.

Then they’re settling. I don’t really get why anyone would want to make a movie that doesn’t have staying power. That it’s pop doesn’t explain that; Star Wars, Raiders, Terminator, hell, the Raimi Spider-Man movies are pop and they are/will be watched by generations.

Although I guess lack of staying power is Marvel Studios in a nutshell. They’re fun for a night out but only a few of them reward multiple viewings, imo.


There is, and I’m saying for casual viewers, a thorough understanding of motivation will never be as important as for people who are really invested in the property. There’s no reason that people who learn of Spider-Man from a movie can’t go on to enjoy the massive library of Spider-Man material and get a deeper appreciation of the pathos if so desired, and of course, there’s always a chance that we’ll see the origin story several more times over the next 50 years in film.

Marvel Studios isn’t really shooting for lasting dramatic stories, as you yourself have also just noted. Maybe you’d prefer a different course for the direction of the films, but I think their mission statement is pretty clear by now!


They all didn’t re-run and recap the origins every episode. They assumed people had seen the one before.

Now I fully appreciate that this is essentially a reboot with a new cast and continuity but it also occupies a space not seen before. We have seen this property already restarted twice in 15 years. To me the MCU has already done this once before when Ruffallo was recast as the Hulk, The Avengers went straight in to assuming we all knew that back story instead of laying it out again.


The Star Wars films and Raimi Spider-Man films (at least the first 2, barely remember 3) certainly made sure you understood relevant information, such as Obi-Wan or Uncle Ben dying, in each installment. Same with T2. Indiana Jones is a bit different as he’s like Bond with very simple motivation that can be given in a single line, “this belongs in a museum.”

I’m not really arguing for anything other than some crafty writing.


I don’t think this is true. Clear motivation is essential in all writing. More experimental work might have reasons for obfuscating motivation but they’ll give you enough to form connections with the characters. Audiences might not always know that they’re losing interest because of unclear characterization but that’s what’s happening.

Like I said, though, Homecoming gives audiences enough to follow along. Its problem is that it gets by on a generic characterization rather than a specific one.


Yes, it is, but there are multiple layers, and “a good kid wanting to do the right thing and stop bad people” really is enough for a casual viewer, I’d stake money on it (not that there’s any way to prove, I concede, except with circumstantial evidence)


I can see that point of view, but in episodic stories I don’t think it’s necessary to recap that motivation every time.

This is the sixth Spidey film this century, and the second movie featuring this version of the character, which is the third iteration we’ve seen. I’m not sure we still need the origin recapped every movie any more than we need the same thing to happen every issue in the comics.


Out of curiosity, how many here have watched Homecoming more than once? I’m interested to know if anyone feels the same as me about their second viewing enhancing the film enormously. For me I wasn’t expecting anything from a second viewing and was rewarded in practically every scene! Even more so than Baby Driver which I watched for a second time the following night.

It’s rare I find repeat viewings of anything all that rewarding, I was quite shocked.


[quote=“WillCarper, post:306, topic:10222”]
That it’s pop doesn’t explain that; Star Wars, Raiders, Terminator, hell, the Raimi Spider-Man movies are pop and they are/will be watched by generations.

[quote=“garjones, post:308, topic:10222”]
They all didn’t re-run and recap the origins every episode. They assumed people had seen the one before.
[/quote] [/quote]

Indy’s origin didn’t happen until the third movie. John Connor’s was the second movie. We’ve yet to see Han Solo’s :wink:


Don’t you mean we haven’t seen [real name]'s?


His real name is “Indiana”?


If he had a bantha named Han, I’m out.


If the “Han” is a corruption of the word “Hand”, I’m out


Maybe it’s Hanna and we’ve been assuming gender this whole time!!


The comics are different because there are thousands of them, and part of reading superheroes is searching for relevant info over multiple issues. This is the first of only 3 or 4 movies.

And “recap” brings to mind narrative-halting exposition. There are cannier ways to deliver information.