Spider-Man: No Way Home | December 17, 2021 | The More Fun Stuff Version (yes, that's what it's called) comes to theaters September 2nd!

[lorddemaxus]

Anyone remember the good old days when characters used to have arcs and conflicts over the course of one film rather than a dozen or so?

[Legion Again]

21 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Anyone remember the good old days when characters used to have arcs and conflicts over the course of one film rather than a dozen or so?

I much prefer the dozen movie arc. So do worldwide audiences, it seems.

[lorddemaxus]

8 minutes ago, WandaLegion said:

I much prefer the dozen movie arc. So do worldwide audiences, it seems.

Nah, worldwide audiences are prefer anything as long as they see the characters do cool shit. And it shouldn't take a dozen movies for a character to have a character arc that can probably be written in one very short sentence. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[YM!]

23 minutes ago, WandaLegion said:

I much prefer the dozen movie arc. So do worldwide audiences, it seems.

Tons of character have growth in many movies, that argument is ridiculous. 

[Legion Again]

15 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Nah, worldwide audiences are prefer anything as long as they see the characters do cool shit. And it shouldn't take a dozen movies for a character to have a character arc that can probably be written in one very short sentence. 

This is like the #1 misconception about the MCU imo. There are lots of movies where “characters do cool shit.” 99% of them don’t pump out sequel increases and billion dollar hits like the MCU. The dozen movie arcs and character investment they engender are literally the key to the whole enterprise.     
 

I just can’t imagine how one looks at the past decade and thinks “oh yeah, audiences prefer one-movie character arcs to many-movie arcs.”     
 

And almost anything can be written in one short sentence if you’re willing to be reductive enough about it 🤷‍♂️

[Legion Again]

3 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Tons of character have growth in many movies, that argument is ridiculous. 

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The “character arc over more than 3 movies” model is pretty unique to the franchise that’s operating heads and shoulders over the rest of Hollywood in terms of consistent commercial success. Of course you can have successful standalone movies too, but they don’t give you an Endgame. 

[Legion Again]

And before that, the most consistently successful franchise was Harry Potter, where many characters full development plays out over the course of 8 movies. People clearly like when they get to spend more than 150 minutes watching characters come into their own 🤷‍♂️

[lorddemaxus]

27 minutes ago, WandaLegion said:

This is like the #1 misconception about the MCU imo. There are lots of movies where “characters do cool shit.” 99% of them don’t pump out sequel increases and billion dollar hits like the MCU. The dozen movie arcs and character investment they engender are literally the key to the whole enterprise.     
 

I just can’t imagine how one looks at the past decade and thinks “oh yeah, audiences prefer one-movie character arcs to many-movie arcs.”     

This argument would only work if these characters had well-defined character arcs. The reason the MCU works isn't because they're doing a great job at developing these characters, but because they're good at balancing the cool fan-service and paying lip-service to character development. 

 

Quote

 And almost anything can be written in one short sentence if you’re willing to be reductive enough about it 🤷‍♂️

The thing is, no one has to be reductive when talking about spider-man's arc in these movies.

 

Also, I'm not against the idea of multi-film character arcs. I'm against the idea of a one-film arc being stretched out to a dozen.

Edited October 10, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[Eric Duncan]

You know, I'm so excited that we'll inevitably argue about this stuff for two more years. It's gonna be a blast and nobody will be tired of this whatsoever

[YM!]

1 hour ago, WandaLegion said:

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The “character arc over more than 3 movies” model is pretty unique to the franchise that’s operating heads and shoulders over the rest of Hollywood in terms of consistent commercial success. Of course you can have successful standalone movies too, but they don’t give you an Endgame. 

What I meant to say is Spider-Man can develop in the course of movies but it’s a problem he barely gets any substantial development over the 5 movies in he’s in. 
 

Harry Potter has had their characters develop for each of the movies as arcs change and characters learn as well as the rest of the MCU characters, from Guardians 1 to 2, Rocket developed past his self destructive tendencies for relationships and learns to be better with teamwork in IW and Endgame, where as Peter has gone through the same arc of “Can I live up to Iron Man” through five movies nor does he really learn. 
 

But let’s agree to disagree.

Edited October 10, 2020 by YourMother the Edgelord

[Legion Again]

Okay, I think maybe we’ve been talking past each other a bit. Spider-man didn’t really have much of an arc in CW/IW/Endgame — in CW and Endgame he’s basically only in the movie for one big action scene, and in IW he has more screen time but is pretty much jut along for the ride, to make jokes, and then die emotionally. And his arc in FFH was a bit similar to Homecoming. I hope that eventually we can look back and say that he had a cool dozen movie arc, but for now he’s only really been a plot driving character in 2 and I would not say that.   
 

I was objecting to lorddemaxus’s general idea of a “good old days when characters used to have arcs and conflicts over the course of one film rather than a dozen or so.” Imo the new era of longer interconnected arcs with characters is an improvement — which is not to say that they should be static or just repeating the same lesson over and over in the individual movies making up the larger story.

Edited October 10, 2020 by WandaLegion

[Macleod]

People eat what they're fed.

 

My issue lately is more with a real lack of narrative/character consequence in the MCU and these kinds of movies, and of course the erasing of the concept of "death" that sticks from that is a big part of it.  While I have loved Spidey since childhood, and as interested as I am to see where they take all this next (you've seen my speculation here with recent announcements) -- I find that once you introduce "easy access" multiverses and time travel without much consequence, yes, anything is at your disposal, but that robs stories of characters of gravity.  "No problem if Cap sacrifices himself, we'll just pick up one from an alternate universe."  We've seen TV shows and things like Fast and Furious even introduce this (even without alternate universes)...and where does it end?  That's my question. 

 

The answer is, it doesn't, according to Disney/Marvel, of course -- or rather, they don't want it to.  They would prefer if you developed a rotating viewing interest of movies and Disney+, back and forth, ad nauseum.  (It's interesting how COVID is obviously messing with all these plans...)

 

However, yes, this concept would be a great way to introduce the Morales character into the Sony/MCU, and I'm sure Feige is thinking about that.  But the Spider-Verse animated film really is better than any of the live-action Spidey films of the past ten years!  That'll be tough to beat. 

 

I kind of checked out during FFH because yeah, it's becoming not about just him, anymore...and this MCU Parker never really was.  Yes, audiences have seen that cycle twice with the character in the last 15 years, so I get why Feige wanted to try something different.  But they've seen Bond 25 times now, too, and that series remains phenomenally successful. 

 

For me, these MCU Spideys are fun fluff, but not quite as successful and meaningful for the character, himself, and I still find myself "thinking about" the older films more. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Macleod

[Knights of Ren]

5 hours ago, excel1 said:

Nobody gives af about Andrew Garfield.

 

"MTV Movie Award Best Kisser Winner Tobey McGuire" would play perfectly in the growing early 2000s nostalgia.

But Andrew Garfield is the best Spider-Man. 
 

 

The TASM hate in here hurts my soul

[Macleod]

1 minute ago, Knights of Ren said:

But Andrew Garfield is the best Spider-Man. 
 

 

The TASM hate in here hurts my soul

Garfield is probably the best actor out of the three, there's the irony, it's just his movies that were the problem -- although we're hearing great things about Holland's recent and upcoming roles (I haven't checked out the Netflix movie, yet).   

[35MM-18]

3 minutes ago, Knights of Ren said:

But Andrew Garfield is the best Spider-Man. 

Josh Keaton and Christopher Daniel Barnes exist, you know.

[Saul Goodman]

Garfield was so good that he was sleep walking through most of TASM 2. 🙄

[YM!]

1 hour ago, 35MM-18 said:

Josh Keaton and Christopher Daniel Barnes exist, you know.

I love The Spectacular Spider-Man. Shame it was ended early.

[WittyUsername]

The Spectacular Spider-Man is the best cartoon to be based on a Marvel property. It’s a shame that it was a casualty of Disney buying Marvel. 

[Spidey Freak]

On 10/9/2020 at 6:42 PM, Valonqar said:

Kirsten and Zendaya MJ aren't even the same character. One is Mary Jane Watson the other is Michelle Jones. They aren't like 3 Peter Parkers. They are not versions but 2 different characters altogether. 

Naah, Zendaya confirmed her MJ is the MCU's "recreated" version of Mary Jane Watson in Variety Actors on Actors interview with MJ Rodriguez. 

 

 

[charlie Jatinder]

I hope all these reports are just fan fic. Don't want the milawat (hindi word for mix up but a bit bad) of previous Marvel films with MCU. do your own thing in multiverse.