I have no idea who Zendaya is supposed to be either, other than a symbolic "MJ" but also her own person with none of the history or character of MJ? It's confusing, they should have done one or the other. I like Zendaya in these films, but I hope they establish her character a bit better in future films.
While that may true, that's not what I find bothersome. The whole she's MJ but not that MJ aspect, seems to me, as a way to mitigate white nerd outrage. Don't be cowards either she's Mary Jane MJ, or name her something else entirely.
But this is also kinda why the MCU works so well. They are taking inspiration from the comics but molding the ideas into the story they are creating which is fine.
The point they were making is that there have been five Spider-man movies before, between the Raimi trilogy and the two ASMs. Spider-man is well-trodden ground, so it makes sense to spice it up a bit. Lean more heavily on what the MCU can offer.
Look, there is more to it than that. If Stark tech was used only as a means of explaining how Spidey's villains got their suits, then the Iron Man mythos ends there. Hell, that's how the helicarrier upgrades in Cap2 got explained. But it didn't end there.
I'm not sure what you mean. I am judging these films individually, and the criticism I have for them is something they have in common and in fact something that got worse from one film to its sequel.
Yes it's a difference between missing a wedding anniversary or a baby being born while saving the world and a school field trip. The first 2 are actually kinda important to a personal life
I see. Well in any case I'm cool with the mentor relationship. 2000-2010 is still pretty far off from Spidey's debut in the MCU too.,
The chances would probably be high I would say. But I am not trying to compare the films directly to the comics. I'm comparing the series to other series from the MCU, and by extension the previous Raimi and Webb series.
You're kind of proving my point though. In the end he decides he doesn't need to be Iron Man but spends the whole film trying to live up to him. What I have been trying to say is that I would have rather had the point of these movies have not as much to do with living up to a mentor but having his own journey without involvement from the outside.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, way I see it, there are no birds that needed to be killed at all. These films could have gone in a different but still good direction.
My man, you might just not like spiderman in general, because teenage BS and non stop quipping is LITERALLY what he does 100% of the time. He never grows out of it and it's ever present, even in situations that don't call for it.
So to be clear, I don't mind the mentor relationship and how Peter looks up to Tony so much. It's with this mentality that Peter operates in his superhero life, but the issue I take is that a lot of his own solo superhero life has to do with Tony too i.e the ties that the two villains had to Stark himself, their motivations, and elements of the plot.
This is a personal preference with world-building, and it certainly comes up with Star Wars a hell of a lot, this debate of going back to well vs. always creating new stuff. But personally I don't mind them going back to the well like this, especially in a connected universe. To me it makes sense that Stark Industries is this nucleus of crazy future tech that often falls into the wrong hands, in the same Tony himself is really the nucleus of the whole MCU. As opposed to constantly making up new organizations and new secret societies that are inventing and weaponizing this shit. Someone mentioned earlier as an example Stark Industries standing in for Oscorp, but the former has already been established and the latter hasn't, so why wouldn't it stand in for Oscorp? I like it when the movies utilize and leverage what already exists in-universe.
Spider-Man Homecoming as a film should be able to stand on its own legs as a Spider-Man film and not be backed up by the fact that it is an MCU film. And none of the other non-ensemble films do that either, I wanted that sort of experience with Spider-Man in the MCU. Cap's films, Thor's films, Guardians' films, Ant-Man's films, Dr. Strange, Capt. Marvel - none of these series are without their own issues, but none of them felt like their presentation was carried out in the shadows of another. But that's what Spider-Man series feels like in relation to the Iron Man series.
So cool seeing Mysterio. I don't think he was that big a threat but he was a pretty big threat for spider man who is still a teen. Like Thor could have just lightning bolted and most of the drones would have died. He was a threat to spidey but that's about it.
FWIW, my wife saw Homecoming long before seeing (or having any interest in) other MCU movies, and liked it and understood it just fine. Far From Home probably doesn't make a ton of sense to someone who hasn't seen Infinity War and Endgame (given their box office hauls, I'm not sure the number of people who went to see FFH without seeing either Avengers film first is all that big anyway lol). But I don't think Homecoming is impenetrable to people not versed in the MCU, and can't stand on its own two feet.
I wasn't trying to say that Homecoming is a difficult act to follow. I think for any casual fan, the film will come across as Peter Parker still learning the ways of the big time superhero gig with Tony Stark watching over him. Like I said I think the movies are good and in hindsight I might even say Homecoming is a better film even though I liked them about the same, since the Iron Man influence is even heavier in Far From Home.
