• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

SPIDER-MAN 2 from Marvel & Sony (7/5/19)
4 4

Started by Bosco685,

705 posts in this topic

justafan

justafan

Posted
Posted

Saw it. Liked it. Going to see it again in Dolby Surround sound.

I was initially very concerned about how they were going to handle Mysterio and the Hydro/Sand men/elementals and whether they were meant to be the characters in the comics or something totally different.

but...
 

Spoiler

 

I am very pleased with the direction they actually went with neither of those 2 creatures being the actual Hydro-man or Sandman or actual Elementals due to it all being a hologram.  Great that Mysterio was the actual villain and not the misdirection of a replacement Tony Stark that they were trying to present in all the previews. I did think his monologue was a bit over the top in his coming out as a villain diatribe but it does somewhat reflect the original comic book character's pomposity and resentment towards being unappreciated.   However, isn't Mysterio a member of the sinister six?  Kinda puts a damper on that possibility with him dead though his character can be filled in or replaced.

Also, I wonder now how much softening ASM #212 (1st Hydroman) prices will be with the movie out now.  Makes me cringe to think of the person who won that ASM #212 CGC 9.9 single highest graded copy that went for ~$7500  in last month's CLink featured auction.  If for a private collection, they probably have little regrets.  If for an investement...well they may need to wait unitl he actually makes another hinted appearance in an upcoming Spidey film.  Then again, I see it is showing as sale pending for $7800 so maybe they found someone who wanted it more.

I'm also wondering since Zendaya is being cast as Ariel (possibly dying her hair red) in Disneys Little Mermaid live action film, we might see her as a red head in the next spidey film if it goes into production around the same time.

And HUGE props and thanks to Sony/Marvel for bringing J Simmons back as JJJ.  He and the Bugle character assassinations of spiderman are what I felt was a big part of what was missing from the first movie. Can't wait for the next one.  I do hope they circle back to Scorpion (Gargan) and Vulture but not before prices on those books fall so I can actually own a graded copy above 6.5. LOL.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theCapraAegagrus

theCapraAegagrus

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:
  Hide contents

Yeah - but again, Beck's a psychopath -- no more reliable than JJJ's TV tabloid.

It's the Last Jedi "Rey's parents" analogy. Far too many people took it at face value that Rey's parents were "nobody" when that information was conveyed to her by an unreliable source (Kylo Ren) who had *every reason* to lie to her in that moment in hopes of wooing her to join him. The simplest explanation is Kylo was lying, meaning Rey could still be a Skywalker or (more likely) a Kenobi.

In this case, both JJJ and Beck are crackpots and unreliable sources -- and most New Yorkers would realize that.

Just saying - it gives Marvel an out to have Peter keep his identity secret going forward -- if for no other reason that few would believe Spider-Man is still a high schooler.

 

Spoiler

Don't even troll me with The Last Jedi analogies.

Being a "news source" - JJJ would be considered "reliable" by those who read The Daily Bugle. And, outside of that, it's now public attention that Peter Parker may in fact be (and simply is) Spider-Man.

I think you're equally jumping to conclusions about Beck's/JJJ's intel being an inherent non-factor as much as anyone trusting in TLJ's awful 'storytelling'.

The world does not know that Beck is a psychopath. They think Mysterio is a hero. At least he was perceived as such for awhile. So, when a pre-assassinated "hero" claims that Spider-Man is trying to kill him and outs his identity... There's gonna be a lot of people (especially in today's day and age) that are going to take it at face value. Especially when Beck made it look like Spider-Man was trying to execute people with the drones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kon_Jelly

Kon_Jelly

Posted
Posted (edited)

Some spoiler thoughts after my second viewing:

Spoiler

Right after the scene of Mysterio dying, we see the tech guy downloading/saving an illusion to a thumb drive. Edith just told Spidey that the illusions were off, but Mysterio was running illusions even before he had Edith. Is it possible that a second illusion was running outside of Edith's system? It makes me wonder if Mysterio was ever even on the bridge in the first place. The dialogue in that scene is extremely vague - never once in that scene is it mentioned that Mysterio is actually dead. And Edith doesn't actually answer Spidey's question, either: "Is this real?" "All illusions are offline". Maybe all of Edith's illusions are offline. 

I dunno, maybe I'm reading way too much into it. I just know that you never trust anything when it comes to Mysterio, so I feel like there is a good chance there was misdirection going on even at the end. 

Edited by Kon_Jelly
Eye kant speel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fmaz

fmaz

Posted
Posted

Loved it!

Such a surprisingly modern and cool take on MJ that cuts to the core of the character ... in a way I never saw coming in the first movie.  By the end of the movie she IS MJ in every way that matters.

And there's just no denying that Tom Holland seems born for this role. He's wonderful. 

This movie is fun, funny and quintessentially Spider-Man!

Oh and for those who started "collecting" license plates mid-way through the movie as it seems many of us did, I'm guessing I wasn't alone in noticing the big one -

Spoiler

May's car when she picked Peter up at the airport:  AMF1562  (Amazing Fantasy 15, 1962 'natch)

Oh and one other thing, I should put in spoilers... did anyone else assume that:

Spoiler

"Dmitri" who never said anything but just seemed to blend into the background (LOLl) will end up being our good pal the Chameleon (Dmitri Smerdyakov ...i think that's how you spell it) at some point?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anfield Fox

Anfield Fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, fmaz said:

 

Such a surprisingly modern and cool take on MJ that cuts to the core of the character ... in a way I never saw coming in the first movie.  By the end of the movie she IS MJ in every way that matters.

 

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Not saying I dislike her but she's nothing like the comic character I remember in any way, shape or form. She's not even called Mary Jane but Michelle Jones.

Edited by Anfield Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fmaz

fmaz

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anfield Fox said:

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Not saying I dislike her but she's nothing like the comic character I remember in any way, shape or form. She's not even called Mary Jane but Michelle Jones.

In the comics she had this fake persona which she used to keep people from seeing the real person underneath... to stop her from ever really getting close to anyone or anyone getting close to her.

Back in the 60's that fake persona was of a bubbly party girl.  Here it's more of someone who is a dark, weird moody loner.

But in both cases we come to find that she has a background that caused her to push people away and made it hard for her to get close to people... and when you get through all that noise she's actually smart, funny, and fierce.  This really cool woman completely worthy of Peter (and not someone who needs to keep getting rescued as in the previous movie iterations).

THAT'S what I mean. What she looks like.... the fact that she's Michelle Jones instead of Mary Jane.... that stuff doesn't matter to me.  Like I said, by the end of the movie, this character felt very much like MJ to me.

Hope that explains it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kon_Jelly

Kon_Jelly

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fmaz said:

In the comics she had this fake persona which she used to keep people from seeing the real person underneath... to stop her from ever really getting close to anyone or anyone getting close to her.

Back in the 60's that fake persona was of a bubbly party girl.  Here it's more of someone who is a dark, weird moody loner.

But in both cases we come to find that she has a background that caused her to push people away and made it hard for her to get close to people... and when you get through all that noise she's actually smart, funny, and fierce.  This really cool woman completely worthy of Peter (and not someone who needs to keep getting rescued as in the previous movie iterations).

THAT'S what I mean. What she looks like.... the fact that she's Michelle Jones instead of Mary Jane.... that stuff doesn't matter to me.  Like I said, by the end of the movie, this character felt very much like MJ to me.

Hope that explains it.

 

I completely agree - well said! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anfield Fox

Anfield Fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, fmaz said:

In the comics she had this fake persona which she used to keep people from seeing the real person underneath... to stop her from ever really getting close to anyone or anyone getting close to her.

Back in the 60's that fake persona was of a bubbly party girl.  Here it's more of someone who is a dark, weird moody loner.

But in both cases we come to find that she has a background that caused her to push people away and made it hard for her to get close to people... and when you get through all that noise she's actually smart, funny, and fierce.  This really cool woman completely worthy of Peter (and not someone who needs to keep getting rescued as in the previous movie iterations).

THAT'S what I mean. What she looks like.... the fact that she's Michelle Jones instead of Mary Jane.... that stuff doesn't matter to me.  Like I said, by the end of the movie, this character felt very much like MJ to me.

Hope that explains it.

 

Sorry I'm just not seeing it. She doesn't look like her. She doesn't act like her. She doesn't even have the same name. You are saying she is Mary Jane because deep down they both push people away and don't allow anyone to get close.

Hey It's fine. Life would be boring if we all agreed!

I thought the best movie girlfriend was Gwen in ASM 1 & 2.

Edited by Anfield Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
  • Author
Posted
44 minutes ago, Anfield Fox said:

Sorry I'm just not seeing it. She doesn't look like her. She doesn't act like her. She doesn't even have the same name. You are saying she is Mary Jane because deep down they both push people away and don't allow anyone to get close.

Hey It's fine. Life would be boring if we all agreed!

I thought the best movie girlfriend was Gwen in ASM 1 & 2.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4
Go to topic listing