Homecoming Spider-Man: Homecoming User Reviews Thread *SPOILERS*

[Spider-Aziz]

@Flint Marko: I can't help but appreciate serving you a favor in making you laugh, and this laugh of J.K. Jameson is ever stunning.

But I still stand by what I said now, I expect to keep thinking this way when I do watch it again sometime later, and for years to come.

Andrew's Peter stole an idea card for one day, in a situation of awkwardness and messed up reaction, and he's haunted for that.
Tom's Peter stole chemicals from school to make his web fluid, stole Flash's car without any awkwardness behind it, crashed it, and deserted it, but that's ok for some reason.

Andrew's Peter is a cocky jerk for webbing a car thief to a wall, head up toes down, and by the ground. Peter Parker in the comics tormented thieves and muggers on multiple occasions,suspended a floor up, head down toes up. and I'm thinking of the good runs.
Tom's Peter pulled a guy's head with his web and hit it hard on the top of his car, that could break the man's neck and crack his skull, but that's excused cause...
Oh, and he webbed Donald Glover's hands to his car trunk and tried to scare. By definition given to Andrew's Peter this is a jerk, but he's excused.

Andrew's Peter stalks Gwen for walking in school and randomly passing by her, but he took one picture. And then he was a stalker for knowing where Gwen dined with friends.
Tom's Peter stared in a creepy way at Liz Allan, more than once, kept staring. That time after they got along he told her he wouldn't go to the pool cause he's busy, but he stood high and stared at her. By definition given to TASM's Peter, that is a stalker, and Tom really is creepier.

Andrew's Peter is considered a jerk for the basketball scene with Flash, it's harmless fun.
Tom's Peter stole Flash's car and wrecked it, yeah, I mention this again. He also skipped school, broke a couple of fences instead of leaping over them, broke some accessory lights, jumped into a pool crashing a party. By definition given to Andrew, this guy is worse, but he's excused....



So please, tell me again how funny I am, while I'm sitting here watching this movie a second time, reaffirming for me why I shouldn't change my mind about it.





@ObserveCreative:
I have no disrespect for Tom Holland or Henry Cavill as actors, one of them proved he can act in the right environment both in and out of the comic book movie he starred in, the other one was dealt a very bad hand in the material he was given, and the direction he was taken to.

 

[AlluAllu]

I wouldn't hold wrecking Flash's car against him. It was an emergency and Peter didn't harm it intentionally. And I can't immediately think of another superhero who has apologized for using excessive force against bad guys.

While I am defending Holland's Spider-Man here, I want to say that I like Garfield's too, and never considered him a jerk.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm not against defending him, that's cool.


Some of the views I see online viewing both takes made me go like this.

Spoiler

 

[The Joker]

The comparisons being made here are laughable. Stealing some chemicals from school to make web fluid to HELP STOP CRIMINALS AND SAVE LIVES, and swiping someone's I.D. card just so you can go on a lab tour, while at the same time getting the student who really owned the I.D. thrown out, is not remotely the same. Garifeld's aka PINO's act was jerk selfish behavior that served nobody except himself.

Making goofy looks at a girl in class, and STALKING someone around the city on a DAILY basis is apples and oranges, too. One is typical goofy teen behavior, the other is creepy, inappropriate and often early signs of a psychopath.

Slamming a guy's head off the hood of a car or webbing his hands to subdue him, there is nothing wrong with that. Having already subdued a guy by webbing him to a wall, but continually tormenting him by shooting web at his crotch, gagging his mouth etc.....that is a-hole behavior.

Stealing Flash's car in an emergency to SAVE LIVES......nothing wrong with that. What is the price of a car compared to crimes Peter stopped by doing that. What did that basketball scene achieve except selfish gratification for Peter showing off to Flash? More *****e behavior from PINO, the absolute worst version of the character.

Never has that gif been more appropriately used.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Did MCU Peter really need the car between buildings? He didn't drive a distance with no swing area around. I did not see anything establishing he can't swing fast enough to chase after flying guy, and swinging is faster than driving.
Peter doesn't steal cars, that makes MCU take more of a PINO.

Why did MCU Peter start stealing chemicals from school in the first place? The standard for the character is he has to make web fluid before the death of his uncle, doesn't that mean he stole chemicals before? That time it wasn't to save lives.


Standing on a very high gargoyle once is not stalking.


Now defending the head slam is laughable. The sort of damage caused by that innocent goofiness will leave a guy crippled in reality, if not kill him. Andrew's take humiliated a car thief without causing him physical damage, don't see what's to hate there.
You know what Peter did in the JMS + JRjr run to a car thief? He humiliated him hard and tortured him, threatened to beat him unconsciousness, and webbed him upside down with the word 'LOSER' in all cap webbed over him.


What's wrong with self gratification of that kind? A teenager got powers and had harmless fun with the guy who beat him hard earlier, that does not make a character unlikable, or an adaption a mutilation of the source material.
If you want to go by classic Ditko comics, Peter jumped one time on Flash and his buddies attempting to start physical assault because they were laughing at him.



You guys are way too hard on Andrew's Peter, and way too easy on Tom's take in comparison.

 

[The Joker]

You need to watch the movie again. He was not chasing Toomes in his Vulture garb. He was tracking him down in a car he was driving, in which Peter left his cellphone, and was getting directions from Ned who was using the school computer to track the GPS signal. For all Peter knew Toomes could be headed to an area where there was no buildings to web swing from in order to follow him. He couldn't take the chance of losing him. Time was of the essence.

How do you know he was usinf school chemicals to make web fluid before his Uncle died? Considering he now uses it in bulk in a daily life of crime fighting, compared to only using it to make a few bucks before his Uncle died, his web fluid demands would quadruple as a crime fighter.

Standing on a high gargoyle is not the only time he followed her. It is expressly stated in the movie he has been following her every day. She even flat out asks him if he has been.

The head slam is no more dangerous than taking a punch or kick from him. Unless he goes full strength there is no danger in causing serious injury. He was not tormenting the guy needlessly after he had already subdued him like PINO. Don't quote the JMS run to me. That's the run where garbage like Gwen Stacy screwed Norman Osborn and had two Goblin babies.

You seriously asking what's wrong in using his powers to make a complete ass out of someone just because he can? That's "fun"? Flash did nothing there to instigate that. Peter grabbed the ball, and then decided to be a *****ebag show off when Flash asked for the ball back. In comparison to your Ditko example, where they were laughing at him, at least they were doing something nasty there to instigate it.

People are hard on PINO because he deserves it.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Way too hard, he doesn't deserve it, and that's Peter Parker.


swinging is still faster, he could've bounced on top of cars the rest of the way.

I don't know, I asked about the chemicals.

That was what was shown, before the line he said. He swings fast in a big area, and her travelling region might be smaller than the area he swings in.

It's still too hard compared to webbing him to a wall. And I mentioned JRjr because JMS era with that artist is better received than it is with Mike Deodato jr, or even Ron Garney.
You want more examples of Spidey torturing criminals in comics? Here's one from Roger Stern's run in Amazing Spider-Man: Spider-Man stopped a bunch of bank robbers, he pulled the last one of them from the leg by the web, suspended him upside down one storey up and said "Let's play a game, it's called bombs away. The web will dissolve, and you're the bomb."

From where I am, laughing at someone is not reason to jump on and beat the mocker. Playing with the basketball that way is not a *****ey move, showoff yes. You might as well look at Peter as a tool in Market Force cause he challenged Flash in a rope climbing contest (even if I will agree with some of what you say in response to this example), or even call Peter a PINO for enrolling for the football team and using his powers making the team players look foolish auditioning in Competitions.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

When he webbed that guy's face and knocked his face against the car, he did so because he thought the guy was trying to steal the car. Watch the movie again, he was using a slim Jim type tool to get the door open. Yeah, upon first look someone could easily deduce that he was attempting to steal the car or just break into it to steal a radio or whatever.

I really enjoyed this scene as it played into the hero or menace idea and Peter still learning to be a hero made an honest mistake and he paid for it. He wasn't out for revenge or some other motivation. He was just trying to do the right thing and he messed up. Pretty much in line with the theme of the film. In TSSM, Peter does the same thing when he mistakenly webs up Electro in the second episode thinking he was running away after some kind of crime. I don't remember anyone having an issue with that.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I understood that, any stranger to that car owner can mistake that guy for a car thief.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I understood that, any stranger to that car owner can mistake that guy for a car thief.

Then what is the problem?

You're acting like he put that guy in the hospital. He bumped his head. No loss of consciousness. Not even a bloody nose.

With some of these complaints I feel like people are just digging looking for anything at all, any reason at all to try and put this movie down. You're entitled to your opinion but it seems like nitpicky stuff to me. There are worse flaws.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Then what is the problem?

You're acting like he put that guy in the hospital. He bumped his head. No loss of consciousness. Not even a bloody nose.

No problem with the moment itself, I just pointed out that the hated guy made a move less harmful than the new guy.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

No problem with the moment itself, I just pointed out that the hated guy made a move less harmful than the new guy.

I respectfully disagree.

The carjacker received worse treatment. After getting thrown onto the ground on his head/back, he was webbed to the wall, smacked in the junk by web and then had his airway blocked by web. And, "it could've gotten a lot worse" to paraphrase Garfield's Spider-Man or quote him, I can't remember the exact line.

In SM:H, the 'not a car thief' guy had his face webbed and pulled down onto the car. Could he have sustained some really bad injury? Sure. But as we've seen with Spider-Man in this movie, he was only out to subdue. He wasn't out to harm.

But, I really don't see a comparison here because of the motivation behind the two different acts. In one, Spider-Man is out for revenge and is assaulting anyone who matches the description of his Uncle's killer. If anything, this directly goes against the mantra of WGPtmacGR. He doesn't just want to subdue these guys, he wants them to feel pain, fear and humiliation.

In the other, Spider-Man is attempting to do the right thing. He's trying to stop what he believes to be a robbery in progress or at least a breaking and entering with the probability that the guy is going to either steal the car or maybe the stereo, etc. And as we often see in Homecoming, Spider-Man is on a learning curve and makes mistakes. In this, he mistakenly webs the owner of the car who is just trying to unlock the door because he most likely locked his keys inside. It was an honest mistake that Spider-Man made but it was out of his desire to be responsible. That's the big difference between the two and is why what he does to the supposed car thief is easily let go.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I respectfully disagree.

The carjacker received worse treatment. After getting thrown onto the ground on his head/back, he was webbed to the wall, smacked in the junk by web and then had his airway blocked by web. And, "it could've gotten a lot worse" to paraphrase Garfield's Spider-Man or quote him, I can't remember the exact line.

He actually tossed him on the back, a throw not harder than how people are thrown in judo practice, the car thief didn't cry of pain from it, and webbing to the wall in that small space between the person and the wall still caused less damage.
You got the quote close enough, the meaning is accurate anyway.

But, I really don't see a comparison here because of the motivation behind the two different acts. In one, Spider-Man is out for revenge and is assaulting anyone who matches the description of his Uncle's killer. If anything, this directly goes against the mantra of WGPtmacGR. He doesn't just want to subdue these guys, he wants them to feel pain, fear and humiliation.

He went after perps he catches doing wrong, first one he pushed is a guy strongly pushing a woman in anger, and started punching him once he raised a gun in his face. Might not go with the mantra, but it fits a guy angry over the killing of his uncle.

In the other, Spider-Man is attempting to do the right thing. He's trying to stop what he believes to be a robbery in progress or at least a breaking and entering with the probability that the guy is going to either steal the car or maybe the stereo, etc. And as we often see in Homecoming, Spider-Man is on a learning curve and makes mistakes. In this, he mistakenly webs the owner of the car who is just trying to unlock the door because he most likely locked his keys inside. It was an honest mistake that Spider-Man made but it was out of his desire to be responsible. That's the big difference between the two and is why what he does to the supposed car thief is easily let go.

I was talking about the approach, not the motivation.



Looks to me like I need to mention that I don't hate what Tom did in that scene, I don't mind it. Unfortunately I see people going easy on him after celebrating the previous version being chased out, when the "awful" guy mistakes are easier to forgive than the ones made by the MCU guy.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

He actually tossed him on the back, a throw not harder than how people are thrown in judo practice, the car thief didn't cry of pain from it, and webbing to the wall in that small space between the person and the wall still caused less damage.
You got the quote close enough, the meaning is accurate anyway.

Throwing someone down onto their back and head can cause serious damage. And unless I'm mistaken, judo practice does not occur on asphalt. It occurs on padded floors with control measures in place. And I'm fairly certain Spider-Man was not using the car thief as an attempt to practice his judo techniques. They didn't high five at the end for his nice takedown. Like I said before, this act was motivated by a desire to put fear into the car jacker and to make him feel outmatched and to feel pain.

He went after perps he catches doing wrong, first one he pushed is a guy strongly pushing a woman in anger, and started punching him once he raised a gun in his face. Might not go with the mantra, but it fits a guy angry over the killing of his uncle.

He was not a hero at this point. He was solely guided by revenge. Spider-Man was not out being responsible and trying to prevent crimes nor trying to help innocent people--he didn't care about helping others, he was only out to cause harm to his Uncle's killer. Spider-Man was not about preventing or stopping criminal activity, he was only interested in targeting those that matched the physical description of the killer. The only reason that he was interested in the crime part was because he assumed that because the killer of his Uncle committed a crime when he robbed that store he would therefore continue to commit crimes. And, if we don't go by the mantra, then it isn't Spider-Man. It's just some guy in a mask.

I was talking about the approach, not the motivation.

Well, there's your problem then. The whole reason one iteration is regarded as being beneath the other, at least in this example, is due to the motivation and thus the subsequent actions.

Looks to me like I need to mention that I don't hate what Tom did in that scene, I don't mind it. Unfortunately I see people going easy on him after celebrating the previous version being chased out, when the "awful" guy mistakes are easier to forgive than the ones made by the MCU guy.

Out for revenge and wanting to instill fear, cause harm and humiliate is vastly different than making a mistake while attempting to be responsible and stop a crime in progress. That's a huge gap, imo. And is the reason why one version is regarded as being less than the other.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Throwing someone down onto their back and head can cause serious damage. And unless I'm mistaken, judo practice does not occur on asphalt. It occurs on padded floors with control measures in place. And I'm fairly certain Spider-Man was not using the car thief as an attempt to practice his judo techniques. They didn't high five at the end for his nice takedown. Like I said before, this act was motivated by a desire to put fear into the car jacker and to make him feel outmatched and to feel pain.

That's true about the padded floor.

He was not a hero at this point. He was solely guided by revenge. Spider-Man was not out being responsible and trying to prevent crimes nor trying to help innocent people--he didn't care about helping others, he was only out to cause harm to his Uncle's killer. Spider-Man was not about preventing or stopping criminal activity, he was only interested in targeting those that matched the physical description of the killer. The only reason that he was interested in the crime part was because he assumed that because the killer of his Uncle committed a crime when he robbed that store he would therefore continue to commit crimes. And, if we don't go by the mantra, then it isn't Spider-Man. It's just some guy in a mask.

My point is; he did not assault innocent civilians just cause they fit the description.

Well, there's your problem then. The whole reason one iteration is regarded as being beneath the other, at least in this example, is due to the motivation and thus the subsequent actions.

The motivation is not the cause of complaint people throw at him, he's called an unlikable *****e for how he approached the matter, which is not something unusual for the character himself to do in the source material.

Out for revenge and wanting to instill fear, cause harm and humiliate is vastly different than making a mistake while attempting to be responsible and stop a crime in progress. That's a huge gap, imo. And is the reason why one version is regarded as being less than the other.

Dude, dude dude dude. I said the version people hate made the less painful choice, you went south in analyzing that one point of comparison.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

My point is; he did not assault innocent civilians just cause they fit the description.

But he ONLY went after people committing a crime that DID fit that blonde hair/medium build description. If he was acting like Spider-Man is supposed to, he would have been after anyone committing a crime, not just targeting a specific group. And he wasn't out to just to stop the crime being committed, he only cared about getting revenge.

The motivation is not the cause of complaint people throw at him, he's called an unlikable *****e for how he approached the matter, which is not something unusual for the character himself to do in the source material.

Like I already explained, the motivation is the key difference between the versions. That is why one is ridiculed and the other is not.

Dude, dude dude dude. I said the version people hate made the less painful choice, you went south in analyzing that one point of comparison.

I've explained this as best I could and I've nothing else to say on the matter except, to the emboldened...

Well, that's like, my opinion, man

 

[Matt Parker]

Pic doesn't appear to be working.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I don't really have a horse in this race because I liked both guys portrayals. But the ****** stuff Garfield's Spider-Man did was supposed to be ******. Stealing the guys ID and the basketball scene both occur before Uncle Ben's death. He hasn't learned his lesson about responsibility yet. And the movie treats the basketball scene as being something he did wrong. He is chastised by Uncle Ben in the very scene.

As I've said in other threads, The Amazing Spider-Man breaks from the standard Spidey story a little by not having Peter immediately learn his lesson after Uncle Ben's death. In the scene with the car jacker, he has the suit but he's not really Spider-Man yet, in fact I'm pretty sure that name hasn't been spoken at that point.

He isn't there to help people or even stop that guy from stealing car, he's out for revenge and has targeted that guy because he might be Uncle Ben's killer. Again, this behaviour is clearly called out as being wrong by the film. Captain Stacey basically outlines why Spider-Man is not a hero. In following scene Peter saves the kid in the car and starts to realise what power and responsibility is. This is when he refers to himself as Spider-Man for the first time and when he begins to become a hero.

In Homecoming, whatever the justifications for Peter taking Flash's car are, the film doesn't treat it as wrong, it treats it as funny. We're meant to laugh and be glad that Flash's car is getting destroyed. It's his punishment for being an ass.

In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter being an ******* is intentional and something learns from. I don't see that in Homecoming.

 

[Matt Parker]

In Homecoming, whatever the justifications for Peter taking Flash's car are, the film doesn't treat it as wrong, it treats it as funny. We're meant to laugh and be glad that Flash's car is getting destroyed. It's his punishment for being an ass.

In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter being an ******* is intentional and something learns from. I don't see that in Homecoming.

\
Eh, I don't see this act as wrong in the first place. He stole that car because he needed to catch Vulture, so it wasn't like he just stole Flash's car for fun. I do agree about Garfield in the first film, tho.

 

[OutOfBoose]

In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter being an ******* is intentional and something learns from. I don't see that in Homecoming.

It's because Tom's Peter isn't an *******.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It's because Tom's Peter isn't an *******.

This new Spider-Man is too reckless to need to be an a-h, he doesn't learn from his blunders, he just gets a pat to the back and a thank you after his last one. After his role in Civil War and the competence he's shown there, his solo movie is a fall from grace.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Well, massively disagree.

There's a degree of overconfidence in Parker in Homecoming. But that's part of his character arc. The kid thinks his impressive powers can be applied to better use than stopping bike hijackers or performing acrobatics for bystanders. And his mistakes lead him to learning important lessons. It doesn't make Peter Parker an unlikable or a creepy person in Homecoming. Unlike...

As for the car chase, I don't think it was really necessary to trash Flash's car for laughs. And I don't mean that Parker did that intentionally. If it was some random car, I don't think it would be such a problem for people who criticize this scene. After all, what option did he have in that situation? Go get a driving license with defensive driving training? The movie spends good portion of screen time addressing the problem of swinging in suburbs. It even explicitly shows Peter running on his two across the field (lol).

 

[AlluAllu]

This new Spider-Man is too reckless to need to be an a-h, he doesn't learn from his blunders, he just gets a pat to the back and a thank you after his last one. After his role in Civil War and the competence he's shown there, his solo movie is a fall from grace.

At least he was mature enough to say "no" to the Avengers for now. I think one of his reasons was that he himself understood how barely he managed to win.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Well, massively disagree.

There's a degree of overconfidence in Parker in Homecoming. But that's part of his character arc. The kid thinks his impressive powers can be applied to better use than stopping bike hijackers or performing acrobatics for bystanders. And his mistakes lead him to learning important lessons. It doesn't make Peter Parker an unlikable or a creepy person in Homecoming. Unlike...

That other version isn't that way, people complain if he refuses cupcakes and call him a creepy jerk and call that a bad line. That's hyperbolic reaction.

There is too much overconfidence, and it wasn't an arc, that ending felt more abrupt than closure for a well made build up.

As for the car chase, I don't think it was really necessary to trash Flash's car for laughs. And I don't mean that Parker did that intentionally. If it was some random car, I don't think it would be such a problem for people who criticize this scene. After all, what option did he have in that situation? Go get a driving license with defensive driving training? The movie spends good portion of screen time addressing the problem of swinging in suburbs. It even explicitly shows Peter running on his two across the field (lol).

Still wrong? I'm being critical on how this one is terrible and is getting a pass for being a... you know what? This is the biggest jerk Spider-Man, he didn't take responsibility for anything he broke, it doesn't matter that he didn't mean to. And taking Tony's "leave the flying guy to the pros" is what he should have done to cut down the damage he's done significantly.

This kid is arrogant, brash, cocky, irresponsible, overconfident, disobedient, thief.. and he still managed to find time to be a creep, more than once. The worst Peter Parker in live action by a large margin, he did not acknowledge his errors well enough, the results of his recklessness in the ferry did not matter to him much that he caused it as much as it mattered that it looked to him like no one listened to him, and the loss of his cool new suit.


You massively disagree with this assessment of the character, but this is how I see it, and it's where I stand by. If I'm wrong about it, I'll budge maybe in a year or two. If I don't budge, I'll ignore this movie.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

At least he was mature enough to say "no" to the Avengers for now. I think one of his reasons was that he himself understood how barely he managed to win.

I like to take it that way, though I have big reservations [blackout]considering what I saw from Infinity War teaser of him having the second Stark built suit on and is down on the ground, unmasked.[/blackout]