MovieChat Forums > Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Discussion > 10 Reasons Why Spider-Man: Homecoming is...

10 Reasons Why Spider-Man: Homecoming is Complete Garbage

posted 7 years ago by JediJones (235)
48 replies | jump to latest

Adapting a character faithfully is usually what makes superhero movies great, especially when that character is very well-known and very popular. That's the number one reason why Wonder Woman was a great movie. As seen in the trailers, Spider-Man: Homecoming has deviated so far from the essence of Spider-Man that the character has become totally unrecognizable and unappealing.

1. Spider-Man does not dream about becoming an Avenger. He did not choose to become a superhero for fame, fortune and glory. Quite the opposite. He learned not to seek those things out after those pursuits led to Uncle Ben's death. Spider-Man is only a superhero out of a sense of guilt, obligation and responsibility. What he does as Spider-Man gives him more angst than joy as Spider-Man 2 captured absolutely perfectly. He does not brag about his exploits. He is just happy to survive them.

2. Aunt May is not young-looking and hot. She is a doddering old Aunt. Raimi's movies cast her brilliantly. Webb's less so. Now this movie has hit rock bottom with its casting. Having Spidey's aunt be weak and dependent on him is important to enhancing his sense of burden and obligation in life. If she could easily walk out the door and land a rich husband, the whole balance of their relationship is thrown off.

3. Spider-Man builds his own gear, equipment and costumes. He does not depend on outside help to give him his abilities and powers. Writing him that way diminishes him greatly as a character. Having the MCU staff work on this movie is like having the Iron Man writer come in to guest-write the Spider-Man comic for a month and writing a story that makes Spider-Man look like a loser totally dependent on that "awesome" Iron Man character.

4. Ned Leeds is not a hideous-looking, overweight teen-ager in school with Peter. He works at the Daily Bugle and becomes the Hobgoblin.

[–] darkpast (8292) 7 years ago

not as bad as ghostbusters 2016

remember sony doing seth rogen as green hornet?

Sony is improving very slowly, can't wait for Barbie

[–] thebricks (292) 7 years ago

Here come the idiots calling you racist!

Most of them aren't even using their brains. Good post.

[–] Goliard (1413) 7 years ago

Was gonna go point-by-point, but I'll restrict myself to a few observations, which address all of them in one way or another.
A LONG time ago, a bunch of us nerds would congregate at comic conventions, and laugh at the attempts by Hollywood to make movies about these characters we loved So Much. And EVERY TIME, we'd bump fists and predict the day when someone would put Real Money behind a CBM.
Flash forward to today, and what we're getting is So Far beyond what we ever imagined, that I feel a little ungrateful to complain At All. We really are living in an incredible age for movies; perspective is Everything.
HOWEVER.
It would be So Amazing if we could get on-screen versions of what we grew up with, hoped, wished, and dreamed (literally!) about. I have Never understood the knuckleheads who insist "You can't do the same thing! You HAVE to adapt it, that's just how it works!!!" Um. . .No. You DON'T have to make Ras al Gul Bruce's original teacher, or Spidey's webbing organic, or give Bruce armor, or make Johnny Storm black, or Jean the literal Phoenix before being possessed by a cosmic force, or Clark mopey and dark, or Hulk a result of the Super-Soldier program. You DON'T. These are all a result of creators wanting to do Their version of beloved characters, rather than presenting us those characters we've been reading for decades. Period.
HOWEVER.
You, after a while, have two choices: Don't watch; or accept that faithful adaptations aren't going to happen, & just see these as alt-versions. If you pick the latter, it's just a matter of deciding if you like the movie on its own merits. At this point, the MCU (and DCU) are well-established, and MUCH different from their print counterparts.
So, for me, I approach these flicks with a two-pronged view: how faithful does it adapt the source, and how good is it on its own? I give SM: H a 6 for the first, and a 7 for the second. average: 6.5 for this movie, bumped up to a 7 (after-credits made me LOL)

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

Only difference here is that we've already had better versions of movie Spider-Man to compare this to. So it's not even just about adapting the comics, but about living up to previous movie versions.

Some changes are necessary to condense a big storyline from the comics into a 2-hour movie. Every change needs to be judged independently. But simply casting actors who look like the original characters is very easy to do. When they intentionally change the appearance of characters just because "diversity" then I always object to it. And some of these other changes undermine the basic appeal of Spider-Man.

[–] Goliard (1413) 7 years ago

Meh. . .
Whether we've had "better versions" is (of course) endlessly debatable. What *isn't* debatable is what I said: NONE of these movies have been comics-accurate. Not A Single One. Either we can get on board with this alt-universe that's being created, or we can give up on the process. . .because the MCU is churning full steam ahead, and fanservice is NOT a consideration.

Shrug. They're (on balance) doing a pretty good job. Enough people who have love for the source material are making Enough of an effort. YMMV. . .but, as always, what's gonna make these flicks work across the board is if they're good/consistent Internally.

Last point: I VEHEMENTLY disagree that "changes are necessary." Sin City *proved* that, conclusively. You just need to pick the right story from the comics, and condense appropriately. Changes are NOT needed. . .certainly not in the sense that Hollywood applies them.

[–] LibHater (99) 7 years ago

You really need to get out more.

[–] TMC-4 (19559) 7 years ago

https://lebeauleblog.com/2017/07/07/spider-man-homecoming-a-review/

This iteration of Spider-Man smartly avoids the well-known origin story and instead spends its time on showing the fifteen year-old central character struggling with adjusting to his new super hero life. He has both outsized expectations and undersized competence. You know, sort of like a real life fifteen year-old would. It’s actually pretty frustrating sometimes watching Spider-Man stumble in situations we’ve seen him knock out of the park so many times before. But that’s actually a pretty big part of the story here. Peter’s status as a super-powered being who doesn’t yet really know how to handle himself and hasn’t matured into the role he’s destined to play is not just entirely appropriate, but central to who the character is.

Anyone who has read any of the original Stan Lee/Steve Ditko comics (I caught many of them in reprints when I was a comics reader back in the eighties) knows that this is actually pretty accurate to that early iteration of the character. He had a tendency to make some pretty stupid or foolish mistakes sometimes and he pretty much always got his head handed to him the first time he faced one of his growing cadre of super villains. It was only with experience and maturation that Spider-Man grew into the confident and ultra-competent hero he had become by the time I was reading his books. There was always a suggestion that his powers were growing as he learned life lessons – and there is a version of an iconic Spider-Man moment from 1966 that drives this point home here in this movie.

You’ll also notice that the movie spends a significant amount of time establishing Peter’s life in high school. Yet again, this is an element that was also present in the earliest Spider-Man books which were almost as concerned with Peter Parker’s love life as they were with his exploits as Spider-Man.

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

Of course he gets beaten by most of the villains the first time they fight. That's not true of "early" Spider-Man stories, it's true of most of them. It would be a lousy story if he just walked over every villain easily. Recall when the Goblin kicked his butt and captured him in Spidey 1? How about when Doc Ock kicked his butt and captured him in Spidey 2?

At the same time, Spider-Man was never incompetent with using his powers in the comics or in those movies. He never needed a "training wheels" suit or THOUGHT he needed one. He never needed another superhero as a mentor. He was never that weak and never that uncertain about his superhero abilities. (Spidey 2 presents a very different situation, where he is already highly skilled but develops a sickness that makes him lose his powers.)

A Peter Parker who finds it easier to be Peter Parker than to be Spider-Man is anathema to the mythos. Peter Parker was the guy who had all the problems. Spider-Man was his escape from them. And that's why the comics worked for fans. We could identify with Peter and then use that identification to participate in the escapist fantasy of being Spider-Man. Because almost being killed by a super-villain is much more fun and much easier a problem to solve than dealing with the endless, frustrating stresses of work, school, money, family, girlfriends, etc.

Whatever romance this movie deals with is destroyed by the casting. We all know what Liz Allan and "MJ" look like. When the movie doesn't even try to cast actors who look like them (or Aunt May or Flash Thompson or the Shocker) then they get an "F" for lack of effort. And why were the Amazing movies hated so much if people wanted romance in their Spidey movies? They had a great romance with Gwen Stacy, a much more significant character than Liz Allan. Even Betty Brant would be more significant than Liz Allan.

[–] FredBurroughs (20214) 7 years ago

Even though I recognize your opinions, I respectfully disagree on multiple points. This movie was received well by critics and audiences alike. It also accomplished artistic and commercial objectives. Yes, takes some departures from the comics, but it serves the whole of the movie itself as well as the connected universe. It's fine that you didn't like it, so why not just say that?

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7504) 7 years ago

I will somewhat agree with the TC about some things except saying that Laura Harrier is ugly. But something I want to point out is that Ned is not made to be Ned Leeds. He's an Ultimate Universe character named Ganke who was friends with Miles Morales in the comics. Why they didn't just call him that I don't know. But nothing about him is anything like the character Ned Leeds. But he is very similar to the character Ganke. I did like the movie but my problem isn't the race change. It's the fact that all of Peter's classmates with the exception of Betty Brant and Liz barely resemble their comic selves. I don't like the version of Flash in the movie who makes fun of Peter because he's jealous of him for being smarter than him. But something I really don't like is the school he goes to is a special prep school for geniuses. So most everyone around him is just as nerdy as he is. That takes away Peter being an outsider in highschool when most everyone in the school is just like him. I also didn't like that Peter is so young and the fact it's probably going to be 2 sequels before he graduates highschool.

[–] KevMill (242) 7 years ago

There ALWAYS has to be at least one idiot that comes with this take.