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.

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thecritic (191) 7 years ago

5. Liz Allen, now beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So she looks, just ok to me. (Zendaya looks far more beautiful and I was bummed out that she was not playing the love interest.) And lots of people think she is pretty. Again she is pretty plain to me. Everyone is different. I'm ok with this seeing as we do live in a diverse world, but it's when they push it to extremes (they totally change the characters personality). Looks are not that important. But I get your point.
6. I agree, I was like Liz Allen, who is that? I am not that big into the comics so no idea if she was ever a love interest, but again this is not really a spm movie, it's like a hs comedy with spm thrown in unfortunately. Another Avengers side movie. So they just do whatever for their own ends ($$$ lol)
7. Agreed. This movie has been made to patronize to the millennials apparently. So millennials are vapid self interested people that can not be independent? What a sad insulting thing to say about the youth of today!
8. 100% agree. Yup hit the nail on the head! This movie is not a spm movie but a comedy, so sad. Again making spm look like an idiot when he is apparently a genius nerd. Dumbed down for sure, Ned is just a window character. I guess today's audiences can't understand 'self reflection' and 'inner thoughts' too complex for them. Sad commentary really on the film makers.
9. Agree yet again! LOL "New Yawker" Yes not sure why they made spm an a-hole again! Cuz it worked out so well for Andrew! That shyness was what made spm so endearing!
10. Agreed again. Yes again this is comedy spm, played for laughs. "He's treating me like a kid." "But you ARE a kid." Peter and ned's exchange in the trailer....I just take this film as a high school comedy, not a true spm film. Because that is what they are making. It's like when people try to pass something off as something else. WE know that it's not the true article. But most people don't know/care. Sad.

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

8. Spider-Man's secret identity is sacrosanct. He is not just another MCU superhero where everyone knows who they are. People do not just figure out his identity by watching YouTube videos. Spider-Man is not careless with his identity at all and he does not reveal it easily. More importantly, when he does reveal it to someone, it is a highly dramatic, game-changing moment in any story. It does not happen as a casual bit of comedy, just so Spider-Man will have "someone to talk to" about his problems on screen, conveniently taking all of his intriguing subtext and expressing it in a flat, verbal way for the dumbed-down multiplex audience. The secret identity is another one of those qualities that adds to his burden in life and makes him relatable to us. He knows that his enemies will destroy the ones he loves if they know his identity. Therefore he protects it religiously as a literal matter of life and death.

9. Peter Parker is not some kind of slick-talking, conniving, scheming New Yawker. He is a soft-spoken, shy, polite kid. He is not some kind of Ferris Buller-like rebel who intentionally lies to authority figures to get away with things. He is the Cameron of the Ferris Bueller canon, the kid who would never engage in misbehavior and never try to get away with mischief unless he was forced to. This actor is performing Peter Parker completely wrong. Instead of the shyness we're getting some kind of fast-talking shyster character who is very unlikable and unrelatable.

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

10. Spider-Man does not have a powerful mentor who is constantly trying to give him advice and help him out. It can't be reiterated enough that he is a loner and a loser who is mostly on his own in life. He is burdened with helping other people and does not get much help from others himself. Putting Spider-Man in this subservient and protected role destroys his relatability. The sense of risk and danger is diminished because he's not "on his own." And whenever he does succeed, we don't get to cheer for him as much because of the advice and other help he received. It is supposed to be very hard for Spider-Man to ask for help because his identity is supposed to be secret. He would sacrifice almost any advantage to preserve that secrecy. Keeping that secret identity is how Spidey manages to maintain some parity when he teams up with other superheroes. To lose that secrecy puts him in such a weak and vulnerable position next to these other, often more powerful and resourceful heroes. As much as Peter Parker is weak, Spider-Man is his powerful alter ego who is supposed to come across as strong. Having another hero show up and show extreme power over him by knowing all his secrets, being able to improve all his technology and bossing him around just makes Spider-Man look like a total wuss and loser. This is the kind of mess that happens in comic books when a writer who hates Spider-Man gets to write the character and uses the opportunity to make some other character look much better and cooler.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 7 years ago

"5. Liz Allen is a white, blonde, blue-eyed, beautiful girl. She is not a dog-faced, dark-skinned Michelle Obama lookalike. Seeing the male characters fawn over this ugly girl in the trailers is totally unconvincing. It is also obviously SJW-led, politically-correct preaching and pandering."

Wow, this is disgustingly racist.

"Adapting a character faithfully is usually what makes superhero movies great"

Uh no, not really. The Dark Knight trilogy was probably the least faithful adaptation of a superhero and yet the movies were all great.

In Spider-Man 2 Dock Ock is dressed in a hobo trench coat and is mind-controlled by his robotic arms. How was that a faithful adaptation?

The entire Iron Man trilogy totally butchered the backstory of their villains but most people didn't care just because they were all C-list characters

The X-Men movies change just about every detail that they possibly can. The costumes, the backstories, their ages, their good-bad alignment, etc. They portray the Sentinels as infused with Mystique DNA, Beast as being able to go back and forth from his Beast form, etc.

Just admit that what you really hate is that white characters are being played by black and brown people

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

There is NOTHING at all racist about saying that the race of a character should not be changed in an adaptation. What is RACIST is CHANGING the race of a character for no reason other than because you WANTED to change the race. That is explicitly an attack of one race against another. If the filmmakers did not have racial bias, they would not see any NEED to change the race of a character.

Just as importantly, the actress playing the girl is butt ugly. If the actress looked like Halle Berry, then at least the scene where the kids fawn over her would make sense. As it is, the filmmakers forcing these kids to act like they're attracted to that dog is simply forced P.C. propaganda.

Batman Begins was the most faithful origin of Batman we have seen by far. Very close to what Sam Hamm wrote in the comics right after the 1989 Batman movie came out, in a story that wasn't butchered the way his screenplay was.

Did I mention one thing about the Vulture? No. So don't bring up the villains in any other movies. What is far more important is getting the main character right, especially when it's a well-known and popular character. Obviously this Vulture isn't even close to the comic-book version, so you wouldn't win the argument on that comparison either.

The X-Men movies have lots of problems, no question about it. The costumes from the beginning have been horrible. It took until the final scene in X-Men: Apocalypse to get them in costumes that looked decent. X-Men 2 was just about their best movie because it closely followed the God Loves, Man Kills graphic novel.

[–] tom8 (2999) 7 years ago

Agree with OP

and the liz allan change is bullshit

[–] Bubbathegut (17273) 7 years ago

razzie bump

[–] gcarras (2736) 7 years ago

Betty Brandt was hot.SHe was the 1967 cartoon's girlfriend (the Canadian supporting cast of 1964's "Rudolph the Rednose Reindeeer" narrated by Burl Ives were that cartoon Spider cast--the same version that gave us ALL that beloved theme music.:) and that Ralph Bakshi worked on..)

[–] TMC-4 (19551) 6 years ago

Liz Allen was depicted as a Latina girl (presumably Puerto Rican) on the Spectacular Spdier-Man animated series so a precedent was already set way, way before Homecoming.

[–] thecritic (191) 7 years ago

The problem I have with this spm movie is that it was made for the worst of intentions. $$$ of course. It was to cash in on the fans and to make it 'the first ever spm in the mcu' well who cares? I know that fans of this happening will like it.

But the reason that I liked Tobey's spm the best was because it was made to be a spm movie. The director was a big fan of spm and boy did it show! When they gave him free reign on spm2 it showed! Best spider-man movie. Why? Because he loved spm.

This third reboot was made not for love, but money, to further people's careers. Sure Tom says he loves spm, etc....But so did Andrew. And his movies were by far the worst.

The director of this movie just wanted to direct it, just for the prestige. Have not heard that he was a fan or anything. How sad. Tbh the Andrew's spm movies makes spm3 with Tobey look like a MASTERPIECE! Come on people spm3 was not THAT bad. I actually recently re-watched all Tobey spm movies and it was not that bad. In comparison I could not even get past 10min of Andrew spm1!!! not even kidding. It was THAT bad. That's what happens when you make a movie for reasons for hate and not love. (Sony made it just to keep the rights)

[–] BlockBusted (25) 7 years ago

> The problem I have with this spm movie is that it was made for the worst of intentions. $$$ of course.

Have you forgot about 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'?

[–] Galactus03 (4335) 7 years ago

Totally agree JediJones. It's also NOT RACIST...to not like a characters race change. I would bet that if they made the Falcon white we would here complaints from CyberBOOB that it was racist to change a black character white...lol....

[–] cyberbob (3488) 7 years ago

It's racist to say that there's no way Tom Holland and the other guy could be attracted to this Harrier chick and that she looks like a dog.

The actress is not super gorgeous, but were all the girls y'all were attracted to in high school literal supermodels? She looked good enough to realistically portray a cheerleader type

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

Get a clue, Bob. It's not racist to find one black girl unattractive. This chick is no Vanessa Williams. They should've been able to find one who at least looked like Zoe Saldana. Most likely it was PC social justice casting trying to make average women feel good by intentionally casting an average-looking woman as the love interest. Women might get all catty and jealous if they cast a hot girl in the role. But a man has the right to go to see a movie in order to fantasize about dating super-hot women. It's a primary reason we go.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 7 years ago

So now she's just average? You kept calling her an ugly dog in your OP. I'd say that can be construed as racist considering how many people consider all black women to be ugly.

Again, I don't think she's smoking hot. She isn't as beautiful as Emma Stone or Kirsten Dunst (although Dunst herself is not that hot), but she is pretty enough to where a guy who is supposed to be a science geek could like her. They were trying to more accurately portray high schoolers in this movie. That's why they cast the youngest Spider Man yet. Even Holland I think is way too manly and square-jawed to properly portray Peter Parker.

And seriously dude, before you go calling all these women ugly, put up a picture of yourself. I highly doubt Laura Harrier would give you a second look. Honestly, I think/hope you might be trolling based on that "right to see hot women" comment.

Anyway, she was barely his love interest. Assuming you've seen the movie [SPOILERS AHEAD], she ends up leaving town anyway. They never kiss or anything. She plays a fairly minor role and she's mainly just a plot device to set up the whole Vulture drama. She is most likely not gonna be in the sequel so I don't see the big deal.

[–] naDaht (1087) 7 years ago

although Dunst herself is not that hot

Which of course is why she is attractive from the start, she really looks like a girl next door.

[–] MaximRecoil (4253) 6 years ago

"Even Holland I think is way too manly and square-jawed to properly portray Peter Parker. "

What are you talking about? This is from the first TASM annual, 1964, drawn by the guy who invented the look of Peter Parker / Spider-Man (Steve Ditko):

https://i.imgur.com/SkxAUVx.jpg

And Peter Parker is supposed to have a masculine, square-jawed face:

https://i.imgur.com/BsSdxsU.jpg

Tom Holland looks like a girl compared to those drawings.

[–] thecritic (191) 7 years ago

To your points:
1. Totally agree. Tom's spm seems like an egotistical spm. 'look at me' I have not seen the movie yet, but this spm does not seem humble, maybe the actor just gives off those vibes I don't know.....
2. Yes, casting wayy off. This was basically to get the perv audience. 'Aunt may is hot! Come stare at her t!t$' I also don't like how much they objectify her. In one scene she is so sexualized 'I hope you got a few good licks in' it ALMOST seems as if she is coming on to her own nephew EWWWW! Sitting on the edge of his bed, acting flirty...yikes!
3. Great reason again! When I heard that he did not even make his own suit I was like...isn't he a genius or something. Yes it makes him look stupid.
4. Well since they are making this a sort of rom-com/high school drama you will always need the 'fat friend' character. Again this is not really a spm movie, it's a bastardized version where they just did whatever they thought would bring in the $$$. All comedies, especially high school comedies have the fat friend character. Super-bad, Dodge-Ball, shaun of the dead, etc...

[–] HorrorMetal (839) 7 years ago

Very well said! I agree completely on all your points, I had the exact same problems with this movie, which was very disappointing.

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

Unfortunately the bad vibes that seemed clear from the trailers seem to be confirmed by people. I am not going to see the movie in theaters.

I forgot to add that Spider-Man's costume is not supposed to have racing stripes. It's frustrating that they fixed Garfield's costume in his 2nd movie, making it look awesome, and then they went back to something that looks like the terrible Amazing 1 version here.

[–] LibHater (99) 7 years ago

Wrong. Garfield's costume sucked. HARD.

[–] JediJones (235) 7 years ago

In Amazing 2? It looked terrible in Amazing 1 and super comic-accurate in Amazing 2.