Hacker Cinema
Spider-Man: Homecoming
2017 · Film · 133 min
Part of Spider-Man (MCU) Collection
Directed by Jon Watts
ActionAdventureScience Fiction
Following the events of Captain America: Civil War, Peter Parker, with the help of his mentor Tony Stark, tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student in Queens, New York City, with fighting crime as his superhero alter ego Spider-Man as a new threat, the Vulture, emerges.
4 positive5 neutralfrom 9 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
10 comments on Hacker News
Movie posters are a complex subject. Way more complex than they have any right to be.
Look at the poster for "The Towering Inferno". Steve McQueen's name is left-most while Paul Newman's name is the highest. William Holden is lower than both of them and to the right, lining up with McQueen's last name. And Faye Dunaway is about half an line lower than Holden's last name.
Then there's fights about how big someone's name/picture can be in relation to others.
Look at the live action Beauty and the Beast Poster. Emma Watson gets a lot of poster estate and first billing. Then it gets a bit crazy. Not to mention, how people are billed is a bit contentious as well. You'll notice that it's mostly a list of names except the final two. "with Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson". That's because being a special mention is worth something. It's a way to give prominence to non-leading actors who are significant in other ways.
The Thor movies do this with Anthony Hopkins. Clearly he's not the lead, but dude has had a career and he was a big get for the movies. For Ragnarok, they even toss it to Mark Ruffalo, probably as a way to acknowledge his part's significance in the film.
Spider-man: Homecoming is another interesting one to look at as well as it gives a lot of real estate to Robert Downey Jr. Tom Holland has a smaller picture than the Spider-man suit, while Robert Downey Jr. is much larger than the Iron Man suit. Michael Keaton also gets the double up, but both of his images are much smaller.
A lot of the Marvel posters are good to look at to see the politicking that goes on as they do a lot of ensemble movies.
And then there's also the fact that sometimes the pictures are made before the credits are put on it. So you're locked in an image but contracts dictate name order.
I would comment as follows.
Iron Man - sort novel for setting marvel tone but mostly banal action movie
Iron Man 2 - banal action movie
Thor - banal action movie
Captain America: The First Avenger - particularly banal action movie
Marvel's The Avengers - banal action movie
Iron Man 3 - banal action movie, sort of interesting to see protagonist suffering PTSD anxiety from being a superhero
Thor: The Dark World - banal action movie
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - first interesting take. Patriotism is not the same as government obedience. Real fight choreography approaching a soft john wick.
Guardians of the Galaxy - Early rock and roll aesthetic pretty interesting
Avengers: Age of Ultron - banal action movie, perhaps mcu lowpoint
Ant-Man - superhero heist movie, literally deconstructs larger than life superhero tropes. I think thumbs up
Captain America: Civil War - by this point doing the mcu's own thing, which is novel, but probably not interesting outside
Doctor Strange - banal action movie
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - aesthetic still feels mostly fresh.
Spider-Man: Homecoming - super down to earth high school drama, frustrated working class villains suffering the fallout of superheroes, seems interesting to me
Thor: Ragnarok - great film, very genre savvy. Rare achievement to make godly strength brutes feel really engaging to watch. Taika Waititi is a genius.
Black Panther - pretty good. interesting aesthetic. directly addressing racial tensions.
Avengers: Infinity War & Endgame - Mostly fan service and not too surprising but honestly still novel.
Ant-Man and the Wasp - Ehhh I really don't remember
Captain Marvel - Beginning had some great hard sci fi imo. Thought the ending message of newly apotheosizied female not needing to prove herself to her evil male mentor was a solid take, whereas a classic "mano a mano" kind of showdown would be so typical of the genre
Spider-Man: Far From Home - Villain emphasizing themes of the power of deceptive media? heck yeah.
Wandavision - Really bizarre and interesting start. Unfortunately non-self-aware conclusion
Falcon and Winter Soldier - Active discussions of race and the problematic nature of superheroes being supremacists? Very good.
Loki - kind of a super cliche topic (time cops) that is also somehow really rare? eh.
honorable mentions for Logan and Deadpool for being just great; and the Amazing Spiderman for its excellent aesthetics despite terrible writing.
After the second Avenger's movie (Age of Ultron) I found the quality seemed to increase and became fresher and less repetitive (Guardian's of the Galaxy, Thor Ragnarok, Spider-Man Homecoming).
But still if you didn't like the first 8 movies, you probably won't like the next 14 movies.
But I still highly recommend Thor Ragnarok. Even as a standalone movie. Especially if you didn't like the first two Thor movies.
The real secret sauce: Kevin Feige of Marvel Studios, and his team including the top-tier casting director Sarah Halley Finn.
Kevin Feige prevented Marvel movies from getting stale by completely switching the genre every single movie: eg, Winter Soldier (political thriller), Ant-Man (heist movie), Spider-Man Homecoming (high-school drama movie), Thor Ragnarok (Australia/New Zealand comedy), Shang-Chi (mythical Chinese martial arts movie).
Feige has said if a character is ever successful enough to have a third movie, they will always take a very different approach from the prior two movies. Thor Ragnarok is the best example of this: a soft reboot of the personality of a previously dull Shakespearean character into a fan favorite. The success of that soft reboot was enough to give that C-level character his fourth solo movie -- something Marvel has not done before.
None of Marvel's competitors have any producer of Kevin Feige's caliber. Not Warner Bros (DC comics), not Sony (Spiderman-villains universe) and not even Disney's LucasFilm (Star Wars).
Kevin Feige is 48 years old and it's not clear whether he'll retire after the X-Men and Fantastic Four are integrated in the MCU.
His magic touch and keen understanding of the characters have been a key part of the Marvel Studio's success, and it's not at all clear whether it will survive when he leaves.
Marvel Studios could become like LucasFilm after George Lucas sold it. It's a shell of its former self that can barely produce anything passable: Mandalorian and Rogue One just make the cut as being acceptable Star Wars, but very little else.
It's true.
But Google fails as well.
Most of the world population is not native english speaker.
Try "attore che recita la parte del giornalista in spiderman" (the actor that plays the journalist in spiderman) in Italian
- Spider-Man: Homecoming - Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org)
- James Franco - Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org)
- Spider-Man film: tutti gli attori | Popcorn Tv (https://popcorntv.it)
- Martin Sheen, dieci ruoli per scoprire un grande attore ... (https://www.consigli.it)
Or the simplified version "attore che fa il giornalista in spiderman" (same meaning as before, just more down to earth)
- J. Jonah Jameson - Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org)
- J. Jonah Jameson - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org)
- Spider-Man: Far From Home, nel cast anche l'attore ... (https://tg24.sky.it)
Refining is still a very present need, it's simply that for common searches on common topics in english it's less so...
It's more or less the same in German, French, Spanish, Portuguese... I can't even imagine the results in languages like Arabic, Indonesian or Balinese.
Local, culture aware, search engines are the future, despite Google efforts, the generalist "one size fits all" search engine is not.
Spider-Man has been rebooted twice in live-action movies since the Raimi version. The last and current incarnation, starring Tom Holland, debuted in Spider-Man: Homecoming, which is getting a sequel this year (Spider-Man: Far From Home). The other reboot, starring Andrew Garfield in two movies, was eminently forgettable.
"Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse" is an alternate-reality version (where SM is a black/latino teenager) in animated form. Somewhat surprisingly, it's also qualitatively better than any live-action version to date. It will probably get a sequel, again in animated form, in the next few years.
There's technically two more...from a certain point of view. Spider-Man: Homecoming, the latest live action Spider-Man film and there was a brilliantly done (both story and the use of CGI and visual effects to enhance and supplement the story) animated movie "Into the Spider-Verse". Coming soon is the sequel to said live action movie.
They're not connected to each other, beyond the two live action movies, and none of the above are connected to the Raimi Spider-Man movies--if that helps your frame of reference.
Yeah, the Atlanta area is home to a lot of movies and TV shows at this point. There's even a huge movie studio built south of Atlanta (Pinewood, opened in 2014).
Most of the recent Marvell movies were shot here.
Recent films shot in Georgia include: Godzilla: King of Monsters, the Ant Man movies, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War, Black Panther, Pitch Perfect 3, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House and Spider-Man: Homecoming.
Some television shows shot here: Stranger Things, Ozark, The Walking Dead, MacGuyver and Atlanta.
There's definitely a booming production industry in the Atlanta area.
That was the first Marvel movie that I actually liked in a long long time - it felt like it had some weight to its scenes, it wasn't peppered with idiotic, unnecessary jokes every 30 seconds(looking at you Thor&Gotg2), and the antagonist had an understandable and well thought out goal, not just "I want to kill everyone because I'm evil lol". The only other Marvel movie that had a decent antagonist was Spider Man: Homecoming - it wasn't some evil being from outer space, but a normal dude who lost his income and wanted to provide for his family, that was actually relatable, even if his methods weren't.
Like you said, the sequel to Infinity War will probably undo this and be disappointing in comparison, but I'm enjoying what we got.
Ah, that makes more sense. I don't think that's an issue unless there are no "jumping on points", and if there's one thing Marvel is good at, it's creating artificial new starting points...
And there's lots of jumping on points coming up, with Dr Strange, Spider-Man Homecoming, Black Panther and Captain Marvel having mostly characters new to MCU and seemingly being relatively disconnected. Thor: Ragnarok might qualify as well depending on how they do it. Ant-Man and The Wasp might too - there's not much of the back story you need to catch up on.
Marvel has a large enough stable of characters to keep on churning out new standalone movies for a very long time. Though they'll need to start dipping into less well known characters, their ensemble movies and TV series will presumably let them test characters.. Then give the top performers sequels...
If they manage to get back control over e.g. X-Men and Fantastic Four too, they'll have characters to draw on for the next couple of decades at current rates...
At which point they can start all over.