Canon-Strike VI: Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah I think the big issue with Spider-Man 3 is just that it’s messy. You’re right that parts feel very like they follow the second film but there are just far too many of those parts squished together and nothing gets the time it needs. Sandman is the most interesting aspect but then you have Venom and Harry in there too. Too much stuff for one movie.

Aside from that issue, I still cringe at Maguire’s emo Parker portrayal and that pretty much defines the movie for me (and I would argue that sequence very much earns this movie’s bad reputation) and, coupled with the misery of the second film, makes it easy for me to see why I don’t remember him fondly as Parker at all. For me personally, Maguire’s strength was his kind of innocent, cheeky, slightly goofy thing that he had more of in the first film. When he wasn’t doing that, I just didn’t like him. I don’t like him moany, emo or doing his cry face. That’s not a Peter Parker I need. So then when I consider that, it’s very easy to see why Holland clicked for me right away because 99% of the time he has an innocent, cheeky, slightly goofy thing going on.

[Asura]

Also, the less widely discussed - chrisTopher Grace left That 70s Show to go work on Spider-man 3.

So he was directly involved in the death of two franchises, not one!

->Open Spoiler<-

Honestly I don't blame the guy all that much. He was totally miscast but that's not his fault, and he got to move from a waning TV sitcom to the biggest of big budget hollywood movies. Any actor would've done the same.

[Dogg Thang]

I think he had the potential to be a great Brock but he wasn’t given the time or the material to work with. Still predicting that the post-credit sequence of No Way Home will be his Brock meeting Hardy’s Brock. Well, that’s what I want to see.

[Neon Ignition]

It would have worked better if they'd have shown more restraint. It was fine to have Eddie arrive and set him and his rivalry with Peter up but squeezing the Venom arc in as well strained it

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, plus all the other stuff. Black suit Spider-Man almost needed its own film with Venom only becoming a thing a film later.

[Asura]

I think he had the potential to be a great Brock but he wasn’t given the time or the material to work with.

Maybe, but I always pictured Brock as more of a hard-man type. I get that an adaptation can try and defy expectations and take a character or concept in a different direction (for instance, I like what the MCU movies did with The Mandarin), but I think, given where super-hero movies were at when Spider-man 3 came about, it was important that they stuck quite closely to the script and proved they could do the straight-up interpretation, and then they could flip-the-script in the future once they'd established that the original idea can work.

Ultimately though I think we (and pretty much everyone else) can agree that the film's biggest issue relates back to this - it did too much, too fast.

When I think about the movie now, I think I've only seen the whole movie once, in cinema. Of that, I only clearly remember 2 parts - the emo bit and the bit where Sandman first has his powers. The former was terrible, whereas the latter I seem to remember being absolutely wonderful.

EDIT: Oh, wow, just remembered something I'd blocked out. I watched the first movie on a dodgy pirate VHS from the market. There was a huge trade in them because stupidly, the movie came out in the US, then international markets and only hit the UK a long time after. This was the practice back then, because the UK cinemas would literally get reels from the US movie theaters once the runs were finishing. So I watched the original in terrible quality with Thai subtitles and silhouettes of people at the bottom of the screen. Thankfully that practice is quite rare; though I remember Big Hero 6 did it too.

[Neon Ignition]

Yep, the slow scene with Sandman pulling himself together is still great and clearly marks out the difference between Raimi's interest levels in him compared to Eddie.

It's probably a concerning sign that we're calling out the films attempt to manage three villains on the eve of the new film drafting in six

[Asura]

It's probably a concerning sign that we're calling out the films attempt to manage three villains on the eve of the new film drafting in six

True, but that depends. The new film having all these enemies might potentially work a bit like Homecoming or the Edward Norton Hulk movie, in that both were written based on an assumption - that the average filmgoer knows who these characters are, so an extensive introduction to them is not necessary. That's why we fortunately didn't get a third run at seeing Uncle Ben's death.

It'll be better if they work off the same slate.

[Dogg Thang]

that the average filmgoer knows who these characters are

I can't know for certain because I don't know the audience breakdown of the last two Spider-Man films but I wouldn't underestimate the power of the draw of Tom Holland on young people and I don't think many of them will have a clue who characters from a 20-year old movie are. When we're talking "average filmgoer", that doesn't always mean us.

[Neon Ignition]

It's likely an equal split, the apparent extreme hype and presales for No Way Home will undoubtedly be resting on anticipation of Maguire and Garfields eras merging rather than off Hollands but it'll be a very curious experiment as the blow out from failing to serve any of those fanbases well could blowback on future Holland films. They should be fine, Marvel helms these themselves so in a way it's not new territory

[Dogg Thang]

Just for the sake of curiosity, the average cinema goer: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ers-in-the-uk/

[Asura]

I can't know for certain because I don't know the audience breakdown of the last two Spider-Man films but I wouldn't underestimate the power of the draw of Tom Holland on young people and I don't think many of them will have a clue who characters from a 20-year old movie are. When we're talking "average filmgoer", that doesn't always mean us.

I'd agree, but they've been highly watched movies on Netflix etc. for quite a long time, and given the anticipation on Twitter from the early rumours of the older versions of the characters showing up, I think Sony is banking on this.

[Neon Ignition]

Yep, every single piece of media coverage is based on the returning elements from prior films etc on any platform there's no real news stories or focus on pretty much anything centring on Hollands role. It's like the Jurassic World or Force Awakens thing, new audiences engaging primarily with the current incarnation but I'd imagine they're well aware of the prior ones.

If you're interested in Hollands Spider-Man films then Garfields last Spider-Man film was only 7 years ago. Maguire's was only 13 years ago too which is further but it's the same year that Iron Man came out. At this point it's a bit like being someone who watched and loved Jurassic World, in the years that followed it's highly likely they checked out Jurassic Park 1-3 and will be hyped for the OG cast being in Dominion next year even though those original films are upward of *gulp* 30 years old.

[Dogg Thang]

This will make you feel old. This is what Harry Potter looks like now:

[Neon Ignition]

Movie 32 - The Amazing Spider-Man
So, that other other Spider-Man where Andrew Garfield plays a tech-web shooter based Peter Parker who's parents were top scientists killed as part of an elaborate conspiracy that he must unravel over time all whilst dating Gwen Stacey, juggling his responsibilities as Spider-Man and working to stop Professor Connors who has begun to turn in The Lizard.



Where does this entry sit within the array of Spider-Man films and what could Garfield's Parker bring to the MCU?