Comic Book Movies

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Saw that earlier. To be fair, Richard Madden wasn't a bad actor by any stretch. I'd argue that of all of the Stark children, he was the only one portrayed with any sense of charisma that didn't feel painfully forced (the same could be said for a lot of the big actors killed off within the first four seasons of GOT).

I'm not sure if they are going to do an Eternals movie right out of the Kirby era, or if they are going to take any inspiration from Neil Gaiman's reimagining (which I personally love), but if it's the latter then I think that he'd be a pretty good fit to play Mark Curry (Makkarri/Mercury).

[Peanutbutter]

I'm not one of those people who jumps on the "Disney is trying to brainwash us with SJW propaganda" bandwagon, but yes, it's well documented at this point that Brie Larson has made a complete ass of herself.

I still like Disney, even though they have had some nuts under their employ like that Windig fellow they had to let go of. My point wasn't even about the feminism or SJW stuff but how she's so terrible it's glaringly obvious in interviews that about none of her castmembers want anything to do with her. Not much of a conspiracist, but I do think any time Cheadle has had to defend her online was done through clenched teeth.

[Dr. Insomniac]

I'm not one of those people who jumps on the "Disney is trying to brainwash us with SJW propaganda" bandwagon, but yes, it's well documented at this point that Brie Larson has made a complete ass of herself.

I still like Disney, even though they have had some nuts under their employ like that Windig fellow they had to let go of. My point wasn't even about the feminism or SJW stuff but how she's so terrible it's glaringly obvious in interviews that about none of her castmembers want anything to do with her. Not much of a conspiracist, but I do think any time Cheadle has had to defend her online was done through clenched teeth.

I think trying to psychoanalyze her because of promo interviews is in poor taste. There are plenty of decent people who give shit interviews, and an equal amount of awful human beings who can automatically command charisma when asked questions. It's like thinking Mark Hamill hates Disney by judging his facial tics in interviews and ignoring the times he's defended their decisions on Star Wars.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

There's a good YouTube video (I'll try to find a link after work) that breaks down why her interviews are so cringe-worthy without using any click-baity SJW shenanigans. It presents it more as her inability to properly convey sarcasm or indicate when she's joking, and how some of her comments come off as more defensive or venomous than she probably means due to her delivery being off.

Her now infamous interview sitting between Chris Hemsworth and Don Cheadle is a perfect example of this.

[Dr. Insomniac]

In case you somehow wanted Segata Sanshiro's thoughts on Endgame.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

You know, the other day I stumbled on a Japanese YouTuber's video on Endgame, and was kind of surprised to see how many people in the comments section highlighted Captain America lifting Thor's Hammer to be one of their biggest highlight scenes next to "I Am Iron Man."

Also, Segata Sanshiro would one-shot Thanos.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Watching this interview with the IW/Endgame writers, and they were apparently preparing for the scenario where audiences would groan at the Battle of Wakanda in case Black Panther had a poor reception.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Have the closest we'll get to a Spider-Man/Daredevil/Deadpool crossover.

[Dr. Insomniac]

In case you wanted to read the script to a Beast movie Fox was considering before the buyout.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Marvel and Sony should make an Into the Jameson-Verse movie next.

I'm also now processing the fact that this is the third Spider-Man 2 that we've had just 15 years.

Movie was fun, though I think I prefer Homecoming overall. I'd say that this is maybe tied with Raimi's Spider-Man 1 for me (though if I had to pick between the two, nostalgia would allow for the the original to win out), but compared to Spider-Verse and Spider-Man 2, this is still a far cry from the best the franchise has to offer. Still, I'd say that this is a genuinely entertaining MCU movie and a much better light-hearted follow-up to a heavy event movie like Endgame than Antman & The Wasp was to Infinity War.

[Foggle]

Spider-Man 1 is so good, I love Willem Dafoe in it.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

The Raimi trilogy is interesting to me since my opinion on it completely flip-flopped....twice. I was 12 when I saw the first Spider-Man and it was pretty much one of my favorite movies ever at the time. In general I loved the whole trilogy since I was at the prime age for it. Then, in my early forum days I turned on the movies somewhat because that was a popular thing to do and I had a habit of blindly following stupid trends. These days, though, I appreciate them more than ever. I don't think they were flawless by any stretch, but I have really learned to admire Raimi's craft and his film-making sensibilities. There are a lot more dynamic shots, interesting use of lighting, and generally more well-organized production design than what you get in most modern blockbusters, or hell, even most blockbusters back then. I also have come to really appreciate the tone of those movies as well as the clear love that Raimi has for the source material, putting a ton of heart and soul into the characters and overall feel of the film, which makes up a lot for some of the worse actors (looking at Kirsten Dunst and James Franco specifically), including in the third film. Also, Alfred Molina as Otto Octavius is still the best movie Spider-Man villain to date, IMO.

That said, I'm sick of the side of the Raimi fan-base that shuns literally any other on-screen interpretation of the character.

[Foggle]

My thoughts are almost exactly the same as yours, right down to turning on them temporarily because of blindly following trends! (Or maybe I just had bad taste for a while.) Now that I'm older and can look at them objectively, I really like all three of them. They're some of the only big budget blockbusters to really have the filmmaker's DNA in them - Raimi's penchant for exuberance and camp shines through brilliantly, and they provide a unique interpretation on the character that stays true to his roots while also taking many liberties with the source material. Spider-Man 1 is endlessly entertaining and quotable for me; it's still the gold standard for how to do an origin story in my book, and even its gaffes (like when the "Spider-Man" carrying Mary Jane is obviously a mannequin attached to a wire) add to the experience in a lovable way. Spider-Man 2 drags a little at points but is a genuinely wonderful movie, easily the most earnest superhero film of its era and still one of the purest to this day (only matched or exceeded by The First Avenger and Into The Spider-Verse from what I've seen). Spider-Man 3 is definitely an oddity, but I've grown to love how unabashedly corny and downright bizarre it is; the Evil Peter dancing scenes are incredible and I will go to my death for them.

Alfred Molina is excellent as Doc Ock. Whoever cast him and J.K. Simmons as Jameson was an absolute genius.

That said, I'm sick of the side of the Raimi fan-base that shuns literally any other on-screen interpretation of the character.

Definitely agree here too. The best on-screen Spider-Man is definitely the one from Spectacular Spider-Man for me (if that counts), but honestly I liked Andrew Garfield a lot too. The Amazing Spider-Man movies aren't "amazing" (har har) but the chemistry between him and Emma Stone was ridiculous, I loved seeing them together in all their terrible awkwardness. I have yet to see Homecoming or its sequel yet, though, so I can't comment on that.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I really like Tom Holland as Spider-Man, personally, but as for the movies your enjoyment of them may vary depending on whether or not you mind your Spider-Man stories having strong ties to a larger fictional Universe. Not that the movies don't tell stand-alone stories, but Peter's character arc is tied to other MCU movies and characters.

Namely, Tony Stark is sort of a mentor figure to him and kind of his Uncle Ben equivalent for this Universe. That's very polarizing for a lot of people, but I'm personally fine with it since to me Uncle Ben was always more of a role model in Peter's life that is a staple of the character as opposed to a fully realized character himself. So it doesn't ruin anything to give another character a similar role. Couple that with the fact that we already had two on-screen interpretations of Ben through two different iterations of the franchise, so I can understand why Marvel would want to try something different. Also, the people complaining about Spider-Man being in Iron Man's shadow in his own movie are full of it and the same people who can't except different interpretations of the character. Tony Stark has a cumulative 8-minutes of screen time in Homecoming and only appearances in brief flashbacks in Far From Home. Not really sure how that qualifies as overshadowing.

One thing I will say is that while you don't need to have seen Civil War to enjoy Spider-Man: Homecoming, the events of Infinity War and Endgame are pretty imperative to Far From Home, so I'm not sure how skipping those would affect one's viewing experience of it, though it'd still be easy enough to follow in regard to the story.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Chris Claremont offers his ideas on how he would have handled the X-Men movies after DOFP. Short answer: It would have been more interesting, but much more confusing.