Spider-Man: No Way Home *spoilers*


log in or register to remove this ad

wicked cool

Adventurer
Really good movie. Probably the best marvel stuff since the infinity movies

great job with multiple villains. A+ to the director
Great writing

people were yelling and screaming when Murdock showed up and then both additional spidermen
little bit of foreshadowing to a new spiderman down the line (electros comments).
Wasn’t a single moment where it felt like it dragged
 



Haiku Elvis

Explorer
I know nothing is set in stone and lawers and money and egos and all that but I can't see them having Charlie Cox and Tom Hardy cameos without having some reasonably well drawn up plan about how they will be used.
Especially with the Matt Murdock brick catching bit. If they just wanted a bit of fan service he would have just shown up as a straight lawyer. Those in the know would still have gotten their kicks and the rest would have been none the wiser. Now the non netflix crowd will be expecting something too as that's how the MCU works. Teaser first then reveal.
 

crashtestosi

Villager
up front: loved the movie

downs:
-we didn't know aunt may enough :(
-the typical 'marvel movie must be funny' tho they balanced it well I think
-what the heck were the avengers doing not backing peter ?

but one big question: when everyone who knows peter is spiderman was sent back to their respective universes, some of them came from the same timeline but from different moments in that timeline, namely the deceased supervillains and their respective spider-men. when for example osborne goes back to his own timeline, does he...

-a: ...overwrite that timeline: he has been 'cured' and can prevent himselves from dying (somehow). this way everything changes and nothing makes sense. example: why does doc oc say osborne died a few years back

-b: ...create a separate timeline: a timeline branches out. in the original one osborne accidentally impales himself. in the other he doesn't.

-c: ...die: he was so close to being killed that this sort of difference won't keep him from dying. everything has always been exactly that way. in the previous spiderman movies, everything we saw in no way home actually happened but it was just an unnoticeable blip. this would be very grim and defeat one of the main plot points.

what do you think? did the writers just not consider this? which option (or a completely different one) is the most likely? is there even a point to asking this question?
 

pukunui

Legend
@crashtestosi Those are some good questions! I don’t have an answer. Sony had plans to build a “Spider-Man Shared Universe” to rival the MCU (although it seems like they’re mostly drawing on Marvel characters to do it - e.g. Spider-Man, Venom, Morbius, etc). It could be that they address the reformed villains in a future “SSU” film.

As for Daredevil, I suspect we will see him again.
 


Dire Bare

Legend
I know nothing is set in stone and lawers and money and egos and all that but I can't see them having Charlie Cox and Tom Hardy cameos without having some reasonably well drawn up plan about how they will be used.
Especially with the Matt Murdock brick catching bit. If they just wanted a bit of fan service he would have just shown up as a straight lawyer. Those in the know would still have gotten their kicks and the rest would have been none the wiser. Now the non netflix crowd will be expecting something too as that's how the MCU works. Teaser first then reveal.
Charlie Cox's Daredevil is definitely part of the MCU now, as is Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin (via Hawkeye on Disney+). But are they the same versions of the characters that we watched on Netflix? Maybe.

Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock was returned to his universe . . . but the symbiote . . .
 

Dire Bare

Legend
up front: loved the movie

downs:
-we didn't know aunt may enough :(
-the typical 'marvel movie must be funny' tho they balanced it well I think
-what the heck were the avengers doing not backing peter ?

but one big question: when everyone who knows peter is spiderman was sent back to their respective universes, some of them came from the same timeline but from different moments in that timeline, namely the deceased supervillains and their respective spider-men. when for example osborne goes back to his own timeline, does he...

-a: ...overwrite that timeline: he has been 'cured' and can prevent himselves from dying (somehow). this way everything changes and nothing makes sense. example: why does doc oc say osborne died a few years back

-b: ...create a separate timeline: a timeline branches out. in the original one osborne accidentally impales himself. in the other he doesn't.

-c: ...die: he was so close to being killed that this sort of difference won't keep him from dying. everything has always been exactly that way. in the previous spiderman movies, everything we saw in no way home actually happened but it was just an unnoticeable blip. this would be very grim and defeat one of the main plot points.

what do you think? did the writers just not consider this? which option (or a completely different one) is the most likely? is there even a point to asking this question?
And thus begins the MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS!!!
 


Stalker0

Legend
Yes, so it would appear that Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock is staying put as part of the SSU but Venom can now be part of the MCU, perhaps with a new human(oid) host.
Can even still be Eddie Brock, as Spider-Man showed, alternate reality versions don’t look the same as the original
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Can even still be Eddie Brock, as Spider-Man showed, alternate reality versions don’t look the same as the original
Actually, we could even get a Tom Hardy Eddie Brock in the MCU . . . . we got a JK Simmons JJ Jameson, a different JJJ than portrayed in the Sam Raimi films (plus, he's done JJJ's voice in a number of different animated Marvel shows over the years).
 

The MCU Sinister Six.
269684868_1346029915839407_2028418878036519694_n.jpg
 


MGibster

Legend
It seems like the universe isn't happy unless it's kicking Parker in the teeth. I enjoyed the movie but I thought the ending was incredibly sad. Peter is alone in the world.
 


DeviousQuail

Adventurer
Very fun film. I would definitely pay money to see it again. The few down notes for me mostly felt like issues caused by the Sony-Disney thing. The soft reboot of the character and how Peter chooses to deal with it all feel built to allow the MCU and Spiderman to part ways if necessary. At this point if Spiderman was never mentioned again in the MCU we would largely understand why. But if he does return he can find MJ and Ned and work to get the team back together. If the contract stuff wasn't an issue (assuming Disney owned Spiderman or the contract with Sony had more movies still in the works) I wouldn't like that ending. As it is, it's about as good as could be expected.

Doctor Strange had a weird characterization in this movie. It was like he was almost bitter and a little less thoughtful of his actions. Getting passed over for Sorcerer Supreme may have done that. I think he also forgot he wasn't dealing with a grownup when Peter came to him. If anything he was too trusting in assuming that Peter wouldn't have come to him if things weren't already pretty dire.

The spell he did was something he said he had done before so he probably didn't think it would be such a big deal. But the target wasn't a bunch of party goers in Kathmandu. It was Peter Parker, a person that exists across many universes. Perhaps someone who exists more often than most people and whose identity is regularly a big deal. Had the same spell been attempted on the Hulk or Captain Marvel I don't think it would have been as difficult to control.

Now for the good stuff. They actually did it. Three spiders in one movie, all in different stages of life and steps of dealing with loss. The banter between them was great (between them and Kate/Yelena we're spoiled) and they each brought their own version of the character to the screen so well. The villains were also really good. Their motivations were distinct and I never questioned why they did anything they did. Really well done considering there were five of them (six if you count the tree).

The fight scenes were great though it was sometimes difficult to track which spider was which during the finale. All the callbacks were fun. I liked Garfield in this and if Holland sticks with the MCU I would be fine with him doing another movie with Venom, Morbius, etc. Before No Way Home I would have thought that was a terrible idea. Heck, let him finally find his MJ now that he's redeemed his loss of Gwen (does Shailene Woodley want to reprise her cut role?)
 

pukunui

Legend
@DeciousQuail: My understanding is that there’s already a fourth Tom Holland Spider-Man film in the works, and the studios are also talking about giving Garfield another Spider-Man film as well. (Obviously the opening of the multiverse means you can have multiple actors playing the same character.)
 

Dire Bare

Legend
@DeciousQuail: My understanding is that there’s already a fourth Tom Holland Spider-Man film in the works, and the studios are also talking about giving Garfield another Spider-Man film as well. (Obviously the opening of the multiverse means you can have multiple actors playing the same character.)
As "No Way Home" was opening, the future of the MCU Spiderman was in doubt, but Tom Holland did recently sign up for another 3 films.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top