Spider-Man: No Way Home *spoilers*

[pukunui]

A secret only a parent/guardian can know.

I'm a parent and I don't know the secret!

 

[wicked cool]

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

 

[trappedslider]

little bit of foreshadowing to a new spiderman down the line (electros comments).

Miles say it wasn't so much foreshadowing as a shoutout/nod to his existence.

 

[GreyLord]

Miles say it wasn't so much foreshadowing as a shoutout/nod to his existence.

Yes, they already have one movie out with him (Miles Morales) in it, with the sequel coming soon.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

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]

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]

@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.

 

[Stalker0]

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

If we use a little bit of logic from the "Loki" movie. Previously they would have been variants that would have been taken out by the TVA, but with the ending of LOKI.... probably just another alternate timeline is created.

 

[Dire Bare]

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]

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!!!