GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds

Entertainment & Media

We're gonna need a bigger boat.
Spiderman Far from home teaser trailer
Posted: Posted January 15th by S.O.H.
Edit Report Thread Views

Kinda bummed that they released it so early. I was not expecting the infinity war outcome to be permanent but I wish tehy would have held off on this. Oh well. It looks neat.

Calling it now mysterio is pretending to be a hero to keep spider man from stopping his actual evil plan.

There are 16 Replies
1 2 Load all posts

I mean, it wasn't exactly like it was a big secret that the ending of Infinity War was literally going to be undone in Endgame. Did anyone really think any of those "death" were permanent? Less than a year after they got to make a Spider-man film and literally two months after Black Panther became a cultural phenomenon. (Not to mention undoing the entire plot thread of the whole Captain America trilogy, and undoing the conclusion of Thor's.) I don't know too many people who really thought that those characters were going to be gone for any discernible length of time.

And yeah, given that Mysterio is a known Spider-man villain, that's a pretty safe bet. Or alternatively, he will save the day that one time, but Spider-man will somehow get credit for it and he'll grow bitter and become a bad guy earnestly. (But I think you're right.)

Something that's interesting to me is the way that they don't seem to want Spider-man in New York. It's so strange to me that it appears as though in two films, they set him up in Washington DC and Europe. Kinda weird seeing him outside New York, where the best webslinging can happen.

Posted January 16th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

I mean its obvious that it would be fixed but I wish they had continued to facade until after end game came out .

Posted January 16th by S.o.h
Edit Filter Quote Report

There's also a chance that this takes place before the events of End Game. It's not exactly like Marvel movies come out linearly.

Posted January 16th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

I dont think so. I may have to re watch infinity war to make sure but I believe parker says something along the lines of being pretty much grounded (ergo in NY) since the events of the last movie. but I guess we will wait and see.

I am cautiously optimistic about this. I dont care much for spiderman but something about mysterio makes me really want to see this movie.

Posted January 16th by s.o.h.
Edit Filter Quote Report

The fact that they're leaving NYC stuck out to me, as well, particularly since Spider-Man's one of the major heroes that I most associate with a specific location (the "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man" and all). Feels a little bit like if Batman spent most of his time outside of Gotham. And it has the added effect of probably marginalizing Aunt May, which is maybe not as big of a deal for this incarnation since they've already not addressed the whole Uncle Ben thing?

I'm still looking forward to this one--as many issues as I had with Homecoming, I still love Spider-Man and Tom Holland in the role. Hopefully this one captures the spirit of the character better.

If anyone was under the impression that the Infinity War ending was permanent after the movie, I think the mere announcement of Far From Home and the fact that Tom Holland was the lead was enough of an indicator (I know some people who theorized that maybe the heroes would be replaced by alternates, like Miles Morales for Spidey and Shuri for Black Panther, though I never really took that seriously). Can't imagine the trailer spoiling that any more than it already was.

Posted January 17th by white lancer
Edit Filter Quote Report

Like I said I wish they would have continued the charade a little bit longer. Not every one knows about the release schedule. I doubt more than half of the people who saw it were even aware of the release schedule.

Posted January 17th by s.o.h.
Edit Filter Quote Report

the MCU has done better thanmost in recent years btu they sti fa in to aot of pitfalls lie the obnoxious commentary on resources and population growth invading Infinity War.

Posted January 17th by tnu
Edit Filter Quote Report

While I kind of wish they did keep thier future films a secret until IW:Endgame was released Iím not really that bummed out. The comics have always killed characters off and resurrected them later on so really you should not be surprised that Endgame is doing the same thing. The real question that should be asked is not IF the super heroís come back, itís who all is coming back. I have a feeling that some of the original Avengers that are still alive will sacrifice themselves to bring everyone back. I.e. Captain America and Tony Stank (Stark).

Infact Polygon wrote a great article covering this when Endgame first came out. Give it a read:

Edited January 17th by Q
Edit Filter Quote Report

Ugh. If they wind up doing all of this just to sacrifice some of the biggest original Avengers, I'm gonna be so annoyed. It would mean that Endgame just literally undoes every single thing Infinity War did, including establishing one of its biggest themes (that as heroes, they don't "trade lives"). So if that's how it ends, what the fuck was all that shit in Infinity War? It would literally exist *just* to fuck with everyone and make people feel terrible. And that sucks. Not even the comics do that with their crossover events.

obnoxious commentary on resources and population growth invading Infinity War.

The movie doesn't really itself make any commentary on that. In fact, anyone with a quarter of a brain knows Thanos's plan is idiotic, even if overpopulation and limited resources were a problem. I have a lot to say about how they present some key elements of Thanos (more on that in a later post), but the film is not at any point an *endorsement* of Thanos's plan, nor does it really make any statements one way or the other about overpopulation or resource limitations being a real problem. At worst, it doesn't challenge Thanos's opinion enough.

But this "commentary" is there to serve as the motivation for the villain. The film itself largely avoids getting political. It's just the bad guy's motivation. And I mean, a bad guy is gonna be motivated by *something,* right? And I guarantee it's going to be something political in nature (even Ronan's motivation was "political," it just didn't get into the nitty gritty of it).

Leaving NYC a bunch kinda feels to me like they're really trying to disassociate from the previous Spider-man series, which all prominently feature the city. It's still a strange choice, but I guess seeing him have to use his powers in areas not really built to his strengths isn't itself inherently bad. I didn't find the DC stuff that interesting, nor the finale being on a plane and then on an empty beach in Homecoming. But, who knows?

I appreciate that they haven't really touched on the Uncle Ben stuff, given how beaten to death that is. They should probably bring it up at some point, to some capacity though. It is kinda central to it. And all we really got was one passing reference in Civil War.

Posted January 18th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

Ugh. If they wind up doing all of this just to sacrifice some of the biggest original Avengers, I'm gonna be so annoyed. It would mean that Endgame just literally undoes every single thing Infinity War did, including establishing one of its biggest themes (that as heroes, they don't "trade lives"). So if that's how it ends, what the fuck was all that shit in Infinity War? It would literally exist *just* to fuck with everyone and make people feel terrible. And that sucks. Not even the comics do that with their crossover events.

nah we need people to die and to stay dead. give us a sense that the stakes are actually high.

Posted January 18th by S.O.H.
Edit Filter Quote Report

ďIt would mean that Endgame just literally undoes every single thing Infinity War did, including establishing one of its biggest themes (that as heroes, they don't "trade lives").Ē

I understand your point. However, I would just like to say that there is a difference between trading lives and sacrifice. I agree with S.O.H. that some heroes need to die, for many reasons.

Edited January 18th by Q
Edit Filter Quote Report

That kinda also flies in the face of why the genre is popular. Iím also not sure why everyone only feels there are stakes if people die. Itís such a shallow and uncreative concept. Killing them for ďstakesĒ is so boring and contrived.

Posted January 18th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

What other ways are there to increase the stakes? I understand your point that killing off characters just to make an impact can be boring and contrived, however if itís written well and a character dies in a way that is well written it can be the best way. The Gandalf example in the polygon article explains it really well. The impact in a character dying isnít seeing how they die, but how the remaining characters react and overcome the loss.

Posted January 18th by Q
Edit Filter Quote Report

I could of sworn you said the issue with these movies is that we know the characters will return.

Posted January 18th by s.o.h.
Edit Filter Quote Report

What other ways are there to increase the stakes?

The Iron Man movies are freshest in my brain, obviously, so I'm going to use these as examples of kind of uninteresting "stakes" and the far more interesting stakes below the surface in each one.

Iron Man, obviously, features a climactic battle in which the risk of death is evident. (This risk is fundamental to pretty much every superhero story. It's basically just an occupational hazard.) But once we learn that Obadiah is still selling Stark Industry weapons and has contributed to trying to get Tony out of the controlling interest in the company, well, now the stakes are that Tony could lose his company, his wealth, and his resources. The stakes aren't simply he could be killed. It's that his journey to become Iron Man could be disrupted and stopped before he has a real chance to become the hero.

Iron Man 2 similarly features a villain who eventually wants to kill Tony. But the entire central conflict of the film is that Tony is already dying and so it becomes about his legacy after he dies. The highest stakes, then, aren't that Tony could die. It's that his reputation could get destroyed. He had been publicly humiliated by Vanko at the race track. The central conflict is less that Tony is trying to figure out a cure for the palladium poisoning as much as it is about trying to ensure he leaves behind a positive legacy. The stakes are less that he could die in the battle with Vanko. It's that his legacy could be one in which he just bragged to Congress about how far behind the rest of the world was, and then someone else came along and proved that Tony was wrong.

Iron Man 3, again, features not just the threat of death for Tony, but for Pepper and Happy as well. This is one way to make things more interesting with stakes in the superhero genre. It's especially cliche, of course. Gwen Stacy died to give Spider-man "stakes," but...it didn't ultimately change anything. All he did was do Spider-man stuff harder, and feel a little extra guilt in his already big guilt complex. (Killing girlfriends has been a common trope in comics, and probably needs to be retired. But killing parental figures is just as common and just as boring at this point. But it's all done to give "stakes.")

But the deeper stakes are Tony's identity. The central conflict for Tony, really, is less about stopping Killian Aldrich. That is the surface level plot. The real conflict he faces is built from that line in the Avengers from Cap: "Without the suit, what are you?" The focus of that film is about Tony learning that he is more than the suit. So yes, there is ultimately the threat of death for him and his cast of support characters, but the greater stakes are that he loses his identity and sense of self-worth. That's why his relationship with the kid is ultimately more important than his relationship with Pepper in the film, frankly.

Or, take Captain America, for example. The threat of death is never really the main stake. In any of those films.

First Avenger is tricky because sweeping and personal stakes are hard to do when you already know how it ends. Death isn't really the "stakes" in First Avenger because we knew going into it that it had to end with him sacrificing himself and getting frozen in ice. So, the greater stakes were losing everything he held dear, but again, we already knew that was going to happen to. (Sort of the problem facing any "prequel" type film.)

The Winter Soldier, the overt stakes are that Hydra's takeover of SHIELD will result in millions of deaths. We don't really think Cap is going to be one of them. Yeah, obviously the stakes are "save the world." But those Cap films are shockingly personal in subtext. The *real* stakes of Winter Soldier is not the fate of the world; it's the fate of Bucky.

This continues into Civil War, which doesn't ever present death as a stake for anyone. Even based on its source material, the only superhero to die during Marvel's Civil War event was Bill Foster, who wasn't even in the MCU yet. (I know some speculated that Cap would die because he was killed in the comics, but he died *after* the event concluded. He died in the pages of Captain America, not Civil War.) And either way, the film makes it clear that none of these Avengers are going to be killing anyone. They do the fake out with Rhodey, but again, if you know the source material at all, it seemed at the time more obvious that they were setting him up to be more like the comics in physical nature. And given how they had handled Vision up to that point, it seemed highly unlikely that they would have him even accidentally kill Rhodey. So, once again, the stakes aren't "death." The stakes are relationships, and the fate of Bucky, especially given Iron Man's arc in the film too.

I also quite enjoyed the stakes of, say, Ant-Man & The Wasp. The stakes were less about characters dying. The stakes were that they lose the chance to possibly discover and rescue Janet. The stakes were personal.

Or, to get away from superheroes and to give me a chance to rave about Edgar Wright, I love how he handles stakes in most of his films. In Shaun of the Dead, characters do die, and that does set the overt stakes as "fate of these characters." But the more specific stakes were the fate of Shaun and Liz's relationship. Yes, they could die. And sure, that obviously would kill their future. But given that we as audiences tend to know how rare it is for stories to end with everyone including our protagonist wind up dead, the state of their relationship is the true stake.

This is also true in The World's End. It's literally another world-ending event, but we're never meant to really worry about the world. The stakes are not the world. The stakes are the possibility of reconciliation between Gary and Andy. Things can and do happen to their friends, but the central relationship of the film is them. The whole film is building for that chance that they reconcile. And it very nearly doesn't happen. Gary continues to drag everything down and sabotage himself and his friends during the course of the film for his own self-absorbed reasons.

The thing is, every action movie is going to feature the fate of the world or the threat of death to our protagonist. We all know this going into it. Bruce Willis could be killed in Die Hard. Sly Stallone could be killed in Rambo. Jackie Chan could *literally* die in any of his films, like, or real. But we know that they're not going to. People don't gravitate towards comics because they want to know whether those characters live or die. Superheroes aren't Game of Thrones. They gravitate towards them because they want to see those characters interact with each other, beat up bad guys, maybe reflect some issue in a silly way that inevitably falls apart by the third act, and yes, save the day. So there is always going to need to be something deeper than just "they could die!' Because killing these characters is easy and, ultimately, pointless. Take, for example, when Cap gave up his shield at the end of Civil War. It's meant to be a big deal, but...we don't really get to see anything come of it, right? Yes, it sets up why the Avengers are dispersed and segregated for Infinity War. So in that way it matters. But it's not like we had a whole bunch of movies that explore how Black Widow might operate now that Cap is gone. We never get to see how Cap disappearing impacts Spider-man, or even Iron Man for that matter. We don't even really get to see how giving up the shield impacts Cap! These types of dramatic twists work in the comics because we get years of stories. Every character has their own solo title that comes out at least once a month. When Cap gave up being Cap in the comics, we got a couple years of seeing him outside that role, and of other characters dealing with that. In the movies, where we get three separate films a year that don't often have much to do with one another, we never do. Killing Captain America or Iron Man in the films won't have the same impact that killing them in the comics would.

It also feels kind of confusing if they killed off all these characters in Infinity War just to show us how that affects the original Avengers, only to use that to set up how killing off the original Avengers would affect the new Avengers once they're brought back. Seems kind of...repetitive, really quickly.

Posted January 18th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report

Wow. That was a lot. Sorry.

The threat of death is present in pretty much every superhero story, and it almost certainly always will. But when I reflect on it, the only one I can think of in which that was never presented as the stakes was the Dark Knight trilogy. By nature of being a superhero and fighting, there's always the risk of death. Again, occupational hazard. But take The Dark Knight, for example. Even if we remove the girlfriend in the refrigerator element, the stakes are still pretty high. But it's not the fate of the world. It's local to Gotham. And Joker isn't trying to kill Batman. He's trying to get Batman to break his one sacred rule. And he isn't trying to take over Gotham. He's sort of just bringing chaos and anarchy to it. Mortal danger is always going to be a part of these stories, but killing off central characters cannot be the focus of how to introduce "stakes." Because the genre is fundamentally not constructed for that.

The TL;DR version of everything I said is that we're talking about the superhero genre, not Game of Thrones. People don't really tune into these films to see who lives or who dies. They introduce stakes into half an hour episodes of their television shows that are not predicated on the titular hero dying, although that is always a threat (and often a stated objective of villains). But this is a genre that is fundamentally built AND popular because things keep going. People gravitate to superheroes because they like those characters. Killing them in the movies, where we *don't* get to see the consequences of really anything, will never be anything than a cheap narrative ploy to "shock." Given the nature of the mediums, killing characters in the movies will never work the way it does in the comics. And it just feels uncreative, cheap, and a little disrespectful to the fans.

I could of sworn you said the issue with these movies is that we know the characters will return.

That's not quite accurate. I complained that they tried soooo hard to introduce massive stakes by killing off so many characters that it winds up feeling like there are no stakes because we obviously know those characters are coming back. My issue is with this obsession that the only thing a writer or filmmaker can do to have any real stakes is kill characters. Particularly when it comes to the superhero genre. We're talking about characters that are still very popular after 70+ years in existence, because people like those characters. The genre is inherently meant to be a sort of "Adventures of..." It's kind of like, no one wants to watch an Indiana Jones movie where he dies. That defeats the purpose of that type of film and character.

So basically, the issue isn't that we know these characters will return. It's a superhero movie. That's a given. It's that they insist on trying to make it seem like they are dead, because that seems to be the only type of "stakes" audiences seem to understand. And I think the best superhero movies recognize that there needs to be something a little deeper. So like, no one thinks Cap is going to die in Winter Soldier, but we still feel invested because the stakes are the fate of Bucky being on the lamb and struggling to figure out who he is, and by extension, Cap's relationship with his best friend. Those are the meaningful stakes. And that is why the movie works better than, say, Thor 2 where the stakes are almost exclusively the fate of the Nine Realms by the end.

Posted January 18th by Jet Presto
Edit Filter Quote Report
Load next page Load rest of pages
Reply to: Spiderman Far from home teaser trailer
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett