SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING (First Critics Reviews)

[milliniar]

Update: June 27, 2017

Final Poster for SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING Released

That can't be real it doesn't have Iron Man on it.

 

[emceeGRENDEL]

That can't be real it doesn't have Iron Man on it.

Not enough RDJ. lol

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

Update: June 28, 2017

Amy Pascal Says Sony's Marvel Universe Exist in the Same Reality as the MCU

This whole thing began last week when Sony's Amy Pascal seemed to confirm that Venom and the other upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming spinoffs such as Silver and Black are, in fact, a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige clearly had a word with her about this, as she clarified her comments soon after by stating that although Homecoming is obviously set in the MCU, the spinoffs would not be... even though they will remain connected to Spidey's new solo flick.

Confused yet?

While interviewing both Pascal and Feige, Fandom once again asked the pair about the connection - or lack thereof - between the franchises. Here is Pascal's response:

"First, there is Spider-Man happily in the place where he’s supposed to be which is in the Marvel Universe. I think everything comes from that. This is the signpost, the tentpole, the signature and… the other movies that Sony’s going to make, in their relationship to this [MCU] Spider-Man, take place in this [separate Sony] world. Although you’re not going to see them in the Marvel Universe, it’s in the same reality.”

Feige then backed Pascal up by adding that her response is “the perfect answer”.

So basically, though Venom and friends do technically exist in the same reality as The MCU, we shouldn't expect to see any official Marvel Studios crossovers.

VENOM And Sony's Other SPIDER-MAN Spinoffs Do Exist In The "Same Reality" As The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Comments:

This back-and-forth by Amy is getting tiresome. "World," "Marvel Universe," "Reality," Amy is just a bit clueless on the technical terms to use and that's why it's confusing a lot of the fans.

What Amy should say is that Venom, Black Cat, Silver Sable and the rest of the Sony spinoff movies exist in the same Marvel Cinematic Universe but they will not interact or be referenced with the rest of the MCU and vice versa, including Tom Holland's Spider-Man (for now).

 

[liljoe]

Reviews are coming in hot. And they are GOOD!

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

Update: June 29, 2017

First Critics Reviews for SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING Are Very Positive

Rotten Tomatoes: 97% Approval Rating (30 out of 31 critics like it)

Critics Consensus: Spider-Man: Homecoming does whatever a second reboot can, delivering a colorful, fun adventure that fits snugly in the sprawling MCU without getting bogged down in franchise-building.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spider_man_homecoming

 

[Amerikuracana]

I... I can't.

 

[Zazen]

July is going to be the strongest month of the year. Spiderman 7.7, War for the Planet of the Apes 7.14 and Dunkirk 7.21. 3 of my most anticipated films back to back to back. Awesome

 

[vcmmafan]

A 97 on RT just means that percent of critics gave it at minimum a score of 6/10

 

[JosephDredd]

Update: June 26, 2017

Insider Details on How Sony's SPIDER-MAN Was Brought to the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Sony Pictures Entertainment was running out of options for its most valuable film franchise, Spider-Man. After 15 years and five movies of web-slinging, and $4 billion in global box office, the studio was struggling to give the character a much-needed reset.

So in early 2015, Sony’s top two executives, Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal, flew to the Palm Beach, Fla., home of Marvel Entertainment Chief Executive Isaac Perlmutter, who’d spent months lobbying Sony to let his company, owned by rival Walt Disney Co., reboot the popular hero.

It was an extraordinary proposition for Sony -- to lend the keys to its lucrative property to a rival. But Sony was finally willing to swallow its pride to get a Spider-Man movie made by the most successful superhero producer ever, Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige. Over lunch at Perlmutter’s swanky oceanfront residence, the executives hashed out budgets, sequel possibilities, and how Spider-Man would interact with other Marvel characters.

The results of that deal will be tested when “Spider-Man: Homecoming” hits theaters July 7. “Homecoming” isthe first Spider-Man movie to exist in Marvel’s broad “cinematic universe” of interwoven superhero movies, something fans of the comics have desired for years.



Marvel has long wanted to bring Spider-Man into the fold through its movies, because the character is one of the most famous from the comic books. His youth, cheeky attitude and unique abilities have earned him a cherished place in the Marvel canon.

“I never thought we'd be able to make a Spider-Man movie set in our universe, and here we are,” Feige told the Times. “It truly was a dream-come-true scenario.”

And exceedingly rare. Rival film companies typically don’t team up on productions, except in unusual circumstances. In a famous example, Fox turned to Paramount to help finance James Cameron’s “Titanic” when the 1997 movie went over budget.

Studios tend to hoard credit for their high-profile projects. But if Sony and Marvel's gamble works, it will pay off handsomely for both.

Early signs are encouraging. The $175-million “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” starring Tom Holland as the title character, is expected to gross up to $100 million from the U.S. and Canada in its opening weekend,making it a bona fide hit, according to people who have reviewed audience surveys.

Sony, which financed the project, will reap the profits and keep its most important piece of intellectual property alive at a time when it could really use a box office hit. The studio has weathered a series of misfires that triggered management shakeups. Sony also hopes to use Spider-Man’s popularity for spinoffs, including “Venom” and “Silver & Black,” about female characters Silver Sable and Black Cat.

Disney-owned Marvel stands to benefit because it owns the lucrative merchandising rights to Spider-Man, which it acquired in 2011. It also gets to use Spider-Man in its own popular superhero movies, including last year’s “Captain America: Civil War,” which amassed $1.15 billion in box office sales.

“This was a way to get the new incarnation of Spider-Man on the right track,” said Jason E. Squire, a film business professor at USC.

Redoing Spider-Man was always going to be risky. “Homecoming” is the third Spider-Man reboot since 2002, and audiences have already rejected several would-be franchise revivals at the multiplex this summer, including “Alien: Covenant” and “The Mummy.”

“With a property like Spider-Man, you have such a huge responsibility to the audience to do it right,” said Sanford Panitch, president of Columbia Pictures, the Sony unit releasing the new movie. “Allowing Marvel to bring him into their Marvel cinematic universe and bring back Peter Parker to his essence is delivering on that responsibility.”

Lynton and Pascal, who left their leadership roles at Sony amid the box-office struggles, declined to comment. Pascal stepped down after the massive 2014 cyber attack on the studio blamed on North Korea. Shortly after announcing her departure, Sony said Pascal would produce the Spider-Man movie alongside Feige. Tom Rothman now runs Sony’s movie unit.

Lynton exited this year to join Snapchat maker Snap Inc. He was replaced by former Fox television executive Tony Vinciquerra this month.

The Sony-Marvel deal was unusual because little money changed hands. Sony paid Marvel an undisclosed producers fee, but Marvel won’t receive any of the profits. Instead, the companies are sharing their most popular characters.

For “Homecoming,” Sony is getting a boost from Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man (aka Tony Stark), who has a major presence in the film and marketing materials. Marvel and Disney got to use Holland as Spider-Man in last year’s “Captain America: Civil War” and in the upcoming Avengers movie, “Infinity War.”

“It's a real accomplishment for Marvel Studios to bring Spider-Man back into the fold without owning the intellectual property,” Squire said.

Sony acquired the film rights for Spider-Man in 1999, and released the first movie, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire, in 2002. Sony produced two successful “Spider-Man” sequels, one in 2004 and the other in 2007. Disney bought Marvel Entertainment in 2009 for $4 billion, giving it access to a host of superheroes, but not Spider-Man.

Then Sony rebooted the property in 2012 with “The Amazing Spider-Man,” starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. That film and its 2014 sequel delivered diminishing returns at the box office.

“The Amazing Spider Man 2" received mediocre reviews and took in $202 million domestically, half the haul of the first Raimi version. Globally, it was the lowest grossing movie in the series, with $709 million. That left Sony’s leadership in a pickle.

The studio was considering multiple ways to keep the property afloat, according to Sony insiders. It could try again with “The Amazing Spider-Man 3” or develop a brand new standalone Spider-Man series. Another intriguing idea was to reintroduce Spider-Man through the studio’s planned production of “Sinister Six,” about a group of super villains. But most of those ideas felt too convoluted, knowledgeable people said.

Meanwhile, Marvel had shaken up the superhero business since it launched the first “Iron Man” in 2008. Over the next decade, Feige and his producing team built a successful series of interconnected superhero films featuring the likes of Iron Man, Captain America and the Incredible Hulk, along with more obscure characters such as Doctor Strange and Ant-Man. The company’s 15 movies to date have hauled in $11.8 billion in global receipts.

“I don't think [Sony] had a choice but to do this, because they had nowhere else to go with this brand,” said Bruce Nash, a movie business analyst with Nash Information Services. “They have to keep making ‘Spider-Man’ films. That's the truth of the matter."

The idea to bring in Marvel had been in the works long before there was a deal. Feige first pitched Pascal in 2014, during a lunch meeting on her office patio overlooking Culver City, to let him make the next Spider-Man movie.

Though Pascal was reluctant at first, the two executives continued to discuss the matter at her office and home, working out what a Marvel Studios “Spider-Man” movie would look like, said people familiar with the discussions but not authorized to comment. Feige wanted to bring Spider-Man and Peter Parker back to his essence — a teenager fighting crime alongside Avengers and dealing with grown-up themes, who also has to get to class on time. Finally, Pascal was convinced.

“We've been able to create this cinematic universe that now provides that backdrop onto which you can put Peter Parker and have that dynamic he was always meant to have,” Feige said. “To Amy’s credit and to Michael Lynton's credit, they realized this was the best thing for the character.”

While Feige oversaw the creative direction, Pascal was instrumental in key decisions, including the casting of Holland, the development of the script, and the hiring of director Jon Watts, whose previous feature was the 2015 Kevin Bacon thriller “Cop Car.” Pascal was also key in the development of Michael Keaton’s character, Vulture, a powerful nemesis with working-class roots. The film was shot in Atlanta and was edited and scored on the Sony lot in Culver City.

“Because we were united in what we were trying to accomplish, it made for a very easy process,” Panitch said. “We're getting a superhero movie produced by the greatest superhero movie producer in the world.”

Inside the Deal That Brought Sony's 'Spider-Man' Back to Marvel's Cinematic Universe

i have two thoughts about this:

1. This is a magnanimous description of what happened, if I recall. It came out during the hack of Sony that they turned down offers to receive input from Marvel and Japanese executives at Sony HQ in Japan told the Americans to get the fuck back in talks with Marvel. It sounded like the top execs in Japan didn't know Marvel had made that offer and saw an easy way to fix the franchise-killing decisions their American execs were making.

2. Since then American Sony has said they're never going to take input from Marvel again. I guarantee you this article was written and published by some cog in the vast Disney machine because it does a great job of complimenting Sony's leadership for teaming with Marvel in the first place, explains all the benefits of doing so again and gets the fans fired up to get something trending on social media in order to sway Sony.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Looks like its going to be a pretty enjoyable flick

Good for them

 

[tehJameson]

Awesome can't wait to watch it. Hope Tom Holland beats Tom Hardy's ass in the near future.

 

[compressed]

Seen all the Spidey films, but for some reason I wil be passing on this one no matter the reviews. This is like the 6th spiderman film within the last 20 years eh. Dunkirk it is for July.

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

Update: June 29, 2017

Spider-Man Will Not Appear in Tom Hardy's VENOM, Says Kevin Feige

Venom is one of the biggest villains in the Spider-Man franchise, but Tom Holland’s superhero character will not appear in the upcoming Venom film, Variety has learned.

Following much fan speculation that Holland’s Spider-Man would perhaps be involved in Tom Hardy’s Venom, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige shot down those rumors, speaking with Variety at the Spider-Man: Homecoming world premiere on Wednesday night in Hollywood, Calif.

“No,” Feige promptly responded when asked if Spider-Man will appear in Venom.

He continued, “No, I think the folks there are making a great ‘Venom’ movie and I don’t know much about it, but I know they’re off to a good start with Tom Hardy.”

Venom will star Hardy as the central character and will be directed by Ruben Fleischer. The film is the start of Sony working to build its extended Spider-Man universe. The movie is expected to be released in 2018.

While Holland’s Spider-Man won’t appear in Venom, he will appear in Avengers: Infinity War, following his Civil War cameo. When asked how much screen time to expect for Spider-Man in the upcoming Avengers movie, Feige stayed mum and quipped, “I can’t say too much about it.”


Spider-Man Will Not Appear in Tom Hardy’s ‘Venom,’ Says Kevin Feige

 

[TheSlothMan]

Well, it's like that iconic Uncle Ben quote:

Lol it's like he's trying to say something about power and responsibility, but I can't quite make it out

Now i wish Fox would follow suit. *sigh*

Eh, I've really enjoyed the recent X-Men related movies (aside from Apocalypse). I don't think we ever would have gotten movies like Deadpool or Logan in the the current MCU. The Fantastic Four however, yeeesh. However, a cross-over would be pretty awesome, especially if they integrated all of the Shi'ar and Galactus and what not.

 

[PRIDEWASBETTER]

 

[Separatista]

Just saw the movie. 8/10 easy, could be 9 but I have to see it again. Second best spiderman after spiderman 2.

There had already been 2 Peter Parker before Tom Holland donned the spider suit but Holland's take on the character is both refreshing and a much needed revitalization after both the final webhead films of Garfield and Maguire left a bad taste. He is the youngest reiteration of the character and as such, his fight style, which is underdevelop (he gets clobbered quite a bit) and taunts are acceptable and not annoying.

Although this movie has an underlying romantic plot, it's not centered on it unlike the previous spidy films. Peter's world here does not revolved around MJ or Gwen. Much of the movie is him proving to himself and Tony that he's capable of being a hero. His conflict is not about protecting a loved one or someone and he's still overly enthusiastic on showing his powers even to the detriment of his studies.

I like the toned of the film and ironically instead of the previous spiderman films, it kind of remind me of the 1st IronMan film. Comedic elements were certainly there but because the characters here are kids, I find it not as annoying as when adult Avengers throw one liners ever so often.

About the villian, Marvel's infamous for lackluster antogonist and even though I find Keaton's performance here average, I think the Vulture is a compelling villian. Spiderman and him had more than 1 encounter and everytime he shows up, it's a major threat. Sympathetic villians are all too common in Marvel but somehow Keaton just manage to make me care about this one's character.

Things I have a peeve with but nonetheless inconsequential;
- The VERY advance Spiderman suit. I still wish for the old school red and blue spandex that has no radar or any tech in it.
- the MJ. I still wish for the old school red headed actor wannabe bomb shell.
- aunt May is too hot. Goddamn she's fine as hell. On second thought, I like this change.
- Stark should not be teaching young Peter anything about being responsible.

Anyway, I like this new Spiderman and I hope they veer away from romantic plots in the sequel. We had enough of that for 5 films. Bring on the spiderman villians.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Just saw the movie. 8/10 easy, could be 9 but I have to see it again. Second best spiderman after spiderman 2.

There had already been 2 Peter Parker before Tom Holland donned the spider suit but Holland's take on the character is both refreshing and a much needed revitalization after both the final webhead films of Garfield and Maguire left a bad taste. He is the youngest reiteration of the character and as such, his fight style, which is underdevelop (he gets clobbered quite a bit) and taunts are acceptable and not annoying.

Although this movie has an underlying romantic plot, it's not centered on it unlike the previous spidy films. Peter's world here does revolved around MJ or Gwen. Much of the movie is him proving to himself and Tony that he's capable of being a hero. His conflict is not about protecting a loved one or someone and he's still overly enthusiastic on showing his powers even to the detriment of his studies.

I like the toned of the film and ironically instead of the previous spiderman films, it kind of remind me of the 1st IronMan film. Comedic elements were certainly there but because the characters here are kids. I find it not as annoying as when adult Avengers throw one liners ever so often.

About the villian, Marvel's infamous for lackluster antogonist and even though I find Keaton's performance here average, I think the Vulture is a compelling villian. Spiderman and him had more than 1 encounter and everytime he shows up, it's a major threat. Sympathetic villians are all too common in Marvel but somehow Keaton just manage to make me care about this one's character.

Things I have a peeve with but nonetheless inconsequential;
- The VERY advance Spiderman suit. I still wish for the old school red and blue spandex that has no radar or any tech in it.
- the MJ. I still wish for the old school red headed actor wannabe bomb shell.
- aunt May is too hot. Goddamn she's fine as hell. On second thought, I like this change.
- Stark should not be teaching young Peter anything about being responsible.

Anyway, I like this new Spiderman and I hope they veer away from romantic plots in the sequel. We had enough of that for 5 films. Bring on the spiderman villians.

Yeah, I love me some Tony Stark, but him lecturing Peter on behaving responsibly is like Red Skull teaching a class on social justice and tolerance

 

[Horse Style]

DOUBLED TOASTED Review

 

[pinkybrief]

Anyone notice, seems like they had all kinds of race there, like united nations lol

Cons: Another generic bad guy

 

[Separatista]

There was a tracking shot following Peter in his school near the beginning where it shows the main hallway. There's some students in the background that is really diverse and some even obviously in a certain religion.