Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 both failed because they were overstuffed with too many characters and specifically too many villains.

Since it seems like they are going down the road of merging all three takes on Spider-Man for this film, I really hope they can do it in a way that does not feel overstuffed again.

 

[TravisR]

Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 both failed because they were overstuffed with too many characters and specifically too many villains.

Since it seems like they are going down the road of merging all three takes on Spider-Man for this film, I really hope they can do it in a way that does not feel overstuffed again.

I think all these old characters are going to be in a scene or two so it'll be a glorified cameo/fun moment for fans.

 

[jayembee]

I think all these old characters are going to be in a scene or two so it'll be a glorified cameo/fun moment for fans.

Yeah, it sounds like the same gimmick that The CW did with the Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover on TV. Stock it full of cameos for the fans, and make it about One Big Happy(?) Multiverse.

 

[Sam Favate]

Twitter is buzzing and some sites claim to have confirmation that Kirsten Dunst, Emma Stone, Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield are all returning.

But for my faith in the MCU, I'd say this sounds like a bit of a mess.

 

[Jake Lipson]

But for my faith in the MCU, I'd say this sounds like a bit of a mess.

I agree it sounds like it could be one. However, I think that depends on how they use the other iterations within the narrative. I certainly hope that the story is still primarily centered around Holland's version of Peter and that whatever is going on with the other versions is designed to support his arc, rather than distracting from it.

Also, if they want to have one villain from each of the other live-action iterations, I would have preferred Rhys Ifans back as compared to Jamie Foxx. The Amazing Spider-Man was better received than its sequel, so I'm not sure why they are choosing to go back to the one no one seems to like. We'll see.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm thinking the actual execution will be a lot like The CW's "Crisis on Multiple Earths" uber-crossover event, with most of the appearances by actors from previous iterations of Spider-Man taking the form of glorified cameos.

EDIT: That's what I get for not refreshing the thread before posting. Travis and Jerry nailed it.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I‘d bet good money that they WILL be doing a big “Spider-verse” movie that goes all in on the multiverse Spideys. As I’ve said up thread, the only question I’ve had is will that be a separate movie after 3 or will it be what 3 is all about? I was leaning towards the former, but with 3 touching on the multiverse stuff that is expanded upon in the other film. Though lately I’ve been thinking it’s quite possible that they could go “Civil War” with 3 and have it be THE Spider-verse film.

Based on the recent casting confirmations (which have been no surprise because that stuff has been reliably scooped for a good while now) it’s certainly looking like they may be doing it all in Spidey 3. Maybe.

I could see them doing the “minor cameo” scenario (like CW’s Crisis on Infinite Earths) if they are indeed going to do a separate big Spider-verse movie with this as the lead-in. Then the small cameo scenario would make sense. I just don’t see them getting Maguire, Garfield and Dunst for brief cameos in one movie and nothing more. Because this isn’t the CW.

So I guess I’m still back at the same two possibilities regarding Marvel and Sony’s big “Spider-verse” movie: 3 is a continuation of Far From Home combined with a big Spider-verse movie like Cap Civil War, or it is primarily a Far From Home follow-up that just dips into the multiverse with a separate Spider-verse “event” movie later. It really could be either.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I want and expect it to be a proper Far From Home followup. I love the iteration of Spider-Man that they have going now with Holland and his supporting cast. I will feel gypped if they throw that away in favor of attempts at fan service fan service focusing too much on throwbacks to prior versions. Respectfully, I don't feel the need to see Maguire or Garfield again at this point, even though I thought both of them did a good job in the role. If Sony and Marvel are going to do this, they better have a really good storytelling reason that doesn't detract from the great work that Holland and his group have been doing with their previous films.

 

[Sam Favate]

Here's one rumored addition to the movie that I definitely support. This was also rumored some time ago.

Also, the rumored appearances of actors from the other films are said to be cameos.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021 Movie) | Latest News

If you are big into Spider-Man: No Way Home movie, you have come to the right place. ✓ Stay up to date on Spider-Man 3 movie news here!

thedirect.com

 

[Jake Lipson]

There is a wide audience of MCU film fans who have never seen the Netflix shows. (I am included in that group.). So while I like Charlie Cox and have absolutely no problem with him being in the movie, they would need to be very careful about how to introduce him in a way that makes sense for people who haven't met that character before.

 

[jayembee]

So I guess I’m still back at the same two possibilities regarding Marvel and Sony’s big “Spider-verse” movie: 3 is a continuation of Far From Home combined with a big Spider-verse movie like Cap Civil War, or it is primarily a Far From Home follow-up that just dips into the multiverse with a separate Spider-verse “event” movie later. It really could be either.

The other possibility is that all of the extra Spider-characters are just glorified cameos, as part of a set up for a future movie, but instead of leading into another Spider-Man/Spider-Verse movie, it leads into Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Esepcially given that Strange is supposed to be in the Spidey film.

 

[David Deeb]

I've never been a fan of a "multiverse" or alternate reality storylines. DC had those annual crossovers when I was growing up and I always hated them. The only thing they succeeded at was creating more and more messes that DC could never untangle.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

Here's what's interesting to me about that. Pre-COVID, we were supposed to get these films in a different order. I'm losing track at this point, but I'm pretty sure that Doctor Strange was intended to be released in May 2021. I know Spider-Man was supposed to be July 2021. Then Doctor Strange went to November 2021. Then Doctor Strange went to March 2022 when Disney gave Sony the November date for Spider-Man.

Then Spider-Man landed on the pre-Christmas frame next year after Disney moved Avatar 2 to 2022.

Now, in some cases, the viewing order for Marvel movies doesn't really matter. For example, you don't have to see Thor Ragnarok in order to understand Black Panther.

But in the case of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, there would certainly seem to be some relationship. As you noted, Strange is in the Spider-Man movie. But since these scripts have been in development for a while, and the films have flipped flopped in the release order a few times, that does make me wonder how much one can be written to influence the other. Because in theory it should matter which one you see first, but they also have to account for those movies switching dates. If Spider-Man comes first, then they have it as a tool to set up Doctor Strange. But if Doctor Strange comes first, not so much. Right now, Spider-Man is coming first. But who knows what further changes COVID is going to cause to Marvel's release plans? So they need to be prepared for anything.

That puts these two films in particular in an interesting position. I don't envy the creators.

 

[Malcolm R]

There is a wide audience of MCU film fans who have never seen the Netflix shows. (I am included in that group.). So while I like Charlie Cox and have absolutely no problem with him being in the movie, they would need to be very careful about how to introduce him in a way that makes sense for people who haven't met that character before.

Agree. To the movie audience, Daredevil is played by Ben Affleck (though Cox is definitely better).

 

[jayembee]

The thing, though is that Strange wasn't announced as being in SM3 until after the date switch was done. I suspect that the details about SM3 weren't nailed down yet (working with Sony must complicate things), and with all sorts of weirdness going on with Sony's Spider-Adjacent films (Morbius including Michael Keaton, presumably as Toombs), they might've figured this was the opportune time to introduce the Spider-Verse into SM3, and have that synch into the multiverse aspect of DS2.

Anyway, I've been keeping track of the Phase 4 schedules. The original, pre-Covid schedule was:

2020 05 01 Black Widow
2020 11 06 The Eternals
2021 02 12 Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings
2021 05 07 Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
2021 07 16 Spider-Man 3
2021 11 05 Thor: Love and Thunder

The revised schedule is:

2021 05 07 Black Widow
2021 07 09 Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings
2021 11 05 The Eternals
2021 12 17 Spider-Man 3
2022 02 11 Thor: Love and Thunder
2022 03 25 Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

 

[Ejanss]

Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 both failed because they were overstuffed with too many characters and specifically too many villains.

Spidey 3 failed because of too many villains, insisted upon by too many cooks in the pot:
Sam Raimi wanted to work his way through the villains chronologically, and was still on trying to find a "contemporary" reason for silver-age Sandman to rob banks, Sony wanted to stick with Harry-Goblin for "franchise continuity", and the fans insisted on Venom. Non-negotiable.

Amazing 2, however, showed us the bullet we dodged by taking Peter Parker away from Sony:
This was back when Sony was competing with Warner over who'd do their Suicide Squad/Sinister 6 "Villain team-up spinoff" first, so there's that cluttering up the second half of the movie for no reason...
But Amazing 2 was basically way too G-A-I for its imaginable good: Garfield--who later headlined a Broadway revival of "Angels in America"--seemed to be letting Peter have too close a relationship with a now sensitive and emo Harry Osborne, while poor Jamie Foxx had to keep shouting "It's not my FAULT for being what I am!" as the "persecuted" Electro who fights back. (Never mind that the nerdy-scientist-to-villain plot had Joel Schumacher's campy Batman villains written all over it.)
During the initial hype for the movie, there was fan and celeb interview chatting about "Why can't we progressively make Peter the first gay Marvel character in the third movie, and he can't ask Michael B. Jordan to the prom?" Garfield would go along with the joke in interviews, and we thought he was kidding...AT FIRST.

(And even if, by any stretch of the imagination, Amazing 2 had been a "good" film...that Rhino ending, though. )

Agree. To the movie audience, Daredevil is played by Ben Affleck (though Cox is definitely better).

They'll never get Ben Affleck, but he was better.
I'll always stick up for the minor-league but well-meaning 00's movie, since it's at least Real Marvel Comic Canon, where Daredevil has radioactively heightened super-senses including "sonar".
While Cox's Netflix series, to avoid stepping on source material, had to use Frank Miller's comic canon, where Daredevil only had highly trained senses because he worked hard at it and had an old mentor. Err, no.

Now, as for the question of whether Vincent D'Onofrio was a better Kingpin than Michael Clark Duncan...

Here's what's interesting to me about that. Pre-COVID, we were supposed to get these films in a different order. I'm losing track at this point, but I'm pretty sure that Doctor Strange was intended to be released in May 2021. I know Spider-Man was supposed to be July 2021. Then Doctor Strange went to November 2021. Then Doctor Strange went to March 2022 when Disney gave Sony the November date for Spider-Man.

And somewhere in between, we were supposed to get the passive-hostile feminists-vs.-sitcom humor of Disney+'s "WandaVision" series to help explain all the loose ends about Multiverses, and get Scarlet Witch and Vision to team up with the Doc.

Instead, we'll get snotty jokes from comics who thought June Cleaver and Laura Petrie were the same housewife, and some snarky Millennial jokes about how All Sitcoms were laughtracked Brady Bunch and Full House.

 

[Jake Lipson]

And somewhere in between, we were supposed to get the passive-hostile feminists-vs.-sitcom humor of Disney+'s "WandaVision" series to help explain all the loose ends about Multiverses, and get Scarlet Witch and Vision to team up with the Doc.

WandaVision starts on January 15. So that is coming sooner rather than later and will be in place long before either Spider-Man or Doctor Strange are seen on film again.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Ben Affleck

I don't think Ben Affleck is an issue for Daredevil at this point any more than the actor turnover for Spider-Man was when Garfield and then Holland were introduced. I would be saying the same thing about Krysten Ritter as Jessica Jones or any of the other Marvel Netflix show characters. The minute you put them in a Spider-Man movie, you've instantly got a much wider audience than has ever seen them before. So while it is fine for them to be there, and would be a nice bonus for people who watched the shows, they have to be introduced to the movie's story in such a way that doesn't lock out the people who didn't watch the shows from investing in the movie. I'm sure the team at Marvel knows this.

 

[jayembee]

They'll never get Ben Affleck, but he was better.
I'll always stick up for the minor-league but well-meaning 00's movie, since it's at least Real Marvel Comic Canon, where Daredevil has radioactively heightened super-senses including "sonar".
While Cox's Netflix series, to avoid stepping on source material, had to use Frank Miller's comic canon, where Daredevil only had highly trained senses because he worked hard at it and had an old mentor. Err, no.

Now, as for the question of whether Vincent D'Onofrio was a better Kingpin than Michael Clark Duncan...

I don't think either was better than the other (either Affleck v Cox or Duncan v D'Onofrio). I think in each case, both actors were solid for different reasons. It's like arguing whether Bill Everett or Gene Colan (or Frank Miller or John Romita Jr.) was the better Daredevil artist.

And I never really understood the animus towards Affleck's DD film. I didn't love it, but I liked it. In the pre-MCU world of superhero films, it did a pretty good job adapting the comics. Hell, I even thought Elektra wasn't nearly as bad as its reputation would have it (though to quote Opus, "Lord, it wasn't good." Both films were at least better than Tim Story's two FF movies -- which is admittedly a low bar to hurdle.

 

[TravisR]

I don't think Ben Affleck is an issue for Daredevil at this point any more than the actor turnover for Spider-Man was when Garfield and then Holland were introduced.

Me neither. I like Affleck and his Daredevil movie but the thought of him appearing or people being confused as to him being in the MCU never even occurred to me. More than anything, I think the most recent interpretation of the character is the 'real' one in the minds of the general public so if they give it any thought, Netflix and Charlie Cox win.