Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

[nomodrama]

Just watched this for the 2nd time since seeing it in the theaters and I have a question. I tried to comb thru all the comments to see if this was addressed but I couldn't find it. If the villains were fixed so that they hopefully will not die in their universe, doesn't that in turn also change Spider-man 2 and 3's futures? Most importantly, Harry wouldn't necessarily die and neither would Gwen. Maybe I would just really selfishly like to think that Spider-man 3 would get his happy ending with Gwen in his universe. It would be kind of unfair that the villains would get a second chance to be saved but their victims wouldn't. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ursula said:

Only if you take out intersectionality. Hollywood has spent decades depicting people that look like Ned as unattractive and sexless. There's nothing ground-breaking about yet again, assuming that a straight woman will not find him attractive. Or that he himself will - conveniently - not be romantically interested in her. 

Why is it “convenient” that he wouldn’t be romantically interested in her? Also why assume that them not being interested in each other means he will not have any straight women interested in him? People of the opposite sex can be friends without ever contemplating it being anything more. That’s not unrealistic.

I am well aware of the way characters that look like Ned are treated but, in my opinion, using MJ is the wrong way to break that trope. Given Jacob’s weight loss, it could easily just look she is now attracted to him physically when she wasn’t in the past. 

3 hours ago, ursula said:

That's the point I made. That it can be brought up and dismissed.

You misunderstood my point. If it is brought and neither of them is interested there is nothing to say that it isn’t about his physical appearance. 

3 hours ago, ursula said:

And no, Ned's plot convenient love interest in FFH (that we never even saw kiss on screen) doesn't count. That was an idealised, completely unrealistic relationship that basically existed to keep Ned out of the plot so that Peter and MJ could get closer. The moment Peter needed Ned back full-time, the relationship ended. 

Clearly, we just have different opinions. Yes, it was idealized, unrealistic and played for laughs but I didn’t see even a hint that he was beneath her or that she wasn’t legitimately interested in him. It wasn’t played like she was out of his league. There are OTP’s in the MCU that rarely ever kiss so that doesn’t bother me at all. 

3 hours ago, ursula said:

Would it be better if it wasn't unreciprocated? There's a lot of potential in a plot where Ned and MJ become romantically involved, because once their memories come back this will open a can of worms for all three of them. 

Not to me. I have zero desire to see a love triangle. It’s been done to death. Also, if they go that route Ned will lose and I am very tired of seeing the POC used as an obstacle to the OTP.

Purely from a storytelling perspective one of them would need a personality change and I really don’t want that to happen. As written it’s not believable and it has nothing to do with looks. Personally, I’d rather see a Ned who thrives in college completely independently of MJ or Peter.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Guest

[Schweedie]

3 hours ago, nomodrama said:

Just watched this for the 2nd time since seeing it in the theaters and I have a question. I tried to comb thru all the comments to see if this was addressed but I couldn't find it. If the villains were fixed so that they hopefully will not die in their universe, doesn't that in turn also change Spider-man 2 and 3's futures? Most importantly, Harry wouldn't necessarily die and neither would Gwen. Maybe I would just really selfishly like to think that Spider-man 3 would get his happy ending with Gwen in his universe. It would be kind of unfair that the villains would get a second chance to be saved but their victims wouldn't. 

This was also something I wondered about, the universe-wide implications of the villains being cured. Like, either it could set off a separate timeline with them being 'variants' given that they're now sort of part of the MCU, or like you say Spidey 2's and 3's futures might be different.

[ursula]

7 hours ago, Dani said:

Why is it “convenient” that he wouldn’t be romantically interested in her?

Because men that look like Ned - especially because of his race - are conveniently disregarded as romantic options for women that white men are attracted to. It’s a form of narrative castration. So it’s pretty convenient if the question of Ned being interested in Peter’s ex, doesn’t come up. You can choose to disregard the negative connotations but they’re still there.

Quote

If it is brought and neither of them is interested there is nothing to say that it isn’t about his physical appearance. 

Or we could have the plot relevant reason that they both feel they would be crossing a line that they don't really understand. There could be a scene where someone brings up that for two very close friends who find each other attractive, it's surprising that they never dated, and Ned and MJ are actually confused as to why. 

A simple explanation that doesn't demean either of them, and ties into the underlying story. 

 

7 hours ago, Dani said:

It’s been done to death.

And again, this is a lack of intersectionality. Because an experience happens frequently with white characters doesn’t make it universal.

 

7 hours ago, Dani said:

Purely from a storytelling perspective one of them would need a personality change 

The mind wipe has already created personality changes in both of them. So this isn’t a point against the possibility.

Edited March 29, 2022 by ursula

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ursula said:

Because men that look like Ned - especially because of his race - are conveniently disregarded as romantic options for women that white men are attracted to. It’s a form of narrative castration. So it’s pretty convenient if the question of Ned being interested in Peter’s ex, doesn’t come up. You can choose to disregard the negative connotations but they’re still there.

There are negative connotations on both and every comes from their own perspective. I am absolutely not ignoring the way Asian men are treated in the media. I am Asian and I hate that trope with a burning passion but I also want it to be addressed in a way that is positive. To me having him be a temporary obstacle to MJ and Peter isn’t that. Give him his own love interest separate from his best friend and that isn’t dependent on which woman is in closest proximity. For me, showing MJ being interested would do less than nothing to change the standard since everyone would not it was going no way and people would actively route against them. 

2 hours ago, ursula said:

And again, this is a lack of intersectionality. Because  an experience happens frequently with white characters doesn’t make it universal.

But the outcome won’t change and I have seen minority characters used as a romantic obstacle often enough that has been done to death. 

 

2 hours ago, ursula said:

The mind wipe has already created personality changes in both of them. So this isn’t a point against the possibility.

I disagree. To me, if their personality changes to that extent it would be bad writing. They are fundamentally very different personality types in a way that makes them I’ll suited for each other. 

[ursula]

 

38 minutes ago, Dani said:

To me having him be a temporary obstacle to MJ and Peter isn’t that. Give him his own love interest separate from his best friend and that isn’t dependent on which woman is in closest proximity. For me, showing MJ being interested would do less than nothing to change the standard since everyone would not it was going no way and people would actively route against them. 

Somewhere along the line, you've merged 2 separate topics and I want to distinguish them here.

1. The story acknowledges that Ned and MJ are 2 attractive, straight (presumed or at least attracted to the opposite sex) close friends of the opposite sex who could be attracted to each other. Whether they actually date is not the issue here. But (IMO) the story acting like this isn't even a consideration (that MJ can't see Ned as attractive or that Ned is conveniently not attracted to MJ) is problematic. To paraphrase myself: The Question should come up, even if the Answer is No. (And if the answer is tied to their suppressed memories and the feeling that they would be crossing a line by dating each other, even better and plot relevant).

2. The story actually has Ned and MJ date, and therefore develop a love triangle which leads into Ned's Hobgoblin arc. Now you've come up with good reasons why Ned being the losing side of a triangle is problematic, and I can see reason in that. But this is similar to your argument that giving Ned the Hobgoblin arc at all will be problematic. I don't see how writing Ned out of good storylines is a positive. IMO Ned as Peter's stress-free comic relief best friend, welcoming him back with open arms and being basically static throughout the series is far more problematic than a Ned who is given layers and written into conflict with Peter. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by ursula

[BetterButter]

 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, ursula said:

Somewhere along the line, you've merged 2 separate topics and I want to distinguish them here.

No I haven’t. I just disagree with both and have explained my reasons why. I don’t think having them never date or even consider dating is problematic. I feel that the assumption they most contemplate the possibility is problematic. It can happen organically but there is nothing wrong with two single, heterosexual people of the opposite sex being in close proximity and never seeing each other romantically. If I saw them as remotely compatible personality wise I would feel differently but the only reason I can see it happening, right now, is because they are a man and a woman. That’s not enough and if they go that way it would feel hollow to me.

Representation matters and I am passionate about demolishing Asian tropes but representation of the sexuality spectrum is also important. Part of that is showing purely platonic, opposite sex, heterosexual relationship where both a viewed as desirable outside the relationship. Giving Ned romantic interests outside the core group is far better representation then using MJ to show he’s desirable. MJ can see him purely platonically and other women can see him as desirable.

54 minutes ago, ursula said:

But this is similar to your argument that giving Ned the Hobgoblin arc at all will be problematic. I don't see how writing Ned out of good storylines is a positive. IMO Ned as Peter's stress-free comic relief best friend, welcoming him back with open arms and being basically static throughout the series is far more problematic than a Ned who is given layers and written into conflict with Peter. 

You have me confused with someone else. I have not commented at all of the possibility of Ned becoming Hobgoblin. 

But to me a love triangle is never a good storyline particularly when you know how it ends and there is no way Ned will be given enough focus to actually develop the storyline. If we had an entire movie where Ned and MJ are separate from Peter and we’re still given a big chunk of the screen time it could possible work but that’s never going to happen. 

[ursula]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

It can happen organically but there is nothing wrong with two single, heterosexual people of the opposite sex being in close proximity and never seeing each other romantically.

Quote

If I saw them as remotely compatible personality wise I would feel differently but the only reason I can see it happening, right now, is because they are a man and a woman. That’s not enough and if they go that way it would feel hollow to me.

Why? Did the movie tell us why MJ likes Peter? It's a literal question in NWH and she doesn't give an answer. Why do we need a reason for her liking Ned?

Ned and MJ were in the same "geeky" Decathlon group and Ned and Peter are similar personalities - the only difference is one is bitten by a spider and the other is not. Basically if MJ can be attracted to Peter based on his personality alone, then she can be attracted to Ned, and vice versa. Also they're teenagers. I don't need the movie to give me a thesis for why they would be attracted to each other. If anything, the fact that fandom always needs a justification for why POC are attracted or attractive (while 90% of white/white ships in genre media are "love at first sight") is part of what I find problematic about the lack of intersectionality. 

This also:

Quote

Part of that is showing purely platonic, opposite sex, heterosexual relationship where both a viewed as desirable outside the relationship.

We get a lot of platonic, heterosexual relationships with non-white people (with each other, and with other white people) and that's problematic for all the reasons I've stated so I'm not going to keep pushing. 

1 hour ago, Dani said:

You have me confused with someone else. I have not commented at all of the possibility of Ned becoming Hobgoblin. 

My bad. There was an earlier comment that objected against both on the basis that Peter deserved to have an uncomplicated friendship and it would be wrong to introduce the conflict of a love triangle and/or Ned becoming a villain. It's still the same point IMO. Either way, Ned is being defined and therefore valued, by how his story can serve Peter's and not his own. It's not a better option to create, for example, Harry as a white character to be: a, developed to be Peter's friend, b, have unrequited feelings for his girlfriend and,  c, turn evil and the story deals with that loss and betrayal. It might be make people "root" for Ned as the uncomplicated, unproblematic side-kick, but in practical terms, it's putting him on the sidelines and giving the focus to Ned 2.0, same but white.

Edited March 29, 2022 by ursula

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ursula said:

Why? Did the movie tell us why MJ likes Peter? It's a literal question in NWH and she doesn't give an answer. Why do we need a reason for her liking Ned?

Ned and MJ were in the same "geeky" Decathlon group and Ned and Peter are similar personalities - the only difference is one is bitten by a spider and the other is not. Basically if MJ can be attracted to Peter based on his personality alone, then she can be attracted to Ned, and vice versa. Also they're teenagers. I don't need the movie to give me a thesis for why they would be attracted to each other. If anything, the fact that fandom always needs a justification for why POC are attracted or attractive (while 90% of white/white ships in genre media are "love at first sight") is part of what I find problematic about the lack of intersectionality. 

We just have different opinions. There isn’t one right way to have representation or one right way to make a onscreen couple work. What one persons like another sees as pandering. I am not going to defend my reasons for not thinking they are suited. I will just say that to has nothing to do with needing the show to justify why POC are attractive or not. You are making a lot of assumptions about my thought process on this. I agree with you on the problem I just don’t think what you are suggesting would be meaningful representation. I want better for Ned because despite me being a women he is closer to representing me than most characters in movies. That’s not a knock at MJ but her place in the universe is pretty clearly defined in relation to Peter. 

[ursula]

42 minutes ago, Dani said:

I agree with you on the problem I just don’t think what you are suggesting would be meaningful representation. I want better for Ned because despite me being a women he is closer to representing me than most characters in movies. That’s not a knock at MJ but her place in the universe is pretty clearly defined in relation to Peter. 

Fair enough. My overall wish for Ned and MJ is for them to be fully fleshed, dynamic characters. I want them to grow and change separately from him, so that when they are reunited, there will be real consequences and therefore stakes from Peter's choice at the end of NWH. And yes, the tropiest consequences would be his girlfriend moving on, worse if she moves on with his best friend, and/or his best friend becoming evil. But tropes become tropes for a reason. And as I already stated, what might be an overdone trope for white characters isn't the same for POCs.

What I would hate most of all is for MJ and Ned to be static. For the separation not to change them in any way that negatively affects Peter. For there to be no narrative consequences for him taking away their agency. That would be the equivalent of keeping their characters in narrative holding boxes, waiting for Peter (Watsonianly - and the writers Doylistically) to decide when it's time for him  to re-accept them. While the more interesting plots and storylines are lived by the (inevitably) white characters that will replace their roles in his life. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by ursula

[blueray]

3 hours ago, ursula said:

My bad. There was an earlier comment that objected against both on the basis that Peter deserved to have an uncomplicated friendship and it would be wrong to introduce the conflict of a love triangle and/or Ned becoming a villain. It's still the same point IMO. Either way, Ned is being defined and therefore valued, by how his story can serve Peter's and not his own. It's not a better option to create, for example, Harry as a white character to be: a, developed to be Peter's friend, b, have unrequited feelings for his girlfriend and,  c, turn evil and the story deals with that loss and betrayal. It might be make people "root" for Ned as the uncomplicated, unproblematic side-kick, but in practical terms, it's putting him on the sidelines and giving the focus to Ned 2.0, same but white.

I'm not sure what you talking about Ned 2.0? The is only one and he is one of my favorite characters. No need for another one, unless you mean MJ is dating someone else?

 I did make a comment about not wanting to see Ned evil or in a love triangle. He can be given his own story without being evil, especially if he has sorcerer like powers. Actually if anything he could get his hero moment/ storyline. I'm a sucker for the Sam's of the story. They are the best friend, who truly is the hero of the story. And don't tell me they don't get a story, because sticking with LOTR's, Sam gets plenty to do and is the reason Frodo succeeds.  As for a love interest, give him his own (which they already did) and doesn't have to be a main part of the story or it can be. 

The whole love triangle and best friend turn evil thing happened in the Toby movies. The reason I'd say it for the most part works in them, is you see Harry develop of the course of the three movies. He is his own character and has a history with both Peter and MJ. You know his motivations and why he does what he does. It was done well, doesn't need to be done again.

Also factoring in that Ned (and MJ) don't know who Peter is, so there is no build up or reason behind it. Minus him not knowing Peter, which makes it about Peter. It would just be taking a fan favorite character and destroying him for no reason. I actually have more of a problem of him being evil then dating MJ. They have stuff in common, and I can see  her liking Ned (for who he is). Making him evil doesn't fit with the character that we have seen now for 5 (?) movies.

Edited March 29, 2022 by blueray

[BetterButter]

 

[tv echo]

Benedict Cumberbatch defends Doctor Strange breaking the multiverse in Spider-Man: No Way Home
By Jordan Farley Contributions from Jack Shepherd published March 31, 2022
https://www.gamesradar.com/doctor-strange-spider-man-no-way-home-benedict-cumberbatch-defends/

Quote

Is it fair to blame the former Sourceror Supreme? Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Doctor Strange, does not exactly think the multiverse-tampering moment was all his character's fault. 

"I know we all love Peter Parker, but can we just rewind to the point that the spell is interrupted something like six times?" Cumberbatch chuckles while talking to Total Film for the latest issue of the magazine, featuring Top Gun on the cover. 

"I think it’s just too easily written off as: 'He’s going to have to pay for his arrogance.' It’s not all arrogance, actually. I think some of it is a very calculated risk. But we’ll see where that takes him [in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]."

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by tv echo

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Special Features - Condo Fight
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 9, 2022

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Special Features - Journey
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 9, 2022

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by tv echo

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Special Features - Connecting with Peter Parker
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 10, 2022

 

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME - Ned’s Bogus Adventure | Now on Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD, and Digital
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 14, 2022

 

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Special Features - Willem Dafoe
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 15, 2022

 

[Josh371982]

On 3/19/2022 at 6:05 PM, BooBear said:

Ok I just saw this.. I know iI was late. 

I was completely spoiled.. saw 50% of the movie on the day clips were leaked to you tube. 

But the one thing that somehow didn't make it out to me was when Peter tells Dr. Strange of his plans to cast a spell where no one remembers him any longer... and Dr. Strange has this agast reaction basically saying "but then no one who loves you will remember you... we all won't...."

And you realize that Dr. Strange includes himself as someone who loves the little scamp...

That got me. 

I caught that and realized it as well 😔

[tv echo]

Spider-Man: No Way Home Video Reveals Last-Minute Change to Daredevil Scene
By Sam Hargrave    April 17, 2022
https://thedirect.com/article/spider-man-no-way-home-daredevil-scene-video

Quote

Spider-Man: No Way Home VFX supervisor Kelly Port recently sat down with Corridor Crew to react to the CGI in the Multiverse blockbuster and revealed one significant change to Daredevil's scene.

While reacting to Matt Murdock's appearance, in which Charlie Cox's lawyer offered legal advice to Peter Parker, Port pointed out that the brick caught in the scene was "originally not a brick, it was a snow globe" and was changed "after the fact:"

"With Murdock here and catching the brick, that was originally not a brick, it was a snow globe. So that's one of those creative decisions that came after the fact."
*  *  *
After the interviewers questioned if Tom Holland's fingers had to be digitally altered when taking the brick from Murdock, the VFX supervisor noted the "sphere shape" of the actor's hand, as if he was grabbing a snow globe:

"He's actually grabbing a snow globe. You can see it's more of a sphere shape."
*  *  *
"You can tell kinda by the shape of his palm that he's actually grabbing something more spherical."

VFX Artists React to NO WAY HOME Bad and Great CGi
Corridor Crew   Apr 16, 2022

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by tv echo

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Special Features - Alfred Molina
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 17, 2022

 

[wanderingstar]

Peter 3 saying "I always wanted brothers" made me smile so wide.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Gillian Rosh said:

Peter 3 saying "I always wanted brothers" made me smile so wide.

As was the "I love you guys." If Andrew really adlibbed that, my love for him knows no bounds.

My friend finally watched this last night, and we were laughing about how the younger generation was mercilessly making fun of the Raimi/Webb villains, although it also made us feel really old (since those were the ones we grew up with). But the ending destroyed her.

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Special Features - Jamie Foxx
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 18, 2022

 

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME - Spider-Mans Trailer
Sony Pictures Entertainment    Apr 28, 2022

Quote

Swing into #NationalSuperHeroDay with not one, not two, but THREE Spider-Mans! 

#SpiderManNoWayHome is now on Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD, and Digital! ....

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by tv echo

[tv echo]

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Clip - Lola's Request
Sony Pictures Entertainment    May 13, 2022

[tv echo]

From the 2022 MTV Movie & TV Awards show last night...

2022 MTV Movie & TV Awards Winners List
By Benjamin VanHoose   June 05, 2022
https://people.com/movies/2022-mtv-movie-and-tv-awards-winners-list/ 

Quote

BEST MOVIE

Dune
Scream
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings
Spider-Man: No Way Home (WINNER)
The Adam Project
The Batman
*  *  *
BEST PERFORMANCE IN A MOVIE

Lady Gaga – House of Gucci
Robert Pattinson – The Batman
Sandra Bullock – The Lost City
Timothée Chalamet – Dune
Tom Holland – Spider-Man: No Way Home (WINNER)

Tom Holland’s MTV Awards Acceptance Speech For Best Movie 2022
Spider-Man   Jun 5, 2022

[tv echo]

Zendaya & Andrew Garfield | Actors on Actors - Full Conversation
Variety   Jun 7, 2022

Quote

In their Actors on Actors conversation Zendaya ('Euphoria') and Andrew Garfield ('Under the Banner of Heaven') reminisce on filming 'Spider-Man: No Way Home,' talk about what it's like playing Rue in her worst moments, and how Andrew Garfield chooses his roles.

[tv echo]

[tv echo]

Yes, Spider-Man Loves ‘Euphoria’: Andrew Garfield Raves About Zendaya During Emotional ‘No Way Home’ Reunion
By Ramin Setoodeh   June 7, 2022
https://variety.com/2022/tv/features/andrew-garfield-zendaya-euphoria-fandom-spider-man-nerves-1235285075/ 

Quote

ZENDAYA: I think for me being in service of other people’s healing through my work means that what I’m doing makes sense. We talk about “Spider-Man,” but the amount of joy that brought people is so cool. Like, to see you guys have that moment together was special, but then also the effect that had on so many people.

GARFIELD: Totally. Also, it’s about brotherhood. And I love the idea that maybe Tom’s Peter would’ve suffered the same fate as Andrew’s Peter if Andrew hadn’t have somehow come into that universe and learned from the mistakes of the past — and made sure that my younger brother and his love didn’t have the same fate.

ZENDAYA: I remember when I read that, it made me very happy.

GARFIELD: I loved shooting that with you so much.

ZENDAYA: And wasn’t that like our first thing?

GARFIELD: It was, absolutely.

ZENDAYA: “I met you yesterday. Thanks for catching me. You have to cry. Sorry.”

GARFIELD: It was pretty intense. And then suddenly we were kind of done.

ZENDAYA: I guess it was good to get the emotional stuff out of the way, because the rest of the time was just —

GARFIELD: Just giddy, joyful. Being so dumb. Pull those pants down, get those carts to get under the wraps —

ZENDAYA: The crazy forearms. Inside jokes!

GARFIELD: I forget what that was for.

ZENDAYA: It was the Tobey one.

GARFIELD: He had these crazy —

ZENDAYA: Forearms.

GARFIELD: Good joke bank you got there in that noggin of yours. That was really good.
*  *  *
ZENDAYA: What was really funny when I think about it is Tom was so nervous about you guys coming in. He was like, “I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes.”

GARFIELD: He never let anything on to us. Me and Tobey were like, “This is Tom’s movie. It’s your guys’ movie.” And it was like, if we can help. … But it’s so funny because you guys were like, “We’re going to come and hang out with you at rehearsal.” I’m like, “What are these guys doing?”

ZENDAYA: That’s why we were there. We were there for emotional support.

GARFIELD: Very sweet.

ZENDAYA: We were like, “I think they don’t know how much fun we like to have when we’re doing this job.”

GARFIELD: It became evident very quick.

ZENDAYA: Fell right into the crew. I’m pissing myself laughing, but I was dying. You guys had me dying — like crying laughing — in between takes all the time.

GARFIELD: My brother’s treating COVID patients as we speak, and I’m wearing a lovely jacket talking about “Spider-Man.” But then he goes home and watches “Spider-Man” with his boys. Oh no. I’m just trying to justify my existence.

Edited June 12, 2022 by tv echo

[Crs97]

2 minutes ago, tv echo said:

GARFIELD: My brother’s treating COVID patients as we speak, and I’m wearing a lovely jacket talking about “Spider-Man.” But then he goes home and watches “Spider-Man” with his boys. Oh no. I’m just trying to justify my existence.

I inexplicably love Andrew Garfield so much, even though I haven’t watched very many of his movies; quotes like this remind me why.

[Ailianna]

I just watched this again and thought of something I missed the first time around. Does this take place the same year as Hawkeye? Because the end scene with Peter going out to be Spiderman in spandex he just sewed (not sure why), he swings through Rockefeller Center, and the tree is still up. And it looks just like the Hawkeye one. So I thought, guess it's taking place before Christmas Eve, since it doesn't look like a fight just happened there. But are they the same Christmas?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Ailianna said:

I just watched this again and thought of something I missed the first time around. Does this take place the same year as Hawkeye? Because the end scene with Peter going out to be Spiderman in spandex he just sewed (not sure why), he swings through Rockefeller Center, and the tree is still up. And it looks just like the Hawkeye one. So I thought, guess it's taking place before Christmas Eve, since it doesn't look like a fight just happened there. But are they the same Christmas?

Yes. Both are set in 2024. 

[tv echo]

Matt McClurg was the Previsualization Supervisor for No Way Home...

Spider-Man: No Way Home Previsualization Reel
Matt Mcclurg   May 26, 2022

[tv echo]

[Scarlett45]

On 3/21/2022 at 3:52 AM, arc said:

Pepper could have fixed everything with MIT, but this is one of the suspensions of disbelief we have to employ with shared universe superheroes. Comics Peter doesn't tend to call in big favors from Tony Stark, or Mr Fantastic, or Captain America, barring major crossover event storylines. And esp not for his personal life stuff; he'll ask for professional favors for work stuff like dealing with Venom.

I did a freeze frame on the last shot of the movie, not including credits sequences, and in the extreme close up on Spidey's face, the facial expression mechanisms that change the shape of his mask's eyes are still there even if his new suit is more hand-sewn than Stark tech. Which is fine by me, it's too cool to let go just because it kinda doesn't make sense with the story of his new suit.

But did he get rid of that nanotech suit entirely? What a shame if so.

I finally sat down to watch this and I too wondered about his suit. 
 

Im taking the spell to mean that Peter Parker still legally exists (he has his ID etc, and if he was smart he cleared out May’s checking account before the death certificate was sent to the bank), but the emotional center of people’s brains that remembers Peter is gone. Spider-Man still exists but no one knew his real identity. 

[Shannon L.]

I know that the point of Peter walking out of the coffee shop at the end without attempting to engage in conversation with Ned and MJ is that he knew that having friends could put them in danger, but to this day, I still wonder what MJ's response would have been if he asked her about the broken dahlia necklace.

[tv echo]

Daredevil’s Deleted Spider-Man: No Way Home Scene Released (Description)
By Savannah Sanders    September 2, 2022
https://thedirect.com/article/daredevil-spider-man-no-way-home-deleted-scene-description 

Quote

One of Spider-Man: No Way Home's deleted scenes featuring Charlie Cox's Matt Murdock and Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan has been released as part of the film's More Fun Stuff extended cut.

The scene shows Murdock and Happy Hogan meeting with the Department of Damage Control (DODC) led by Agent Cleary who was most recently seen in Ms. Marvel. 

 (Marvel Heroes)

[cambridgeguy]

This makes me want to see the Midtown High yearbook.  His face is conveniently obscured by a pigeon in one shot, and his back is to the camera in another, so maybe he'll be one of those kids who was "out sick" on picture day, or it will be blurred.

[tv echo]

[tv echo]

Quote

How did you find working with you fellow Spider-Men, Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire?

I think myself, Tom, and Tobey came into this going, “Well, how’s this gonna go?” I’d had lovely interactions with Tom and Tobey previously; not big hangouts, but really sweet moments at parties or events – or as sweet and deep as those things can go, which is not very! But I got a really good vibe from Tom and a really good vibe from Tobey. So I was excited to get to know these guys more and to see what we could create together.

We all came with our own history and with our own relationship to the character in our own films. I think what really was wonderful, and how it unfolded very early on, was Tobey and I felt very aligned and very clear about what our intentions were for being there. Ultimately, it was to serve Tom as an actor and, as characters, serving Tom’s Peter Parker. I think from that place, everything flowed. It enabled Tobey and me to have a bit more fun maybe than we would’ve had if we were the ones fully carrying the story.

Edited January 27, 2023 by tv echo

[pancake bacon]

Can you help out: I watched this movie back during the theatrical run. I remember enjoying Garfield and Maguire moments tremendously, and parts of the movie were just so-so (there wasn’t enough Aunt May in previous movies for me to feel her loss that much). Much of the movie is a blur by now, but were the three Spider-Mans (Spider-Men?) trying to get all the villains in their time… so they could inject them with an an anti-villain dose.… that was created in a high school lab? 
 

Edited January 31, 2023 by pancake bacon

[Guest]

9 hours ago, pancake bacon said:

Much of the movie is a blur by now, but were the three Spider-Mans (Spider-Men?) trying to get all the villains in their time… so they could inject them with an an anti-villain.… that was created in a high school lab? 

They were trying to cure all of them. Some of the cures were made in a high school lab and some were made in Happy’s condo. 

[pancake bacon]

21 minutes ago, Dani said:

They were trying to cure all of them. Some of the cures were made in a high school lab and some were made in Happy’s condo. 

Thank you! This cure was just a Macguffin for the the other (and pretty great moments) of the movie. But this does confirm my fear of the same why-didn't-they-just-call-the-Avengers dilemma… Why not just have this cure ready for all the villains of the succeeding MCU movies… (Don't get me started on the "face mask" maneuver that's been in Winter Soldier, Black Widow…) 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, pancake bacon said:

Thank you! This cure was just a Macguffin for the the other (and pretty great moments) of the movie. But this does confirm my fear of the same why-didn't-they-just-call-the-Avengers dilemma… Why not just have this cure ready for all the villains of the succeeding MCU movies… 

Because it wasn’t a single cure for all villains. Six individuals cures for six different villains that were all created through scientific experiments gone wrong.  

[Chyromaniac]

So true.  The idea that you could cure, for example, robotic octopus arms with delizardification serum is almost too preposterous to even mention…

[angora]

It's reflective of the way Spider-Man villains were "created" in the Tobey and Andrew eras. All of them got their abilities due to some kind of accident, with some (like Osborn and Octavius) losing control of their mental autonomy as a result and some (like Sandman) being angry because the physiological changes they went through robbed them of their old lives. The "cures" either reversed those changes or restored their mental autonomy, each individualized to what had gone "wrong" with each villain. It's awfully pat that all of them immediately seemed ready to take a better path after receiving their cures (you're telling me Connors isn't still on his Lizard supremacy trip?), but it's what they went with.

You couldn't do that with most MCU villains today, because they're motivated by things other than "there was a freak science experiment gone wrong and then I 'went crazy'/transformed into a 'monster.'" Like, there's no serum you could've given Killmonger to undo his grievances. You probably could've taken away Red Skulls powers and fixed his face, but the guy still would've been a Nazi.

Hell, even going just with other Spider-Man villains, Toomes was a working-class guy who went too far down a rabbit hole in trying to provide for his family while sticking it to system that was keeping him down, and Beck was a disgruntled ex-employee on a power trip. You can't just whip up a cure for that. This is a plot that only could've worked with pre-MCU villains.

[Bruinsfan]

23 hours ago, angora said:

It's awfully pat that all of them immediately seemed ready to take a better path after receiving their cures (you're telling me Connors isn't still on his Lizard supremacy trip?), but it's what they went with.

Remember that in Amazing Spider-Man Connors came to his senses almost instantaneously when reverted to human. I think his villainy was already proven to be a result of whatever changes to his brain the lizard transformation caused.

[angora]

That's a good point, @Bruinsfan, it's been a while since I've seen The Amazing Spider-Man. Plus, I suppose learning that you were about to be killed in your original timeline motivates you to rethink your priorities.

[tv echo]

Quote

 ... Now, coming February 28th, Titan Books brings Spider-Man No Way Home: The Official Movie Special to fans to go deep into the making of the epic film.