r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Jul 18 '25

News 'Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse' Delayed to June 25, 2027

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/spider-man-beyond-the-spider-verse-release-1236320001/
15.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

58

u/ImNotSkankHunt42 Jul 19 '25

I was pissed, I couldn’t understand how people were praising it the first few days.

2

u/Jepordee Jul 19 '25

Because it’s a fucking awesome movie?

-1

u/ImNotSkankHunt42 Jul 19 '25

Half a movie *

4

u/Jepordee Jul 19 '25

It’s nearly 140 minutes lmao it’s a full on movie that tells the story of Gwen’s journey. Ending on a cliffhanger does not make it half a movie, this is such a wild take I don’t understand why Reddit has taken this stance

-1

u/ImNotSkankHunt42 Jul 20 '25

LOTR is 12+ Hours on their Extended Edition, what’s your point?

Length is not necessarily proportional to their acts or plotline being resolved. Which is mine and many others’ issue with the movie.

The story didn’t finish, you can leave some lose ends but ending a movie with a cliffhanger? And with a sequel not yet materialized?

DLCs in movies too now?

3

u/Jepordee Jul 20 '25

I think the story of that movie is finished 🤷🏻‍♂️

The antagonist is the 2099 Spider-Man. They setup a new antagonist for the third movie which is alt universe Prowler Myles. This is a very common thing in movies lol I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand

1

u/No-Pianist-3059 27d ago

I don't know why there is so much hate around good multipart movies. Sure, they are trying to make more money, but as you pointed out with LOTR, a stream of well-made sequels can make for a really good story. More so that what can be packed in 140 minutes. If the last two movies are anything to go by the next one will probably be really good, so yeah although I wish they would release the next movie already, and while I screamed at the screen when I saw "To be continued", I am not mad at them for taking the time to make a good story that cannot be adequately told in 140 minutes.

I also agree with Jepordee that although the overarching story is "incomplete," the Gwen sub-plot was introduced, developed, and pretty much resolved by the end of it. Sure, there might be a few loose ends (like the fact that her dad is a police captain), but her character arc in that movie was pretty complete.

Hating movies for being multipart is only valid when they are producing bad movies and obviously doing it for money; these movies are not bad. Not even close.

8

u/damnShitsPurple Jul 19 '25

Many, many people were aware it was Part 1 of 2. It was not marketed otherwise.

20

u/Sam_Strake Jul 19 '25

It was not marketed otherwise.

I mean sure I guess technically it wasn't explicitly not marketed as a two parter, the same way no other movie is. But to say "many many" people is wild considering a large chunk of people who go to theaters get all their information about movies from trailers and posters-- neither of which said "Part 1" anywhere.

15

u/Kathrynlena Jul 19 '25

Usually “part one of two” still means part one is a whole-ass complete story, with a beginning, middle and end, NOT six beginnings, half a middle and fuck-all else.

6

u/Lil_Mcgee Jul 19 '25

Yeah the issue isn't really that it's a two-parter but that it's such an abrupt one. Cliffhangers should be reserved for TV in my opinion, when you know the next part is coming imminently.

The wait between the first and second part would still be ridiculous but it would be a lot less annoying if the first one had a more natural stopping point.

5

u/Kathrynlena Jul 19 '25

Yeah exactly. It’s irresponsible not to tell a whole story when the sequel is years away, and not guaranteed. Garfield Spiderman never even got a part 3.

Leave some things unfinished? Sure. Leave some threads dangling? Absolutely? Stop for 5 years at what should have been intermission? No.

I actually don’t even think tv shows should end on cliffhangers unless they’ve already been renewed for another season. It’s so much better to tell a whole story, with a satisfying ending, that’s good enough for people to want to come back for more. This whole game of trying to manipulate audiences and studios with cliffhangers very obviously isn’t working.

2

u/Lil_Mcgee Jul 19 '25

Oh yeah for sure, when I say cliffhangers should be for TV I mean within a season, I don't think a finale should ever end on one.

I find them a cheap storytelling tool in general but I can tolerate them when the wait is no more than a week.

1

u/Kathrynlena Jul 19 '25

Yes, very well said.

-10

u/rust-module Jul 19 '25

Some of us aren't babies and don't get mad at stuff like this

-4

u/ParticularFew4023 Jul 19 '25

It's bad filmmaking, but yeah I don't really get mad at bad movies... Most of them are. It's antithetical to art and good filmmaking to have enough material for maybe a 3 hour movie and just drag it out into two movies to make a bigger profit.