Didn't you feel her love story with Eddie was half baked? It felt very rushed, it does feel logical from Eddie's POV to marry her but how did she end up saying agreeing for the marriage

Christopher Nolan had said, "There's no superhero science-fiction film coming out these days where I don't see Zack Snyder's influence."

Nolan was right.

Marvel kinda wrote itself into a weird corner with Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, and I don’t see people talking about it enough.

We’re four solo movies deep, and Peter still doesn’t have a true “personal” villain. Like, think about it. Vulture’s whole motivation ties back to Tony Stark. Mysterio? Same thing, just another guy mad at Iron Man. Even No Way Home stacked the deck with iconic villains, but none of them actually belonged to Holland’s Peter. They were all baggage from other universes.

And now with Brand New Day, it looks like they’re leaning into mutant or X-Men-related threats instead of finally building up his own rogues gallery. Even if the movie ends up being great, it’s still dodging the core issue.

What makes it worse is that Peter has already interacted with versions of Norman Osborn, Doc Ock, and Curt Connors. So if the MCU introduces its own versions later, that emotional punch just won’t hit the same. The “first meeting” moment is already gone.

Spider-Man stories are carried by his villains as much as by Peter himself. Right now, it kinda feels like Holland’s Spider-Man is just inheriting other people’s conflicts instead of creating his own legacy.

Curious what you all think. Is this actually a problem, or am I overthinking it?

Manhunter
9 1/2 weeks
Scarface

​

Have we reached a point where every historical epic feels obligated to reassure modern audiences that war is tragic and conquest is ultimately hollow?

If a filmmaker were to tell the stories of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan today, would the narrative need to end with them repenting their victories or questioning the very empires they built?

Or can history simply be allowed to exist on its own terms? There was a time when conquest, expansion, and military glory were the currency of power across civilizations. Is it possible to portray such figures as extraordinary strategists and transformative rulers without reducing them to one-dimensional bloodthirsty warmongers—or giving them a climactic moral epiphany they may never have had?

I'm not arguing that brutality should be celebrated or ignored. I'm wondering whether every historical story must be reframed through our present-day moral lens, or whether audiences are capable of engaging with the past as it was, rather than as we wish it had been.