The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't fit into the marvel movie universe. It was made simply so that Fox?Sony? could hold onto the movie rights.

MY opinion of that movie is that it is mostly garbage. It has one good scene which is in every trailer, review, etc and is used to say that this movie version is more like the comics...unfortunately that scene is only maybe 5 minutes and isn't representative of the rest of the movie. If it were... a lot more people would like the movie.

I wish pepole would give it a rest about Spider-Man/X-Men in the MCU, it's not even that good.

@Gambit1024 said:

I agree that it simply wouldn't fit, but people insist that this is the Spider-Man that should be in the MCU. As for how I feel about the movie, I believe that Garfield is the definitive Peter Parker, socially awkward, yet incredibly smart, sweet and kind of a prick to the villains. The story was an issue I had a problem with, but that was entirely Sony's fault, and people like Mark Webb shouldn't be blamed for.

No they don't

No Garfield isn't

No that is not the Peter Parker in the movie. He is not awkward, smart, or sweet and considering the villain that's not how Peter would or should act.

The story, the costume, the casting, the cgi, just about everything in the movie was subpar for today's standards.

@Durakken said:

@Gambit1024 said:

I agree that it simply wouldn't fit, but people insist that this is the Spider-Man that should be in the MCU. As for how I feel about the movie, I believe that Garfield is the definitive Peter Parker, socially awkward, yet incredibly smart, sweet and kind of a prick to the villains. The story was an issue I had a problem with, but that was entirely Sony's fault, and people like Mark Webb shouldn't be blamed for.

No they don't

No Garfield isn't

No that is not the Peter Parker in the movie. He is not awkward, smart, or sweet and considering the villain that's not how Peter would or should act.

The story, the costume, the casting, the cgi, just about everything in the movie was subpar for today's standards.

man MANY pepole would disagree with you

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Gambit1024 said:

I agree that it simply wouldn't fit, but people insist that this is the Spider-Man that should be in the MCU. As for how I feel about the movie, I believe that Garfield is the definitive Peter Parker, socially awkward, yet incredibly smart, sweet and kind of a prick to the villains. The story was an issue I had a problem with, but that was entirely Sony's fault, and people like Mark Webb shouldn't be blamed for.

No they don't

No Garfield isn't

No that is not the Peter Parker in the movie. He is not awkward, smart, or sweet and considering the villain that's not how Peter would or should act.

The story, the costume, the casting, the cgi, just about everything in the movie was subpar for today's standards.

man MANY pepole would disagree with you

A lot of people tend to be wrong about just about everything...especially things that take thought... largely due to them being bad at comprehension in general and them being lazy or uneducated. I don't put much stock in what the majority say. It's either dull creatively or dull intellectually. Either way it is dull to listen to the masses.

@Durakken said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Gambit1024 said:

I agree that it simply wouldn't fit, but people insist that this is the Spider-Man that should be in the MCU. As for how I feel about the movie, I believe that Garfield is the definitive Peter Parker, socially awkward, yet incredibly smart, sweet and kind of a prick to the villains. The story was an issue I had a problem with, but that was entirely Sony's fault, and people like Mark Webb shouldn't be blamed for.

No they don't

No Garfield isn't

No that is not the Peter Parker in the movie. He is not awkward, smart, or sweet and considering the villain that's not how Peter would or should act.

The story, the costume, the casting, the cgi, just about everything in the movie was subpar for today's standards.

man MANY pepole would disagree with you

A lot of people tend to be wrong about just about everything...especially things that take thought... largely due to them being bad at comprehension in general and them being lazy or uneducated. I don't put much stock in what the majority say. It's either dull creatively or dull intellectually. Either way it is dull to listen to the masses.

Or, you know, opinions.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Gambit1024 said:

I agree that it simply wouldn't fit, but people insist that this is the Spider-Man that should be in the MCU. As for how I feel about the movie, I believe that Garfield is the definitive Peter Parker, socially awkward, yet incredibly smart, sweet and kind of a prick to the villains. The story was an issue I had a problem with, but that was entirely Sony's fault, and people like Mark Webb shouldn't be blamed for.

No they don't

No Garfield isn't

No that is not the Peter Parker in the movie. He is not awkward, smart, or sweet and considering the villain that's not how Peter would or should act.

The story, the costume, the casting, the cgi, just about everything in the movie was subpar for today's standards.

man MANY pepole would disagree with you

A lot of people tend to be wrong about just about everything...especially things that take thought... largely due to them being bad at comprehension in general and them being lazy or uneducated. I don't put much stock in what the majority say. It's either dull creatively or dull intellectually. Either way it is dull to listen to the masses.

Or, you know, opinions.

Yes and no. I hold to the argument that things are independently good or bad regardless of how much people or the amount of people like or dislike them. And then you can also point to the fact that a lot of "creative" things have standards and such or you can compare like "The Amazing Spider-man portrayal of Peter Parker acts awkward" we can go "well how does he act awkward. Is he actually awkward or are we reading something else and translating that as awkward. Further, if he is actually acting awkward is it consistent with other portrayals and if not why not and does this alteration make it a better or worse portrayal?" There is opinion in there but it is largely based on facts being compared. When says something is good ot bad I expect them to be able to back up their statement where as if someone says they like it, I don't care, unless they mean it as "i like it therefor it's good." There are lots of things out there that are really bad that people like... like "The Room" or "Birdemic"

@Gambit1024 said:

@Durakken: I'm sorry, but are you implying that I'm being lazy and uneducated, or are you referring to the masses?

I'm saying that it is more than likely the case if you hold the same opinion as the masses ^.^ It's not absolutely true that anyone that holds the majority opinion is lazy/uneducated, but if it's not in the back of your head somewhere it is more than likely a sign that you are. Of course if you hold the minority opinion it usually means your crazy or a genius and if it never crops into your mind that what you're saying may sound crazy or that you may be crazy then that is generally a sign, no you are not a genius...in fact you're probably crazy.

If you take it to mean "you" then that is on you. I mostly speak in generalities, because more often than not any impression you get of anyone you don't deal with directly over a decent length of time is wrong, or at least one sided.

@Durakken: You are of course entiteled to your opinion however, as someone much smarter than me once said, "when you keep wondering why everyone else is crazy maybe its time to start looking at yourself first". The film grossed an amazing amount money in both North America and overseas. True, it didn't do as well as the first two Raimi films but in a market flooded with superhero movies of late it still took in an impressive amount compared to the other non-Marvel studios film productions of the last decade. The film did have a number of positive points even if the overall story fell flat (and one day I hope we'll get a superhero film, at least in the origin, that doesn't require a love interest) and was a solid 7/10 (if you average all critic, metacritic, and rotten tomatoe scores). I'm curious how you are comparing the latest superhero films to label this one as "subpar for today's standards" when you consider it next to Iron Man 2, Thor, and The Dark Knight Rises, all three of which I would argue are no better than this film and in some cases much worse. The major point I'll argue with you on is the casting (as for the costume that just comes down to taste in whether a film has to stick to classical design or can go its own way) as I felt Garfield and Stone's were far better than McGuire and Dunst's and Ifans (I'm not talking about his voice acting for the Lizard but just being Curt Conners) and Sheen were at least equal to Dafoe and Robertson in their parts, with Sheen I would say being the better Ben Parker. The CGI was on par with anything else we are seeing today (though Iron Man definitely takes the CGI prize) and flowed much better from live action to CGI than Spider-Man 3 did. The fact that we don't have the Goblin-junior subplot with James DiFranco is a definite bonus and we don't have to sit through painful song and dance numbers that Raimi seemed to think gave his trilogy a fun edge but in reality just wanted to make the audience pluck out their eyes or wish they could get back those 5 minutes. In the end I'd argue this film, though not the greatly original idea Sony tried to pitch, will set-up a new Spider-Man franchise much better than Raimi's Spider-Man did, definitely tops the last origin film for the Web Head and while not at the top of the 2005+ group of superhero films it definitely sits comfortably in the middle of the pact.

Now, to answer the thread title, should Marvel somehow get the rights back to this character and begin making films based in their movie universe the best bet would be to put Amazing Spider-Man occuring prior to the Avengers, between the events of Iron Man and Iron Man 2. In terms of the invasion aspect to the Avengers film, remember that we only saw about a six block section of New York City as the battleground. So it would be very easy to alter the events enough to say that not every Chitauri (might have spelled that wrong) was fighting in those few blocks the entire time (else why would some of them have corned a few people in a bank???) and that Spider-Man was dealing with those few that moved away from the main battle. Why did Fury not bring him into the Avengers? Because he's a kid, and not at the experience or power level the team needed at that time.

However, I would not put much emphasis on SHIELD or Nick Fury in follow-on films even if Marvel got the character back. Not every film needs to be tied together with cameos and direct conversations or actions. That needed to occur for the Avengers movie to be successful, but now that it has been each character film can stand on its own a bit more without ruining the storyline of Avengers 2. So Spider-Man sequels should reference other events or allude to meeting with other heroes but its not necessary to be a focus of the film. Spider-Man's movies should be more self-contained than Iron Man, Captain America, or Thor as he's always been rather locked into New York City whereas the other heroes tend to be more globe-trotting (of course Spidey's had his exceptions but I'm talking broad strokes here for the character) and trying to make him part of the larger superhero community too much would detract from the storylines future films could follow. I don't see any problem bringing him into Avengers 3 or beyond if they could considering the timeframe of when that film could come out (depending on how well Avengers 2 does) but his individual films only need passing references or easter eggs of the larger universe rather than be inter-woven as we've seen since Iron Man.

@Durakken said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Gambit1024 said:

I agree that it simply wouldn't fit, but people insist that this is the Spider-Man that should be in the MCU. As for how I feel about the movie, I believe that Garfield is the definitive Peter Parker, socially awkward, yet incredibly smart, sweet and kind of a prick to the villains. The story was an issue I had a problem with, but that was entirely Sony's fault, and people like Mark Webb shouldn't be blamed for.

No they don't

No Garfield isn't

No that is not the Peter Parker in the movie. He is not awkward, smart, or sweet and considering the villain that's not how Peter would or should act.

The story, the costume, the casting, the cgi, just about everything in the movie was subpar for today's standards.

man MANY pepole would disagree with you

A lot of people tend to be wrong about just about everything...especially things that take thought... largely due to them being bad at comprehension in general and them being lazy or uneducated. I don't put much stock in what the majority say. It's either dull creatively or dull intellectually. Either way it is dull to listen to the masses.

Or, you know, opinions.

Yes and no. I hold to the argument that things are independently good or bad regardless of how much people or the amount of people like or dislike them. And then you can also point to the fact that a lot of "creative" things have standards and such or you can compare like "The Amazing Spider-man portrayal of Peter Parker acts awkward" we can go "well how does he act awkward. Is he actually awkward or are we reading something else and translating that as awkward. Further, if he is actually acting awkward is it consistent with other portrayals and if not why not and does this alteration make it a better or worse portrayal?" There is opinion in there but it is largely based on facts being compared. When says something is good ot bad I expect them to be able to back up their statement where as if someone says they like it, I don't care, unless they mean it as "i like it therefor it's good." There are lots of things out there that are really bad that people like... like "The Room" or "Birdemic"

@Gambit1024 said:

@Durakken: I'm sorry, but are you implying that I'm being lazy and uneducated, or are you referring to the masses?

I'm saying that it is more than likely the case if you hold the same opinion as the masses ^.^ It's not absolutely true that anyone that holds the majority opinion is lazy/uneducated, but if it's not in the back of your head somewhere it is more than likely a sign that you are. Of course if you hold the minority opinion it usually means your crazy or a genius and if it never crops into your mind that what you're saying may sound crazy or that you may be crazy then that is generally a sign, no you are not a genius...in fact you're probably crazy.

If you take it to mean "you" then that is on you. I mostly speak in generalities, because more often than not any impression you get of anyone you don't deal with directly over a decent length of time is wrong, or at least one sided.

Guy you just talk a whole lot of crap, so something is still ether good or bad regardless of opinions? Who gets to decide this? You? Fascist much? and everybody that shares a popular opinion is undedicated? LOL I know your trying to make your self sound superior here but you don't even come of as pretentious, you should sound like a tool.

@ltbrd said:

@Durakken: You are of course entiteled to your opinion however, as someone much smarter than me once said, "when you keep wondering why everyone else is crazy maybe its time to start looking at yourself first". The film grossed an amazing amount money in both North America and overseas. True, it didn't do as well as the first two Raimi films but in a market flooded with superhero movies of late it still took in an impressive amount compared to the other non-Marvel studios film productions of the last decade. The film did have a number of positive points even if the overall story fell flat (and one day I hope we'll get a superhero film, at least in the origin, that doesn't require a love interest) and was a solid 7/10 (if you average all critic, metacritic, and rotten tomatoe scores). I'm curious how you are comparing the latest superhero films to label this one as "subpar for today's standards" when you consider it next to Iron Man 2, Thor, and The Dark Knight Rises, all three of which I would argue are no better than this film and in some cases much worse. The major point I'll argue with you on is the casting (as for the costume that just comes down to taste in whether a film has to stick to classical design or can go its own way) as I felt Garfield and Stone's were far better than McGuire and Dunst's and Ifans (I'm not talking about his voice acting for the Lizard but just being Curt Conners) and Sheen were at least equal to Dafoe and Robertson in their parts, with Sheen I would say being the better Ben Parker. The CGI was on par with anything else we are seeing today (though Iron Man definitely takes the CGI prize) and flowed much better from live action to CGI than Spider-Man 3 did. The fact that we don't have the Goblin-junior subplot with James DiFranco is a definite bonus and we don't have to sit through painful song and dance numbers that Raimi seemed to think gave his trilogy a fun edge but in reality just wanted to make the audience pluck out their eyes or wish they could get back those 5 minutes. In the end I'd argue this film, though not the greatly original idea Sony tried to pitch, will set-up a new Spider-Man franchise much better than Raimi's Spider-Man did, definitely tops the last origin film for the Web Head and while not at the top of the 2005+ group of superhero films it definitely sits comfortably in the middle of the pact.

Money made by something has no baring on whether it is good or not. If you think it does then I'd love to read to you the bestest book in the world. I'm sure you'll want me to shut up before too long lol.

The movie did have some good points. It, however, as a whole, is not very good. If you cut out that 5 minute scene that everyone raves about and then forgets about how bad the rest of the movie and conflates the character being written well at that one point to it being written well through out... and then you throw out fan boy reaction I don't see how anyone could take it as anything other than maybe a parody of a Spider-Man movie.

Iron Man 2 and Thor I consider both good. The Dark Knight Rises is trash. It's worse than just being bad. It's so bad that after you see it and think about it causes the other movies in the series to crumble and if you look back at them you can't possibly see them as good any more. I've explained why before when talking about the difference between Tim Drake of pre-DCnU and Tim Drake of DCnU. Basically, there are traits that are similar but not the same, but can appear almost identical and bad writers...and bad readers... often mistake one for the other. For example, confidence and arrogance. They are very similar and a character with one of these traits can be read as having the other trait because of this... and some other things. This is what happens in TDKR and the Nolan-verse Batman... and a lot of poorly made adaptations.

The costume looked cheap and wasn't believable in the slightest.

The CGI was well below even the average of today's standards

The story itself was a jumbled mess which is sad because it was essentially Ult Marvel Spiderman arcs mixed and matched... but then I guess you could say it was any of the other Lizard intro stories mixed in, but this one was particularly stupid v.v

I like all the actors, but there are problems with all of them, Garfield and Stone are too old (as were dunst and mcguire) Dennis Leary looks way to much like Dafoe, and while Sheen may have "looked" better he was certainly not a better Ben, but that's unfair because he got very little chance to be Ben.

As to the dance scene in Spider-Man 3... I don't have a problem with it. Yes it was corny, but over all I'm more of the mind to think that the general overwhelming dislike comes from the same cretins who seem to love Transformers and hated the idea of Heath Ledger as joker until he died and then decided he was going to be awesome... and then saw the movie and agreed with themselves.

Are there problems with Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3? Yup, but I'd much prefer to watch them...any of them in terms of "good movies" and "accurate portrayals" than I'd ever want to watch TAS.

Oh, another thing that goes against what you said is the age thing with Stone and Garfield. He's like 30+ It might be hard for him to pretend to be 16ish for 9-10 years which also makes it a possible casting mistake overall.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Guy you just talk a whole lot of crap, so something is still ether good or bad regardless of opinions? Who gets to decide this? You? Fascist much? and everybody that shares a popular opinion is undedicated? LOL I know your trying to make your self sound superior here but you don't even come of as pretentious, you should sound like a tool.

And this is why you think schlock is good. I can see that you can not understand what I'm writing and thus more than likely don't understand or comprehend most of what is said in comics which are, funny enough, above the reading level of most people in the world. I am certainly not writing at the level of comics, books, or movies so you not understanding me is a pretty good litmus for me to say that you simply don't have a comprehension level high enough to participate in a decent discussion about the subject.

@Durakken said:

@ltbrd said:

@Durakken: You are of course entiteled to your opinion however, as someone much smarter than me once said, "when you keep wondering why everyone else is crazy maybe its time to start looking at yourself first". The film grossed an amazing amount money in both North America and overseas. True, it didn't do as well as the first two Raimi films but in a market flooded with superhero movies of late it still took in an impressive amount compared to the other non-Marvel studios film productions of the last decade. The film did have a number of positive points even if the overall story fell flat (and one day I hope we'll get a superhero film, at least in the origin, that doesn't require a love interest) and was a solid 7/10 (if you average all critic, metacritic, and rotten tomatoe scores). I'm curious how you are comparing the latest superhero films to label this one as "subpar for today's standards" when you consider it next to Iron Man 2, Thor, and The Dark Knight Rises, all three of which I would argue are no better than this film and in some cases much worse. The major point I'll argue with you on is the casting (as for the costume that just comes down to taste in whether a film has to stick to classical design or can go its own way) as I felt Garfield and Stone's were far better than McGuire and Dunst's and Ifans (I'm not talking about his voice acting for the Lizard but just being Curt Conners) and Sheen were at least equal to Dafoe and Robertson in their parts, with Sheen I would say being the better Ben Parker. The CGI was on par with anything else we are seeing today (though Iron Man definitely takes the CGI prize) and flowed much better from live action to CGI than Spider-Man 3 did. The fact that we don't have the Goblin-junior subplot with James DiFranco is a definite bonus and we don't have to sit through painful song and dance numbers that Raimi seemed to think gave his trilogy a fun edge but in reality just wanted to make the audience pluck out their eyes or wish they could get back those 5 minutes. In the end I'd argue this film, though not the greatly original idea Sony tried to pitch, will set-up a new Spider-Man franchise much better than Raimi's Spider-Man did, definitely tops the last origin film for the Web Head and while not at the top of the 2005+ group of superhero films it definitely sits comfortably in the middle of the pact.

Money made by something has no baring on whether it is good or not. If you think it does then I'd love to read to you the bestest book in the world. I'm sure you'll want me to shut up before too long lol.

The movie did have some good points. It, however, as a whole, is not very good. If you cut out that 5 minute scene that everyone raves about and then forgets about how bad the rest of the movie and conflates the character being written well at that one point to it being written well through out... and then you throw out fan boy reaction I don't see how anyone could take it as anything other than maybe a parody of a Spider-Man movie.

Iron Man 2 and Thor I consider both good. The Dark Knight Rises is trash. It's worse than just being bad. It's so bad that after you see it and think about it causes the other movies in the series to crumble and if you look back at them you can't possibly see them as good any more. I've explained why before when talking about the difference between Tim Drake of pre-DCnU and Tim Drake of DCnU. Basically, there are traits that are similar but not the same, but can appear almost identical and bad writers...and bad readers... often mistake one for the other. For example, confidence and arrogance. They are very similar and a character with one of these traits can be read as having the other trait because of this... and some other things. This is what happens in TDKR and the Nolan-verse Batman... and a lot of poorly made adaptations.

The costume looked cheap and wasn't believable in the slightest.

The CGI was well below even the average of today's standards

The story itself was a jumbled mess which is sad because it was essentially Ult Marvel Spiderman arcs mixed and matched... but then I guess you could say it was any of the other Lizard intro stories mixed in, but this one was particularly stupid v.v

I like all the actors, but there are problems with all of them, Garfield and Stone are too old (as were dunst and mcguire) Dennis Leary looks way to much like Dafoe, and while Sheen may have "looked" better he was certainly not a better Ben, but that's unfair because he got very little chance to be Ben.

As to the dance scene in Spider-Man 3... I don't have a problem with it. Yes it was corny, but over all I'm more of the mind to think that the general overwhelming dislike comes from the same cretins who seem to love Transformers and hated the idea of Heath Ledger as joker until he died and then decided he was going to be awesome... and then saw the movie and agreed with themselves.

Are there problems with Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3? Yup, but I'd much prefer to watch them...any of them in terms of "good movies" and "accurate portrayals" than I'd ever want to watch TAS.

Oh, another thing that goes against what you said is the age thing with Stone and Garfield. He's like 30+ It might be hard for him to pretend to be 16ish for 9-10 years which also makes it a possible casting mistake overall.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Guy you just talk a whole lot of crap, so something is still ether good or bad regardless of opinions? Who gets to decide this? You? Fascist much? and everybody that shares a popular opinion is undedicated? LOL I know your trying to make your self sound superior here but you don't even come of as pretentious, you should sound like a tool.

And this is why you think schlock is good. I can see that you can not understand what I'm writing and thus more than likely don't understand or comprehend most of what is said in comics which are, funny enough, above the reading level of most people in the world. I am certainly not writing at the level of comics, books, or movies so you not understanding me is a pretty good litmus for me to say that you simply don't have a comprehension level high enough to participate in a decent discussion about the subject.

wow

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

wow

No I prefer good games along with my good movies.

@Durakken said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

wow

No I prefer good games along with my good movies.

I'm just in awe at your superiority complex

Haven't seen this movie, heard it's more Twilight than Spider-Man. Heard Peter Parker's a jerk, which is not Peter's style. Have NOT heard ANY good things about it. I'm personally think if Marvel gets the rights back, they'll skip the origin story and move straight to an older Peter Parker, whose finally started acting on a wider scale after the events of the Avengers, now that he knows he's not alone in the superhero biz. Preferably played by Josh Keaton.

Regardless, I don't think Marvel would bring the Amazing Spider-Man into their Cinematic Universe. They've stayed pretty true to the comics for all their movies. Hulk is a fugitive on the run, Stark gets captured and brutally tortured before building his suit, Cap is a good ol' soldier boy. Thor is an Asgardian Prince. Etc. They haven't really spun the movies or put them through a gritty filter. They've told the best stories they can given the limitations they have. The Amazing Spider-Man, again, from what I've heard (and know from playing the game adaptation, where Spider-Man can fly), does not stay essentially true to the character of Peter Parker, or his villains. While the whole bio tech origin for his villains is cool, I think they lost something. In the case of Rhino and Scorpion (who were in the game), the characters were just brutal savages. Scorpion wasn't angry about being locked in a suit, nor was Rhino. Scorpion was just a mutated scorpion with anger issues. Rhino was just a mutated RHINO with anger issues. A lot of Spider-Man's villains are eternally mutated beyond ever returning to normal, beyond having any chance at a normal life. They're villains because they don't have a lot of other options. Morbius, Lizard, Rhino, Scorpion, Electro, to a lesser extent Hydro-Man and Sandman. None of them can lead normal lives because of their powers. Taking away their awareness of that by just turning them into mutated savages sacrifices their character for a more 'realistic' filter...

And I'm ranting again. Sorry. I'll go.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@Durakken said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

wow

No I prefer good games along with my good movies.

I'm just in awe at your superiority complex

That's because you're awful while I'm awesome. I have a super complex so big it can never be filled with awe.

I'm late to the party but this is how I understand it. I already consider the Amazing Spider-Man as part of the MCU. With the Item 47 short's use of an ESU F-shirt and the deal with OsCorp Tower, there is just too much evidence they'll do this in the future.

Despite the Met Life building being fully constructed in TASM, I think TASM takes place after the Avengers.

1) All the cranes in Midtown seem evident and it would make more sense if re-construction was still taking place. Plus, it's in the right part of town.

2) The technology OsCorp uses is fairly similar to the technology Stark uses, further making the connection.

3) No one seems particularly surprised about the power set but his vigilante activities. And since the MCU does not currently contain any big NAND vigilante types (a la Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Moon Knight, Daredevil, etc.) this isn't hard to believe.

4) Life goes on. People will often say the film didn't reference the alien attack. But I'd assume a few months had gone by and not everyone is going to mention the attack every five minutes. Life goes on and the city and its populace move past such attacks and form new lives.

Just my understanding. Go ahead and question it if you want.