They're unlikely to "fix" what is a largely convoluted error noticed by a minority of nerds that would require clumsy ADR from Michael Keaton and shit because he literally says the "eight years" line on screen. It's more than just a title card to switch out.
You cannot George Lucas fuck ups out of a film. They happen. It's not a big deal when you know it's just a fuck up and not important.
I've read this entire thread, and the Homecoming one, and I don't recall seeing that explanation given.
Not to say it wasn't, but if this is the 11th time, I must have been drinking a lot harder those evenings than I thought. :-P
Cool, good to know it was just a minor mixup, though rather than referencing dialogue I'd have thought there'd be a big timeline with dates included so people could at least ballpark things when they felt the need to be specific.
While it doesn't appear here, because we usually trust pop up information boxes for locations and timelines, when it comes to people there's always the option of 'people are shit at remembering time frames'.
eg; "omg this Kickstarter was supposed to deliver three years ago what the fuck?"
"Dude, it just funded 4 months ago. Relax."
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+3
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Thing is I'd assume most people would lend more weight to the incorrect info presented on a title card, a meta piece of the narrative, than on dialogue in the movie. Like, seeing "Eight Years Later" is a harder fact than a character saying "eight years ago"
And that it was a fuckup is not common knowledge at all. This is the first I've heard of the crew acknowledging it, and I am exactly the nerd who reads about this stuff!
But yeh, I imagine they won't fix it. Bet there'll be a goofy reference to the year in Infinity War though. Watch that be explicitly set in 2016, confounding more people. ;P
Marvel actually does not have an official timeline for the MCU. Like I joke about it being forbidden lore but that's because according to both Jed Whedon and Jeph Loeb... it doesn't exist. Because they have asked about it!
Much like the comics division, Marvel Films opts not to keep an accurate written record or "Story Bible" on exactly what month/year specific events took place in their films.
This information can generally be gleaned by inference from the films themselves, like Iron Man 3 takes place six months after the events of the first Avengers film, which takes place during 2012 based on other establishing details, and IM3 also takes place during Christmas because it's a Shane Black movie, so you can say pretty conclusively that IM3 takes place in December 2012.
But there's no like, official document floating around Marvel Studios that says that? You just have to pay attention to know that, if you care.
This is because Marvel doesn't want to handcuff their filmmakers with that kind of timeline to follow, same reason the comics don't.
So if a filmmakers who is making a say, Stilt-Man movie as part of Phase 9 in 2023 and wants to do a scene of Wilbur Day's childhood set in 2014, he's not going to have someone saying "umm actually according to official documents you only have a six month window here that..."
This is why the comics never commit to dates and just keep everything floating somewhere between "a few years ago," to "a long time ago." It's our fault. It's because of shit like this.
I'd make a strong argument that the Daredevil hallway sequence is the best Marvel fight sequence in TV or film. There are flashier ones, more meaningful ones (like Cap V Winter Soldier), but it is sheer brilliance in execution and timing, and showing how a guy like this would actually operate. It makes him incredibly mortal and it's sad that in the grand scheme the Starks get all the press and glory while Daredevil gets gutted on a nightly basis.
I actually really enjoyed the fight scenes in Homecoming because of how not violent they are in terms of brutalizing people. Spidey doesn't even truly throw a punch at someone. I find Daredevil's hypocrisy on this kind of stuff disheartening ("I won't kill! ...but I will give people horrible concussions and life altering injuries that are probably fatal in real life but aren't because superheroes while at the same time I'm so gritty and real")
I actually really enjoyed the fight scenes in Homecoming because of how not violent they are in terms of brutalizing people. Spidey doesn't even truly throw a punch at someone. I find Daredevil's hypocrisy on this kind of stuff disheartening ("I won't kill! ...but I will give people horrible concussions and life altering injuries that are probably fatal in real life but aren't because superheroes while at the same time I'm so gritty and real")
Well, to be fair I'm pretty sure we are supposed to get the idea that Daredevil is viciously and brutally beating the shit out of people. His guilt-ridden enjoyment of violence and inflicting it on others is a part of his character.
At the same time, it's still TV/Movie land where a vicious beating is a lot less injurious then real life. I mean, we're talking about the reality where you can knock someone unconscious with a blow to the head with few consequences. That's just part of TV/Movies you gotta roll with.
Spider-Man isn't operating in the same level as Daredevil and Kingpin. Daredevil is dealing with actual criminals, horrible, horrible people who do horrible, horrible things. Spider-Man deals with bank robbers and a guy who only accidentally killed someone. There's no reason the violence would be the same, but Daredevil also doesn't have the luxury of enhanced agility and strength so he has to knock ten shades out of them to stop them.
I'm on phone, so don't want to long detail, but almost every Marvel movie has a specific date it takes place. Thor 2 has a calendar with the month & year, Iron Man 3 gives a date for the opening scene in the past and then specific number of years later. The director of Spider-Man said Marvel Studios has a document that details the entire MCU timeline, so everything has a specific date.
I actually really enjoyed the fight scenes in Homecoming because of how not violent they are in terms of brutalizing people. Spidey doesn't even truly throw a punch at someone. I find Daredevil's hypocrisy on this kind of stuff disheartening ("I won't kill! ...but I will give people horrible concussions and life altering injuries that are probably fatal in real life but aren't because superheroes while at the same time I'm so gritty and real")
Well, to be fair I'm pretty sure we are supposed to get the idea that Daredevil is viciously and brutally beating the shit out of people. His guilt-ridden enjoyment of violence and inflicting it on others is a part of his character.
At the same time, it's still TV/Movie land where a vicious beating is a lot less injurious then real life. I mean, we're talking about the reality where you can knock someone unconscious with a blow to the head with few consequences. That's just part of TV/Movies you gotta roll with.
I get that, I prefer Spidey's scenes anyway because they're more heroic and less violent.
End of Ep 3 I believe. It's after the whole rooftop scene early in the season.
So I think the stairway scene is good. Great really. I think the first one is better for the originality and the story it's telling, while the second one is visually more impressive with the full costume and the taped gun and chain. I knocked a point off because there is some CGI help going on unless Charlie Cox is that good with a chain whip. They're both amazing scenes and just embarrass Iron Fist with it's lame ass fights.
I'd argue that makes Daredevil a bit more heroic than Spidey on a day to day basis (or it's just a wash). Spider-Man is pretty much in no danger when he goes up against run of the mill, and while DD is in much less than the average person he can still be hurt and chances are will be to so some degree eventually because it requires that much violence to get the job done.
I'm on phone, so don't want to long detail, but almost every Marvel movie has a specific date it takes place. Thor 2 has a calendar with the month & year, Iron Man 3 gives a date for the opening scene in the past and then specific number of years later. The director of Spider-Man said Marvel Studios has a document that details the entire MCU timeline, so everything has a specific date.
Really? Because that directly contradicts what Jed Whedon and Jeph Loeb have said, which is that Marvel doesn't have such a timeline as an official document.
So either that policy changed over time (those statements from Jed and Jeph are several years old) or, being "TV people", they weren't allowed to look at the official timeline, or they liked
End of Ep 3 I believe. It's after the whole rooftop scene early in the season.
So I think the stairway scene is good. Great really. I think the first one is better for the originality and the story it's telling, while the second one is visually more impressive with the full costume and the taped gun and chain. I knocked a point off because there is some CGI help going on unless Charlie Cox is that good with a chain whip. They're both amazing scenes and just embarrass Iron Fist with it's lame ass fights.
The first one imo is no more original because "the long shot that draws attention to itself" is basically a pissing contest at this point. It's the equivalent of what "How hoppy can you make a beer" was for a brewery a few years back. It also really draws attention to itself, going "we are totally doing this thing" and cheats to some extent by hiding a lot of what is going on in the rooms where you just sorta hear shit.
The second season one is more interestingly staged and technically impressive and really feels integrated into the show. It just kinda sneaks up on you.
I'd argue that makes Daredevil a bit more heroic than Spidey on a day to day basis (or it's just a wash). Spider-Man is pretty much in no danger when he goes up against run of the mill, and while DD is in much less than the average person he can still be hurt and chances are will be to so some degree eventually because it requires that much violence to get the job done.
It's more heroic because he needs to be more violent?
I think he's saying since Spidey is strong its less risky so his good deeds are less meaningful
Like imagine a man with 3 quadrillion dollars gives 500 billion to charity. And then a man with 100 dollars gives all 100 dollars. Isn't the second man the true hero?
Except Daredevil viciously brutalizes people, to highly questionable societal benefit, mostly out of his own emotional needs.
Like if you think Daredevil is more heroic because he has less superpowers and this puts himself in more danger by doing more brutal and less effective things, that bizarre logic a crazy man with a bat is more heroic than cops.
You make it sound like he's brutalizing random people for kicks alone.
And you can term it however you want, but it takes more something to go out there like DD does. Maybe it's insanity, maybe it's courage, whatever you want to call it from your perspective.
He wants to beat these people senseless. He wants them to suffer. That's like the opposite of good. He enjoys it. Spiderman doesn't want to hurt people. It's an important distinction.
It's a pretty big flub to have a title card contradict previous dialogue ;p
It only contradicts previous dialogue in a completely different movie that they didn't even make, and if there is an official MCU timeline anywhere it's one of those chained up books of forbidden knowledge in Kamar Taj.
It's an unfortunate reality of attempting to create this giant interwoven tapestry of films. Comics themselves fuck this up constantly when they're written by the same writer, issue to issue.
I mean, murdock behaving selfishly as daredevil and then feeling guilty about it is pretty well-trod territory for the character; one element of that is relishing violence in a way that spider-man doesn't
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
There's really a more fundamental distinction there too.
Spiderman does what he does out of guilt and a feeling of obligation and the essential conflict of his character is how that leads to him sacrificing other parts of his life. He's the guy suffering, often without recognition, to fulfill his duty.
Daredevil does what he does partially out of a sense that he someone needs to do it but also because he really enjoys how he has to go about being a vigilante and his essential character conflicts are over how much of it is the second rather then the first and his guilt surrounding that and how much of his life he is willing to throw on the fire to satisfy his desire for skull-busting. He's an addict who fucks his life up to get his next high.
It's a pretty big difference in how to approach the characters, how and why they go about being superheroes and how that generates conflict for them.
I'm on phone, so don't want to long detail, but almost every Marvel movie has a specific date it takes place. Thor 2 has a calendar with the month & year, Iron Man 3 gives a date for the opening scene in the past and then specific number of years later. The director of Spider-Man said Marvel Studios has a document that details the entire MCU timeline, so everything has a specific date.
Really? Because that directly contradicts what Jed Whedon and Jeph Loeb have said, which is that Marvel doesn't have such a timeline as an official document.
So either that policy changed over time (those statements from Jed and Jeph are several years old) or, being "TV people", they weren't allowed to look at the official timeline, or they liked
Any of those are hilarious and sad.
Yeah, it is sad if they hadn't seen it. Anyway, here's a link to an article where he talked about it and a quote:
Spider-Man: Homecoming director Jon Watts revealed that Marvel Studios has something to keep track of it all: a scroll.
“It’s an actual scroll they unrolled for me,” Watts revealed. “One of my producers, Eric Carroll, it was his first job at Marvel to work on this timeline and to see where things line up and where they didn’t quite. It’s the most amazing thing because it starts, no joke, at the beginning of time. So you can see where all the events line up! Like, oh that’s when Captain America was born.”
Sure, Jon Watts could be making it up, but claiming its an actual scroll is so ridiculous that I can't see that being a lie. As for the timeline and Spider-Man Homecoming, this is the common speculation I've seen:
There's a lot of people speculating that if the whole Scroll of Timeline is real, then Spider-Man Homecoming time jump could be a result of Infinity War. The thought is that Infinity War goes so bad and dark that Doctor Strange does Time Gem magic in an attempt to fix everything, and it pushes a chunk of the timeline forward, with the Homecoming time jump being a few years off being our first sign of this.
People like to criticize Batman for beating and terrorizing low income criminals, Daredevil seems like a worse example of that. With Batman you can always fall back on him being a super wealthy philanthropist to help his victims. Does Matt Murdock do gratis representation for the people he brutalizes as a way to balance out his actions and get them a fair trial? That could be an interesting story.
I actually really enjoyed the fight scenes in Homecoming because of how not violent they are in terms of brutalizing people. Spidey doesn't even truly throw a punch at someone. I find Daredevil's hypocrisy on this kind of stuff disheartening ("I won't kill! ...but I will give people horrible concussions and life altering injuries that are probably fatal in real life but aren't because superheroes while at the same time I'm so gritty and real")
That stuff was always a great joke about Batman as well, especially in the Arkham games. Where is that one skit...
He wants to beat these people senseless. He wants them to suffer. That's like the opposite of good. He enjoys it. Spiderman doesn't want to hurt people. It's an important distinction.
He is saving people from being murdered, raped, molested, bled, and/or being turned into sex slaves.
DD is a fucking hero. Does it really matter that he gets a combat high from it? Is it better that's spidey is basically playing on god mode vs Daredevil who's just a guy who's sick of the bullshit people like him and his dad had to deal with?
That's one annoying thing about Foggy. "I saved a woman from being murdered" "You should stop trying to be a hero!" "...so I should let people be murdered/raped/mugged even when I hear their cries at night with this super hearing?"
note that the latter is a big part of the modern/current interpretation of Batman.
He doesn't have to put on a costume and go out at night and beat the crap out of criminals. That's not the only way he can, or does, do good and help other people. But he wants to.
Spider-Man isn't operating in the same level as Daredevil and Kingpin. Daredevil is dealing with actual criminals, horrible, horrible people who do horrible, horrible things. Spider-Man deals with bank robbers and a guy who only accidentally killed someone. There's no reason the violence would be the same, but Daredevil also doesn't have the luxury of enhanced agility and strength so he has to knock ten shades out of them to stop them.
In the film the Vulture's gang are super-villains who scrounge for alien and advanced tech, cobble them together and sell them like arms dealers to criminals. While Vulture isn't operating with Kingpin's scope, in another way the Vulture is bigger than Kingpin. And those are actual criminals, who make many of DD's criminals look like small fry.
Except Daredevil viciously brutalizes people, to highly questionable societal benefit, mostly out of his own emotional needs.
Like if you think Daredevil is more heroic because he has less superpowers and this puts himself in more danger by doing more brutal and less effective things, that bizarre logic a crazy man with a bat is more heroic than cops.
This is silly.
Both are right. Yes, he goes overboard because he likes to hurt people but he's also operating a much lower level physically than Spider-man - which is another reason he can't hold back. If he holds back, the chances of him dying or being severely hurt go up and he gets hurt a lot.
People like to criticize Batman for beating and terrorizing low income criminals, Daredevil seems like a worse example of that. With Batman you can always fall back on him being a super wealthy philanthropist to help his victims. Does Matt Murdock do gratis representation for the people he brutalizes as a way to balance out his actions and get them a fair trial? That could be an interesting story.
In the comics he does, they might explore that angle in the future.
The Kingpin would have Vulture's families names by dinner, and have them dead by just after dinner. He has way more powerful connections even if he doesn't have a powered suit.
As for him vigilanting insead of lawyering, he lives in a world where jurors can be intimidated with sex tapes from 20 years ago and cops and judges can be readily bought. The law doesn't stand a chance of genuinely helping. It's only with Daredevil's vigilante work that Kingpin goes down, and even then he gets away from an armed team and is only stopped by more Daredevil.
The Kingpin would have Vulture's families names by dinner, and have them dead by just after dinner. He has way more powerful connections even if he doesn't have a powered suit.
As for him vigilanting insead of lawyering, he lives in a world where jurors can be intimidated with sex tapes from 20 years ago and cops and judges can be readily bought. The law doesn't stand a chance of genuinely helping. It's only with Daredevil's vigilante work that Kingpin goes down, and even then he gets away from an armed team and is only stopped by more Daredevil.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the power suit any less dangerous to him. The second the Vulture is in his suit the game's over. That's why Vulture would be physical threat to Spider-man, and Kingpin would need some hired Gifted to get the job done. Holding Spidey's friends and families hostage may not work either, Pete has Tony on speed dial. I don't think Kingpin wants to risk Tony's wrath coming down on him.
Indeed. The environments of where they work shows how different they are and they get results with their own methods which aren't entirely the same. Daredevil
requires serious help from the FBI before he can take Kingpin down,
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Could Vulture defeat the Kingpin!? Yeah probably. I dunno how powerful he was really meant to be, though?
Tony was content to leave the FBI to handle him. His confrontations with Spidey kinda relied on causing collateral damage to distract and escape. Then he was ultimately defeated via self inflicted damage from playing too rough.
But MCU Kingpin isn't supernaturally strong, can be knocked the fuck out by a normal person, and he still managed to be terrifying and threatening. MCU really good at writing around power levels.
Could Vulture defeat the Kingpin!? Yeah probably. I dunno how powerful he was really meant to be, though?
Tony was content to leave the FBI to handle him. His confrontations with Spidey kinda relied on causing collateral damage to distract and escape. Then he was ultimately defeated via self inflicted damage from playing too rough.
But MCU Kingpin isn't supernaturally strong, can be knocked the fuck out by a normal person, and he still managed to be terrifying and threatening. MCU really good at writing around power levels.
In a straight fight, the Vulture with his tech can murder Kingpin, but in terms of actual power, Kingpin has him outclassed by a mile. He has an army of criminals at his disposal, he could have Vulture shanked in a prison, killed by the police on his payroll, or just taken out by a junkie while walking the street, and have his family murdered. He was ruthless and had the reach to implement said lack of ruth. Vulture meanwhile tried to cut a deal with Spider-Man just because his daughter liked him. I have no doubt Kingpin would only interact with Vulture after having both intel and leverage over him, or having something he wants, but if he wanted to he could destroy Vulture's life and send in a gao-bomb to detonate his workshop.
Posts
You cannot George Lucas fuck ups out of a film. They happen. It's not a big deal when you know it's just a fuck up and not important.
Not to say it wasn't, but if this is the 11th time, I must have been drinking a lot harder those evenings than I thought. :-P
Cool, good to know it was just a minor mixup, though rather than referencing dialogue I'd have thought there'd be a big timeline with dates included so people could at least ballpark things when they felt the need to be specific.
While it doesn't appear here, because we usually trust pop up information boxes for locations and timelines, when it comes to people there's always the option of 'people are shit at remembering time frames'.
eg; "omg this Kickstarter was supposed to deliver three years ago what the fuck?"
"Dude, it just funded 4 months ago. Relax."
And that it was a fuckup is not common knowledge at all. This is the first I've heard of the crew acknowledging it, and I am exactly the nerd who reads about this stuff!
But yeh, I imagine they won't fix it. Bet there'll be a goofy reference to the year in Infinity War though. Watch that be explicitly set in 2016, confounding more people. ;P
Much like the comics division, Marvel Films opts not to keep an accurate written record or "Story Bible" on exactly what month/year specific events took place in their films.
This information can generally be gleaned by inference from the films themselves, like Iron Man 3 takes place six months after the events of the first Avengers film, which takes place during 2012 based on other establishing details, and IM3 also takes place during Christmas because it's a Shane Black movie, so you can say pretty conclusively that IM3 takes place in December 2012.
But there's no like, official document floating around Marvel Studios that says that? You just have to pay attention to know that, if you care.
This is because Marvel doesn't want to handcuff their filmmakers with that kind of timeline to follow, same reason the comics don't.
So if a filmmakers who is making a say, Stilt-Man movie as part of Phase 9 in 2023 and wants to do a scene of Wilbur Day's childhood set in 2014, he's not going to have someone saying "umm actually according to official documents you only have a six month window here that..."
Well, to be fair I'm pretty sure we are supposed to get the idea that Daredevil is viciously and brutally beating the shit out of people. His guilt-ridden enjoyment of violence and inflicting it on others is a part of his character.
At the same time, it's still TV/Movie land where a vicious beating is a lot less injurious then real life. I mean, we're talking about the reality where you can knock someone unconscious with a blow to the head with few consequences. That's just part of TV/Movies you gotta roll with.
I get that, I prefer Spidey's scenes anyway because they're more heroic and less violent.
So I think the stairway scene is good. Great really. I think the first one is better for the originality and the story it's telling, while the second one is visually more impressive with the full costume and the taped gun and chain. I knocked a point off because there is some CGI help going on unless Charlie Cox is that good with a chain whip. They're both amazing scenes and just embarrass Iron Fist with it's lame ass fights.
Really? Because that directly contradicts what Jed Whedon and Jeph Loeb have said, which is that Marvel doesn't have such a timeline as an official document.
So either that policy changed over time (those statements from Jed and Jeph are several years old) or, being "TV people", they weren't allowed to look at the official timeline, or they liked
Any of those are hilarious and sad.
The first one imo is no more original because "the long shot that draws attention to itself" is basically a pissing contest at this point. It's the equivalent of what "How hoppy can you make a beer" was for a brewery a few years back. It also really draws attention to itself, going "we are totally doing this thing" and cheats to some extent by hiding a lot of what is going on in the rooms where you just sorta hear shit.
The second season one is more interestingly staged and technically impressive and really feels integrated into the show. It just kinda sneaks up on you.
It's more heroic because he needs to be more violent?
bruh...
are you having me on?
like are you doing a bit
Like imagine a man with 3 quadrillion dollars gives 500 billion to charity. And then a man with 100 dollars gives all 100 dollars. Isn't the second man the true hero?
Checkmate, Spiderman fans.
Like if you think Daredevil is more heroic because he has less superpowers and this puts himself in more danger by doing more brutal and less effective things, that bizarre logic a crazy man with a bat is more heroic than cops.
This is silly.
And you can term it however you want, but it takes more something to go out there like DD does. Maybe it's insanity, maybe it's courage, whatever you want to call it from your perspective.
He wants to beat these people senseless. He wants them to suffer. That's like the opposite of good. He enjoys it. Spiderman doesn't want to hurt people. It's an important distinction.
They should bring back the No-prize!
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Spiderman does what he does out of guilt and a feeling of obligation and the essential conflict of his character is how that leads to him sacrificing other parts of his life. He's the guy suffering, often without recognition, to fulfill his duty.
Daredevil does what he does partially out of a sense that he someone needs to do it but also because he really enjoys how he has to go about being a vigilante and his essential character conflicts are over how much of it is the second rather then the first and his guilt surrounding that and how much of his life he is willing to throw on the fire to satisfy his desire for skull-busting. He's an addict who fucks his life up to get his next high.
It's a pretty big difference in how to approach the characters, how and why they go about being superheroes and how that generates conflict for them.
Yeah, it is sad if they hadn't seen it. Anyway, here's a link to an article where he talked about it and a quote:
Sure, Jon Watts could be making it up, but claiming its an actual scroll is so ridiculous that I can't see that being a lie. As for the timeline and Spider-Man Homecoming, this is the common speculation I've seen:
That stuff was always a great joke about Batman as well, especially in the Arkham games. Where is that one skit...
He is saving people from being murdered, raped, molested, bled, and/or being turned into sex slaves.
DD is a fucking hero. Does it really matter that he gets a combat high from it? Is it better that's spidey is basically playing on god mode vs Daredevil who's just a guy who's sick of the bullshit people like him and his dad had to deal with?
That's one annoying thing about Foggy. "I saved a woman from being murdered" "You should stop trying to be a hero!" "...so I should let people be murdered/raped/mugged even when I hear their cries at night with this super hearing?"
He doesn't have to put on a costume and go out at night and beat the crap out of criminals. That's not the only way he can, or does, do good and help other people. But he wants to.
Supposedly Spider-man occurs something like 6 months after Civil War, and before the last season of Agents of SHIELD.
In the film the Vulture's gang are super-villains who scrounge for alien and advanced tech, cobble them together and sell them like arms dealers to criminals. While Vulture isn't operating with Kingpin's scope, in another way the Vulture is bigger than Kingpin. And those are actual criminals, who make many of DD's criminals look like small fry.
Both are right. Yes, he goes overboard because he likes to hurt people but he's also operating a much lower level physically than Spider-man - which is another reason he can't hold back. If he holds back, the chances of him dying or being severely hurt go up and he gets hurt a lot.
In the comics he does, they might explore that angle in the future.
As for him vigilanting insead of lawyering, he lives in a world where jurors can be intimidated with sex tapes from 20 years ago and cops and judges can be readily bought. The law doesn't stand a chance of genuinely helping. It's only with Daredevil's vigilante work that Kingpin goes down, and even then he gets away from an armed team and is only stopped by more Daredevil.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the power suit any less dangerous to him. The second the Vulture is in his suit the game's over. That's why Vulture would be physical threat to Spider-man, and Kingpin would need some hired Gifted to get the job done. Holding Spidey's friends and families hostage may not work either, Pete has Tony on speed dial. I don't think Kingpin wants to risk Tony's wrath coming down on him.
Indeed. The environments of where they work shows how different they are and they get results with their own methods which aren't entirely the same. Daredevil
But MCU Kingpin isn't supernaturally strong, can be knocked the fuck out by a normal person, and he still managed to be terrifying and threatening. MCU really good at writing around power levels.
In a straight fight, the Vulture with his tech can murder Kingpin, but in terms of actual power, Kingpin has him outclassed by a mile. He has an army of criminals at his disposal, he could have Vulture shanked in a prison, killed by the police on his payroll, or just taken out by a junkie while walking the street, and have his family murdered. He was ruthless and had the reach to implement said lack of ruth. Vulture meanwhile tried to cut a deal with Spider-Man just because his daughter liked him. I have no doubt Kingpin would only interact with Vulture after having both intel and leverage over him, or having something he wants, but if he wanted to he could destroy Vulture's life and send in a gao-bomb to detonate his workshop.