Still love the TASM films
-
The_paranoid_android — 9 years ago(October 06, 2016 06:35 PM)
Captain America Civil War has a plot structure and a narrative through line, It's not a sequence of unrelated plot points you could place in any random order.
As does TASM2. These events start unrelated but BUILD to an ending involving all parties involved. It's just like how Crossbone's terrorist actions, Zemo's actions in Cleveland, and Tony's discussion at MIT aren't related at first, but BUILD into a grand story.
The way he jerks Gwen around throughout the summer is anything but mature.
What?? They both lose Captain Stacy, and Peter starts up the relationship again because they love each other. Then in TASM2, he becomes absolutely guilt-ridden and can't continue the relationship. He's not doing it throughout the entirety of the Summer.
He tries to honor Captain Stacy's dying wish but is unable to because of his feelings for her but waffles on it throughout the movie and well before that because of what Gwen said. The whole "will they/won't they" plot line they have is pointless. Either be with Gwen throughout the movie with no "I break up with you" BS or keep your distance from her and get back at the very end before she dies. Don't try and go the middle ground, It's incredibly tedious.
It's CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. He's trying to mediate between what he wants, he and Gwen's relationship, and his moral promise to Capt. Stacy. It would be like criticizing Bruce Wayne for agonizing over the moral struggle of giving himself up to the police in The Dark Knight. Character's struggling with what to do is apart of storytelling. He is also determined to stay out of a romantic relationship with Gwen when they meet again as friends (as he tries to undermine) but at the end of the day when realizing he could lose her forever, he realizes that he can't live without her and understands that he doesn't have power over her decisions as a person, and neither is her father.
You can't make a character sympathetic just because life never deals him a fair hand, How the characters react to their circumstances is an important part as well. Max Dillon never feels like anything approaching a real human being, He's a complete stereotype, a human cartoon that looks like he walked off the set of Batman Forever.
Max is someone incredibly dutiful to his profession as an electrical engineer. He continues his profession even though it's in the face of a corporation taking advantage of him. When he's being assaulted and threatened by the cops, he's begging them to stop and trying to reason with them as he's adjusting to his new form. He terrified and scared and just wants to be left alone, and (to him) his whole world turns on him.
Worser [sic] than two random Oscorp executive being named after a roboticist and a cat burglar even though they have nothing to do with either profession? (Zsasz was still a serial killer in Begins, and Crossbones was still a mercenary in Civil War)
They function within the film in their particular roles in the film. And YOUR argument was that they were "pointlessly naming minor characters after important Spider-Man ones". They didn't need to make Zsasz in Batman Begins despite being a far more prominent character in the comics (he doesn't even get a LINE in Batman Begins). Also, are we talking about comic book source material faithfulness, or incorporation in terms of storytelling? Because those are two different things.
He's not entirely unsympathetic as it stands but he's nowhere near as compelling as he should be.
I thought it was a well-enough motivation for him as a character and made him sympathetic and interesting.
But we don't get a sense of why he's come to this "they'd be better off as reptiles" mentality. He's just suddenly and willingly the bad guy no explanation of how he got there.
It's not that "they're better off reptiles". It's that "there are so many people suffering from ailments, diseases, and conditions and I can cure them of it." He's not willing to be a bad-guy. He doesn't kill the cops trying to stop him, he doesn't try to kill Gwen, and the only reason he kills Capt. Stacy is because he's helping Spider-man destroy what he believes is a good evolutionary step for humanity.
He develops this pathetic delusion that they're best friends and then turns on him because he thinks Spidey set him up to be shot at (which he literally could not have planned for)
YES! HE DOES!!!! He's a pathetic man whose situation is sad, but his responses once he gets power and anger is deplorable. That's the POINT! He defines himself by resentment and oppressors before establishing his own identity as a person. He wants people to "see him" and recognize who he is, like Spider-man, without realizing that Spider-man doesn't get this attention intentionally, but Max doesn't register this because he thinks Spider-man is like him - desiring appreciation for who he is and what he works towards.
That doesn't justify Max's inclusion in the story. Again, I submit to you, Cut him out of the movie and what changes?
A ver -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(October 06, 2016 08:25 PM)
As does TASM2
That must be why there's so many articles stating the exact opposite. These plot threads don't build into one overarching story, They pretty much exist in a completely separate universe.
What??
In the chinese restaurant scene,Gwen says "you've done this to me again and again, This time I break up with you". Clear proof that this isn't the first time Peter's tried to break up with Gwen.
It would be like criticizing Bruce Wayne for agonizing over the moral struggle of giving himself up to the police in The Dark Knight
Are you kidding me? These struggles have nothing in common. Bruce tries his best to find out where the Joker is and the makes up his mind to turn himself in, He tries something, It doesn't work, He commits to another course of action, He isn't indecisive, He doesn't go back and forth on his decision like Peter does.
It's CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT.
You mean the kind that doesn't actually develop a character at all. If Peter's arc is learning that he and her dead dad don't have power over her decisions, That's incredibly stupid. Obviously, You can't have power over someone else.
Max is someone incredibly dutiful to his profession as an electrical engineer. He continues his profession even though it's in the face of a corporation taking advantage of him.
Again, circumstances don't make for an inherently sympathetic character.
They didn't need to make Zsasz in Batman Begins despite being a far more prominent character in the comics
He was a killer with knife marks etched into his skin, Why wouldn't they call him Zsasz?. Felicia was just a random oscorp executive who happened to be a woman, She could've been Alison Monigrain and it would have made no discernible difference.
made him sympathetic and interesting.
He just didn't have enough to set him apart from the other Spider-Man movie Villains, especially Otto Octavius, That's a textbook example of how to make a sympathetic interesting villain.
there are so many people suffering from ailments, diseases, and conditions and I can cure them of it."
Again, We don't get a good sense of why he's come to that conclusion. His one proclamation to Peter about "saving/curing lost souls" doesn't make him sympathetic because it's not played up very well. He's just a big crazy monster who wants to turn other people into big crazy monsters.
He's a pathetic man whose situation is sad,
But hes not sympathetic, he's a cartoonish, nerd stereotype.
Without Electro, Harry can't make it into the vault for the "cure" and equipment and without THAT,
Without Electro, Harry doesn't get barred from Oscorp and can make it to the vault without holding someone at gunpoint because he owns the company.
If Spider-man/Peter had given him his blood, he may have understood that the spider venom would have had an adverse reaction to Harry's blood
Which is something Spider-Man already explicitly warned him about, so once he disfigures himself using Spider-Venom, he really has no one to blame but himself. His motivation for going after Spider-Man is stupid and his motivation for forming the Sinister Six at the end are non-existent.
"No intention of using the gun" doesn't sound as logical as a reason when he takes the gun with him.
It's his possession, It belongs to him. Just because it flew out of his jacket doesn't mean hes going to pick it up and start firing into the crowd and he wouldn't have shot Uncle Ben at all if Ben hadn't lunged at the gun
Ben and fires because he's trying to stop him.
Something he wouldn't have done if Ben hadn't tried to stop him.
A loaded gun is dangerous, and running into a group of people in desperation and looking like he's running away
Just because hes not an "innocent man" strictly speaking doesn't mean he intends to hurt anyone and it most certainly wasn't his intent to hurt Ben until the man tried to wrestle him for the gun. -
The_paranoid_android — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 12:43 PM)
That must be why there's so many articles stating the exact opposite. These plot threads don't build into one overarching story, They pretty much exist in a completely separate universe.
Bandwagon and arguments from incredulity are logical fallacies, so using them as argument points isn't exactly a strong way to make your point.
In the chinese restaurant scene,Gwen says "you've done this to me again and again, This time I break up with you". Clear proof that this isn't the first time Peter's tried to break up with Gwen.
It's not exactly "clear proof" since there rocky start of their relationship in TASM1 where they started up and ended their relationship several times, not just "ending" it.
Are you kidding me? These struggles have nothing in common. Bruce tries his best to find out where the Joker is and the makes up his mind to turn himself in, He tries something, It doesn't work, He commits to another course of action, He isn't indecisive, He doesn't go back and forth on his decision like Peter does.
The point of contention I have with your argument is the idea of indecisiveness paralyzing a character for a particular decision. Not the context. Bruce DOES go back and forth between decisions. He refuses to reveal himself to the Joker for his identity, then he decides to reveal himself, then decides to let Harvey take the fall for Batman.
You mean the kind that doesn't actually develop a character at all. If Peter's arc is learning that he and her dead dad don't have power over her decisions, That's incredibly stupid. Obviously, You can't have power over someone else.
"A character arc is the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story. If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story." That's what happens in both TASM films. Peter's choice is to cut her out of his life in order to do what believes in as "protecting her". The power isn't over someone else but denying sharing his life with her out of fear she will also die like her father did.
He was a killer with knife marks etched into his skin, Why wouldn't they call him Zsasz?. Felicia was just a random oscorp executive who happened to be a woman, She could've been Alison Monigrain and it would have made no discernible difference.
Your argument was that they made "important comic Spider-man characters" minor characters rather than major ones. First off, that's EXACTLY what Zsasz is. Only a fleeting glimpse of the character from the comics with none of the intriguing stuff regarding his ritualistic murders in the comics. Why am I alright with it? Because the story in Batman Begins DOESN'T FOCUS ON ZSASZ. He's an easter egg - a supporting side-character that doesn't interfere with the movie, but comic fans will enjoy seeing him in a smaller role. Zsasz's scars aren't focused on in the story. He LITERALLY COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONE ELSE and nothing would have changed in the story since it doesn't matter that it's Victor Zsasz. You could have had Deacon Blackfire or Calendar Man as that character and nothing would have changed.
Again, We don't get a good sense of why he's come to that conclusion. His one proclamation to Peter about "saving/curing lost souls" doesn't make him sympathetic because it's not played up very well. He's just a big crazy monster who wants to turn other people into big crazy monsters.
He's come to that conclusion because his experiment resulted in him curing himself, which gives him faith in his own experiments as well as starts influencing his mind to drive himself to spread the genetic change given how experimental the cure was. He's also not a crazy monster in his entirety since A) he's motivated by what he believes is an ethical reason, and B) doesn't actively try to terrorize and kill people. He's just trying to spread the Lizard genetics over the city.
But hes not sympathetic, he's a cartoonish, nerd stereotype.
But he is sympathetic. He's a shy awkward person desperately trying to find validation in his life and there ARE people in this world who do act such as him. You've NEVER met someone like this? Back in College, I had part-time jobs where the IT department was practically flooded with people like this.
Without Electro, Harry doesn't get barred from Oscorp and can make it to the vault without holding someone at gunpoint because he owns the company.
Harry's desperation and being thrown out of OsCorp is important to the context of his character. Him experimenting with the Spider venom is a last resort as everything else is taken away from him. If you DON't HAVE Harry being blamed for Electro, then he doesn't lose access to the company. You can re-write the film to where Electro's presence isn't there, but if you edit the current film without Electro, it literally doesn't make functional sense as a narrative without him (not even touching the story and character elements -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 07:37 PM)
so using them as argument points isn't exactly a strong way to make your point.
Illustrating how TASM 2 doesn't have a narrative throughline is me "making my point". The multiple subplots throughout the film (Peter and Gwen's drama, Max's antics and Harry searching for a cure to his vaguely defined terminal disease) never connect in any meaningful way.
TASM1 where they started up and ended their relationship several times
No they didn't. They spent the entirety of that movie flirting and making cutesy awkward small talk but nothing to suggest it's the events of that movie that Gwen refers to when she says "you've done this to me again and again".
Bruce DOES go back and forth between decisions.
Not like Peter does. Bruce doesn't commit to one choice of action, decide to go back on it, change his decision back to the previous course of action and then change his mind again to the first course of action.
A character arc is the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story. If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story."
Something that never happens to Peter Parker in TASM 2. Learning the painfully obvious (It's Gwen's decision to keep seeing him, not hers) is not an arc. Gwen submits to Peter in the chinese restaurant that its not his fathers choice or his but he still says he can't do it but then right when shes about to leave for england, He decides the opposite. A character arc can't just be a character acting different in another part of the story without explanation, There needs to be a logical sequence of events that change the characters outlook. When does this ever happen in TASM2 for Peter?
easter egg - a supporting side-character that doesn't interfere with the movie, but comic fans will enjoy seeing him in a smaller role.
Even if it was a cameo, Zsasz was still more or less the same and served the same purpose he did in the comics (a dangerous killer), The random female Oscorp executive had no reason to be named Felica because she has nothing to do with her comic book counterpart in any way not even a minute similarity.
He's just trying to spread the Lizard genetics over the city.
His motivation just isn't delved into deeply enough to make him a sympathetic character worth investing in because we don't really know why he wants to create a world without weakness.
He's a shy awkward person desperately trying to find validation
It's not enough to say "His life sucks, Feel bad for him" He needs to be at least to a small degree, likable or endearing and to act like an actual Human being. Max does none of this, He's a creepy stalker who becomes an even more powerful creepy stalker.
Harry's desperation and being thrown out of OsCorp is important to the context of his character.
You don't need Electro or Harry being thrown out of his company for him to be desperate. He still finds special projects, Felicia still tells him about the spider venom, Him experimenting with it and turning into the "Green Beevis" has nothing to do with Electro.
Harry thinks that if Peter had given him access to his genetics earlier, he could have worked with it to find a cure.
Not only does he have no way of actually knowing that, It's never stated in the movie. The writing just gives off the impression that he's angry at Spider-Man for not giving him his blood even though he was painfully disfigured by the equivalent if it.- feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
and I felt none because of Foxx's goofy performance, over the top appearance and stalker tendencies.
Ben saw this and noticed that this guy was a danger.
It wasn't his responsibility to stop this guy, He's an elderly man with a wife and nephew to take care of. It wasn't like the thief was going to pick up the gun and shoot Ben with it, He would've just run away and Ben and the people surrounding him would've been no worse off.
. Harry's normal life is over,
Through No fault of Peter or Spider-Man's, Putting together a team to get "revenge" on someone who isn't really at fault for anything that happened to you is incredibly petty.
on the side of someone trying to do the right thing is disarming an obviously dangerous person who clearly doesn't mind brandishing a loaded weapon in public and keeping it from hurting anyone else.
If anything Ben's putting people in danger because he's provoking the guy into using the gun when he wouldn't have otherwise.
but having Uncle Ben step in and try to wrestle the loaded gun
And fi Uncle Ben hadn't tried to do that, He wouldn't have died simple as that. It wasn't the intention of the robber to kill Uncle Ben until Ben tried to wrestle the gun away from him
- feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
-
The_paranoid_android — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 10:13 AM)
Illustrating how TASM 2 doesn't have a narrative throughline is me "making my point".
You weren't illustrating that. You were literally saying "well, other people agree with me" as a basis of your argument, which is a logical fallacy given that that particular argument isn't based on legitimate criticism, but rather vague generalizations.
The multiple subplots throughout the film (Peter and Gwen's drama, Max's antics and Harry searching for a cure to his vaguely defined terminal disease) never connect in any meaningful way.
That is just not true, especially if removing any element of the story hinders character development or plot.
No they didn't. They spent the entirety of that movie flirting and making cutesy awkward small talk but nothing to suggest it's the events of that movie that Gwen refers to when she says "you've done this to me again and again".
Yes, they did. Peter has changed their relationship several times very quickly. They start their relationship after initial flirtation, then he breaks up with her after the death of her father, then he wants to be with her again at the end of the first film.
Not like Peter does.
Peter's indecision comes out of a wrestling with abstract ideas of ethics. Bruce's indecision comes out of something similar to reveal himself to the world to save others.
Bruce doesn't commit to one choice of action, decide to go back on it, change his decision back to the previous course of action and then change his mind again to the first course of action.
Yes, he does. It's literally that with his identity. At first, he doesn't reveal it even though it will save lives, then he decides to do it, then he decides to back out of the plan once Harvey Dent takes the fall.
Something that never happens to Peter Parker in TASM 2. Learning the painfully obvious (It's Gwen's decision to keep seeing him, not hers) is not an arc.
First, it's a relationship. They BOTH have a decision to keep seeing each other. It's not painfully obvious when Peter is trying to be an ethical person when promising her DYING FATHER WHO SAVED HIS LIFE that he would keep her out of his life. Peter understands that it's wrong to keep her out of his life because they love each other, and ultimately the one who's proven wrong is Captain Stacy because it is Gwen's choice to be apart of Peter's life, with Peter upholding his promise out of an obligation to Captain Stacy more than genuinely siding with George's reasons for leaving Gwen out of Peter's life.
Even if it was a cameo, Zsasz was still more or less the same and served the same purpose he did in the comics (a dangerous killer), The random female Oscorp executive had no reason to be named Felica because she has nothing to do with her comic book counterpart in any way not even a minute similarity.
A subversive femme fatale working slyly with the antagonist to steal something in the film ISN'T Black Cat esque to you? Also, this is a pretty miniscule criticism given that a character's adherence to source material is a distant second to storytelling and writing.
Gwen submits to Peter in the chinese restaurant that its not his fathers choice or his but he still says he can't do it but then right when shes about to leave for england, He decides the opposite. A character arc can't just be a character acting different in another part of the story without explanation, There needs to be a logical sequence of events that change the characters outlook. When does this ever happen in TASM2 for Peter?
He decides the opposite because he's facing the reality of never seeing her again. When they break up, she's still in the city and still apart of his life, but it's not until that she'll no longer be in his life that he's forced into action and his love for her supersedes any reason for them not to be together.
His motivation just isn't delved into deeply enough to make him a sympathetic character worth investing in because we don't really know why he wants to create a world without weakness.
Because he sees that the entire world has turned on him. The people of New York, OsCorp, and even his hero, Spider-man, seemingly forget about him and view him as a monster, with him as the man in charge.
It's not enough to say "His life sucks, Feel bad for him" He needs to be at least to a small degree, likable or endearing and to act like an actual Human being. Max does none of this, He's a creepy stalker who becomes an even more powerful creepy stalker.
First, on a conceptual level, it is enough. You don't need to know about a person's endearing qualities in order to feel sympathy for them. You're adding an addendum to sympathy that doesn't exist. Second, Max is filled with optimism and joy when he considers Spider-man as a hugely beneficial member of society. Even though he's tired and just wants to celebrate his birthday, he happily goes to do his work, even talking with the eels as if they were pets. That coupled with his terrible place in life, it's easy to feel for the guy.
You d -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 10:20 PM)
You weren't illustrating that
How about this then? TASM 2 does not have a central conflict, nothing to tie the various subplots throughout its runtime together, It's a series of unrelated plot points that either don't converge or do so in extremely contrived and ham-fisted ways.
That is just not true,
Except it is.
They start their relationship after initial flirtation, then he breaks up with her after the death of her father, then he wants to be with her again at the end of the first film.
Then why does Gwen say "you've done this to me again and again" if she's just referring to the events of the first movie? This isn't "changing their relationship" several times, it's twice.
Bruce's indecision comes out of something similar to reveal himself to the world to save others.
Except theres no indecision on Bruces part really. He tries his best to track down the Joker, decides to turn himself in to save lives and realizes what Harveys trying to do when he falsely turns himself in as Batman. His situation has nothing to do with Peter lacking the maturity to commit to a course of action.
Peter upholding his promise out of an obligation to Captain Stacy more than genuinely siding with George's reasons for leaving Gwen out of Peter's life.
Again not a character arc because Peter never learns anything like that here. He spends the little screentime he doesn't have pining over Gwen researching his dead, boring parents and after he finds the Roosevelt train (god that plotline was stupid), He decides he wants to be with Gwen after all. Realizing he wants to be with Gwen on the basis that he'll never see her again when she goes to england is not a character arc.
A subversive femme fatale
She's a corporate executive who just happens to be a women and is just following orders, Nothing "subervise" or Femme Fatale-esque about her.
Because he sees that the entire world has turned on him.
I'm talking about the Lizard here.
First, on a conceptual level, it is enough
The problem is that the scenes involving Max in his civilian life are simply much too goofy to fit in tonally with the rest of the movie, especially when he's talking to his Spider-Man mural.
you do need him to be desperate enough to use the venom without knowing the consequences since this is last chance to get access to the company's resources to heal him
Again you could do something similar to that without Electro. The character has no real impact on the story.
He thinks Spider-man's blood is a cure-all for the problem
And he's immediately proven wrong when he shoots himself up with the spider-venom so why does he want to kill him for not giving him the means to jumpstart what he now knows to be a terrible mistake which is what Spider-Man warned him about.
"He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things! That's what's at stake here. Not choice. Responsibility."
But Ben's not helping anyone by lunging at a man with a gun, If anything hes putting more people at risk because he's increased the chance that the gun will accidentally go off.
Harry thinks that Peter denied him the opportunity to cure himself by withholding his blood
And he still thinks this why? Even so it's still incredibly stupid especially given that he's more or less completely fine by the end of the movie.
burglar chose to shoot him.
I know and the burglar wouldn't have chosen to shoot him or anyone if Ben hadn't tried to lunge at the gun, therefore Ben is responsible for his own death. -
The_paranoid_android — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 10:07 AM)
TASM 2 does not have a central conflict, nothing to tie the various subplots throughout its runtime together, It's a series of unrelated plot points that either don't converge or do so in extremely contrived and ham-fisted ways.
Yes, it does have a central conflict. Peter and Gwen coming to terms with their relationship. It's an emotional conflict that is the heart of the film. The subplots ARE tied together that come together naturally and makes sense with character growth.
Except it is.
Saying something multiple times doesn't make it true.
Then why does Gwen say "you've done this to me again and again" if she's just referring to the events of the first movie? This isn't "changing their relationship" several times, it's twice.
I think she's referring to the changes in their relationship status, which had been changed by Peter. They started in TASM on the rooftop, they stopped with the death of Captain Stacy, they started back at the end of TASM, and now they stopped at the beginning of TASM2.
Except theres no indecision on Bruces part really. He tries his best to track down the Joker, decides to turn himself in to save lives and realizes what Harveys trying to do when he falsely turns himself in as Batman. His situation has nothing to do with Peter lacking the maturity to commit to a course of action.
There is through action and inaction. Bruce is unable to reveal himself the first time around in The Dark Knight because he thinks Batman as a symbol and not a man is more important. In all that time that the Joker runs rampent (with a bit of confusing body counts by the end of the film), Bruce still allows other people to die for him because he's unwilling to reveal himself. When Harvey takes the fall for him, he refuses to commit to his action of revealing himself to lure out the Joker.
Nothing "subervise" or Femme Fatale-esque about her.
She undermines the very company she works for to give Harry the chance to save himself, and abusing the trust the company had given her to educate Harry on location of the Venom.
The problem is that the scenes involving Max in his civilian life are simply much too goofy to fit in tonally with the rest of the movie, especially when he's talking to his Spider-Man mural.
I wouldn't say goofy. I'd consider it far more sad and pathetic with Max's life.
Again not a character arc because Peter never learns anything like that here. He spends the little screentime he doesn't have pining over Gwen researching his dead, boring parents and after he finds the Roosevelt train (god that plotline was stupid), He decides he wants to be with Gwen after all. Realizing he wants to be with Gwen on the basis that he'll never see her again when she goes to england is not a character arc.
Again, yes it is a character arc. He realizes that he constantly loses people in his life - his parents, Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, and even Curt Connors to some extent. This is the first time where he's going to lose someone by choice and inaction, rather than by fate, and he can't accept that anymore. It's why the "Do I have to lose you, too?" with the picture of himself and Gwen when he's trying to piece together his parents history. I liked the search for the parents for what it brought about for plot potential with the venom back at OsCorp and the genetically altered Spider's origin, as well as the character conflict with Peter and Aunt May.
And he's immediately proven wrong when he shoots himself up with the spider-venom so why does he want to kill him for not giving him the means to jumpstart what he now knows to be a terrible mistake which is what Spider-Man warned him about.
Harry doesn't know what Peter learns from Richard Parker's tapes. Harry also thinks that if he had the blood, he could find a cure and experiment with it with OsCorp's resources. In Harry's mind, taking away that option makes him all the more desperate.
But Ben's not helping anyone by lunging at a man with a gun, If anything hes putting more people at risk because he's increased the chance that the gun will accidentally go off.
You think a desperate gun-wielding burglar with the safety off who's running away from a robbery is less dangerous than a guy trying to stop him?
And he still thinks this why? Even so it's still incredibly stupid especially given that he's more or less completely fine by the end of the movie.
Because if he had his blood earlier, he could have experimented with it. It actually fits nicely with Harry's own story arc.
I know and the burglar wouldn't have chosen to shoot him or anyone if Ben hadn't tried to lunge at the gun, therefore Ben is responsible for his own death.
A) No, you don't. The man bringing a loaded gun with the safety off and more than willing to use it against Uncle Ben is a clear indication he had no problem using it against civilians. B) Uncle Ben didn't shoot himself. That was the burglar, who chose to pull the trigger, despite having the ability to merely run away with his stolen money, was t -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 02:30 PM)
Yes, it does have a central conflict.
The Peter/Gwen stuff is not a central conflict, not in a way in that it's something that all characters in the movie react too. It's yet another subplot in a film that's nothing but subplot. None of the other subplots tie into Peter and Gwen's relationship drama. Not the villains and their goals, Not Peter's parents, Nothing.
I think she's referring to the changes in their relationship status, which had been changed by Peter.
If that's the case, It doesn't make any sense for Gwen to refer to Peter breaking up with her as "You've done this to me again and again", She's referring to something specific here and if Peter's only done it the one time, It doesn't make any sense for her to say it that way.
, Bruce still allows other people to die for him because he's unwilling to reveal himself.
He doesn't stand around and do nothing. He tries his hardest to find where the Joker is and decides only to turn himself in when he feels like hes exhausted every option and he doesn't wish to put any more innocent people in danger. His situation is nothing like Peter's.
he refuses to commit to his action of revealing himself to lure out the Joker.
That has nothing to do with being indecisive, He recognizes what Harvey's trying to do and adjusts his plan accordingly to drive the Joker out of hiding.
She undermines the very company she works for to give Harry the chance to save himself, and abusing the trust the company had given her to educate Harry on location of the Venom.
She's not undermining anything or anyone, She's simply following her boss's orders and doing what she's told. This is all before he's booted out of Oscorp.
I wouldn't say goofy. I'd consider it far more sad and pathetic with Max's life.
I would. Foxx's performance combined with the music of the scene made it feel like we had stepped inside a Schumacher Batman movie.
This is the first time where he's going to lose someone by choice and inaction, rather than by fate, and he can't accept that anymore.
So deciding out of the blue that it's worth all the potential danger and everything Captain Stacy warned him about to be with Gwen if the alternative is that he can't see her again counts as a character arc?
Harry also thinks that if he had the blood, he could find a cure and experiment with it with OsCorp's resources.
Him getting his hands on Spider-Man's blood had nothing to do with him being booted out of Oscorp, so even if Spider-Man had agreed to give him some, Harry still would've been kicked out so no resources. The Spider venom and Spidey's blood are basically the same thing, The movie doesn"t do a good job of illustrating the differences if that isn't the case, so from what we see of it, Spidey's blood would've had more or less the same effect as the Venom did. So Harry's motivation for trying to kill Spider-Man is still beep
You think a desperate gun-wielding burglar with the safety off who's running away from a robbery is less dangerous than a guy trying to stop him?
Ben wasn't stopping the man from firing into the crowd, The guy would've likely just picked up the gun and continued running away. Ben's interference is what increased the chances of the gun going off.
Because if he had his blood earlier, he could have experimented with it.
That remains an extremely petty not to mention stupid reason for forming a supervillain team, especially compared to Harry's actual, far more compelling motivation from the comics and everywhere else.
A) No, you don't. The man bringing a loaded gun with the safety off and more than willing to use it against Uncle Ben is a clear indication he had no problem using it against civilians.
There is no indication that he intended to use the gun until Ben tried to wrestle it away from him.
B) Uncle Ben didn't shoot himself.
No, but he most certainly caused his own death. The guy wasn't going to pick up his gun and shoot Ben, Ben provoked him into doing it by trying to wrestle the gun away from him. Had Ben done nothing, The guy would've picked it up and continued to run away.
it'd be like saying that because Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins moved too fast in stepping in front of his wife that he was ultimately responsible for both his and Martha's death.
These situations are nothing alike. Thomas didn't provoke the mugger into shooting him, The mugger shot at Martha on his own accord. He wasn't going to just walk away. -
The_paranoid_android — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 10:52 PM)
The Peter/Gwen stuff is not a central conflict, not in a way in that it's something that all characters in the movie react too.
A main plot line does not need to affect every character the same as central players. How Harry and Max's story feeds into Peter's tale is paramount to the themes of the film.
None of the other subplots tie into Peter and Gwen's relationship drama. Not the villains and their goals, Not Peter's parents, Nothing.
I strongly disagree. Harry's desperation in searching for a cure had made him lose his hope, which he then decided to take away from Peter. Max's story was one of personal empowerment at the expense of others who Harry was able to use. Electro is also the one responsible for bringing Peter and Gwen together to help save the city and solidify Gwen's stance that regardless of one's own powers or personal wants, anyone should be able to stand up and fight for what they believe in, even accepting the dangers that come with it. Peter's parents' involvement with Peter is them providing emotional closure for Peter and spurring him on to not lose Gwen either. Not to mention that Max ties into the theme of HOPELESSNESS
If that's the case, It doesn't make any sense for Gwen to refer to Peter breaking up with her as "You've done this to me again and again", She's referring to something specific here and if Peter's only done it the one time, It doesn't make any sense for her to say it that way.
I think you might be nit-picking this one through, especially in terms of what you think she's referring to. It does make sense if she means that Peter has changed their relationship abruptly in the past.
That has nothing to do with being indecisive, He recognizes what Harvey's trying to do and adjusts his plan accordingly to drive the Joker out of hiding.
He stops himself from revealing his own identity because Harvey took the fall for him. He then continues to not-reveal who he is. The Joker was a man of his word, despite his insanity. Bruce can't destroy the icon of the Batman because it has been too important to the city, but because of that, he sees his means as justification of the ends, including sacrificing other people. I'm not judging him on that standpoint alone, as Bruce genuinely believed that keeping batman as a symbol and outside of the law was the only way to take down both the mob and The Joker without getting tangled in the legal system.
She's not undermining anything or anyone, She's simply following her boss's orders and doing what she's told. This is all before he's booted out of Oscorp.
No, she actually undermines the entire corporation by working with Harry by allowing him to get access to OsCorp's off-limits technology is subterfuge. She deceives and undermines the company to help Harry.it's.you can't interpret it any other way.
I would. Foxx's performance combined with the music of the scene made it feel like we had stepped inside a Schumacher Batman movie.
God, no, I wouldn't agree with that. Even recent superhero films have had FAR worse antagonists in terms of the actors they had playing them, like Jesse Eisenberg with Lex Luthor, Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse, or Cara Delevingne as Enchantress. Now THOSE are terrible performances without an ounce of redeemable writing or acting.
So deciding out of the blue that it's worth all the potential danger and everything Captain Stacy warned him about to be with Gwen if the alternative is that he can't see her again counts as a character arc?
First, it's not out of the blue. Peter is struggling with this choice through the entire film as well as dealing with Gwen's perspective in his life as a superhero. Second, Peter's arc is also connected to the EXPLICITLY STATED idea that Gwen is responsible for her own actions as well as the outcomes. Not Peter. Not Captain Stacy. Her. And it's because of Gwen's decision to help Peter in his time of need against Max that she helps save THE ENTIRE CITY including countless lives. Losing Gwen by choice is the ultimate betrayal. Peter's arc is the fear of losing another person he loves. But this is a loss by choice, which becomes an unconscionable action for him to commit to since he genuinely loves Gwen and Gwen loves him. Peter is wrong for forcing people away from him and doing so because he believes that it's only him who should be in the line of fire when danger occurs. He's proven wrong by the fact that Gwen helps him save the lives of all of those people. The alternative is denying Gwen the chance to help others with her power (read: agency) to act for the sake of others. As Gwen points out, nobody wins from this situation. Not Peter, not her, and not her father who is no longer around. Peter struggles with the ethics of this but is spirited by the decision that he can't lose her and that she willingly accepts the dangers that come with his life as Spider-man.
Him getting his hands on Spider-Man's blood had nothing to do with him being booted out of Oscorp, so even if Spider-Man had agreed -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 11:55 PM)
A main plot line does not need to affect every character the same as central players
But it needs to tie them together in some way. This does not. It's one subplot that isn't any more centered or focused than the number of other subplots throughout the movie.
I strongly disagree.
Doesn't mean that's not true. You need more than a vague theme to tie subplots into each other. Aside from the vague "Hope" connection, Both Harry and Electro aren't tied into Peter's story very well at all. They feel like plot devices in their own ridiculous side-stories.
I think you might be nit-picking this one through
Fair point. It just felt pointless breaking up Peter and Gwen in the beginning and made both characters come off as immature.
He stops himself from revealing his own identity because Harvey took the fall for him. He then continues to not-reveal who he is.
That's not the same as being indecisive or being unable to make up his mind. He realizes what Harvey's trying to do.
No, she actually undermines the entire corporation by working with Harry by allowing him to get access to OsCorp's off-limits technology
How? Harry is in charge of Oscorp, She holds more say in the company than the board members do because Harry promoted her. It's not undermining the company by doing her job which is exactly what she's doing by telling him about Oscorp technology he quite legally has access too.
. Even recent superhero films have had FAR worse antagonists
Doesn't mean it's good. I honestly wouldn't put Jamie Foxx's performance too far off from any of those you mentioned especially in reference to his goofy performance as Max to the dialogue like "It's my Birthday, Time to light my candles".
Harry was likewise terrible once he became the Green Beavis.
Peter's arc is the fear of losing another person he loves.
But that's exactly what happens right at the end. Gwen makes a big deal about "Making her own choices" but that's pretty much exactly what gets her killed. Why does Peter feel responsible for her at the end when it was her decisions that resulted in her getting killed? It's thematically confusing. If Peter's arc really was coming to terms with Gwen being allowed to make her own choices, Wouldn't it make more sense to keep her alive at the end to validate her stance?
Harry would have still had access to the blood to begin experimenting on.
He still likely wouldn't have been able to get his hands on it.
they explained that in the Richard Parker video tape scene you think was pointless.
I said it was stupid, There is a difference.
The venom only works for Peter because Richard Parker had tailored the venom to his genetics, meaning that anyone outside of the Parker bloodline would have an adverse reaction to it
Correction: It doesn't do a good job of illustrating the difference from Harry's point of view. As far as he's concerned, Spider-Man's blood would've had the same result as the Venom.
because frankly, what they did with Talia and Bane for TDKR was absurd in terms of differences in personality and rationale.
Not really. Bane was a member of the League of Assassins in the comics and he did threaten Gotham with a nuclear weapon afterward. Talia has also been portrayed as more evil and vengeful in recent comics It's still nowhere close to the butchering the Osborns received in TASM series.
It's clear that he had no intention of being peaceful especially since he'd rather struggle and kill an old man trying to keep him away from a gun than just running away.
He wouldn't have had to struggle if Ben hadn't purposefully involved himself. Again, No one was in danger until Ben decided to lunge at a man with a gun.
it's kinda hard to argue he had no intention to use it,
He had it tucked away in his shirt pocket. I'd say it's hard to argue that he intended to use it before a man lunged at him.
He saw that as a public danger and decided to act on that to save other peoples' lives.
Why? He's not a cop, He doesn't have any special powers or training, There's no one in danger and the man gave off no intention he was planning to use it and Ben himself is an elderly man. He's not protecting or helping anyone, He's needlessly putting himself in danger.
"Man, Thomas should have stayed still and not moved in front of his wife
I reiterate, These situations are nothing alike. The mugger pointed a gun at his wife, of course, Thomas was going to step in front. The guy was accosting him and his family, The guy in TASM was threatening no one, was in no way accosting Uncle Ben and would've left him alone if Ben hadn't lunged at his gun. -
d_myerss — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 02:34 AM)
I still love it too. Was looking forward to seeing a third.
I liked Tom Holland, at least what we've seen of him so far, but as of now, Garfield is still my favourite by far.
I think I'd look forward to any type of Spider-Man movie, but Homecoming has got me weary with the inclusion of Tony Stark.
Of course it seems inevitable considering he 'discovered' him in Civil War but having Spidey as a protg of Tony has never appealed to me.
Still, it could be great and I hope it is. -
-
d_myerss — 9 years ago(October 16, 2016 01:39 AM)
Admittedly that sounds terrible and I'm glad that I didn't get to see that particular story.
However, the series was cancelled more or less immediately so it may not have gone in that direction.
I was looking forward to seeing more of Garfield's Spider-Man after Gwen's death and seeing what direction he may go, what supporting cast he may meet and so on. I really enjoyed both TASM films and would liked to have seen where it might lead.
I was more enthusiastic about the future of that iteration of Spider-Man than one who doesn't seem to have any reason to not be funded by Tony Stark moving forward(based on his Civil War appearance).
But I'm still looking forward to Homecoming. -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(October 16, 2016 08:53 AM)
I was looking forward to seeing more of Garfield's Spider-Man after Gwen's death and seeing what direction he may go
It already shot that potential in the foot with that awful ending and since the film had already butchered an important part of Spider-Man lore (The Osborn/Goblin storyline), dispensed with Emma Stone and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark Webb can't make a good villain to save his life, I was not looking to the next one.
It was a welcome relief to have Sony make the deal with Disney which is really what they should have done from the beginning since it costs neither company anything. Plus it gives them a clean slate to tackle future storylines without the baggage of TASM series (like the whole genetic disease/healing blood nonsense they added to the Osborn family and the weirdness of making Black Cat Harry's girlfriend)
Spider-Man than one who doesn't seem to have any reason to not be funded by Tony Stark
Tony Stark's inclusion doesn't really bother me and Tom Holland basically does everything fans credit Garfield for but even better, He doesn't quip to the point where it's excessive and his Peter Parker is definitely more faithful than Garfield's ever was. -
d_myerss — 9 years ago(October 16, 2016 02:46 PM)
It already shot that potential in the foot with that awful ending and since the film had already butchered an important part of Spider-Man lore (The Osborn/Goblin storyline), dispensed with Emma Stone and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark Webb can't make a good villain to save his life, I was not looking to the next one.
This doesn't make any sense in response to what I said.
I said I was looking forward to seeing more of Garfield's Spider-Man etc and you respond with 'it shot that potential in the foot'?
It shot the potential of me looking forward to it in the foot? Well, that's not accurate because until it was cancelled I
was
looking forward to it.
Tony Stark's inclusion doesn't really bother me and Tom Holland basically does everything fans credit Garfield for but even better, He doesn't quip to the point where it's excessive and his Peter Parker is definitely more faithful than Garfield's ever was.
So far the only thing that's more loyal to the source than Garfield, is that he invented his own webbing compound.
We don't know anything else about him. We don't know how he got his powers. We don't know if he has an Uncle Ben or why he became Spider-Man.
We don't know how he behaves in school, around bullies, or girls. We don't know if he has friends or who they are if he does.
We know he has a hot Aunt.
Please tell me what you think is definitely more faithful given that?
And by the way, may I ask what issues of Peter's High School era you have read?
When we discussed Garfield's faithfulness to the source before I remember you making several mistakes when referencing the source. -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(October 16, 2016 04:38 PM)
This doesn't make any sense in response to what I said.
My apologies, I was referring to the film series in general and the places it could go from there on. Garfield's Spider-Man himself never left much of an impression on me, I found him a pretty easy to dislike kind of character though that was mainly down to how he was written. If Sony ended up continuing TASM series, They seriously needed to sack the writers and do an overhaul. Garfield certainly wasn't terrible but he just never really left much of an impression that made me want to see more of him in the role.
We don't know anything else about him. We don't know how he got his powers. We don't know if he has an Uncle Ben or why he became Spider-Man.
Well its not Spider-Mans movie but from what we did see, All of that above-mentioned stuff can be easily inferred.
Please tell me what you think is definitely more faithful given that?
As opposed to making him an aloof outsider who likes to skateboard in school halls, stumbles over himself when talking and takes pictures of girls without there knowledge or consent?
may I ask what issues of Peter's High School era you have read?
Both the original Ditko/Lee stories and the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book as well and I fail to see how Garfield's portrayal was the most faithful of the bunch here.
you making several mistakes when referencing the source.
Like? -
d_myerss — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 03:07 AM)
My apologies, I was referring to the film series in general and the places it could go from there on. Garfield's Spider-Man himself never left much of an impression on me, I found him a pretty easy to dislike kind of character though that was mainly down to how he was written. If Sony ended up continuing TASM series, They seriously needed to sack the writers and do an overhaul. Garfield certainly wasn't terrible but he just never really left much of an impression that made me want to see more of him in the role.
No problem, and it's perfectly fine you feel that way.
Well its not Spider-Mans movie but from what we did see, All of that above-mentioned stuff can be easily inferred.
Can it? We have absolutely no idea at this stage. We can guess and assume based on the comics, but hey, had we seen Thor make a cameo in Iron Man, we could infer that his alter ego is Donald Blake. Of course we'd be wrong.
If it is the case, Aunt May seems pretty receptive of Tony's flirtation considering her Husband was murdered just 6 months ago or so.
As opposed to making him an aloof outsider who likes to skateboard in school halls, stumbles over himself when talking and takes pictures of girls without there knowledge or consent?
So what you're essentially saying is that he's closer to the source material because so far all we've seen is him fight as Spider-Man? There's been no opportunity for us to see how much he will differ from the source and therefore he is closer by default?
If so, I can agree with that.
For me, so far the only boxes he has ticked that Garfield didn't was that he made his own webbing compound.
Both the original Ditko/Lee stories and the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book as well and I fail to see how Garfield's portrayal was the most faithful of the bunch here.
I see. Holland doesn't count just yet as far as I'm concerned because all we've seen is a promising start but no idea how he reacts with anyone other than Tony Stark, really.
His Spider-Man seems like a lot of fun if not a little bit kiddish (I get he's 15 but things like "You have a metal arm? That's awesome dude!" just feels like they really want to hone in on the 'youngest Superhero' aspect), but as I say, I think he's on to a great start, if not for the fact that from his very first movie, I don't see the likelihood of his having to worry about financial problems or jobs or any of the like due to him essentially being an Avenger in training under Tony the billionaire.
Of course this is an assumption on my part, but it seems the obvious direction after Civil War, which was always my biggest fear concerning Spider-Man joining the MCU - A Disney's Ultimate Spider-Man type film series.
Of course we're going to disagree regarding Garfield and Maguire as we always have, but like you fail to see how Garfield's portrayal is the more faithful, I fail to see how Maguire is.
Garfield, to me, is not a direct adaptation of the 60's Spider-Man. He is a modern take on that personality and attitude. He's a good person at heart but he makes mistakes. He's not above humiliating the school bully when the opportunity arises. He's not above being a dick when things don't go his way sometimes. He's more human to me, flaws and all, than Maguire's take and that's what appeals to me most in Spider-Man as character.
While I enjoy Raimi's first movie and to a lesser extent, his second, his Peter Parker never really hit the button for me. He doesn't seem like Peter Parker from the get go because he's too timid and nice. The bus driver had him running for some time (indicated by MJ) and he gets on the bus and apologises. Gets tripped up and doesn't say a thing, gets pushed around and just looks up with sad eyes until Harry sticks up for him. I didn't see this Peter Parker in the Lee Ditko run, not even in Amazing Fantasy #15, where even verbal attacks had him getting frustrated and swearing he'd show them all.
Superficial things like a skateboard isn't what bothers me when it comes to faithfulness to the source with Peter Parker. Its running with the 'Peter Parker was a nerd' attitude amplified and that more or less being the only part of his personality they bothered with. It felt to me like they saw a picture of him from that era and built him based on that instead of reading them.
They both get things right and they both get things wrong, but for me, Garfield nails how Lee and Ditko's character would probably be today.
Maguires doesn't.
All that being said, I respect that you disagree.
Like?
This was about 2 years ago or so, so I don't really remember the details, but I remember a back and fourth where I pointed out about 3 errors you made when referencing the books one after another, I mocked you about it and you said there was no reason for me to be a dick about it (or something of that nature), which was true but hey, it was just banter to me.
I vaguely remember one of them being to do with Peter's living situation. I think I was pointing out how Raimi had Peter leave May -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 02:18 PM)
If it is the case, Aunt May seems pretty receptive of Tony's flirtation considering her Husband was murdered just 6 months ago or so.
That's not surefire evidence that Uncle Ben never died, That could just be her being polite because she knows Tony's reputation. Plus in the comics she did end up having more love interests after Ben and was even remarried.
So what you're essentially saying is that he's closer to the source material because so far all we've seen is him fight as Spider-Man?
Well just from the way he talks to Tony Stark as Peter Parker, He just comes off as more naturally likable and relatable than Garfield did even though we didn't delve into his backstory.
He is a modern take on that personality and attitude.
I didn't see that at all. The original Lee/Ditko Peter Parker came off to me as a very shy , nerdy kind of guy who still attempted to make friends and interact with people even though they didn't pay him much heed. Garfield's Peter was an aloof outsider who was that way because he wanted to be, who had little interest in interacting with anyone or making friends unless they came to him. There were also little things that just bugged me like him skateboarding in the halls despite a teacher asking him not to and him taking a picture of Gwen without her knowledge or consent.
he's too timid and nice.
I never once got the impression that pre-spider bite Peter Parker (whether it be Lee or the Ultimate version) was confrontational or stood up to bullies on a regular basis, The spider-bite is what gave him the confidence to do those things later on. Admittedly, We didn't get to see much of that in the first Raimi movie because it's about him graduating.
Gets tripped up and doesn't say a thing, gets pushed around and just looks up with sad eyes until Harry sticks up for him.
I don't really see how that's different from Peter getting the crap kicked out of him by Flash until Gwen intervenes in the first TASM. Plus in the first Raimi movie, Peter tells Harry about what jerks Flash and his friend are. If Ditko/Lee Peter had been tripped or pushed around, I don't see him confronting or trying to pick a fight with the guy who did it just like he didn't do it when Flash scooped up the girl Peter was trying to ask out and told him to get lost.
I didn't see this Peter Parker in the Lee Ditko run,
From a visual standpoint, He represented that version of Peter very well and even though we didn't get to know the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man for very long before the bite, I didn't see how the way Tobey acted or carried himself conflicted with that or the Ultimate Peter Parker for that matter.
Superficial things like a skateboard isn't what bothers me
It begs the question why they chose to include it since it adds nothing to the story. What's more, The Amazing Fanatsy#15 showed how well-liked by his teachers was as opposed to TASM where Peter keeps skateboarding despite what the teacher told him.
Garfields Peter Parker just felt like more a checklist of demographics to appeal to rather than a consistent character.