Still love the TASM films
-
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. -
d_myerss — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 02:51 AM)
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.
Oh, its certainly not surefire evidence, I wouldn't claim that. Just that if there is indeed a recently murdered Uncle Ben, it sure wasn't hinted at here, so we have no idea what the story is going to be just yet.
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.
Naturally likeable isn't really a thing. Likeability is completely subjective. For example I liked Garfield more than I liked Tobey and you feel the complete opposite.
Relatable? To who? To say one take on a teenager is more relatable than another is speaking strictly on an individual level, not everyone relates to the same things. He may be more relatable to you and that's fine, but more relatable in general? I liked Holland just fine but he didn't give me anything at all to relate to. He walked in and found his Aunt being playful with a billionaire superhero who offered him a paid placement in something he never applied for. I can't relate to that scenario at all nor did he behave in such a way that stood out as relatable.
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.
There's no indication in the movie that its by choice. We don't meet him during his first day of school. We met him when he's being bullied by Flash and his friends.
In the books, Peter wasn't particularly trying to make friends who didn't give him the time of day, he was just trying to ask out a girl for the 'umpteenth' time. He can't be
that
shy even if he is awkward.
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.
The spider-bite gave him more confidence true enough but that's not to say he wasn't confident at all before.
Its been a while since I read the Ultimate series (which I really enjoyed more than I expected to though) but in the Lee Ditko era we never saw much of what he was like before the bite, so we can only go by what we do see, which is Peter asking out a girl, being ridiculed by Flash and storming off saying 'Some day I'll show them!'
This has likely gone on for some time, and the result of that is a kid who while a good person deep down, was happy to let a robber escape because he had a stinking attitude. He only wanted to look out for number one.
I can see that in Garfield. He is a good person, but he is also a troubled teen who can be an a-hole, just like the rest of us, with little to no reason depending on his mood.
If it weren't for the wrestling promoter doing Maguire out of 3 grand, I'd have never believed that the character portrayed up to that point, would have allowed a robber to run past him without stopping him.
Garfield I could have easily. It wasn't his problem. While I much prefer Raimi's execution of the Uncle Ben scenario, what I do like about Webb's is that Peter is being a dick as he let a guy get robbed just because the guy made fun of him, not because he got conned out of 3 grand (hell, I'm not even a teenager and I'd be mad as hell if I got conned out of 3 grand).
Also worth noting is that after Peter has his spider powers he doesn't always bark back at Flash. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. But when he does, nobody seems shocked, nobody notes it as a change. Even when Peter looks back on his past concerning his and Flash's relationship he always notes them as rivals at each others throats.
Of course Flash is the jock and Peter the nerd so its a given that Flash is generally the aggressor, but there's never any mention that once he got his abilities
thats
when he and Flash started back and forth.
To me, the lack of shock or acknowledgement from anyone who sees Peter bark back at Flash the first time (or anytime after) couple with Peter's referencing their rivalry indicates to me that it was the same before he got his powers.
Sometimes he argues back, sometimes he doesn't. We saw Garfield let Flash get away with hassling him but we also saw him give it back -
The_Crow18 — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 12:20 PM)
I remember how many arguments I had with people here on how poorly directed and written those films were.
The only redeeming qualities of TASM series were the fact it was released after Spider-Man 3. And even then they were still inferior to the lowest part of the Raimi series and Emma Stone.Which she basically played the same character as she does in every of her films. Its cute, but it can't carry the franchise.
There was literally no sense of direction, portrayal design, or a script that could have saved that series. That frankly left a black hole in many fans that loved the first series and grew up on the character before.
I knew the days are numbered from the first movie. And that was despite my dislike for that terrible experience of watching and how they butchered my favorite character and story arc.
Both of these movies feels like a group of moody emo teens filmed one on depressing day and the next on a happy one. They simply have no relation to one another and feel completely different by tone, story and atmosphere. You can't carry on a series with no sense of direction whatsoever as this. And they clearly had no idea where to carry on from day 1, and got the wrong people to pull the strings for this project.
Even if Holland is far more likeable than Garfield ever was, "Homecoming" still doesn't feel like a welcome reboot as it naturally should have been and the studios still insist on trying to fit the tone to the current generation instead of digging further to the past to the far more important and dominate fan base of the character. Raimi managed to do a beautiful homage and respect to how the character originally was and that is why these films spoke to everyone and not just kids, teens and Marvel fans.
"Homecoming" is basically a complete politically correct change of the character, story arc, and atmosphere. I realize that they gotta mix things up with a 3rd series, but I'm not so sure this is the way to do it. Hopefully, I'm mistaken. But the trailer really didn't left an impression on me and actually felt more underwhelming from TASM trailers.