View Single Post
Old 11-30-2012, 03:17 PM   #157
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,744
Default Re: The Amazing Spider-Man: Tie it in with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Originally Posted by Web face View Post
^about Peter being a nerd, he owns a skateboard (sarcasm). Seriously though, I can understand when people say that Peter isn't portrayed as a nerd in this one. I think some of it has to do with the way that he acts in school. Mostly in the beginning and end of the movie when Peter skates in the halls and when he is late (again). Im satisfied because they still show his intelligence and love for science.
Agreed. Because the Peter of the comics has never been late to anything. LOL He is partly known for always being late to all kinds of events and places. How many dates did he arrived late to and even miss completely?

As for the skateboard, some people like it while others don't. I'm personally in neither camp. What I mean by that is that I don't see why it's in the movie to begin with. What purpose does it serve? What is it means to show other than that one scene where we see him skateboarding like a pro while experimenting with his powers? It served no purpose whatsoever and was really just filler material IMO. It didn't take away from the film but at the same time, it added nothing to the film so it shouldn't have been in the movie at all.

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Thats Debatable
I have yet to see anyone bring up solid reasons to why Raimi's Spider-Man is more like the comics than Webb's Spider-Man. I personally think that anyone who has read the comics is able to tell that. Also, arguments such as "the pacing is too fast" or "the parents subplot is just dropped", whether valid or not, are irrelevant to the film looking at it from an adaptation point of view (which is what we're discussing now). What exactly makes Raimi's take on Peter/Spider-Man more accurate to the source material than Webb's? I'm willing to listen.

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
You are going too hard on him
He tried hard enough,jumped of a building to make his powers come back.He could have died
I don't really have a big problem with about half the stuff I brought up in that paragraph. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. You can't say that Garfield's Peter is a douche and that Maguire's Peter isn't when, going by the logic of the people that call Garfield's Peter a douche, Maguire's Peter is also a douche and an even bigger one (I'm not saying you specifically called him a douche but you get the idea).

As a side note, for all the people comparing Tobey and Andrew's portrayals of Spider-Man and saying that Andrew's was superior because he quipped like Spidey does, I would like to say that that alone is not the only reason why I find Andrew's version to be superior. He also is more agile, seems stronger (ironic since Tobey's Peter was in his 20's), and overall moves a lot more like how Spider-Man moves and on top of that, he also uses his wits while in battle. Basically, there is a lot more to Andrew's performance being better than Tobey's performance than just "he quips more than Tobey".

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Yah, I've seen many say Bale was the better Bruce Wayne, but I like both really. They nailed both characters perfect, and yes, I am speaking on Bale's Batman as well, lol.
I see it as...
Keaton was a great Batman but a horrible Bruce Wayne.
Bale was a great Bruce Wayne and a good Batman.

Keaton nailed it as Batman while Bale nailed it as Bruce Wayne. I find Keaton's Bruce Wayne to probably be the worst Bruce Wayne in live-action since he portrayed him the exact opposite way he is portrayed - stiff, awkward, a shut-in recluse, etc. But to be fair, that is also the script's fault.

Although I like Bale's Batman, the reason I say it's good and not great is because it's not the ideal Batman performance I imagine. When I look at roles like RDJ as Iron Man, Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man, and Christopher Reeves as Superman, I see those roles as perfect casting and can't even imagine better actors for those roles. This does not mean that these actors will never be topped in these roles but that my mind is simply not able to imagine better actors for these parts until I see another actor coming in and proving me wrong. I don't get that with Bale's Batman. Though I really liked him in the role, I can definitely imagine a better actor for the part even if it isn't too big of an improvement over Bale. He could start by having a better "Bat-voice" that sounds frightening but also natural.

How I rate movies:
Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote