The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-08-2014, 07:23 PM   #101
Kahran Ramsus
Side-Kick
 
Kahran Ramsus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Sunshine State
Posts: 11,251
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
What's so interesting about that? Cillian Murphy and Heath Ledger were both considered for Batman before Bale. Good thing they didn't get it. Because they were perfect for the roles they eventually played, just like Maguire was perfect for Spidey. And Franco was perfect for Harry.

Everything worked out for the best.
Tom Hiddleston initially tried out for the role of Thor too. I don't think anybody would say he's not a better fit for Loki.

Kahran Ramsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 02:30 PM   #102
SpeterMan3
SpeterTV on YT
 
SpeterMan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Speterville
Posts: 3,412
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Andrew's Peter just feels more organic to me than Tobey's. So many of the lines in Raimi's series made things feel like a stage play at times. Webb/ Andrew's Peter really struck a chord with me from the jump. Probably because I was an awkward 17 year old when the ASM came out. But even now, as an awkward 19 year old, a lot of things about the portrayal just make sense to me. And, confusingly, some of the aspects of Peter's personality that really make sense to me are the ones that seem like they shouldn't make sense together, yet there they are.

Socially awkward, yet occasionally bold? Yeah, that's me. Getting wrapped up in my own things sometimes and forgetting a little about others, even though he's generally kind and considerate? Yeah, I get that. It can come with being socially awkward and an only child with mostly adults to hang with. You can get pretty introverted like that. And when he gets what may have been his first girlfriend? Ha, yeah, I can see how he messed things up with her so often. (I haven't actually had one [and haven't particularly wanted to have one yet], so I can only assume that I'd have some extra issues in handling certain things as well)

But yeah, hey, I can relate to some things. Maybe it's not exactly the Peter Parker we're all used to, but I like it. He's the Peter we deserve, but not the one we need right now... or something like that.

__________________
SpeterMan3
MJJ
SpeterMan3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 04:37 AM   #103
spiderral
Side-Kick
 
spiderral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,180
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeterMan3 View Post
Andrew's Peter just feels more organic to me than Tobey's. So many of the lines in Raimi's series made things feel like a stage play at times. Webb/ Andrew's Peter really struck a chord with me from the jump. Probably because I was an awkward 17 year old when the ASM came out. But even now, as an awkward 19 year old, a lot of things about the portrayal just make sense to me. And, confusingly, some of the aspects of Peter's personality that really make sense to me are the ones that seem like they shouldn't make sense together, yet there they are.

Socially awkward, yet occasionally bold? Yeah, that's me. Getting wrapped up in my own things sometimes and forgetting a little about others, even though he's generally kind and considerate? Yeah, I get that. It can come with being socially awkward and an only child with mostly adults to hang with. You can get pretty introverted like that. And when he gets what may have been his first girlfriend? Ha, yeah, I can see how he messed things up with her so often. (I haven't actually had one [and haven't particularly wanted to have one yet], so I can only assume that I'd have some extra issues in handling certain things as well)

But yeah, hey, I can relate to some things. Maybe it's not exactly the Peter Parker we're all used to, but I like it. He's the Peter we deserve, but not the one we need right now... or something like that.
I like the point you've made man, I'm 19 years old too and agree that Andrew's Peter feels more organic too; outside of the film I can imagine a fully breathing version of Andrew's Peter in today's world. A lot of the cast in TASM2 gave organic, believable performances and it's that very human aspect to the TASM series that has struck with me the most.
I didn't like Peter too much in TASM1 but was really happy to see him matured in TASM2 and not being so cocky anymore which I'm glad they improved upon. I haven't been too fond of the way that Peter's treated Aunt May in TASM series; being really pushy with her in TASM2 about his parents, the only meaningful scenes he had were "You're My Boy" and at the end of TASM2 about moving on. Hopefully the writers will give us more scenes where Aunt May can do something (I liked how she had that little scene in the hospital when Electro had caused the power to go out; it felt like she actually had something to do).

__________________
TOP 5 CBMs
Batman Begins | CA: The Winter Soldier | Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (this counts) | Spider-Man | X-Men: DOFP
spiderral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 04:39 AM   #104
Doctor Octopus
Banned User
 
Doctor Octopus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,422
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Jerk teenagers do of course exist in the real world. That doesn't make this version of Peter Parker feel organic. It makes him feel like an invalid interpretation of Peter because that's not the type of guy Peter is.

Marc Webb has failed to capture who Peter Parker really is, along with several other key Spider-Man characters, notably the villains.

Doctor Octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 05:29 AM   #105
DarthSkywalker
May the Force Be With You
 
DarthSkywalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 85,670
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

The problem isn't Garfield. I find him charming. The problem is the writing. He just isn't Peter, more so he is written like he is a member of the "me" crowd.

There seems to be some believe that because certain kids are a certain way these days, means that all kids are that way. Do people think all kids were like Peter Parker back in the 60s?

Also the character hasn't really changed all that much. He never made that leap after Uncle Ben's death. They try to act like he does, and then the second film starts and he is exactly the same kid who is more concerned with the matters of his heart then anything else. It is like the pro-ASM crowd likes to forget that he was willing to simply abandon his post as the hero of New York because he is a teenager in love. The same guy who was suppose to learn that great power = great responsibly at the end of the first film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lucas View Post
Actually no,you probably can't understand how is to promise something like that,too stay away from the love of your life but then again.... "It's not his choice".
I didn't see MJ anywhere.

__________________
"I've been running scams on the street since I was ten. I was kicked out of the flight academy for having a mind of my own. I'm going be a pilot. Best in the galaxy."

- Baron Harkonnen (Star Wars Episode IV: The Fellowship of the Ring)

Last edited by DarthSkywalker; 07-12-2014 at 06:01 AM.
DarthSkywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 06:44 AM   #106
BRAB
Eaten by Lizards
 
BRAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,010
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker View Post
The problem isn't Garfield. I find him charming. The problem is the writing. He just isn't Peter, more so he is written like he is a member of the "me" crowd.

There seems to be some believe that because certain kids are a certain way these days, means that all kids are that way. Do people think all kids were like Peter Parker back in the 60s?

Also the character hasn't really changed all that much. He never made that leap after Uncle Ben's death. They try to act like he does, and then the second film starts and he is exactly the same kid who is more concerned with the matters of his heart then anything else. It is like the pro-ASM crowd likes to forget that he was willing to simply abandon his post as the hero of New York because he is a teenager in love. The same guy who was suppose to learn that great power = great responsibly at the end of the first film.


I didn't see MJ anywhere.
House of M, who's Peter with if everyone survives?

For that bolded bit, do you mean at the end of the second film?

__________________
2/9/15

The biggest day in CBM History. He is Home.


Vale P.J.H 63*
BRAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 07:12 AM   #107
DarthSkywalker
May the Force Be With You
 
DarthSkywalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 85,670
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAB View Post
House of M, who's Peter with if everyone survives?
Wait, you are going to use that one story to avoid the years of comics that have established the love and growth between MJ and Spidey? Not to mention the obvious problems with the House of M "ideal" state. There is a reason the first Spidey trilogy started MJ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAB View Post
For that bolded bit, do you mean at the end of the second film?
Yes.

__________________
"I've been running scams on the street since I was ten. I was kicked out of the flight academy for having a mind of my own. I'm going be a pilot. Best in the galaxy."

- Baron Harkonnen (Star Wars Episode IV: The Fellowship of the Ring)

Last edited by DarthSkywalker; 07-12-2014 at 07:15 AM.
DarthSkywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 09:25 AM   #108
BRAB
Eaten by Lizards
 
BRAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,010
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker View Post
Wait, you are going to use that one story to avoid the years of comics that have established the love and growth between MJ and Spidey? Not to mention the obvious problems with the House of M "ideal" state. There is a reason the first Spidey trilogy started MJ.


Yes.
Well in Spider-Man blue, we see the effect Gwen's death had not only on Peter, but MJ too. I genuinly do think Gwen's death was essential to the MJ we see today, and I think it brought Peter and MJ together. I think there's no doubt Peter loved Gwen, and I think there's no doubt Peter loved MJ too (I think they're not together in the main series anymore), I think Peter+MJ was always tainted a tad by Gwen's death. Obviously MJ>Gwen, but Gwen's still important and one of the love's of Peter's life (I'm talking as if they're real people that's bad)

I think it's pretty understandable he stopped, both film Spider-Man iterations have quit the job at some point, one quit because he couldn't handle the pressure, the other quit out of pure devestation, and spent the entire time at his girfriend's grave.

__________________
2/9/15

The biggest day in CBM History. He is Home.


Vale P.J.H 63*
BRAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 10:00 AM   #109
Kahran Ramsus
Side-Kick
 
Kahran Ramsus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Sunshine State
Posts: 11,251
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

The circumstances behind them quitting were entirely different though, and it is why Maguire's Peter is more sympathetic in doing so.

In SM2, being Spider-Man is basically tearing his life apart. He loses both MJ and Harry because of it, the only two real friends he has ever had. He loses his job. He's flunking out of college. Aunt May's about to lose her house. He can't make his rent payments to the point where he's in danger of being evicted. And he loses faith that he is making any sort of difference with criminals like Doc Ock running around terrorizing the city. Ultimately the stress of all of that makes him physically ill and lose his powers. It is a massive struggle and he quits when he no longer can even be Spider-Man anymore because he no longer has the ability. Once he learns how much the city really needs Spider-Man and becomes comfortable with who he is, his powers return and so does he.

That's much better than in TASM2, where it is basically just him pining for his girlfriend. In TASM2, quitting comes off as being a far more selfish decision.

Kahran Ramsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 10:27 AM   #110
Angryfantasyfan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,384
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAB View Post
Well in Spider-Man blue, we see the effect Gwen's death had not only on Peter, but MJ too. I genuinly do think Gwen's death was essential to the MJ we see today, and I think it brought Peter and MJ together. I think there's no doubt Peter loved Gwen, and I think there's no doubt Peter loved MJ too (I think they're not together in the main series anymore), I think Peter+MJ was always tainted a tad by Gwen's death. Obviously MJ>Gwen, but Gwen's still important and one of the love's of Peter's life (I'm talking as if they're real people that's bad)

I think it's pretty understandable he stopped, both film Spider-Man iterations have quit the job at some point, one quit because he couldn't handle the pressure, the other quit out of pure devestation, and spent the entire time at his girfriend's grave.
That's a new one. How does Gwen's death taint their relationship?

Angryfantasyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 10:37 AM   #111
BRAB
Eaten by Lizards
 
BRAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,010
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Perhaps taint is the wrong word. I'm trying to say it's as if, not in a negative way, she's there, because of the way she affected them both and brought them together.

__________________
2/9/15

The biggest day in CBM History. He is Home.


Vale P.J.H 63*
BRAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 12:31 PM   #112
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,152
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus View Post
The circumstances behind them quitting were entirely different though, and it is why Maguire's Peter is more sympathetic in doing so.

In SM2, being Spider-Man is basically tearing his life apart. He loses both MJ and Harry because of it, the only two real friends he has ever had. He loses his job. He's flunking out of college. Aunt May's about to lose her house. He can't make his rent payments to the point where he's in danger of being evicted. And he loses faith that he is making any sort of difference with criminals like Doc Ock running around terrorizing the city. Ultimately the stress of all of that makes him physically ill and lose his powers. It is a massive struggle and he quits when he no longer can even be Spider-Man anymore because he no longer has the ability. Once he learns how much the city really needs Spider-Man and becomes comfortable with who he is, his powers return and so does he.

That's much better than in TASM2, where it is basically just him pining for his girlfriend. In TASM2, quitting comes off as being a far more selfish decision.
Maguire's Peter has a rough go of it and does succumb to the pressures in his life causing him to become ill and powerless. But it's as if none of that other stuff really matters and his only reasoning for quitting was to be with MJ. It's of course, all about a girl. And the GPcGR meant nothing to him apparently since he wouldn't take Ben's hand because of his selfish reasoning of "I'm in love with MJ." So there he is all powerless now and first comes across a guy getting mugged in an alley way. Does that cause his powers to return? Nope. He doesn't even call out for help for the poor guy. GPcGR....yeah right. Next, he comes across a burning building with occupants trapped. Does that inspire the return of his powers? Nope. But hey at least he attempted to rescue and succeeded in getting that girl out. No idea why she was in there by herself in the first place but ok. Someone still dies though much like Uncle Ben died cause you know Peter was having life difficulties and couldn't deal with GPcGR. Now Ock comes and kidnaps MJ and BOOM, powers return! How convenient. Seems pretty selfish to me that only his love for MJ is what brings him back to the powered state.

Garfield's Peter quit because of guilt over the death of Gwen. You know, if my love were to die suddenly and there's a chance one could say that I had an indirect cause of that death, then yeah, you can bet your ass I would need some serious recovery time and that would involve being out of work for awhile. And I get paid for the job I do, unlike Peter here who only does this because. Totally understandable why Peter in ASM2 takes time off from being Spidey but at least he does return, and why, it's because the city needs him, now more than ever. It's his responsibility that brings him back. He must be greater than what he suffers.

UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 12:42 PM   #113
Doctor Octopus
Banned User
 
Doctor Octopus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,422
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateWebhead View Post
Maguire's Peter has a rough go of it and does succumb to the pressures in his life causing him to become ill and powerless. But it's as if none of that other stuff really matters and his only reasoning for quitting was to be with MJ. It's of course, all about a girl. And the GPcGR meant nothing to him apparently since he wouldn't take Ben's hand because of his selfish reasoning of "I'm in love with MJ." So there he is all powerless now and first comes across a guy getting mugged in an alley way. Does that cause his powers to return? Nope. He doesn't even call out for help for the poor guy. GPcGR....yeah right. Next, he comes across a burning building with occupants trapped. Does that inspire the return of his powers? Nope. But hey at least he attempted to rescue and succeeded in getting that girl out. No idea why she was in there by herself in the first place but ok. Someone still dies though much like Uncle Ben died cause you know Peter was having life difficulties and couldn't deal with GPcGR. Now Ock comes and kidnaps MJ and BOOM, powers return! How convenient. Seems pretty selfish to me that only his love for MJ is what brings him back to the powered state.
That is a completely incorrect analysis of it. His powers always came through when he really needed them, like when Ock attacked the bank and was endangering lives, including Aunt May. The chap who was mugged in the alley was not a life and death situation. The point of it was Peter was being selfish turning his back like he did. The movie did not make him look right or heroic for it. Peter looked conflicted and upset when doing it. That was he lesson he learned in Spider-Man 2. The conflict that mirrored Ock's. Both of them were being irresponsible for something they wanted, their dreams. And in the end they both took responsibility for their actions.

When MJ was abducted it was another life and death situation like at the bank. Ock said he would kill MJ if Peter didn't bring him Spider-Man. His powers did not come back just because it was MJ in danger. If that was the case his powers would have gone again at the train, since saving those people had nothing to do with MJ. Nor did stopping Ock at the bank and saving Aunt May. Not to mention Peter had already consciously decided to be Spider-Man again before MJ was abducted. That's why he rejected MJ in the cafe just before she was taken.

Quote:
Garfield's Peter quit because of guilt over the death of Gwen. You know, if my love were to die suddenly and there's a chance one could say that I had an indirect cause of that death, then yeah, you can bet your ass I would need some serious recovery time and that would involve being out of work for awhile. And I get paid for the job I do, unlike Peter here who only does this because. Totally understandable why Peter in ASM2 takes time off from being Spidey but at least he does return, and why, it's because the city needs him, now more than ever. It's his responsibility that brings him back. He must be greater than what he suffers.
Garfield's Peter was a fool. He had no reason to feel guilty about Gwen's death. He didn't bring her there. He tried to stop her, both with words, and physically when he webbed her to the Police car. As she told him repeatedly it was her decision and her choice to be there. Not his. Peter's guilt was unwarranted.

There was no blame on Peter's part at all. But they wrote the situation that he blames himself and quits just so we could have that corny shallow moment where he makes a big heroic comeback in that embarrassingly cheesy Rhino scene at the end with the child dressed as Spider-Man.

It was all weak dramatic fluff with no emotional weight or validity to it to make it believable. The only sympathy he deserved was for losing the girl he loved. Everything else with his moping, and self blame, and quitting being Spider-Man was all invalid nonsense that made Peter look foolish and selfish, and worst of all the movie did not portray it that way. It expected people to empathize with him for this. It's a poor handling of Peter Parker.


Last edited by Doctor Octopus; 07-12-2014 at 02:00 PM.
Doctor Octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 03:14 PM   #114
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,152
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That is a completely incorrect analysis of it.
Disagree. My analysis is pretty on point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
His powers always came through when he really needed them, like when Ock attacked the bank and was endangering lives, including Aunt May.
Yeah, the point is, his powers only came back when HE needed them, for his selfish reasons, not because someone else needed him.

And even during the bank fight his powers were faltering. That definitely wouldn't have happened if poor MJ was in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
The chap who was mugged in the alley was not a life and death situation.
Anyone who is being assaulted is potentially in a life-threatening situation. How are you so certain neither of those fellows doing the mugging didn't have a gun or a knife?? One wrong move and that guy could have suffered some serious trauma. Even a well-placed punch to the kidneys or head could have serious implications and may even cause death. Your claim here is nonsense. I really hope you're not a cop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
The point of it was Peter was being selfish turning his back like he did. The movie did not make him look right or heroic for it. Peter looked conflicted and upset when doing it.
Being conflicted about being selfish doesn't make him any less selfish. Where did the GPcGR go?? Sorry Uncle Ben, I can't take your hand cause I love MJ and stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That was he lesson he learned in Spider-Man 2. The conflict that mirrored Ock's. Both of them were being irresponsible for something they wanted, their dreams. And in the end they both took responsibility for their actions.
This may not seem like it based on my posts here but I actually adore SM2. I just don't feel that the rendition of PP is so untouchably perfect like many seem to indicate. There's plenty of fault as much as there is plenty to rave about. Same goes for Garfield's PP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
When MJ was abducted it was another life and death situation like at the bank. Ock said he would kill MJ if Peter didn't bring him Spider-Man. His powers did not come back just because it was MJ in danger.
The only reason his powers came back full force was because MJ was in danger. That's it. Otherwise his powers, if still active, were faltering or just iffy. If it's when people are in danger then why didn't his powers come back during that mugging? A guy was being assaulted for christ sakes. Or why didn't his powers come back with people trapped in that burning building? Your argument is kinda weak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
If that was the case his powers would have gone again at the train, since saving those people had nothing to do with MJ. Nor did stopping Ock at the bank and saving Aunt May. Not to mention Peter had already consciously decided to be Spider-Man again before MJ was abducted. That's why he rejected MJ in the cafe just before she was taken.
His powers had only returned because MJ was kidnapped. The reason his powers stayed intact during the train fight is because he was trying to stop Ock so he could find out where MJ was being kept. That's what started the entire altercation between him and Ock. Stopping the train was about saving those people, yes, but that's not why Peter showed up to confront Ock in the first place. It's all about a girl. MJ was in danger.

And even when he decided to be Spider-Man again his powers wouldn't return, he even leapt off a building and they didn't come back. Talk about people in danger...his own life was in danger and they didn't come back. Gotta have MJ get kidnapped for his powers to return cause that's all PP really cares about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Garfield's Peter was a fool. He had no reason to feel guilty about Gwen's death.
Gwen's death had everything to do with Peter being Spider-Man and her involvement with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
He didn't bring her there.
He stopped her from going to England. The only reason she was even there in the first place was because Peter didn't let her go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
He tried to stop her, both with words, and physically when he webbed her to the Police car. As she told him repeatedly it was her decision and her choice to be there. Not his. Peter's guilt was unwarranted.
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
There was no blame on Peter's part at all. But they wrote the situation that he blames himself and quits just so we could have that corny shallow moment where he makes a big heroic comeback in that embarrassingly cheesy Rhino scene at the end with the child dressed as Spider-Man.
That moment played out great for me but I guess it comes down to different strokes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
It was all weak dramatic fluff with no emotional weight or validity to it to make it believable.
Disagree. Different strokes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Everything else with his moping, and self blame, and quitting being Spider-Man was all invalid nonsense that made Peter look foolish and selfish, and worst of all the movie did not portray it that way. It expected people to empathize with him for this. It's a poor handling of Peter Parker.
I believe certain things could have been illustrated better however his inability to continue being Spider-Man due to Gwen's death is not coming from a selfish place. Am I considered selfish if I take time away from work because my wife dies?? And like I said before, Peter isn't getting paid for this gig. It's all because he's attempting to use his powers responsibly. Protecting the city is his main focus and it's ok that he loses that because of his immense loss. It's very understandable. But...he comes back for the right reasons. To continue on even in the face of such a horrible loss. He must be greater than what he suffers--it so very eloquently sums up the existence of Spider-Man.


Last edited by UltimateWebhead; 07-12-2014 at 03:17 PM.
UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 03:41 PM   #115
Doctor Octopus
Banned User
 
Doctor Octopus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,422
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateWebhead View Post
Disagree. My analysis is pretty on point.
The incorrect point.

Quote:
Yeah, the point is, his powers only came back when HE needed them, for his selfish reasons, not because someone else needed him.
That is incorrect again. That was the point of the scene where he saved the child from the burning building. He was able to do it without the use of his powers. He could never have saved Aunt May or MJ from Doc Ock without his powers.

Quote:
And even during the bank fight his powers were faltering. That definitely wouldn't have happened if poor MJ was in danger.
His power faltered briefly once, before Aunt May was even taken hostage. Apart from that he was fully functioning in the entire scene.

Quote:
Anyone who is being assaulted is potentially in a life-threatening situation. How are you so certain neither of those fellows doing the mugging didn't have a gun or a knife?? One wrong move and that guy could have suffered some serious trauma. Even a well-placed punch to the kidneys or head could have serious implications and may even cause death. Your claim here is nonsense. I really hope you're not a cop.
Muggers who have guns or knives don't need to beat seven shades out of someone to get what they want. They threaten them with those weapons. They don't resort to fisticuffs.

Your strawman argument about how something could potentially be fatal can be applied to many situations. A single punch to the head can be fatal. That doesn't mean a superhero needs to intervene every time a brawl breaks out between two people because a punch may be fatal.

Quote:
Being conflicted about being selfish doesn't make him any less selfish. Where did the GPcGR go?? Sorry Uncle Ben, I can't take your hand cause I love MJ and stuff.
Being conflicted about his choice shows he has a conscience and is very unhappy with his decision. Selfish people, truly selfish people, wouldn't care. Peter does. Once again I feel you are deliberately ignoring that Peter being wrong for doing this was intentional and the whole point of the story. He was being irresponsible, and it was his lesson in the movie to learn that he can't give up being Spider-Man for a carefree life.

A story they covered in the comic books, too, where Peter gave up being Spider-Man, when he still had his powers, too.

Quote:
This may not seem like it based on my posts here but I actually adore SM2. I just don't feel that the rendition of PP is so untouchably perfect like many seem to indicate. There's plenty of fault as much as there is plenty to rave about. Same goes for Garfield's PP.
I agree there are flaws, but not in the case of Spider-Man 2. If the movie was trying to convey that there was nothing wrong with Peter walking away from a mugging, I would agree that is a flaw. But it was not.

Quote:
The only reason his powers came back full force was because MJ was in danger. That's it. Otherwise his powers, if still active, were faltering or just iffy. If it's when people are in danger then why didn't his powers come back during that mugging? A guy was being assaulted for christ sakes. Or why didn't his powers come back with people trapped in that burning building? Your argument is kinda weak.
I must again refute this argument with my previous aforementioned example. His powers never failed him when he had to save Aunt May. His powers never failed him when he had to save the train full of people.

He did not need his powers to save the child in the burning building. He didn't try and save the guy being mugged in the alley. That was the point of the saving the child scene. Peter ignored the mugging, and felt guilty. He was going to ignore the burning building scenario when he realized he wasn't Spider-Man any more as I'm sure you recall he goes to pull off his shirt and then realizes his costume is not there. Then he goes and decides to help anyway. He saves the child and then learns afterward someone else had been in there, too and died.

It was like he fails whether he acts or not. That's why we see him in the next scene standing by his window looking forlorn and asking himself what is he supposed to do? Whether he acts or not someone suffers. That was the beauty and tragedy of his personal conflict.

Quote:
His powers had only returned because MJ was kidnapped. The reason his powers stayed intact during the train fight is because he was trying to stop Ock so he could find out where MJ was being kept. That's what started the entire altercation between him and Ock. Stopping the train was about saving those people, yes, but that's not why Peter showed up to confront Ock in the first place. It's all about a girl. MJ was in danger.
That is incorrect I'm afraid. He did not need to stop the train to stop Ock. Ock was not even on the train. Ock cleared off and left Spider-Man to stop the train on his own. Spider-Man stopped the train because it was the right thing to do. Many lives were in danger.

His powers came back because he could not save MJ or stop Ock without them. The same reason why they didn't fail him when he had to save Aunt May from Ock.

Quote:
And even when he decided to be Spider-Man again his powers wouldn't return, he even leapt off a building and they didn't come back. Talk about people in danger...his own life was in danger and they didn't come back. Gotta have MJ get kidnapped for his powers to return cause that's all PP really cares about.
If you stop and think about what you just said you'll see the contradiction. If his powers had not come back then he would have been dead from the fall.

Even if his powers had not come back, he had already consciously decided he was Spider-Man again. If it was all about MJ he wouldn't have rejected her. Nor would he have rejected her again at the end in the scene in the web after Ock has been foiled.

It would also be remiss of me not to point out that in the interim period of Spider-Man 1 and 2, which was 2 years, he was actively Spider-Man saving people daily. That has nothing to do with MJ.

Quote:
Gwen's death had everything to do with Peter being Spider-Man and her involvement with him.
That is not his fault. She chose to be there of her own free will despite his numerous efforts to stop her. His conscience is clear.

Quote:
He stopped her from going to England. The only reason she was even there in the first place was because Peter didn't let her go.
Stopping her from going to England doesn't equate to making her going to the power plant and put herself in the firing line. The movie itself even has her character spell that out to the audience. She was there by her own choice. Not Peter's or anyone else's.

It would be like if you took your girlfriend to the theatre, there was a hold up and she got shot dead in the process. That would not be your fault just because you brought her to the theatre.

Peter did not and could not anticipate that Gwen would want to put herself in danger like she did, and when she did say so, he tried to stop her, verbally, and physically.

Gwen made her own decisions, and the consequences of them are entirely her own fault.

Quote:
I believe certain things could have been illustrated better however his inability to continue being Spider-Man due to Gwen's death is not coming from a selfish place. Am I considered selfish if I take time away from work because my wife dies?? And like I said before, Peter is getting paid for this gig. It's all because he's attempting to use his powers responsibly. Protecting the city is his main focus and it's ok that he loses that because of his immense loss. It's very understandable. But...he comes back for the right reasons. To continue on even in the face of such a horrible loss. He must be greater than what he suffers--it so very eloquently sums up the existence of Spider-Man.
If you take time off work to grieve, people don't suffer, get hurt, or die because you've taken time off your job. Someone fills in for you. When Spider-Man quits, nobody replaces him, and crime rates go up.

Peter was not even suffering from power loss. He simply chose to quit being Spider-Man out of some phony guilt that was unwarranted and silly. It was all false fluffy emotional padding for the ending to do that big heroic comeback.

But none of it was based on anything genuine.


Last edited by Doctor Octopus; 07-12-2014 at 03:48 PM.
Doctor Octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 05:35 PM   #116
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,152
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
The incorrect point.
I'm making a valid argument on a point that I deem to be correct. Are we going to go back and forth on this one? Yes. No. Yes. No.

Maybe, we should just let this one go and shake hands and say you think I'm incorrect and I think I'm correct. I'm all for having a fun, open, level-headed conversation with you but let's just drop this one, Ok?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That is incorrect again. That was the point of the scene where he saved the child from the burning building. He was able to do it without the use of his powers. He could never have saved Aunt May or MJ from Doc Ock without his powers.
Your initial argument is that his powers came back to him when someone was in danger. If that was an accurate statement his powers would have returned when someone was screaming that people were trapped in the burning building.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
His power faltered briefly once, before Aunt May was even taken hostage. Apart from that he was fully functioning in the entire scene.
But that's the point. If people were in danger, Ock robbing the bank and beating up security, why would his powers falter in the first place??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Muggers who have guns or knives don't need to beat seven shades out of someone to get what they want. They threaten them with those weapons. They don't resort to fisticuffs.

Your strawman argument about how something could potentially be fatal can be applied to many situations. A single punch to the head can be fatal. That doesn't mean a superhero needs to intervene every time a brawl breaks out between two people because a punch may be fatal.
Ok...there is some serious baloney going on here. The entire point of this, as I was trying to make clear, is that a man is outnumbered and being physically assaulted. He is crying out for help. Peter witnesses this and...does. Nothing. Now granted, he doesn't have his powers but why not?? According to you if someone is in danger, which this guy obviously is, shouldn't his powers return?? But even if they don't Peter still does nothing. He doesn't also call out for help, try to get other people's attention, whatever, no, he just turns and walks away fully knowing this guy is getting smacked down and injured. Now, whether or not this guy ends up dead is entirely a chance thing. I don't care what sort of way you wanna twist this, someone being assaulted could potentially be in a life or death situation. I'm guessing you have never taken a self defense course or whatever cause one of the first things they teach you, is that someone, anyone could be armed. Especially a couple of guys willing to commit a crime, in broad daylight. Either one of them having a knife or gun is a smart assumption. To dismiss this, is, well, naive or ignorant. But...that's besides the point, really. Peter is still a superhero and he ignores the GPcGR when someone is calling out for help. Feeling conflicted about it doesn't make his act of selfishness and disregard for human safety any less appalling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Being conflicted about his choice shows he has a conscience and is very unhappy with his decision. Selfish people, truly selfish people, wouldn't care. Peter does. Once again I feel you are deliberately ignoring that Peter being wrong for doing this was intentional and the whole point of the story. He was being irresponsible, and it was his lesson in the movie to learn that he can't give up being Spider-Man for a carefree life.

A story they covered in the comic books, too, where Peter gave up being Spider-Man, when he still had his powers, too.
Yeah, I've read those stories from the comics. Pretty good ones too if you ask me.

I understand the argument that Peter was being irresponsible. I totally get that. They're trying to paint a picture of Peter being upset about his lack of responsibility, it's just that, imo, this was a horrible way to make that point.

Giving up Spider-Man so he could have a carefree life does not excuse his behavior during that scene. He saw someone getting assaulted, I mean, for crying out loud, this is the same way that Uncle Ben died! Except in this case, he is actually witnessing the event happening!!...Hello??!! Isn't that what his mantra of GPcGR is all about. Intervening so that other people don't have to suffer his same anguish?? Yet he totally ignores that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I agree there are flaws, but not in the case of Spider-Man 2. If the movie was trying to convey that there was nothing wrong with Peter walking away from a mugging, I would agree that is a flaw. But it was not.
But. It is. I don't have superpowers yet if I came across that very same scene, I would help. Doesn't mean I would run over and start getting physically involved but I would still call out for help. Especially on a crowded street. And I know with today's tech that would be much easier since everyone has a cell phone, for the most part but that doesn't take away how I would react to that scene. But Peter is supposed to be the everyman, someone we all can relate to however that scene is so grossly negligent that even I can't find anything relatable about it. So poorly conceived.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I must again refute this argument with my previous aforementioned example. His powers never failed him when he had to save Aunt May. His powers never failed him when he had to save the train full of people.
His powers only remained intact for the train scene cause it was a means to an end for finding MJ. His whole purpose in that scene was about getting Ock to spill where she was being kept...he didn't show up because Ock was threatening people on the train. That was just a by product of Ock using that to tire Spidey out so he could bind him and take him to Harry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
He did not need his powers to save the child in the burning building. He didn't try and save the guy being mugged in the alley. That was the point of the saving the child scene. Peter ignored the mugging, and felt guilty. He was going to ignore the burning building scenario when he realized he wasn't Spider-Man any more as I'm sure you recall he goes to pull off his shirt and then realizes his costume is not there. Then he goes and decides to help anyway. He saves the child and then learns afterward someone else had been in there, too and died.
Yeah, I remember the scene quite well, in fact, I just watched SM2 the other day on BR. Still so good.

But my whole point about this goes back to people being in danger and he either fails to act ignoring the GPcGR mantra or the fact that his powers are not returning when people are in danger. Why? Cause MJ is not in danger. And maybe Aunt May too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
It was like he fails whether he acts or not. That's why we see him in the next scene standing by his window looking forlorn and asking himself what is he supposed to do? Whether he acts or not someone suffers. That was the beauty and tragedy of his personal conflict.
It would have been better executed had they chose to utilize some better scenes to make this point. That being said, I still love that part in the movie. When the girl, can't remember her name at the moment, comes and brings him some milk and chocolate cake it was so touching. It's like, wow, finally someone is doing something nice for Peter. Great moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That is incorrect I'm afraid. He did not need to stop the train to stop Ock. Ock was not even on the train. Ock cleared off and left Spider-Man to stop the train on his own. Spider-Man stopped the train because it was the right thing to do. Many lives were in danger.
I'm not ignoring that Peter did the right thing. He did. But again, that wasn't the reason he showed up to face Ock. It was all because MJ was kidnapped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
His powers came back because he could not save MJ or stop Ock without them. The same reason why they didn't fail him when he had to save Aunt May from Ock.
His powers came back because MJ was kidnapped. That was clearly shown when he burst up out of all that rubble in the cantina/deli.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
If you stop and think about what you just said you'll see the contradiction. If his powers had not come back then he would have been dead from the fall.
When did his powers come back during that fall?? I must have missed something. Cause in my viewing they never did. If his powers had come back, first off, he would have cleared that jump to the other building. Second, he could have fired out a webline to save himself. But that didn't happen, he got lucky and caught a clothesline and that helped to slow his fall and then landed, not on his feet, but on his back--several times before landing facedown on the pavement. He even injured himself and fortunately, he didn't land directly on his head otherwise, yeah, he'd be dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Even if his powers had not come back, he had already consciously decided he was Spider-Man again. If it was all about MJ he wouldn't have rejected her. Nor would he have rejected her again at the end in the scene in the web after Ock has been foiled.
Ok. Again, he consciously decides to be Spidey again but when he attempts to jump off a building his powers don't come back. Why not??

It's not until MJ is kidnapped that his powers resurface. That is the reason. This has nothing to do with him rejecting her. And let's be fair here, his rejection isn't even Peter being honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
It would also be remiss of me not to point out that in the interim period of Spider-Man 1 and 2, which was 2 years, he was actively Spider-Man saving people daily. That has nothing to do with MJ.
So? What does that mean? The entire focus of these movies is to show how Peter wants to be with MJ. Everything about these films is centered on them. I don't see how it isn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That is not his fault. She chose to be there of her own free will despite his numerous efforts to stop her. His conscience is clear.
Apparently it isn't cause his so riddled with guilt that he loses hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Stopping her from going to England doesn't equate to making her going to the power plant and put herself in the firing line. The movie itself even has her character spell that out to the audience. She was there by her own choice. Not Peter's or anyone else's.
Well, yes it does actually. Had she been on that plane going to England she never would have had the chance to go to the power plant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
It would be like if you took your girlfriend to the theatre, there was a hold up and she got shot dead in the process. That would not be your fault just because you brought her to the theatre.
This is a weird analogy but ok. Like any normal person in this situation, I would still have feelings of self-blame and guilt. Going over the events of the evening in my head, playing it over and over, playing the 'what if' game of maybe had we not gone to the theater in the first place none of this would have happened. Maybe my 'girlfriend' was wanting to go somewhere else and I persisted that we go to the theater instead. I would feel very guilty about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Peter did not and could not anticipate that Gwen would want to put herself in danger like she did, and when she did say so, he tried to stop her, verbally, and physically.

Gwen made her own decisions, and the consequences of them are entirely her own fault.
But he placed her in harms way when he stopped her from going to England. He ignored his own warnings and the warnings of Capt Stacy and decided to be with her no matter what. She never should have been in NYC at that moment to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
If you take time off work to grieve, people don't suffer, get hurt, or die because you've taken time off your job. Someone fills in for you. When Spider-Man quits, nobody replaces him, and crime rates go up.
So he isn't human and he's not allowed to grieve? What sort of standards are you holding this stoic emotionless being? I thought Peter was supposed to be the every man. In your scenario, he isn't. He's not allowed to have feelings? Dang. Just remember that he does come back. He does own up to his responsibilities and that was the whole point of the ending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Peter was not even suffering from power loss. He simply chose to quit being Spider-Man out of some phony guilt that was unwarranted and silly. It was all false fluffy emotional padding for the ending to do that big heroic comeback.

But none of it was based on anything genuine.
Dude, if that's your opinion on the matter. That's fine. I honestly, just can't agree with you on this. I'm not sure what else to say.

UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 05:53 PM   #117
Spider-knight
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Seeing users like ultimatewebhead and doctor octopus fighting about sm2 makes me think of the train scene

Spider-knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 06:57 PM   #118
SpideyK
Side-Kick
 
SpideyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: S[weed]en
Posts: 4,435
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeterMan3 View Post
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
Andrew's Peter just feels more organic to me than Tobey's. So many of the lines in Raimi's series made things feel like a stage play at times. Webb/ Andrew's Peter really struck a chord with me from the jump. Probably because I was an awkward 17 year old when the ASM came out. But even now, as an awkward 19 year old, a lot of things about the portrayal just make sense to me. And, confusingly, some of the aspects of Peter's personality that really make sense to me are the ones that seem like they shouldn't make sense together, yet there they are.

Socially awkward, yet occasionally bold? Yeah, that's me. Getting wrapped up in my own things sometimes and forgetting a little about others, even though he's generally kind and considerate? Yeah, I get that. It can come with being socially awkward and an only child with mostly adults to hang with. You can get pretty introverted like that. And when he gets what may have been his first girlfriend? Ha, yeah, I can see how he messed things up with her so often. (I haven't actually had one [and haven't particularly wanted to have one yet], so I can only assume that I'd have some extra issues in handling certain things as well)

But yeah, hey, I can relate to some things. Maybe it's not exactly the Peter Parker we're all used to, but I like it. He's the Peter we deserve, but not the one we need right now... or something like that.
Don't mistake socially awkward for introverted, though.

They happen to be two very different things, ya know.

SpideyK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 07:41 PM   #119
Doctor Octopus
Banned User
 
Doctor Octopus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,422
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateWebhead View Post
I'm making a valid argument on a point that I deem to be correct. Are we going to go back and forth on this one? Yes. No. Yes. No.

Maybe, we should just let this one go and shake hands and say you think I'm incorrect and I think I'm correct. I'm all for having a fun, open, level-headed conversation with you but let's just drop this one, Ok?
Are you saying you wish to drop this, because the remainder of your post doesn't suggest you are. I am willing to continue this.

Quote:
Your initial argument is that his powers came back to him when someone was in danger. If that was an accurate statement his powers would have returned when someone was screaming that people were trapped in the burning building.
No, I said his powers came back when he needed them to. He did not need his powers to save the child, as the movie showed. He could not possibly have taken on Doc Ock and saved Aunt May or MJ without his powers. That is a complete impossibility.

Quote:
But that's the point. If people were in danger, Ock robbing the bank and beating up security, why would his powers falter in the first place??
Who was in danger when his powers briefly fluctuated apart from himself? Nobody. Ock was attacking him by hurling bags of coins at him. His powers never wavered when he needed them to save someone else. You are pinning all your argument on one very brief blip in an entire fight scene that started in a bank, and continued on a side of a building without any glitch in his powers apart from that one very brief time when nobody except himself was in any direct danger.

Quote:
Ok...there is some serious baloney going on here. The entire point of this, as I was trying to make clear, is that a man is outnumbered and being physically assaulted. He is crying out for help. Peter witnesses this and...does. Nothing. Now granted, he doesn't have his powers but why not?? According to you if someone is in danger, which this guy obviously is, shouldn't his powers return?? But even if they don't Peter still does nothing. He doesn't also call out for help, try to get other people's attention, whatever, no, he just turns and walks away fully knowing this guy is getting smacked down and injured. Now, whether or not this guy ends up dead is entirely a chance thing. I don't care what sort of way you wanna twist this, someone being assaulted could potentially be in a life or death situation. I'm guessing you have never taken a self defense course or whatever cause one of the first things they teach you, is that someone, anyone could be armed. Especially a couple of guys willing to commit a crime, in broad daylight. Either one of them having a knife or gun is a smart assumption. To dismiss this, is, well, naive or ignorant. But...that's besides the point, really. Peter is still a superhero and he ignores the GPcGR when someone is calling out for help. Feeling conflicted about it doesn't make his act of selfishness and disregard for human safety any less appalling.
If there is any baloney going on here I'm afraid it's on your behalf. A man was being mugged in an alley way. He was being beaten up. Peter chose not to act. So you have no basis to assume his powers would or would not have returned in that scenario if he attempted to act to save that man because Peter did not attempt to.

Second, it's an accurate assumption to say neither of them had a gun or a knife. What logical reason would two muggers have to beat someone up in order to get them to give up their money and valuables when they can force them to hand it over with a lethal weapon like a gun or a knife? It defeats the whole point of having them in the first place. That's why muggers wield them. To force someone by threat of using them to give them their valuables.

Third, and this is a jaded point you keep continually ignoring either wilfully or ignorantly, Peter choosing to not act against this was selfish, and that was the whole point. It was meant to be. It was not supposed to paint Peter in a good light. It's showing how he's being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man. It was the lesson he had learn in the movie.

Quote:
Yeah, I've read those stories from the comics. Pretty good ones too if you ask me.
Agreed.

Quote:
I understand the argument that Peter was being irresponsible. I totally get that. They're trying to paint a picture of Peter being upset about his lack of responsibility, it's just that, imo, this was a horrible way to make that point.
In what way? What better way is there to show Peter is being irresponsible than seeing him turn his back on a crime and looking upset and conflicted about it?

Quote:
Giving up Spider-Man so he could have a carefree life does not excuse his behavior during that scene. He saw someone getting assaulted, I mean, for crying out loud, this is the same way that Uncle Ben died! Except in this case, he is actually witnessing the event happening!!...Hello??!! Isn't that what his mantra of GPcGR is all about. Intervening so that other people don't have to suffer his same anguish?? Yet he totally ignores that.
You are repeating the same ignorance that you did above. The movie was not trying to excuse Peter's behaviour in that scene, nor condoning it. In case you missed the dream scene he has with Uncle Ben where he rejects taking Uncle Ben's hand, you would understand he was turning his back on that. That was wrong. That's why the city was suffering from crime. That's why people wanted Spider-Man back. The city was suffering without him, just like when Garfield's Peter quit to wallow in his false guilt. Only in this case Spider-Man 2 gave Peter a justification because his powers were failing, and it was never condoning that was he was doing was right.

Quote:
But. It is. I don't have superpowers yet if I came across that very same scene, I would help. Doesn't mean I would run over and start getting physically involved but I would still call out for help. Especially on a crowded street. And I know with today's tech that would be much easier since everyone has a cell phone, for the most part but that doesn't take away how I would react to that scene. But Peter is supposed to be the everyman, someone we all can relate to however that scene is so grossly negligent that even I can't find anything relatable about it. So poorly conceived.
No it is not. I feel as though you are failing to grasp that nobody, especially Spider-Man 2 itself was saying or trying to convey that Peter turning his back there was right. It wasn't. It was wrong and irresponsible. But he still feels conflict and guilt for it. But that is not saying he did the right thing. Just conveying he is conflicted and guilty about it.

That's not a poor way to show Peter being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man and turning his back on crime.

Quote:
His powers only remained intact for the train scene cause it was a means to an end for finding MJ. His whole purpose in that scene was about getting Ock to spill where she was being kept...he didn't show up because Ock was threatening people on the train. That was just a by product of Ock using that to tire Spidey out so he could bind him and take him to Harry.
Name one moment during the entire fight sequence where he tried to get Ock to spill about where MJ was. He asked him once before the fight even begun, and Ock just sarcastically told him MJ will be just fine, and then challenged Spider-Man to fight him.

Obviously he didn't show up because Ock was threatening people on the train. That did not happen until the end of their fight. But he did not abandon the train in pursuit of Ock when Ock jumped off the train after he ripped out the brakes did he? No he stayed and pushed himself to his physical limits to save those people.

Quote:
Yeah, I remember the scene quite well, in fact, I just watched SM2 the other day on BR. Still so good.

But my whole point about this goes back to people being in danger and he either fails to act ignoring the GPcGR mantra or the fact that his powers are not returning when people are in danger. Why? Cause MJ is not in danger. And maybe Aunt May too.
You have several instances in the movie where he puts himself out there to save people after his powers begin fail. The first is at Octavius' demonstration, and his powers do not fail there. The second is at the bank, and there is only one brief instance where they glitch in that whole entire scene. They work for him for every vital moment he needs them. The third is at the burning building, where he did not need his powers to save the child. The fourth is when MJ is abducted by Ock, and like in the bank he needed his powers to save her and take on Ock.

So the point is when he really needed his powers they were there for him every time. Including in non MJ related incidents.

Quote:
It would have been better executed had they chose to utilize some better scenes to make this point. That being said, I still love that part in the movie. When the girl, can't remember her name at the moment, comes and brings him some milk and chocolate cake it was so touching. It's like, wow, finally someone is doing something nice for Peter. Great moment.
I agree. Her name was Ursula. A sweet girl. She is one of the few people in the movie to show Peter any kindness.

I thought that the point was well portrayed. He doesn't act and someone suffers. He does act and someone still suffers. It's like a no win situation that makes his conflict so compelling.

Quote:
I'm not ignoring that Peter did the right thing. He did. But again, that wasn't the reason he showed up to face Ock. It was all because MJ was kidnapped.
Yes that's right. He could not have saved her from Ock without them. Just like he couldn't have saved Aunt May, or the people on the train without them.

Quote:
His powers came back because MJ was kidnapped. That was clearly shown when he burst up out of all that rubble in the cantina/deli.
Yes, because he could not possibly have saved her without them. So naturally they would come back.

Quote:
When did his powers come back during that fall?? I must have missed something. Cause in my viewing they never did. If his powers had come back, first off, he would have cleared that jump to the other building. Second, he could have fired out a webline to save himself. But that didn't happen, he got lucky and caught a clothesline and that helped to slow his fall and then landed, not on his feet, but on his back--several times before landing facedown on the pavement. He even injured himself and fortunately, he didn't land directly on his head otherwise, yeah, he'd be dead.
His powers came back by the fact that he survived a fifty foot fall, with no serious injury. The impact of landing on that clothes line and smashing into the side of the building, compounded by then falling onto the car and then onto the pavement would have left him a blood stain on the street, or at the least with several shattered bones.

His powers saved his life and let him walk away with no serious injuries other than an ache in his back, a comical nod to the back injury Tobey sustained after making Seabiscuit.

Quote:
Ok. Again, he consciously decides to be Spidey again but when he attempts to jump off a building his powers don't come back. Why not??

It's not until MJ is kidnapped that his powers resurface. That is the reason. This has nothing to do with him rejecting her. And let's be fair here, his rejection isn't even Peter being honest.
I've already covered his powers returning and saving his life.

It has everything to do with him rejecting her. If he was not Spider-Man again then why wouldn't he be with her? Because his only reason for not being with her was because his life as Spider-Man was too dangerous for her. That's why he had tried to be with her romantically after he gave it up.

Quote:
So? What does that mean? The entire focus of these movies is to show how Peter wants to be with MJ. Everything about these films is centered on them. I don't see how it isn't.
It means his life as Spider-Man is not centred around MJ, despite you false assertions that they are.

Quote:
Apparently it isn't cause his so riddled with guilt that he loses hope.
Which is the bad flawed writing.

Quote:
Well, yes it does actually. Had she been on that plane going to England she never would have had the chance to go to the power plant.
Which is as foolish as blaming yourself for taking someone to the theatre where they were shot in a hold up. You cannot anticipate these things. Going to the theatre is as normal as asking someone to stay in town and be with you because you love them. Peter could not have anticipated what happened because of that. He is not to blame. Only Gwen is for going there in spite of Peter trying to stop her. She knew how dangerous it was, but she ignored it and put herself in the firing line. She paid for that foolish choice with her life.

Quote:
This is a weird analogy but ok. Like any normal person in this situation, I would still have feelings of self-blame and guilt. Going over the events of the evening in my head, playing it over and over, playing the 'what if' game of maybe had we not gone to the theater in the first place none of this would have happened. Maybe my 'girlfriend' was wanting to go somewhere else and I persisted that we go to the theater instead. I would feel very guilty about that.
That is all foolishness. You can't blame yourself with a series of what if scenarios. There is no blame to be made for not being psychic and knowing the theatre would be held up any more than you can blame yourself for not predicting a deadly threat would emerge in the city and Gwen would place herself right in the middle of it.

Quote:
But he placed her in harms way when he stopped her from going to England. He ignored his own warnings and the warnings of Capt Stacy and decided to be with her no matter what. She never should have been in NYC at that moment to begin with.
No he did not. Stopping her from going to England did not directly place her in harm's way. That is foolishness and there is no logic to that.

Breaking Captain Stacy's promise to stay away from Gwen is is something he's been doing since the end of the first movie.

Quote:
So he isn't human and he's not allowed to grieve? What sort of standards are you holding this stoic emotionless being? I thought Peter was supposed to be the every man. In your scenario, he isn't. He's not allowed to have feelings? Dang. Just remember that he does come back. He does own up to his responsibilities and that was the whole point of the ending.
Of course he's allowed to grieve. He grieved for her when she died in the comics, too. But he didn't do it by throwing in the towel. Real heroes don't do that.

They grieve privately, they don't take months and months off and let the city go to hell in the mean time.

Doctor Octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 08:02 PM   #120
Spider-knight
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

You know no o e really doesn't give a crap anymore about your opinions guys since you wrote way too much0_0

Spider-knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 08:32 PM   #121
Kahran Ramsus
Side-Kick
 
Kahran Ramsus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Sunshine State
Posts: 11,251
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

In both SM2 and ASM2, it is clearly the wrong decision for Peter to quit. The difference is that in SM2, given that he was mentally and physically falling apart, it is far more understandable why he makes the decision he does. It is far more than just him not being with MJ. NOTHING is going right for him. We can sympathize with him even though he ultimately makes the wrong choice.

In ASM2, Peter's actions have far more shallow reasoning. He doesn't have any real reason to quit aside from grief over Gwen's death. Sure, he would need time to grieve, but we are talking months later. If in real life, somebody mourning over the death of a loved one for months is most definitely not normal. He basically just abandons the city to wallow in self-pity. That's not anywhere near as justifiable as Peter's decision to quit in SM2.

Kahran Ramsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 08:45 PM   #122
Spider-knight
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus View Post
In both SM2 and ASM2, it is clearly the wrong decision for Peter to quit. The difference is that in SM2, given that he was mentally and physically falling apart, it is far more understandable why he makes the decision he does. It is far more than just him not being with MJ. NOTHING is going right for him. We can sympathize with him even though he ultimately makes the wrong choice.

In ASM2, Peter's actions have far more shallow reasoning. He doesn't have any real reason to quit aside from grief over Gwen's death. Sure, he would need time to grieve, but we are talking months later. If in real life, somebody mourning over the death of a loved one for months is most definitely not normal. He basically just abandons the city to wallow in self-pity. That's not anywhere near as justifiable as Peter's decision to quit in SM2.
I know, the only effective way that wouldve happened if this was exactly his fault and her family blamed spidey, failed ben and even George. I just wonder by the rough cut of how much time he was really gone. People have said Andrew's Parker was a jerk which he never was but peter's execution in this film was just sloppy. Please so y, leave the third film alone and let marc webb make the film good and this franchise good.

Spider-knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 09:55 PM   #123
Kahran Ramsus
Side-Kick
 
Kahran Ramsus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Sunshine State
Posts: 11,251
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-knight View Post
I know, the only effective way that wouldve happened if this was exactly his fault and her family blamed spidey, failed ben and even George. I just wonder by the rough cut of how much time he was really gone. People have said Andrew's Parker was a jerk which he never was but peter's execution in this film was just sloppy. Please so y, leave the third film alone and let marc webb make the film good and this franchise good.
One of the writers just left so that's certainly a step in the right direction.

Kahran Ramsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 11:45 PM   #124
BRAB
Eaten by Lizards
 
BRAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,010
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Wow, great discussion UltimateWebhead and Doctor Octopus, read the whole thing!

__________________
2/9/15

The biggest day in CBM History. He is Home.


Vale P.J.H 63*
BRAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2014, 05:45 PM   #125
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,152
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Are you saying you wish to drop this, because the remainder of your post doesn't suggest you are.
Ahh, no, you misunderstand me. I was only referring to dropping the specific part where I keep saying "Correct" and you keep saying "Incorrect." I was saying we should just concede that each one of us is going to keep saying that over and over and we should drop that particular part cause it would get kinda tedious just repeating the same words over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I am willing to continue this.
Yes, me also. I'm enjoying the conversation very much. It's nice to have a level-headed chat with someone. I hate it when people get emotional and start name-calling or just being childish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
No, I said his powers came back when he needed them to. He did not need his powers to save the child, as the movie showed. He could not possibly have taken on Doc Ock and saved Aunt May or MJ without his powers. That is a complete impossibility.
But the person that died in the fire did need Peter to have his powers. That is what I was getting at...his powers come back when he needs them i.e. MJ in danger, but not when other people need him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Who was in danger when his powers briefly fluctuated apart from himself? Nobody. Ock was attacking him by hurling bags of coins at him. His powers never wavered when he needed them to save someone else. You are pinning all your argument on one very brief blip in an entire fight scene that started in a bank, and continued on a side of a building without any glitch in his powers apart from that one very brief time when nobody except himself was in any direct danger.
People in the bank or those on street were potentially in danger. It's quite possible people could have been injured or worse from Ock thrashing around. Go back to your previous post where you said "Ock was attacking the bank and endangering lives."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
If there is any baloney going on here I'm afraid it's on your behalf. A man was being mugged in an alley way. He was being beaten up. Peter chose not to act. So you have no basis to assume his powers would or would not have returned in that scenario if he attempted to act to save that man because Peter did not attempt to.
According to your previous argument, his powers would return when someone was in danger. A man being beaten up by two other men classifies as someone in danger, imo. Peter's failure to act is an entirely different story. I'll cover that one in a bit again though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Second, it's an accurate assumption to say neither of them had a gun or a knife. What logical reason would two muggers have to beat someone up in order to get them to give up their money and valuables when they can force them to hand it over with a lethal weapon like a gun or a knife? It defeats the whole point of having them in the first place. That's why muggers wield them. To force someone by threat of using them to give them their valuables.
Or maybe since there were two of them and the person being mugged was a smaller guy in stature, they'd rather just beat the crap outta him instead of pulling a weapon on him. I'm sure Peter could think of a few times where he was being bullied because of his stature or whatever. The point about them possibly being armed in some fashion is a smart assumption. In my experience and education I will tell you that you should always assume someone is carrying. It's a standard in the line of safety. You'd be unwise to assume differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Third, and this is a jaded point you keep continually ignoring either wilfully or ignorantly, Peter choosing to not act against this was selfish, and that was the whole point. It was meant to be. It was not supposed to paint Peter in a good light. It's showing how he's being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man. It was the lesson he had learn in the movie.
Let me make this clear since it's coming across "jaded." I understand the point the movie is attempting to make with Peter and feeling guilty about his lack of responsibility. It's attempting to paint a picture of Peter acting in a selfish manner. I totally get that. I...just...don't think it was executed well. At all. In fact, for me, it had the reverse effect. His error was one of complete gross negligence and it wasn't just him being irresponsible or selfish, he was ignoring the now totally cemented mantra of GPcGR. This is essentially the exact same scenario in which Ben died. A man wanted to take something from Ben and he said No. Ben was killed. Only difference here is that Peter is witnessing the event as it is happening and he could actually step in and make a difference. That's the whole basis for why he became Spider-Man in the first place--to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen to anyone else. And he's standing right in front of it! But he does nothing. Erroneous. I get what they were going for with Peter but imo this was a truly terrible way to show it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
In what way? What better way is there to show Peter is being irresponsible than seeing him turn his back on a crime and looking upset and conflicted about it?
I'm not sure, man. I'm no writer. I am only able to judge what I see in the final product.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
You are repeating the same ignorance that you did above. The movie was not trying to excuse Peter's behaviour in that scene, nor condoning it. In case you missed the dream scene he has with Uncle Ben where he rejects taking Uncle Ben's hand, you would understand he was turning his back on that. That was wrong. That's why the city was suffering from crime. That's why people wanted Spider-Man back. The city was suffering without him, just like when Garfield's Peter quit to wallow in his false guilt. Only in this case Spider-Man 2 gave Peter a justification because his powers were failing, and it was never condoning that was he was doing was right.
If you remember during the dream sequence with Uncle Ben, Peter makes no mention of all the things that are ailing him and the supposed reasons for him quitting being Spider-Man. The first thing he says it that he is in love with MJ. That's his reason for wanting a normal life.

I understand the movie was not condoning his actions. It's just the actions themselves that I take an issue with and the fact that his powers only seem to come back when MJ is in danger. When they should have returned when others were in danger or when he was consciously willing them back. But they didn't. If they depicted Peter's guilt in another manner, I probably wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
No it is not. I feel as though you are failing to grasp that nobody, especially Spider-Man 2 itself was saying or trying to convey that Peter turning his back there was right. It wasn't. It was wrong and irresponsible. But he still feels conflict and guilt for it. But that is not saying he did the right thing. Just conveying he is conflicted and guilty about it.
I think we're repeating ourselves too much here but alas, I understand the movie's intentions. It's the scenes they utilized to make that point are so badly written.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Name one moment during the entire fight sequence where he tried to get Ock to spill about where MJ was. He asked him once before the fight even begun, and Ock just sarcastically told him MJ will be just fine, and then challenged Spider-Man to fight him.
Peter asking Ock once was all that was needed. We didn't need to hear him ask over and over again. We know the basis for why they are fighting. The audience understands at this point that Spidey needs to subdue Ock in order to get the info he needs. Ock has no intention of giving it up willfully. I guess we could also say this is yet another example of how Tobey's Spider-Man is labeled a mute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Obviously he didn't show up because Ock was threatening people on the train. That did not happen until the end of their fight. But he did not abandon the train in pursuit of Ock when Ock jumped off the train after he ripped out the brakes did he? No he stayed and pushed himself to his physical limits to save those people.
Yup. And I loved that moment.

He saved those people like he saved the others that Ock threw from the train moments beforehand. It's like a game of chess and Ock has Peter's king on the run. Ock gained the upperhand cause he found Peter's weakness. Peter did the right thing here, thankfully but his powers being intact had resurfaced because of MJ, not because of the people in danger on the train.

It would have been better realized had it gone like this. The fight is proceeding as normal and at some point, suddenly, Peter's powers begin to fade for a moment. Maybe he fires some webbing but it doesn't go off or maybe he starts to get that vertigo feeling again. Then, Ock dismantles the train's controls and jumps off. At that moment, Peter is like NO and then jumps to the front of the train his powers now stronger than ever. Because he sees the people in danger. IMO, that would have worked out much better and I think the audience would have a greater appreciation for Peter in that instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
You have several instances in the movie where he puts himself out there to save people after his powers begin fail. The first is at Octavius' demonstration, and his powers do not fail there. The second is at the bank, and there is only one brief instance where they glitch in that whole entire scene. They work for him for every vital moment he needs them. The third is at the burning building, where he did not need his powers to save the child. The fourth is when MJ is abducted by Ock, and like in the bank he needed his powers to save her and take on Ock.

So the point is when he really needed his powers they were there for him every time. Including in non MJ related incidents.
I feel like we're going in circles. Someone died in the burning building yet his powers did not come back for them. A guy was getting mugged and that didn't bring back his powers, someone needed him then too. The only time his powers came back when someone needed him was when MJ was in danger. I'd argue Aunt May too but his powers at the bank faltered long before her involvement. It was just a glitch, but it's still there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I agree. Her name was Ursula. A sweet girl. She is one of the few people in the movie to show Peter any kindness.
Ahh, thank you. Ursula. Yeah, it's one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I thought that the point was well portrayed. He doesn't act and someone suffers. He does act and someone still suffers. It's like a no win situation that makes his conflict so compelling.
I disagree. The point was being made but it was poorly executed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Yes that's right. He could not have saved her from Ock without them. Just like he couldn't have saved Aunt May, or the people on the train without them.
But the people on the train didn't come until much later. The reason his powers were there and stayed there is because MJ was in danger. Even when those people on the train were in danger, MJ's still in danger. That's his whole reasons for getting his powers back. Now, if something happened like I stated above, I think it would have worked out better to showcase how his powers may go but they'll come back when people need him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Yes, because he could not possibly have saved her without them. So naturally they would come back.
It's all about a girl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
His powers came back by the fact that he survived a fifty foot fall, with no serious injury. The impact of landing on that clothes line and smashing into the side of the building, compounded by then falling onto the car and then onto the pavement would have left him a blood stain on the street, or at the least with several shattered bones.
If his powers came back, again, like I said, he would have made that jump. He could have used his webs. It was luck that saved him. The clothesline slowed his fall and when he did fall he was still injured enough that he could barely walk upright. If he'd landed on his head, it would have been a different story. It would have been Peter Parker No More. lol. People have fallen from heigths like this and walked away without any broken bones. It is a possibility. But his powers did not come back in that instance. They never showed it happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
His powers saved his life and let him walk away with no serious injuries other than an ache in his back, a comical nod to the back injury Tobey sustained after making Seabiscuit.
See above. And yes, I do recall the comical nod to his Seabiscuit back injury. I still laughed at that scene with the inside joke they displayed. It was pretty funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
It has everything to do with him rejecting her. If he was not Spider-Man again then why wouldn't he be with her? Because his only reason for not being with her was because his life as Spider-Man was too dangerous for her. That's why he had tried to be with her romantically after he gave it up.
Ok, but he apparently doesn't get his powers back until she is kidnapped. He consciously decides to take up the mantle again to be Spider-Man and his powers don't return. Why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
It means his life as Spider-Man is not centred around MJ, despite you false assertions that they are.
C'mon man, seriously? All three of the Raimi movies are totally centered around Peter and his desire for MJ. "It's all about a girl." It's the biggest reason for him losing his powers. That's what he tells Uncle Ben. You can't possibly be ignoring this fact...the entire Raimi trilogy has everything to do with how much Peter wants to be with MJ. The final scene of SM3 proves that--their relationship is headed towards reconciliation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Which is the bad flawed writing.
Disagree. I mean, sure, all the Spider-Man movies have some flawed writing to certain degrees. ASM2 included. There's plenty to find at fault here in ASM2 with the writing but not this part. It was done well imo. I guess different strokes and all that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Which is as foolish as blaming yourself for taking someone to the theatre where they were shot in a hold up. You cannot anticipate these things. Going to the theatre is as normal as asking someone to stay in town and be with you because you love them. Peter could not have anticipated what happened because of that. He is not to blame. Only Gwen is for going there in spite of Peter trying to stop her. She knew how dangerous it was, but she ignored it and put herself in the firing line. She paid for that foolish choice with her life.
My loved one has just died. You don't think it's acceptable to have these types of thoughts or feelings?? The five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. There's no timetable to any of them nor is there any specific order with the exception of Acceptance. Though you can repeat the stages at any time. I was just playing along with your made-up scenario.

In Peter's scenario, it isn't a random act here. He's a crime fighter. He already has his own worries about Gwen getting hurt and of course the words/warning from Capt Stacy. And rightly so, cause him being Spider-Man already puts his loved ones in danger. There's reason to worry. But he decides to ignore all of that and say I love you and stops her from going to England, well, at least temporarily anyway. I'm sure they were probably gonna catch a later flight or something. But now she's in NY with him when the danger happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That is all foolishness. You can't blame yourself with a series of what if scenarios. There is no blame to be made for not being psychic and knowing the theatre would be held up any more than you can blame yourself for not predicting a deadly threat would emerge in the city and Gwen would place herself right in the middle of it.
Foolish? Yeah, maybe. A part of the grieving process? Absolutely.

The difference here again is I am not a crime fighter. I am not a superhero who regularly is out stopping bad guys. So yeah and act at the theater would not necessarily put the blame on me, unless of course I was the one who persisted on going there in the first place. I would have feelings of guilt about that for sure. I understand that I couldn't have predicted it but that wouldn't stop me from having those thoughts and feelings. It's a process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
No he did not. Stopping her from going to England did not directly place her in harm's way. That is foolishness and there is no logic to that.
Agree to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Breaking Captain Stacy's promise to stay away from Gwen is is something he's been doing since the end of the first movie.
Yeah and look how that turned out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Of course he's allowed to grieve. He grieved for her when she died in the comics, too. But he didn't do it by throwing in the towel. Real heroes don't do that.

They grieve privately, they don't take months and months off and let the city go to hell in the mean time.
I'm not in agreement. I think it's understandable that he took time off from his role as Spider-Man. He's grieveing, and, that makes sense to me. I understand why you say it doesn't to you--I get it. IMO this part of the movie was done well. He comes back for the right reasons and he comes to an even greater understanding of how much the city needs him. Even in the face of such a tremendous loss, he's got to keep on going.


Last edited by UltimateWebhead; 07-13-2014 at 05:51 PM.
UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2018 All Rights Reserved.