The SuperHeroHype Forums  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-13-2014, 05:49 PM   #126
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,103
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-knight View Post
You know no o e really doesn't give a crap anymore about your opinions guys since you wrote way too much0_0
Are you being serious? It's fine if you don't like it but this is a public message board. And one that's filled with nerds, like me People are gonna have debates about certain topics, it's to be expected.

Or maybe you'd prefer my posts more if I were constantly whining about a director's cut for ASM2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAB View Post
Wow, great discussion UltimateWebhead and Doctor Octopus, read the whole thing!
Thanks!

I'm enjoying it too! It's nice to have an open discussion with another level-headed member and Doctor Octopus is a good poster on here.

UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2014, 07:51 PM   #127
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
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.
Well with all due respect there are several elements to this discussion that are being repeated over and over. That is just one of several. If it is getting tedious to you then you're free to drop any of those elements of the discussion you're finding tedious.

Quote:
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.
Thank you. I quite agree.

Quote:
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.
But Peter was unaware someone else was in there. He was only aware there was a child in there:

Peter: "Is anyone in that building?"
Black man: "We think there's a kid stuck on the second floor"

He did not learn about the unfortunate person who died until afterwards when the firemen had put out the blaze and found their body.

Quote:
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."
Potentially in danger from dying from Ock throwing a bag of coins at Spider-Man? Because that was the only time during the entire fight sequence where they failed him. And only for a moment.

Quote:
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.
I stand by that argument. Peter did not try to act so you cannot say with any certainty that his powers would not have returned if he tried to take on those muggers to save that man. You're just making a baseless assumption.

Quote:
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.
That's bullying you're talking about, not mugging. Muggers don't rely on fisticuffs unless they have to. Especially if there's two of them. Usually muggers mug in pairs because they don't have a weapon to threaten with so they use brute force to force someone to hand over their valuables. Logically it's safe to assume that's what was happening in this instance.

There is no sense in going to all the effort of trying to beat someone up for their money when you can get off them quicker and easier by simply brandishing a knife or gun.

Quote:
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.
Once again that is the point. Peter is turning his back on his responsibility. Of course Peter could step in and do something. But he doesn't. You're right it is negligent and selfish. The movie is not implying otherwise. That's why Peter looks so guilty and upset when he turns away.

That is not a terrible way to show Peter has turned his back and is being irresponsible. That was the lesson of the character, and it was mirrored with Doc Ock's conceptually. Both of them were being irresponsible to get their dreams, in Peter's case a happy carefree life. The movie doesn't make Doc Ock's evil actions seem any more righteous than it does to Peter's selfish ones like the one we're discussing.

Quote:
I'm not sure, man. I'm no writer. I am only able to judge what I see in the final product.
Given how passionate you are on this point I felt sure you'd have had some idea on how it should have been done.

Never mind. I was just curious on what you wanted to see.

Quote:
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.
Yes because the power loss was covered in the doctor's scene just before the Uncle Ben scene. The doctor suggested he's not meant to be Spider-Man and that's why he keeps falling. The scene ends with Peter saying he has a choice, then the Uncle Ben scenes picks up with Uncle Ben saying all the things he's been thinking about make him sad, that he's been given a gift, and with great power comes great responsibility. To which Peter replies no he's just Peter Parker now. He's Spider-Man no more.

Quote:
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.
But that is where you're wrong. His powers always come back when he needs them. They did not fail him when saving Aunt May. They did not fail him at Ock's demonstration. They did not fail him when he saved the train. They came back when Ock came back and took MJ because he could not possibly have saved her without them. That's common sense.

Quote:
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.
Well if you agree he only needed to ask once then why would you think he was fighting him to try to get him to talk? He already asked Ock when they met, and Ock didn't tell him.

Supposing you were right and he was trying to get Ock to talk, why did he not pursue Ock when he abandoned the train after ripping out the brakes since this was in your mind all about MJ?

Quote:
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.
That is more foolishness. There was nothing chess like about saving civilians Ock threw off the train. It was Spider-Man doing what he always does. Saving lives.

Going by your argument saving these civilians wouldn't have helped him get any closer to saving MJ. So why did he do it? It's because that's what he does. He's a hero. It was not about MJ.

Quote:
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.
Why would that have been better? He had already consciously decided to be Spider-Man several scenes earlier. As previously demonstrated his powers do not fail him when he is saving lives. They didn't fail at Ock's demonstration. They didn't fail when he saved Aunt May. They didn't fail when he saved the train.

The only time the glitch is when he himself is in any physical danger like when he fell out of the sky, or when Ock was throwing bags of coins at him.

Quote:
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.
He was unaware there was someone else in the burning building. He did not act to save the guy from the muggers so there's no basis to say his powers would have failed him if he had decided to act.

The only time his powers ever failed him was he himself was in physical peril. Never when others were and needed him.

Quote:
I disagree. The point was being made but it was poorly executed.
I still do not see how it was poorly executed.

Quote:
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.
This makes no sense. The people on the train had nothing to do with MJ. He could have left them and pursued Ock to find out where she is because wearing himself out into exhaustion and unconsciousness saving those people would not bring him to MJ.

This is where your argument collapses. If the train rescue was somehow connected to MJ I would agree with you, but it wasn't.

Quote:
It's all about a girl.
No it's about his powers returning when they're needed.

Quote:
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.
Did you see him make any attempt to shoot any webbing when he was falling? I did not. No amount of luck could save someone from falling of a building that high and walking away with nothing more than a back ache. His powers saved him, just like they saved him when he fell out of the sky and landed on those metal pipes on the roof.

Quote:
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?
His powers did return. If he had been powerless he would have been a blood splat on the street when he made that roof jump.

Quote:
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.
You are ignoring that he also told Uncle Ben that he wants a life of his own. It was not just about wanting to be with MJ. Of course that is part of it. But it is not what it is all about. In fact what are the things you see him do once he throws his Spider-Man costume away? Living a normal life. Going to college, studying, fixing his bicycle, doing normal things like strolling down the street and buying hot dogs. He doesn't attempt a reconciliation with MJ until later.

Quote:
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.
If Peter had legitimate reason to feel guilt, like he did with Uncle Ben's death, I would say it was done well. But Peter had no reason for guilt. Gwen chose her own fate. Once again I must stress that she even said that to the audience by telling Peter very clearly she's there because it's her choice.

Quote:
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.
Acceptable to have feelings of grief? Of course. To spend months punishing himself for something that was clearly not his fault, while the city suffers because of his absence, that is not acceptable. Next to breaking Captain Stacy's promise it's the most selfish act ever done by Spider-Man on screen post Uncle Ben's death.

Quote:
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.
He had no worries about Gwen getting hurt at this stage since he had chosen to be with her and go to England with her. According to him breaking promises like the one to Captain Stacy are the best kind of promises to break.

If him being Spider-Man is such a danger to his loved ones then why doesn't he leave Aunt May, and just isolate himself from having any friends and family. Why is it that it's only a girlfriend he can't have? Is his Aunt, the woman who raised him, somehow less important?

Quote:
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.
Being a crime fighter or not doesn't make a difference. Like if you were a Police Officer on your night off, and you went to the theatre and that happened. Your job doesn't make you capable of predicting when danger will strike.

Peter being Spider-Man doesn't make him capable of predicting the future. So he has no reason to feel that stopping Gwen from going to England makes him responsible for her death. That's nonsense. There's no direct correlation there. It was silly false guilt they made him wallow in for months just so they could have that cheesy heroic comeback.

I feel this is compounded even further by the fact that Peter tried to stop Gwen from getting involved, too. His conscience is clear.

Quote:
Yeah and look how that turned out.
That is not the point. You mentioned him breaking that promise like it was new development in TASM-2. He and Gwen had apparently decided that they were not going to allow her father to dictate how they live their lives. But then Peter kept messing her around breaking up with her and then getting back together because according to her he had done that to her so many times, until she had enough and said she was breaking up with him.

Quote:
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.
I understand why they had him do it, it's that his basis for it is weak. It wasn't the grief, it was the guilt. He showed more grief and guilt for her death than he did for Uncle Ben's.

Unlike with Uncle Ben's death he had no reason to be feeling guilty. As for the grief, Peter Parker, no matter how much grief he's under would not wallow in self pity for months and leave the city to suffer in his absence.

Marc Webb has a poor handle on who Peter Parker is, and it's things like this which show it.

Doctor Octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2014, 09:40 PM   #128
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 UltimateWebhead View Post
Are you being serious? It's fine if you don't like it but this is a public message board. And one that's filled with nerds, like me People are gonna have debates about certain topics, it's to be expected.

Or maybe you'd prefer my posts more if I were constantly whining about a director's cut for ASM2?



Thanks!

I'm enjoying it too! It's nice to have an open discussion with another level-headed member and Doctor Octopus is a good poster on here.
I apologize for what I said. I just took Influence from people on this forum

Spider-knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 10:34 AM   #129
SpeterMan3
SpeterTV on YT
 
SpeterMan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Speterville
Posts: 3,405
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpideyK View Post
Don't mistake socially awkward for introverted, though.

They happen to be two very different things, ya know.
Ha, true, but they can very easily go hand in hand. At least in my experience.

__________________
SpeterMan3
MJJ
SpeterMan3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 01:28 PM   #130
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,103
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Well with all due respect there are several elements to this discussion that are being repeated over and over. That is just one of several. If it is getting tedious to you then you're free to drop any of those elements of the discussion you're finding tedious.
Sorry for the delay in my reply. You know, I started out typing this long post to all the points here and realized after going back and looking at the previous ones, you're right. We're repeating quite a bunch of the same stuff over and over. So...I edited my reply quite a bit to cut down on some stuff. I also reedited my replies to be more concise. Feel free though to add in more if you wish but unfortunately I think we are coming to a dead end here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Potentially in danger from dying from Ock throwing a bag of coins at Spider-Man? Because that was the only time during the entire fight sequence where they failed him. And only for a moment.
I'm just going by what you wrote in one of your very first replies to me. You said..."Ock was attacking the bank and endangering lives."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
But Peter was unaware someone else was in there. He was only aware there was a child in there:

Peter: "Is anyone in that building?"
Black man: "We think there's a kid stuck on the second floor"

He did not learn about the unfortunate person who died until afterwards when the firemen had put out the blaze and found their body.

Once again that is the point. Peter is turning his back on his responsibility. Of course Peter could step in and do something. But he doesn't. You're right it is negligent and selfish. The movie is not implying otherwise. That's why Peter looks so guilty and upset when he turns away.

That is not a terrible way to show Peter has turned his back and is being irresponsible. That was the lesson of the character, and it was mirrored with Doc Ock's conceptually. Both of them were being irresponsible to get their dreams, in Peter's case a happy carefree life. The movie doesn't make Doc Ock's evil actions seem any more righteous than it does to Peter's selfish ones like the one we're discussing.
Here's my issue with these two scenes. I get how they were trying to show Peter being irresponsible again because of his carefree life and feel guilt/shame about that but it was just so out of character. Peter was never that irresponsible from the get-go. They painted Peter in SM1 as a really good kid, very responsible, and was basically the poster child for how everyone would want their children to act. It's like they totally disregard everything about who Peter is from the start with his actions in SM2.

They used the mugging scene and the burning building scene to try and show his lack of responsibility. The mugging scene was essentially a replica of how Uncle Ben died and I find it so erroneous that he would walk away from that and do nothing. It's like he learned nothing about GPcGR. I just can't get past that. In the burning building scene he does attempt a rescue of the girl and does succeed. That's great. But because once again people were in danger his powers should have returned and I have an issue with that also. I know they were trying to show how Peter would be brave here but why is he brave at a fire and not a mugging? So weird to me. Obviously had his powers returned he may have been able to save the person that died too. And I also have other issues with the burning building scene that go beyond what we're talking about here. That whole scene was just bad.

Like I said, I'm no writer though but you are correct, I am very passionate about this. Well, like you probably, I am very passionate about everything Spider-Man related. IMO, these scenes did a poor job at making the point they were attempting to make and imo they could have come up with some better written scenes to portray that. I don't have an issue with the point itself but how they executed it.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Yes because the power loss was covered in the doctor's scene just before the Uncle Ben scene. The doctor suggested he's not meant to be Spider-Man and that's why he keeps falling. The scene ends with Peter saying he has a choice, then the Uncle Ben scenes picks up with Uncle Ben saying all the things he's been thinking about make him sad, that he's been given a gift, and with great power comes great responsibility. To which Peter replies no he's just Peter Parker now. He's Spider-Man no more.
The doctor scene was ok. I don't have a problem with it but the whole idea of everything going wrong in his life seems completely underneath his love for MJ. He made it clear to Uncle Ben that's what is bothering him and that is his reason for a normal life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
But that is where you're wrong. His powers always come back when he needs them. They did not fail him when saving Aunt May. They did not fail him at Ock's demonstration. They did not fail him when he saved the train. They came back when Ock came back and took MJ because he could not possibly have saved her without them. That's common sense.
And this again goes back to his powers not returning when other people needed him. The mugging and burning building. Ok, so he turned his back on the person being mugged but I would have liked to see him get blurry vision take off the glasses and then save that guy by helping to beat up those guys. Of course this would have ruined the point of that scene and I already have issues with them using that scene in the first place. It's why I wish they would have used something else instead. It's just so inconsistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Well if you agree he only needed to ask once then why would you think he was fighting him to try to get him to talk? He already asked Ock when they met, and Ock didn't tell him.

Supposing you were right and he was trying to get Ock to talk, why did he not pursue Ock when he abandoned the train after ripping out the brakes since this was in your mind all about MJ?
Since Ock said No or nothing basically, Peter knew he was going to have to beat it out of him. Subdue him and then he'd talk. I think that was made pretty clear and the whole reason they started fighting in the first place. No need to repeat it over and over.

Peter is about doing the right thing. That's why he saved those people on the train. Which makes the mugging scene that much more mind-boggling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That is more foolishness. There was nothing chess like about saving civilians Ock threw off the train. It was Spider-Man doing what he always does. Saving lives.
It was very chess-like imo. They were each trying to beat one another up for different reasons of course. Spidey needs Ock to tell him where MJ is being held and Ock needs Spidey unconscious to bind him and take him to Harry for his tritium. There didn't seem to be a clear winner up until Ock cleverly figured out that Spidey cares about people and he used that to his advantage. Forcing Spidey's hand so-to-speak to stop the train caused him to become so tired that he would be easy to bind and capture. That was a strategy and why I link it to chess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Going by your argument saving these civilians wouldn't have helped him get any closer to saving MJ. So why did he do it? It's because that's what he does. He's a hero. It was not about MJ.
I wasn't really arguing that. My argument was that his powers were only there in the first place because he showed up to fight Ock and find out her location. The train rescue was just Ock using a chess move to get Spidey all worn out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I still do not see how it was poorly executed.
And I don't see how it was executed well. Stalemate? (<--- haha get it? Chess reference. Sorry, that was my best attempt at a quip).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
No it's about his powers returning when they're needed.
Yeah which is related to his feelings about MJ. Again, I would have liked to see his powers returning for other reasons. I think some scene replacements or rewritten scenes would have worked better, in my opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Did you see him make any attempt to shoot any webbing when he was falling? I did not. No amount of luck could save someone from falling of a building that high and walking away with nothing more than a back ache. His powers saved him, just like they saved him when he fell out of the sky and landed on those metal pipes on the roof.
His powers did return. If he had been powerless he would have been a blood splat on the street when he made that roof jump.
Had he cleared the jump, fired out some webbing and then landed in a cool Spidey pose, then yes, I would say that would be a clear definition of his powers returning. There was nothing in that scene that made me think his powers had returned. I don't see it any other way. He was uncoordinated, screaming like he was in danger, and caught onto that clothesline by luck. And he's lucky he landed how he did and not on his head.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
If Peter had legitimate reason to feel guilt, like he did with Uncle Ben's death, I would say it was done well. But Peter had no reason for guilt. Gwen chose her own fate. Once again I must stress that she even said that to the audience by telling Peter very clearly she's there because it's her choice.

Acceptable to have feelings of grief? Of course. To spend months punishing himself for something that was clearly not his fault, while the city suffers because of his absence, that is not acceptable. Next to breaking Captain Stacy's promise it's the most selfish act ever done by Spider-Man on screen post Uncle Ben's death.

He had no worries about Gwen getting hurt at this stage since he had chosen to be with her and go to England with her. According to him breaking promises like the one to Captain Stacy are the best kind of promises to break.

If him being Spider-Man is such a danger to his loved ones then why doesn't he leave Aunt May, and just isolate himself from having any friends and family. Why is it that it's only a girlfriend he can't have? Is his Aunt, the woman who raised him, somehow less important?
All I can say is that everyone grieves differently. The big difference between Gwen and May is that Gwen knows Peter is Spider-Man and still wanted to be with him. And I see how Peter does feel guilty about gwen's death even though you insist he should not. He had all the warning signs from his own "what if something were to happen to you" and Capt Stacy's warning. Peter had all the intention in the world to stay away from Gwen initially and it wasn't until May's little speech to him at the end of ASM he chose to do what his heart wanted. "The best kind" was just a bad line, I agree. Then in ASM2 we learn that he was having a hard time with being with her because he knew it wasn't the safest/best thing for Gwen. His heart wanted her but not his mind/reasoning. Not until he decided to throw caution to the wind and choose to go to England with her. Had he stayed true to his own set of reasoning she never would have been in the situation they ended up in. She never would have made the choice to help Peter. All the events go back to that one point. Peter stops her from going to England. I know you don't agree but that's where his guilt is originating. I also can empathize with giving up his role as Spidey too. He was so broken by that event. How could he fight crime with such a clouded mind and heavy heart? He needed the time to find the strength to pull through. And he did. Now, maybe it could have been better illustrated at the end of the movie but so much was rushed in ASM2 anyway. Oh well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Marc Webb has a poor handle on who Peter Parker is, and it's things like this which show it.
I'm starting to wonder this myself actually. I have no idea if this is a clear case against Marc for some of these wrong doings, not talking about the guilt or Gwen's death--cause I actually thought those were handled well, but the rest of the mess ups in this movie. Is it Marc or is it the poor writing/studio interventions?? I mean, when you have producers like Tolmach making changes to the script during the prinicpal photography stage...that's a bad thing. If it's the latter, how is that Marc's fault? He's steering the ship but he can only work within the confines of the script--so he does have some blame I guess. It's not directly him though. There's the theory that Marc was brought on because he would be a "Yes" man. If that's the case, Marc isn't to blame. He's just doing his job and trying to stand up for something he believes in would probably get him fired and they'd just fill his spot with another "Yes" man.


Last edited by UltimateWebhead; 07-15-2014 at 01:34 PM.
UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 02:29 PM   #131
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
Ha, true, but they can very easily go hand in hand. At least in my experience.
They do unfortunately.

SpideyK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 02:31 PM   #132
jonathancrane
I love Marvel, DC & EC!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Caverns in Arkham Island
Posts: 7,567
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

In the first film, Peter exhibited some arrogance; in the second film, he was not arrogant.

__________________
Life is one vile task after another.
jonathancrane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 02:33 PM   #133
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?

I actually found him much more arrogant in ASM2.

The highfive with that random guy at the graduation, for instance. Woah.

SpideyK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 03:26 PM   #134
Spider-knight
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

I did t really mind the graduation scene. It happens when you're super happy. I feel that way all the time. Indact, I'd do the same thing as well. But they need to be careful with him in the third film and not edit his scenes

Spider-knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 10:27 PM   #135
blake c
Pokemon Master
 
blake c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,521
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

I thought the graduation kiss was very much something 616 Peter would do imo. Idk

__________________

blake c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 11:24 PM   #136
XSpidercideX
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 850
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blake c View Post
I thought the graduation kiss was very much something 616 Peter would do imo. Idk
Yeah, I can see it.


XSpidercideX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 04:33 PM   #137
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
Sorry for the delay in my reply. You know, I started out typing this long post to all the points here and realized after going back and looking at the previous ones, you're right. We're repeating quite a bunch of the same stuff over and over. So...I edited my reply quite a bit to cut down on some stuff. I also reedited my replies to be more concise. Feel free though to add in more if you wish but unfortunately I think we are coming to a dead end here.
I feel the same way. If it's all the same with you we'll wind this one down to an amicable conclusion. Not that I have not enjoyed conversing with you, it's just that all good discussions must come to an end when everything that can be said has been said.

It's a good example that shows these discussions are not designed to try and change someone's mind, just to air your point of view and discuss it.

Quote:
I'm just going by what you wrote in one of your very first replies to me. You said..."Ock was attacking the bank and endangering lives."
Yes I meant that whole sequence as a whole. From when he entered the bank and threw the safe door in Aunt May's direction, to when he was raining down large chunks of debris on the crowd below when he was fighting Spider-Man.

Thank goodness Stan Lee was there to save that woman lol.

Quote:
Here's my issue with these two scenes. I get how they were trying to show Peter being irresponsible again because of his carefree life and feel guilt/shame about that but it was just so out of character. Peter was never that irresponsible from the get-go. They painted Peter in SM1 as a really good kid, very responsible, and was basically the poster child for how everyone would want their children to act. It's like they totally disregard everything about who Peter is from the start with his actions in SM2.
Peter was irresponsible. Aren't you forgetting that not only did he use his powers to make money, but he allowed a criminal to run past him. In the comic books it's even worse, he let the criminal escape just because "It's nothing to do with him".

I don't agree Peter was portrayed as the perfect poster boy. I don't understand why you would take issue with him turning his back like that on his responsibilities when that is something he has done both pre and post Spider-Man, and in the comics, too. Both times he learned a lesson from it.

Quote:
They used the mugging scene and the burning building scene to try and show his lack of responsibility. The mugging scene was essentially a replica of how Uncle Ben died and I find it so erroneous that he would walk away from that and do nothing. It's like he learned nothing about GPcGR. I just can't get past that. In the burning building scene he does attempt a rescue of the girl and does succeed. That's great. But because once again people were in danger his powers should have returned and I have an issue with that also. I know they were trying to show how Peter would be brave here but why is he brave at a fire and not a mugging? So weird to me. Obviously had his powers returned he may have been able to save the person that died too. And I also have other issues with the burning building scene that go beyond what we're talking about here. That whole scene was just bad.
This makes no sense to me. The mugging scene was no replica of the Uncle Ben scene. Uncle Ben was threatened by a man with a gun. This situation was a guy being beaten up for his money. Two different situations, with different levels of danger and risk.

In the burning building situation Peter couldn't have known there was anyone else in danger in there, even if he had his powers. He's not psychic. If it was that easy he could just go around the city and suss out where people are being murdered, held hostage after being kidnapped and so forth. Wouldn't that have been useful to find MJ lol.

Quote:
Like I said, I'm no writer though but you are correct, I am very passionate about this. Well, like you probably, I am very passionate about everything Spider-Man related. IMO, these scenes did a poor job at making the point they were attempting to make and imo they could have come up with some better written scenes to portray that. I don't have an issue with the point itself but how they executed it.
Well I still don't see why you have issue with them. I guess I wanted to see how you would have done to understand what you were looking for as opposed to what we got.

But I suppose it doesn't matter in the long run.

Quote:
The doctor scene was ok. I don't have a problem with it but the whole idea of everything going wrong in his life seems completely underneath his love for MJ. He made it clear to Uncle Ben that's what is bothering him and that is his reason for a normal life.
He made two points clear to Uncle Ben. He loves MJ and that he wanted a life of his own. I feel that was made clear in the follow on scene where they did the raindrops montage with Peter living that normal life he wanted, and none of those scenes involved MJ.

Quote:
And this again goes back to his powers not returning when other people needed him. The mugging and burning building. Ok, so he turned his back on the person being mugged but I would have liked to see him get blurry vision take off the glasses and then save that guy by helping to beat up those guys. Of course this would have ruined the point of that scene and I already have issues with them using that scene in the first place. It's why I wish they would have used something else instead. It's just so inconsistent.
I don't see that as an inconsistency when they did not show him act to save that man being mugged. His powers cannot have any effect if he's not attempting to use them. At this point he believes they are gone. That he's not meant to be Spider-Man that's why they keep failing him as stated per the doctor scene.

I would be negligent not to point out that is also from the comic books.

Quote:
Since Ock said No or nothing basically, Peter knew he was going to have to beat it out of him. Subdue him and then he'd talk. I think that was made pretty clear and the whole reason they started fighting in the first place. No need to repeat it over and over.
That is rather a moot point. There was never any chance Doc Ock was just going to tell Spider-Man where MJ was on the out set. You claimed he just had to ask once where MJ was and that was it.

Obviously he was fighting and pursuing Ock because he was the only one who could lead him to MJ.

Quote:
Peter is about doing the right thing. That's why he saved those people on the train. Which makes the mugging scene that much more mind-boggling.
If Peter is about doing the right thing all the time there would never have been a Spider-Man no more tale all the way back in ASM #50.

Peter was doing the right thing saving those people because he was Spider-Man again. That's what he does when he's Spider-Man. He saves lives.

Quote:
It was very chess-like imo. They were each trying to beat one another up for different reasons of course. Spidey needs Ock to tell him where MJ is being held and Ock needs Spidey unconscious to bind him and take him to Harry for his tritium. There didn't seem to be a clear winner up until Ock cleverly figured out that Spidey cares about people and he used that to his advantage. Forcing Spidey's hand so-to-speak to stop the train caused him to become so tired that he would be easy to bind and capture. That was a strategy and why I link it to chess.
That's not chess like, that's just sound fighting tactics. Ock and Spidey were not defeating each other with pure fisticuffs, so Doc Ock started to try other methods to get the upper hand. It's a key trait to fights between Spider-Man and Doc Ock. Octavius has a nasty habit of using innocent people in peril to get one over on Spider-Man.

Quote:
I wasn't really arguing that. My argument was that his powers were only there in the first place because he showed up to fight Ock and find out her location. The train rescue was just Ock using a chess move to get Spidey all worn out.
But that doesn't make sense. If it had nothing to do with saving MJ, which saving that train didn't, then there's no reason why his powers would not have failed him. The same as why his powers did not fail him at Ock's demonstration. Or how they did not fail him saving Aunt May.

You must admit they were always there when he needed him in the non MJ related incidents.

Quote:
Yeah which is related to his feelings about MJ. Again, I would have liked to see his powers returning for other reasons. I think some scene replacements or rewritten scenes would have worked better, in my opinion.
It was not about his feelings for MJ. It was that he could not have done it without his powers. His powers were always there when he needed them to save someone.

Quote:
Had he cleared the jump, fired out some webbing and then landed in a cool Spidey pose, then yes, I would say that would be a clear definition of his powers returning. There was nothing in that scene that made me think his powers had returned. I don't see it any other way. He was uncoordinated, screaming like he was in danger, and caught onto that clothesline by luck. And he's lucky he landed how he did and not on his head.
The fact that he lived through that fall with no more than a back ache is the clear indication that his powers had returned.

You did not see him attempt to fire a webline or anything else other than make a jump.


Quote:
All I can say is that everyone grieves differently. The big difference between Gwen and May is that Gwen knows Peter is Spider-Man and still wanted to be with him. And I see how Peter does feel guilty about gwen's death even though you insist he should not. He had all the warning signs from his own "what if something were to happen to you" and Capt Stacy's warning. Peter had all the intention in the world to stay away from Gwen initially and it wasn't until May's little speech to him at the end of ASM he chose to do what his heart wanted. "The best kind" was just a bad line, I agree. Then in ASM2 we learn that he was having a hard time with being with her because he knew it wasn't the safest/best thing for Gwen. His heart wanted her but not his mind/reasoning. Not until he decided to throw caution to the wind and choose to go to England with her. Had he stayed true to his own set of reasoning she never would have been in the situation they ended up in. She never would have made the choice to help Peter. All the events go back to that one point. Peter stops her from going to England. I know you don't agree but that's where his guilt is originating. I also can empathize with giving up his role as Spidey too. He was so broken by that event. How could he fight crime with such a clouded mind and heavy heart? He needed the time to find the strength to pull through. And he did. Now, maybe it could have been better illustrated at the end of the movie but so much was rushed in ASM2 anyway. Oh well.
I know everyone grieves differently, but we've already seen how Peter handle grief with Uncle Ben's death, and he didn't curl into a slump for months. That's because that's not who Peter Parker is. The circumstances of her death do not implicate any guilt on his part, and for some reason he chooses to ignore what she said to him about her being there because it's her choice not his or anyone else's. He tried to stop her several times. He has a clear conscience. He tried to prevent it.

Characters like Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and their like are driven by tragedy, not inhibited by it. It's the death of someone that made them into heroes. I feel that's another key element Marc Webb did not understand with Peter.

Quote:
I'm starting to wonder this myself actually. I have no idea if this is a clear case against Marc for some of these wrong doings, not talking about the guilt or Gwen's death--cause I actually thought those were handled well, but the rest of the mess ups in this movie. Is it Marc or is it the poor writing/studio interventions?? I mean, when you have producers like Tolmach making changes to the script during the prinicpal photography stage...that's a bad thing. If it's the latter, how is that Marc's fault? He's steering the ship but he can only work within the confines of the script--so he does have some blame I guess. It's not directly him though. There's the theory that Marc was brought on because he would be a "Yes" man. If that's the case, Marc isn't to blame. He's just doing his job and trying to stand up for something he believes in would probably get him fired and they'd just fill his spot with another "Yes" man.
There is a popular opinion that Marc was hired as opposed to a more well known director because Marc would be easier to manipulate. More of what people would call a yes man so to speak.

We know Avi Arad has a track record of interfering against the director's wishes based on Spider-Man 3. But since Marc Webb has never been vocal about this in any way, unlike Sam Raimi who admitted the creative decisions were not his own on Spider-Man 3.

So since we have no real indication that Mr. Webb was working with any material that was not his own or he didn't want, it's logical to assume this is his vision of Spider-Man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XSpidercideX View Post
Yeah, I can see it.

I cannot. In that comic book panel there MJ initiated the kiss, not Peter. They are not standing on a stage with hundreds of people looking at them either.

Doctor Octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 06:07 PM   #138
XSpidercideX
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 850
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post

I cannot. In that comic book panel there MJ initiated the kiss, not Peter. They are not standing on a stage with hundreds of people looking at them either.
Who cares? It's a high school graduation. Young love. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not something they would show in the 60s comics, but I could definitely see today's Peter doing it. Everyone knew they were dating anyway.

Also, Peter Parker in SM3 did something much worse, he made out with Gwen in front of everyone (including MJ) on stage when he wasn't even dating her. What a jerk.


Last edited by XSpidercideX; 07-16-2014 at 06:22 PM.
XSpidercideX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 05:51 PM   #139
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,103
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
I feel the same way. If it's all the same with you we'll wind this one down to an amicable conclusion. Not that I have not enjoyed conversing with you, it's just that all good discussions must come to an end when everything that can be said has been said.

It's a good example that shows these discussions are not designed to try and change someone's mind, just to air your point of view and discuss it.
Thank you. It's been quite the pleasure conversing with you.

I enjoy being able to have a level-headed discussion with someone about these topics. I understand how people can get emotional about them, since most of us are here due to our passion over these characters and their stories. It seems silly for us to go into such detail over things that are based in fiction but I think it also speaks as to how powerful they can be--our passionate responses to them means they have value.

That being said, I don't understand it when people get so wrapped up in those emotions, they forget to have some fun and to the emboldened--forget to understand the meaning behind these boards. It's not about getting into ridiculous fights over who's better or whatever, it's about having respectful discussions--to express your opinions about specific things and explain your reasoning for liking/hating them. It's not about changing other people's minds about the topics but rather to give them insight as to your rationale. And I think our 'little' debate here is a very good example. No matter of discussion would make either of us change our minds, as we clearly do not agree on the topic at hand, yet, we may learn something we had not previously thought of or realized. I learned a few things from our chat. For example, I had no idea that you, and probably some other people, felt that Peter had a return of his powers during that scene where he jumped off the building. I just hope that I was at least able to communicate to you my reasons for my thoughts here and that it was somewhat understandable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Peter was irresponsible. Aren't you forgetting that not only did he use his powers to make money, but he allowed a criminal to run past him. In the comic books it's even worse, he let the criminal escape just because "It's nothing to do with him".

I don't agree Peter was portrayed as the perfect poster boy. I don't understand why you would take issue with him turning his back like that on his responsibilities when that is something he has done both pre and post Spider-Man, and in the comics, too. Both times he learned a lesson from it.

This makes no sense to me. The mugging scene was no replica of the Uncle Ben scene. Uncle Ben was threatened by a man with a gun. This situation was a guy being beaten up for his money. Two different situations, with different levels of danger and risk.
So, in further explanation...Peter in SM1 was such a good kid. He was portrayed as being very responsible. It wasn't until he got his powers that he became irresponsible. He came home late and didn't help paint the kitchen, then, didn't stop that robber. But once that mistake was made, for the sake of the plot, he goes right back to being responsible again. And you're right, it was portrayed as a worse thing in AF#15. But they also showed a pre-powers Peter with some angst too. He remarked about showing Flash and those popular kids a thing or two if he got the chance. I dunno, I mean, he didn't seem as goody-two shoes in the comics as he was shown to be in SM1. Just my opinion though.

And...I know we don't agree on the mugging scene but for me, it felt like a similar situation to how Uncle Ben died. Someone wanted something he had and he resisted and died for it. The guy getting mugged was also resisting and calling for help. I understand the point they are trying to make but imo it was a bad way to show it. It really made a negative impact on me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Well I still don't see why you have issue with them. I guess I wanted to see how you would have done to understand what you were looking for as opposed to what we got.
That one is on me then, I guess. I'm not a very creative person. I wish I was, I've read some incredible fan-fiction over the years and wish I had a tenth of that ability. This way I could show you something more akin to how I would have liked them to portray his irresponsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
That's not chess like, that's just sound fighting tactics.
Chess is a beautiful game. It's so very basic yet so very orchestrated. It's not just about knowing how to play the game but also knowing how to read your opponent. So, that's where my reasoning comes from in comparing the Ock/Spidey battle. Ock found his weakness and exploited it. Call it good strategy or good fighting tactics...to me, it's like a game of chess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
Characters like Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and their like are driven by tragedy, not inhibited by it. It's the death of someone that made them into heroes. I feel that's another key element Marc Webb did not understand with Peter.
Excellent point! I really like that bold part. Nicely put. I still believe the death of Gwen and the impact on Peter was well done however they could have illustrated it better. Had the end not been so rushed, maybe there would have been more success with that effort.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus View Post
There is a popular opinion that Marc was hired as opposed to a more well known director because Marc would be easier to manipulate. More of what people would call a yes man so to speak.

We know Avi Arad has a track record of interfering against the director's wishes based on Spider-Man 3. But since Marc Webb has never been vocal about this in any way, unlike Sam Raimi who admitted the creative decisions were not his own on Spider-Man 3.

So since we have no real indication that Mr. Webb was working with any material that was not his own or he didn't want, it's logical to assume this is his vision of Spider-Man.
Didn't it take a while before Sam came forward about how things were forced on him in SM3? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't an immediate thing.

We do know though how Arad has his track record of interfering and intervening and we can now add Tolmach to that list, so, I would say there's a very good chance Webb is getting railed here. It may take awhile for this to come to light.

Until then, I agree with you in that part, we have to assume this is the Spider-Man movie Webb wanted.

UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2014, 09:08 PM   #140
ShadowBoxer
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,261
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkTheProdigy View Post
He wasn't a jerk, just an not fully matured "teenager" with all that angst and "my parents/the world doesn't get me" (although they don't because he is different lol) attitude. Comparing to Tobey's Spider-Man, yeah Garfield is a bit more edgier, but I think it fits better than Tobey's awkwardly geeky Spider-man (for example the classroom scene in the beginning of SP3) who looks like he is a completely grown man that should be well done with school and should have already had a job and family. Garfield although being the same age as Maguire when he played Spider-Man, Garfield being 30 now and Maguire being 30ish in SP3, Garfield just looks younger and can pull off the teenager less awkwardly. So it isn't the matter of him being a jerk, its just a different approach, similar to Peter in the different series of comics. Garfield portrays what would be the "modern day" Peter in my opinion.
Speaking of actors that played teen characters well into 20's and 30's was the cast of CW's Smallville. Tom Welling was playing Clark as a high school student well into his 20's nearly 30. It was so awkward seeing him during the classroom scenes as it's a grown man playing a 18 year old kid lol.

ShadowBoxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2014, 10:10 PM   #141
Spider-knight
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

20 year olds always play teen characters and I can imagine them thinking" huh, it's been a long time since i was in high school. It sure Is kinda weird".

Spider-knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2014, 05:21 PM   #142
InspecktahDeck
Side-Kick
 
InspecktahDeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 381
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

I'll take Garfield any day over a Spider-Man who tries to make out with your fiancee the day before your wedding.

InspecktahDeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 01:24 AM   #143
Napoleon
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Genosha
Posts: 2,692
Default Re: why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

Why do people consider Andrew Garfield's Peter a jerk?

1). He isn't depicted as a George McFly über nerd.

2). People for whatever reason hold the character to a ludicrously high moral standard (seriously, we already have Captain America and Superman for that crap).

3). Raimi's films give people the incorrect idea that Peter was some sweet, altruistic little chemistry whiz who never had any attitude problem whatsoever.

Napoleon 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 03:07 AM.

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.