Andrew Garfield IS Spider-Man!

[C. Lee]

I have a crazy idea....I know it might not work, because it's such a radical and unusual idea....but let's give it a shot anyway.....let's talk about Andrew Garfield.....and the fact that he plays.....SPIDER-MAN.....crazy idea.

[SpideyFan866]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

I have a crazy idea....I know it might not work, because it's such a radical and unusual idea....but let's give it a shot anyway.....let's talk about Andrew Garfield.....and the fact that he plays.....SPIDER-MAN.....crazy idea.

WOAH! Slow down there.

That's too crazy. Even for SHH.

[Jexx]

so... Peter's a douchebag in the comics and people are complaining that the movie is somewhat true to that?

geeze

[Spider-Aziz]

Is Peter a douche in comics? Nah, he's relatable, and part of being relatable is having your moments of being douche
I don't think either version is a douche out of a few moments

Originally Posted by C. Lee

I have a crazy idea....I know it might not work, because it's such a radical and unusual idea....but let's give it a shot anyway.....let's talk about Andrew Garfield.....and the fact that he plays.....SPIDER-MAN.....crazy idea.

Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker, AGAIN
He might be able to have his chocolate milk this time

[ThePhantasm]

So where should Peter's arc go in the second film, and what will Garfield bring to that?

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

So where should Peter's arc go in the second film, and what will Garfield bring to that?

He could be more mature, more responsible, breaks no promise
And earns enough money to buy chocolate milk

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz

He could be more mature, more responsible, breaks no promise
And earns enough money to buy chocolate milk

!oh boy, my first paycheck from the bugle now im going to be able to buy all the chocolate milk i want!"

[SpideyFan866]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

So where should Peter's arc go in the second film, and what will Garfield bring to that?

He should learn that his irresponsibility and immaturity has costs.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by SpideyFan866

He should learn that his irresponsibility and immaturity has costs.

I agree. Doesn't that basically entail Gwen dying? Will that happen?

Maybe he'll realize this in the second film, break up with Gwen... and then Goblin will kill her in the third film anyways, because Osborn will have been keeping tabs on Peter and will know Peter cares for her even though they aren't together.

[SpideyFan866]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I agree. Doesn't that basically entail Gwen dying? Will that happen?

Maybe he'll realize this in the second film, break up with Gwen... and then Goblin will kill her in the third film anyways, because Osborn will have been keeping tabs on Peter and will know Peter cares for her even though they aren't together.

Possibly.

I think he'll begin to learn that in this film and the ultimate lesson in it will be in the third when she dies.

So, it will be a lesson learned over the course of the next to films.

[UltimateWebhead]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

So where should Peter's arc go in the second film, and what will Garfield bring to that?

I think we'll see him learn even more about the role of being responsible and he'll learn more of those lessons the hard way.

Garfield should continue to show why he was the right choice to play this part. He had great depth in ASM. He'll prob be even more comfortable in the role for the sequel, so I'd expect him to have his abilities shining through in his performance.

[Tim_Riggins]

It's pretty obvious that Peter gleefully breaking the promise will hit him even harder when Gwen gets it. Then, it'll be interesting to hear again how stupid that moment was supposed to be......

I find that in TASM, Garfield delivered his best performance ever, and that includes TSN, and Boy A. I'd put TASM first, then TSN and Boy A, he's excellent in Never Let Me Go as well.

[Tim_Riggins]

I wonder if Garfield is going to try to renew his contract after the third movie, I can't imagine anyone else replacing him, and seeing how he loves the character, maybe he could come back for another one, and we all know they're not gonna stop at 3 movies.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Exactly. Relatability. The Peter in TASM isn't relatable. If we're at a point where being a jerk is the only way someone can be relatable, we're in a sad and cynical state. The Peter Parker that led to Spider-Man being an iconic, beloved character wasn't a jerk. He was a guy who was likable because he did the right thing despite the forces levied against him.



That's pure hyperbole. Superman is, despite his power still just a man, who also makes mistakes. And Spider-Man is equally iconic because of the very fact that he is the guy that wasn't descended from the heavens as a savior. He comes from where we all come from and is supposed to show us the level we can rise to despite the personal cost.



In the classic books, Peter was effectively presented as someone who was coming of age, and yet still exceptional. He didn't always make the right choice, but it was with the right intentions. In TASM Peter's choices are often wrong, made from the wrong perspective and with the wrong motivations. That's why he is for so many people unrelatable.



Where did any of that happen in the film? He never managed to protect anyone he loves . He didn't save Ben, Gwen managed to escape purely by luck and her own steam (literally). The one person he could have saved was Captain Stacy and he failed to do that. He even left like a dozen people dangling from the bridge. He didn't even manage to comfort May after the death of her husband. Again, this is the real problem with the film. The structure was faulty because the writing was all over the place. There was no real direction in the film. The only direction that was there was the implied one because it followed the already established material of the comics and the previous films. It didn't stand on its own.



The difference is that we wanted to take the journey with Peter because we LIKED HIM. That's not the case at least thus far with this film series.

And once again, I am agreeing with you

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Exactly. Relatability. The Peter in TASM isn't relatable. If we're at a point where being a jerk is the only way someone can be relatable, we're in a sad and cynical state. The Peter Parker that led to Spider-Man being an iconic, beloved character wasn't a jerk. He was a guy who was likable because he did the right thing despite the forces levied against him.

Thankfully, I didn't find Peter to be anything resembling a jerk in this film, so I found him totally relatable as teenager acting out from grief. Garfield and Webb made him completely likable to me, and I'm sorry you didn't feel the same.

That's pure hyperbole. Superman is, despite his power still just a man, who also makes mistakes. And Spider-Man is equally iconic because of the very fact that he is the guy that wasn't descended from the heavens as a savior. He comes from where we all come from and is supposed to show us the level we can rise to despite the personal cost.

I'm not gonna go into detail here, which is tempting since Superman is my favorite character in all of comics, but C. Lee wants us to keep on topic, so I'll just say, it's NOT hyperbole, at all. Superman is a god raised by humans, and unlike many superheroes, he can practically do anything. As such, the best Superman stories, imo, are morality plays about how much he should do, with regards to interfering, controlling, and enforcing his values on humanity, OR are stories about him being faced with the prospect of being mortal, a concept we have to deal with every day, but is alien to him. Yes, Superman stories try to find ways for us to relate to him, but only in the way that other stories manage to get us to relate to royalty or someone else untouchable - as something we, in life, can't actually relate to at all. Spidey's always been more about actually being one of us, who just chanced into super powers.

In the classic books, Peter was effectively presented as someone who was coming of age, and yet still exceptional. He didn't always make the right choice, but it was with the right intentions. In TASM Peter's choices are often wrong, made from the wrong perspective and with the wrong motivations. That's why he is for so many people unrelatable.

Peter's choices were what many teenagers would make if they were grieving, angry, and recently found themselves with the physical super powers to do something about it. Ultimately, though, he saw beyond his own feelings, took some responsibility, and did the right thing to save the city. And that's why so many people DO find him relatable in this film.

Where did any of that happen in the film? He never managed to protect anyone he loves . He didn't save Ben, Gwen managed to escape purely by luck and her own steam (literally). The one person he could have saved was Captain Stacy and he failed to do that. He even left like a dozen people dangling from the bridge. He didn't even manage to comfort May after the death of her husband.

I'm not talking about the events throughout the movie, before his transformation into "hero," I was talking about the final scene, where he got a confidence boost, first from Aunt May, then from Uncle Ben's voicemail, then from the Spider-man graffiti on the building, THEN from Flash Thompson. That last sequence was about him coming to believe in himself as a hero. And after saving NYC and having the the whole city kind of in love with him, that's where I got a sense of the direction they are going in for the sequel, which explains his much-debated line about promises, implying that he believes he could possibly still spend time with Gwen and keep her safe.

On a side note, the direction and Garfield's acting made it clear to me that he didn't comfort Aunt May because he was too angry at himself to even look at her. And he channeled that anger into a need to find the crook responsible, in a futile attempt to make himself feel less responsible. A very human and relatable reaction, imo.

Again, this is the real problem with the film. The structure was faulty because the writing was all over the place. There was no real direction in the film. The only direction that was there was the implied one because it followed the already established material of the comics and the previous films. It didn't stand on its own.

Again, completely disagree. I saw a very clear direction of this film. I saw Peter's journey as one of a conflicted kid who let his frustrations get the better of him, which led to a person he loved paying the price. He didn't see the lesson in that at first, focusing his new gifts on finding revenge for said loved one - a drive again born out of his own frustrations. But when he unknowingly created something that threatened thousands of lives, he manned up, ultimately put aside his own baggage and need for revenge in order to do the right thing like his Uncle always wanted him to, and became a hero for the entire city in the process. But he's still just a kid, and as Spidey's saga is a coming-of-age story which is not yet complete, he's still got some growing up to do.

The difference is that we wanted to take the journey with Peter because we LIKED HIM. That's not the case at least thus far with this film series.

Again, for many people, it very much is the case. I'm sorry it's not for others, but that's the way the world works. Garfield's performance was soulful and heartbreaking to me, and half the movie I just wanted to give him a big hug. And then cheer him on at the end. So yeah, I liked him. A lot.

[Tim_Riggins]

I think it's pretty clear that some of the others here are out of touch with what being a teenager means and represents.

[TheWallCrawler]

couldn't agree more. The appeal I personally get from the character is that he is just a regular unpopular guy. That being said, it's only the starting ground, from there on out Peter is a pretty lucky with girls and friends, in the long run I mean

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Tim_Riggins

I think it's pretty clear that some of the others here are out of touch with what being a teenager means and represents.

"Being a teenager" is not some sort of meaning-laden symbol representative of anything. People can't be reduced or over-simplified to their age group.

[Nemeres]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

Again, completely disagree. I saw a very clear direction of this film. I saw Peter's journey as one of a conflicted kid who let his frustrations get the better of him, which led to a person he loved paying the price. He didn't see the lesson in that at first, focusing his new gifts on finding revenge for said loved one - a drive again born out of his own frustrations. But when he unknowingly created something that threatened thousands of lives, he manned up, ultimately put aside his own baggage and need for revenge in order to do the right thing like his Uncle always wanted him to, and became a hero for the entire city in the process. But he's still just a kid, and as Spidey's saga is a coming-of-age story which is not yet complete, he's still got some growing up to do.

I do understand why you would see all these things in the film, since they ARE there, thematically. The bit I underlined, though, is an example of what I think Dragon means by "the writing was all over the place", which I couldn't agree more with. His frustrations when he's at the convenience store are about... what? His abandonment issues. The fact that his father wasn't there to tell him the stuff Uncle Ben was telling him. But Uncle Ben was telling him off for another reason altogether to begin with, which was the fact that he'd bailed on May that evening. Because he spent his afternoon on the unrelated (and not necessarily reflective of the "irresponsibility" issue) matter of working with Connors on the formula for limb regrowth (you'd think they would ease up on him if he told them that to begin with). But you take all of that back to the moment when he storms out of the house and heads to the store, and the dramatic reasons behind that moment are just too muddled. Why exactly is it all happening, other than the fact that the traditional Spidey plot requires it to? The abandonment issues, for instance, are COMPLETELY dropped from this point on, and they have nothing to do with what led to the fight, so why is that dramatic moment relying its weight on that particular issue? The movie does get to where you say it does...

a conflicted kid who let his frustrations get the better of him, which led to a person he loved paying the price

... but in a completely unearned and unorganic manner, I'd say. That type of problem is in the movie many, many times.

Just thought I'd chime in.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

Thankfully, I didn't find Peter to be anything resembling a jerk in this film, so I found him totally relatable as teenager acting out from grief. Garfield and Webb made him completely likable to me, and I'm sorry you didn't feel the same.

Don't feel sorry. Perhaps you can relate to the Peter in TASM. That's not what's at issue here. We are talking about a specific character, that of Peter Parker who had been established as not being of the type presented in TASM. Not someone who was purely about his own selfish ends, but the greater good. You see, again, in AF #15, Peter's choice during the robbery scene was based on power and adulation going to his head. In TASM, it's fairly clear that Garfield's Peter would have made that choice spider bite or not. And Peter doesn't deal with Connors/The Lizard (As he does in the comics) out of compassion or for the greater good. It's out of cleaning up yet another mess that he (in another example of poor judgement) feels he created. "I have to stop him, because I created him".

I'm not gonna go into detail here, which is tempting since Superman is my favorite character in all of comics, but C. Lee wants us to keep on topic, so I'll just say, it's NOT hyperbole, at all. Superman is a god raised by humans, and unlike many superheroes, he can practically do anything. As such, the best Superman stories, imo, are morality plays about how much he should do, with regards to interfering, controlling, and enforcing his values on humanity, OR are stories about him being faced with the prospect of being mortal, a concept we have to deal with every day, but is alien to him. Yes, Superman stories try to find ways for us to relate to him, but only in the way that other stories manage to get us to relate to royalty or someone else untouchable - as something we, in life, can't actually relate to at all. Spidey's always been more about actually being one of us, who just chanced into super powers.

Superman has been around for nearly 80 years- and while I don't follow the comics anymore I have read many years worth. Seeing as how the majority of stories are written from his perspective, I'm not clear how you can read them and not relate to him, especially if he's your favorite character. They're essentially presented to put us in his skin and see the world through his eyes. He's given power (Like all superheroes) to change events and he does so to the best of his ability. He's not a god, simply because of his power. Gods have control over the elements. Indeed are supposed to be the reason for nature functioning as it does (God of Thunder, God of Water, just plain God, etc). Superman only reacts to problems. And in his mind and heart he does so from the perspective of a human because he thinks and feels as a human (Gods think of things in the universal since and indeed even see a purpose in the death and misfortune of humans). He is in fact, mortal. He can die. Not easily, but he can. And he knows of death since all those he loves are subject to it.

There's an obvious difference between Peter and Clark Kent (Thank goodness) in that Peter's powers come from an accidental occurrence rather than a grand plan by an advanced mind (Retconning notwithstanding).

Peter's choices were what many teenagers would make if they were grieving, angry, and recently found themselves with the physical super powers to do something about it. Ultimately, though, he saw beyond his own feelings, took some responsibility, and did the right thing to save the city. And that's why so many people DO find him relatable in this film.

Okay. Here's the problem with that concept. As created by Lee and Ditko, Peter is not the average teenager. He was set apart and isolated for not being so. He's a helluva lot more clever and ultimately caring than your average person, teen or adult. And this is a major area where TASM gets the character dead wrong.

Second, in TASM, Peter's grief and anger are horribly misplaced. He's angry at his parents for DYING. He's angry at them for not taking him with them TO DIE. His rants come off like he needs medicating more than a superhero costume. And he's angry years after most humans would have come to terms with it. Especially since he barely knew or would even remember them.

I'm not talking about the events throughout the movie, before his transformation into "hero," I was talking about the final scene, where he got a confidence boost, first from Aunt May, then from Uncle Ben's voicemail, then from the Spider-man graffiti on the building, THEN from Flash Thompson. That last sequence was about him coming to believe in himself as a hero. And after saving NYC and having the the whole city kind of in love with him, that's where I got a sense of the direction they are going in for the sequel, which explains his much-debated line about promises, implying that he believes he could possibly still spend time with Gwen and keep her safe.

Well, hope springs eternal, I guess. But my problem here is that no one gets a confidence boost simply because people tell them nice things. That may help us to be willing to try, but ultimately real confidence comes from doing. Accomplishment. We challenge ourselves and meet the challenge. As for May's and Ben's encouragement- again a problem of the superficiality of the writing. It's as if they've never spoken to Peter in his 17 years. And let's not get into Flash. Definitely a medicinal mood swing. But the nice words would do nothing for Peter's confidence considering that he actually failed in action. Even Connors had to save him when his ability to cling to walls mysteriously disappeared.

On a side note, the direction and Garfield's acting made it clear to me that he didn't comfort Aunt May because he was too angry at himself to even look at her. And he channeled that anger into a need to find the crook responsible, in a futile attempt to make himself feel less responsible. A very human and relatable reaction, imo.

Right. Again, a selfish and self-centered reaction on TASM's Peter's part. He was more concerned about what he felt than what May felt. And that's not right for Peter Parker. He sacrifices himself for others. That his reaction is something that people can look at say: "Yeah, I might do that" isn't the point here. People should be looking at Peter's actions and saying "I hope I can do that if the situation arose". Peter does fail, but he keeps trying and eventually succeeds. Not present in this film.

Again, completely disagree. I saw a very clear direction of this film. I saw Peter's journey as one of a conflicted kid who let his frustrations get the better of him, which led to a person he loved paying the price. He didn't see the lesson in that at first, focusing his new gifts on finding revenge for said loved one - a drive again born out of his own frustrations. But when he unknowingly created something that threatened thousands of lives, he manned up, ultimately put aside his own baggage and need for revenge in order to do the right thing like his Uncle always wanted him to, and became a hero for the entire city in the process. But he's still just a kid, and as Spidey's saga is a coming-of-age story which is not yet complete, he's still got some growing up to do.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing in terms of "direction". As I'd said, yeah, the direction of the storyline is obvious, simply because of what's already been established in both the comics and previous films. I'm saying that if there were no comics or previous films, this particular movie would be a total mess. A film cannot rely on the fact that there will be sequels or source material to justify its story. But this film was totally relying on that. And by a lack of direction, I'm saying that the characters were in a mishmash of motivations that didn't move around a singular point, either pro or con. And by the end of the film, it was as if Peter hadn't grown up at all.

Again, for many people, it very much is the case. I'm sorry it's not for others, but that's the way the world works. Garfield's performance was soulful and heartbreaking to me, and half the movie I just wanted to give him a big hug. And then cheer him on at the end. So yeah, I liked him. A lot.

And for many people it wasn't the case. I don't personally know of one person who walked out of TASM with a positive response. I see alot of folks here who seemed to love the film. But when someone says you have to be of a certain age to get Peter in TASM, then they've clearly forgotten that the character was created by a man in his 40's, and up until now has been beloved by fans of all ages. I've stated repeatedly that I like Garfield and think he can make for an excellent Peter Parker. He just needs a good script to work from. We'll see if he gets it next time around. But Dillon wanting to be Spidey's sidekick doesn't sound like things are going in the right direction.

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Don't feel sorry. Perhaps you can relate to the Peter in TASM. That's not what's at issue here. We are talking about a specific character, that of Peter Parker who had been established as not being of the type presented in TASM. Not someone who was purely about his own selfish ends, but the greater good. You see, again, in AF #15, Peter's choice during the robbery scene was based on power and adulation going to his head. In TASM, it's fairly clear that Garfield's Peter would have made that choice spider bite or not. And Peter doesn't deal with Connors/The Lizard (As he does in the comics) out of compassion or for the greater good. It's out of cleaning up yet another mess that he (in another example of poor judgement) feels he created. "I have to stop him, because I created him".

I have to chime in here a bit. And excuse me for not being a part of the conversation as a whole. But as I personally have stated many times in many threads, this is because ASM is the first part to a whole story. If you don't view it as such, you WILL NOT enjoy it as much.

Superman has been around for nearly 80 years- and while I don't follow the comics anymore I have read many years worth. Seeing as how the majority of stories are written from his perspective, I'm not clear how you can read them and not relate to him, especially if he's your favorite character. They're essentially presented to put us in his skin and see the world through his eyes. He's given power (Like all superheroes) to change events and he does so to the best of his ability. He's not a god, simply because of his power. Gods have control over the elements. Indeed are supposed to be the reason for nature functioning as it does (God of Thunder, God of Water, just plain God, etc). Superman only reacts to problems. And in his mind and heart he does so from the perspective of a human because he thinks and feels as a human (Gods think of things in the universal since and indeed even see a purpose in the death and misfortune of humans). He is in fact, mortal. He can die. Not easily, but he can. And he knows of death since all those he loves are subject to it.

Superman is indeed portrayed as godly in many mediums. In the sense that he is idolized to the point of near-worship. He is a supernatural being whose primary motive is the choice between benevolent and deleterious action toward mankind.

There's an obvious difference between Peter and Clark Kent (Thank goodness) in that Peter's powers come from an accidental occurrence rather than a grand plan by an advanced mind (Retconning notwithstanding).


Okay. Here's the problem with that concept. As created by Lee and Ditko, Peter is not the average teenager. He was set apart and isolated for not being so. He's a helluva lot more clever and ultimately caring than your average person, teen or adult. And this is a major area where TASM gets the character dead wrong.

In TASM he's an average teen in many ways. At least in regards to modern high school kids. But how about the fact that at age 17 (assuming that is his age at the start of the movie) he has no friends. Not a single friend. He is set apart and isolated exactly as you described. He's also extremely intelligent. On par with the professional adults in the film and "second in his class." So explain how they get it "dead wrong."

Second, in TASM, Peter's grief and anger are horribly misplaced. He's angry at his parents for DYING. He's angry at them for not taking him with them TO DIE. His rants come off like he needs medicating more than a superhero costume. And he's angry years after most humans would have come to terms with it. Especially since he barely knew or would even remember them.

Have you never misdirected your grief and anger? How about as a kid? How about with parents that left you as a child and an uncle who just died? No? So then how would you know?

Well, hope springs eternal, I guess. But my problem here is that no one gets a confidence boost simply because people tell them nice things. That may help us to be willing to try, but ultimately real confidence comes from doing. Accomplishment. We challenge ourselves and meet the challenge. As for May's and Ben's encouragement- again a problem of the superficiality of the writing. It's as if they've never spoken to Peter in his 17 years. And let's not get into Flash. Definitely a medicinal mood swing. But the nice words would do nothing for Peter's confidence considering that he actually failed in action. Even Connors had to save him when his ability to cling to walls mysteriously disappeared.


Right. Again, a selfish and self-centered reaction on TASM's Peter's part. He was more concerned about what he felt than what May felt. And that's not right for Peter Parker. He sacrifices himself for others. That his reaction is something that people can look at say: "Yeah, I might do that" isn't the point here. People should be looking at Peter's actions and saying "I hope I can do that if the situation arose". Peter does fail, but he keeps trying and eventually succeeds. Not present in this film.

Peter was attempting to enact vengeance on the man who killed her husband. He thought that would make everything right, (sorta like Bruce in Batman Begins) he was wrong. So in the meantime, he pleads with May to allow him some leeway while he avenges their loved one, he covers her with a blanket when she falls asleep for the first time in days and he eventually brings home the eggs. He is trying to be a good person. Thats all any of us can do. So if you are so certain he's human and relatable, why can't you understand that Peter Parker has to grow up like every one of us?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing in terms of "direction". As I'd said, yeah, the direction of the storyline is obvious, simply because of what's already been established in both the comics and previous films. I'm saying that if there were no comics or previous films, this particular movie would be a total mess. A film cannot rely on the fact that there will be sequels or source material to justify its story. But this film was totally relying on that. And by a lack of direction, I'm saying that the characters were in a mishmash of motivations that didn't move around a singular point, either pro or con. And by the end of the film, it was as if Peter hadn't grown up at all.


And for many people it wasn't the case. I don't personally know of one person who walked out of TASM with a positive response. I see alot of folks here who seemed to love the film. But when someone says you have to be of a certain age to get Peter in TASM, then they've clearly forgotten that the character was created by a man in his 40's, and up until now has been beloved by fans of all ages. I've stated repeatedly that I like Garfield and think he can make for an excellent Peter Parker. He just needs a good script to work from. We'll see if he gets it next time around. But Dillon wanting to be Spidey's sidekick doesn't sound like things are going in the right direction.

Why can't a film series rely on its sequels? Maybe if we have more of that, with careful planning and well thought out first/second/third acts, we wouldnt see series like X-Men with FUBAR continuity and almost every other CBM trilogy with an absolutely sh** third installment.

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Don't feel sorry. Perhaps you can relate to the Peter in TASM. That's not what's at issue here. We are talking about a specific character, that of Peter Parker who had been established as not being of the type presented in TASM. Not someone who was purely about his own selfish ends, but the greater good. You see, again, in AF #15, Peter's choice during the robbery scene was based on power and adulation going to his head. In TASM, it's fairly clear that Garfield's Peter would have made that choice spider bite or not.

Because he's a kid who needs to learn some responsibility, and not just because of the superpowers he'd recently acquired. His intellect was another "great power" that he got carried away with. The crux of his argument with Uncle Ben was about him being so caught up in this great scientific discovery he was on the cusp of, that he lost sight of the needs of those around him. He was finding a scientific/intellectual kinship with Dr. Connors that he had always wanted with his father, and Ben "didn't understand" (he did), so Peter was angry. It had nothing to do with the chocolate milk, and everything to do with his state of mind in that moment. And you're right, his superpowers had little to do with it. The powers just heightened that sense of "Uncle Ben has no idea what I'm going through" which led to that anger. Classic teenage angst only heightened, not defined, by superpowers. A great approach I thought, though clearly you disagree, which is fine.

And Peter doesn't deal with Connors/The Lizard (As he does in the comics) out of compassion or for the greater good. It's out of cleaning up yet another mess that he (in another example of poor judgement) feels he created. "I have to stop him, because I created him".

"Those people on the bridge. Whatever was attacking them...would've killed them. So I've gotta go after it." "That's not your job." "Maybe it is." That was BEFORE he knew he created the Lizard. That's why he chooses to stop him. The later revelation that Connors is the Lizard, only adds to the sense of responsibility he feels.

Superman has been around for nearly 80 years- and while I don't follow the comics anymore I have read many years worth. Seeing as how the majority of stories are written from his perspective, I'm not clear how you can read them and not relate to him, especially if he's your favorite character. They're essentially presented to put us in his skin and see the world through his eyes. He's given power (Like all superheroes) to change events and he does so to the best of his ability. He's not a god, simply because of his power. Gods have control over the elements. Indeed are supposed to be the reason for nature functioning as it does (God of Thunder, God of Water, just plain God, etc). Superman only reacts to problems. And in his mind and heart he does so from the perspective of a human because he thinks and feels as a human (Gods think of things in the universal since and indeed even see a purpose in the death and misfortune of humans). He is in fact, mortal. He can die. Not easily, but he can. And he knows of death since all those he loves are subject to it.

There's an obvious difference between Peter and Clark Kent (Thank goodness) in that Peter's powers come from an accidental occurrence rather than a grand plan by an advanced mind (Retconning notwithstanding).

You're getting a bit specific with your definition of a god. Gods do not necessarily control the elements, and are not so synonymous with nature. YOUR God might be, but there have been plenty of gods worshiped throughout history, some of them with very specific abilities and domains that have nothing to do with the elements. Superman can move planets, burn anything with his eyes, freeze anything with his breath, fly into (and "fix") the sun, create whirlpools in the ocean and fissures in the Earth, be anywhere in an instant. He could destroy our planet in a day if he wanted to. The point is that we recognize gods as all-powerful immortal beings who are not subject to the laws of man or nature, and who hold our fate in their hands. Which Superman essentially is (his immortality can be up for debate depending on the writer, but he's definitely not mortal in the way that you and I are. He doesn't age the same, if at all once he reaches his prime). But he chooses to obey those laws, to not interfere with our politics and impose his values onto us, and to live among us. That's what makes him special. Spider-man, on the other hand, has no choice but to live among us, and he is subject to the same laws, policies and bureaucracies as anyone else, despite his powers, because he really is just one of us. More than that, he's a kid, which means he's subject to the wishes of his legal guardian as well. No one holds Superman to that stuff (except maybe Luthor, lol), because we all see him flying above us, and think of him as this alien god who watches over us. That's the real reason why no one suspects Clark Kent's identity - not just the glasses - because why would anyone want to live as a human when you can be Superman, right?

Okay. Here's the problem with that concept. As created by Lee and Ditko, Peter is not the average teenager. He was set apart and isolated for not being so. He's a helluva lot more clever and ultimately caring than your average person, teen or adult. And this is a major area where TASM gets the character dead wrong.

There have been several incarnations of the character over the last 50 years, and the one that's been around the longest, going back to the early '70's in the Night Gwen Stacy Died, was somewhat cocky, reckless, and a wise-ass. That has been a defining characteristic and flaw with Peter Parker for decades now, and the degree to which they define his personality has varied wildly over the years, but it's always been a part of why many people relate to him. Because he's not just some square, goody-two-shoes boy scout. Spidey is often written has having some form of chip on his shoulder - a good kid, but one who lets his emotions get the better of him sometimes, just like us, who makes mistakes and stupid decisions - so I for one found this incarnation completely faithful to the character I've known in comics and cartoons.

Second, in TASM, Peter's grief and anger are horribly misplaced. He's angry at his parents for DYING. He's angry at them for not taking him with them TO DIE. His rants come off like he needs medicating more than a superhero costume. And he's angry years after most humans would have come to terms with it. Especially since he barely knew or would even remember them.

He's angry because they abandoned him with no explanation. And he never got an explanation from anyone. I'd be angry about that too.

Well, hope springs eternal, I guess. But my problem here is that no one gets a confidence boost simply because people tell them nice things. That may help us to be willing to try, but ultimately real confidence comes from doing. Accomplishment. We challenge ourselves and meet the challenge. As for May's and Ben's encouragement- again a problem of the superficiality of the writing. It's as if they've never spoken to Peter in his 17 years. And let's not get into Flash. Definitely a medicinal mood swing. But the nice words would do nothing for Peter's confidence considering that he actually failed in action. Even Connors had to save him when his ability to cling to walls mysteriously disappeared.

His confidence boost isn't from someone telling him nice things, it's witnessing the impact he's had across the entire city. He defeated the Lizard. NYC loves him.

And Flash's attitude change came when Peter's uncle died. The way Flash clearly related to him at that point indicated that he'd been through something himself, and that's all they needed to tell us, imo. Anything more might have been heavy-handed.

Right. Again, a selfish and self-centered reaction on TASM's Peter's part. He was more concerned about what he felt than what May felt. And that's not right for Peter Parker. He sacrifices himself for others. That his reaction is something that people can look at say: "Yeah, I might do that" isn't the point here. People should be looking at Peter's actions and saying "I hope I can do that if the situation arose". Peter does fail, but he keeps trying and eventually succeeds. Not present in this film.

They should be saying both of those things actually, and imo, his portrayal in this film warrants that. Peter should make mistakes and learn from them, before coming through and saving the day, all of which is present in this film.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing in terms of "direction". As I'd said, yeah, the direction of the storyline is obvious, simply because of what's already been established in both the comics and previous films. I'm saying that if there were no comics or previous films, this particular movie would be a total mess. A film cannot rely on the fact that there will be sequels or source material to justify its story. But this film was totally relying on that. And by a lack of direction, I'm saying that the characters were in a mishmash of motivations that didn't move around a singular point, either pro or con. And by the end of the film, it was as if Peter hadn't grown up at all.

A film isn't a failure if it sets up a sequel, especially with one that presents itself as the beginning to a new saga. The direction for the story was very clear to me as a standalone story, and the last scene was simply setting up a sequel, just more thematically than the usual villain set-up. That doesn't make it any kind of directional mess, imo. And if there were no previous films, I actually think this would be looked at MORE favorably, not less, but of course, there's no way of knowing.

And for many people it wasn't the case. I don't personally know of one person who walked out of TASM with a positive response. I see alot of folks here who seemed to love the film. But when someone says you have to be of a certain age to get Peter in TASM, then they've clearly forgotten that the character was created by a man in his 40's, and up until now has been beloved by fans of all ages. I've stated repeatedly that I like Garfield and think he can make for an excellent Peter Parker. He just needs a good script to work from. We'll see if he gets it next time around. But Dillon wanting to be Spidey's sidekick doesn't sound like things are going in the right direction.

And everyone I know who has seen both versions prefers TASM. Again, funny how the world works. I never said you have to be a certain age to "get" Peter in TASM, so I don't know if that comment was directed at me. I did say he was portrayed like an actual teenager, but anyone who has ever been a teenager can understand that, so I think it can appeal to anyone. Just, obviously, not everyone.

But hey, at least we can agree on Andrew Garfield being a good choice for Peter. That's something. Especially considering the title of this thread, lol.

[Spideyman123]

Sigh

[-Z-]

I think a lot of people forget about the scene in the beginning where Peter sticks up for Gordon when Flash is bullying him. I think this clearly shows Peter is a caring and compassionate person, and also "sets him apart" from the average teenager, as not a single other person at his school intervened. And this was all before he got his powers.

[Anno_Domini]

And then all of a sudden...by making Flash look like a fool...it takes away Peter's compassion.