The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Andrew Garfield IS Spider-Man!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter created the Lizard and the Lizard killed Stacy. Those are the facts...
 
But, c'mon...kids today DO look up to jerks, lol. Boys look up to *******s like Kanye West and girls look up to snobby chicks with homemade sex tapes like Kim Kardashian.

mscott2_zps8791d300.gif
 
Well, I think we are all Spider-Man fans here, despite our differences of opinion about the first film... the real question is where should the second film take the character? You can't change the first movie whether you love it or hate it. But can the 2nd one make things right? Where does his arc go from here?
 
But can the 2nd one make things right? Where does his arc go from here?

The 2nd film can definitely make things right, BUT...that promise again, unless it's really hitting Peter hard where he's starting to realize that maybe he did the wrong thing in the end.
 
But it's not just the money though. It's a dang bottle of chocolate milk as well, lol. Like I said, I just don't "get" that entire scene at all and the biggest downfall in the first hour of the film which I enjoyed the most of the film.

Yeah, I get it. You can't get over the chocolate milk part, and can't or won't recognize it was about the principle, and not the milk itself. If the fan base had been as pedantic as that, Anno, Spider-Man would never have made it past this issue;

AmazingFantasy15Burglar2.jpg


The shady territory I talk about is the criminals. The lie itself was racking Gordon with guilt. It's only shady if someone mentioned someone at Blackgate wasn't working for the mob. Heck, 500+ working for the mob were put behind bars in one film, I wouldn't be surprised if 500 more are found during the next eight years.

Again you're missing the point. We're not told about the individual criminals because it's irrelevant. The fact the movie hammers home is all of these men are locked up and denied rights they should have but don't all because of a lie that Gordon is sitting on.

A lie he could have stopped ANY time but he didn't. That's why he's made to look and feel like a bad guy when all of this comes out in the movie.

The broken promise was more than just about dating someone. It was about keeping someone safe. And while Gotham lived under a lie, things were safe and it was at a peace time throughout those eight years.

It's still nonsense. By that logic Peter should move a million miles away from Aunt May and not have any close friends at all because all of them can be made targets, too, as easily as Gwen could.

Gotham lived under a LIE that had adverse effects on the law and denied inmates their rights. Think of an analogy like this; a married couple is living in wedded bliss, but the husband is sneaking away and having affairs every chance he gets and the wife is blissfully unaware. The hubby lies to her face every day and pretends she's the only one for him.

Is that a good thing? Living in a sham marriage you don't even know about, like living in a sham city that has peace time based on a whopper of a lie? Is that any better than breaking a promise? No, it's not.
 
Its simply asking for faithfulness to the comics. Spider-Man isn't a jerk like most people might be. He's more than that.

Peter was way more of a jerk in the comics, than he's been shown in either of the film universes.
 
Peter was way more of a jerk in the comics, than he's been shown in either of the film universes.

Well, so has Superman quite a lot, but the point is that isn't what their characters are supposed to be. That's just bad writing.
 
Going back to the first 2 pages (and i'm sure ill get yelled at for bringing up old stuff by those I'm referring to) ----

You've really never heard of young boys/teenagers acting out after the death of a loved one/parent? Sorry, but that's not just teenagers "nowadays," that's such a common reaction it might as well be an axiom. He had just gotten his ass kicked trying to avenge his Uncle, after just receiving superhuman powers and trying to deal with everything, and he was frustrated. Definitely not a *****ebag. Plus he more than makes up for it throughout the rest of the film. Ya know, something called 'character development'? He puts the blanket on her while she's sleeping, AND gets a carton of eggs after getting shot and saving the entire city from a giant monster... What a d-bag...

And everyone being up in arms about him "breaking his promise?" Give me a break. He was giving Gwen hope because she was clearly very upset. She just lost her father, and now she's losing the person she loves. He said that to make her feel better... Again, what a d-bag... they even say in the synopsis for TASM2 that that promise is something that still weighs on him. Get over it
 
I just wanna say that I am enjoying reading this civil back-and-forth and haven't had anything constructive to add (except that I want to hug Joker), but this caught my attention:

Spider-Man is NOT like that. Spider-Man is more like Superman.

I can't express how much I disagree with this sentiment. Superman is the ideal to aspire to; Spider-Man has always been about relatability. Superman is the god who leads by example, Spider-man is the KID whose coming-of-age story we are reading. And coming-of-age stories are, by their very nature, about making some dumb/wrong decisions as a kid and learning the consequences of those decisions. Parker's characterization has always been something of a cocky smart-ass. Who also happens to be a brilliant student who loves his family and tries to do the right thing. But he's still a cocky smartass - he's smarter than everyone in the room most of the time, and he knows it - and he still sometimes lets his ego get the better of him and loses sight of what that right thing is.

Peter learned a very valuable lesson in this movie, but that didn't mean his entire personality was "fixed." He learned from Uncle Ben that when you are in a position to help others, it is your moral obligation to do so. That message landed with Peter, loud and clear. But that doesn't have anything to do with the promise he made, and it doesn't change the fact that right now, he thinks he is superman. He thinks, now that he's got "right" on his side, as well as some pretty cool powers, that he can do anything. Including protect those he loves. Because that's part of his character, that ego, that inflated confidence. Feeling like you're young and invincible is a common (and sadly, sometimes fatal) misguided notion with teenagers. That recklessness is what led to that broken promise, not the lack of a lesson learned. And that's what he's unfortunately gonna have to learn all about soon.

Responsibility is a very wide-ranging concept. He learned a big part of it in this installment, but there's still more to it that he unfortunately hasn't wrapped his head around yet, and it's going to cost him another person he cares about. Which is the life of Peter Parker in a nutshell, lol.
 
Last edited:
I think peter breaking the promise will make the death of gwen hit him that much harder. Can't wait to see that ish go down!
 
OMG, so much nonsense in this thread. I am soooooooooo tired of reading that Pete is a *****ebag in the movie, I mean seriously.

Gotta love the backlash as well, like I'm hanging on NeoGAF, and 80 % over there seem to think that TASM is a terrible movie, and that Webb is a hack.

Garfield is fantastic in the movie, point, his Peter Parker is great, he's a *****ebag because what? Aw yeah, he's letting the thief go, and all that, which is basically the same thing in Spidey 1 and I don't remember anyone bashing Parker's character in Spider-Man.

Or is it the scene where he's having fun webbing the car thief? This scene is hilarious, people were cracking up both times I saw it, this is typical Spidey, and honest to God, if you had Spidey's powers, you would be having some fun, plus the guy is a car thief.

Peter breaking the promise at the end, WTF is up with the uproar here? He's a teenager, like it has been said many times in this thread, some of you are delusional if you think you remember how teenagers are, the character is a teenager and is authentic in pretty much every way.

The moment at the end is supposed to bring a smile to your face, he just knows he cant stay away from her, and I dont know, but promises are words ,and are often made to be broken, this is human nature bros.


God, I hope Webb, now that he's gotten the origin stuff out of the way, is going to pull off (and seeing the cast he's assembling, it seems pretty promising) a mind-blowing sequel so that everyone can calm down and admire.
 
OMG, so much nonsense in this thread. I am soooooooooo tired of reading that Pete is a *****ebag in the movie, I mean seriously.

Gotta love the backlash as well, like I'm hanging on NeoGAF, and 80 % over there seem to think that TASM is a terrible movie, and that Webb is a hack.

Garfield is fantastic in the movie, point, his Peter Parker is great, he's a *****ebag because what? Aw yeah, he's letting the thief go, and all that, which is basically the same thing in Spidey 1 and I don't remember anyone bashing Parker's character in Spider-Man.

Or is it the scene where he's having fun webbing the car thief? This scene is hilarious, people were cracking up both times I saw it, this is typical Spidey, and honest to God, if you had Spidey's powers, you would be having some fun, plus the guy is a car thief.

Peter breaking the promise at the end, WTF is up with the uproar here? He's a teenager, like it has been said many times in this thread, some of you are delusional if you think you remember how teenagers are, the character is a teenager and is authentic in pretty much every way.

The moment at the end is supposed to bring a smile to your face, he just knows he cant stay away from her, and I dont know, but promises are words ,and are often made to be broken, this is human nature bros.


God, I hope Webb, now that he's gotten the origin stuff out of the way, is going to pull off (and seeing the cast he's assembling, it seems pretty promising) a mind-blowing sequel so that everyone can calm down and admire.

So much truth in this post.

People just love to hate TASM, when it's great in almost every aspect.
 
Well, its a matter of opinion, we might think that, but others don't.

It's okay, it's just the bashing of Peter's character that's just ridiculous.

But hey, it is a remake with a lot of similar stuff to Spidey 1, hence the hate from a lot of people, practically all the negative reviews on RT have this as their only argument......

It baffles me though that a lot of people don't see that TASM is superior to Spidey 1 in pretty much every aspect, it is, but I'm done trying to figure this out, critics are critics, every person has a different opinion, but like a lot of other people, I value mine most :D
 

The problem with TASM is that Peter is unlikable throughout the film, not simply during the scene with the robbery. In AF #15 Peter has that moment where his ego and hubris are released and he makes a terrible mistake, which he spends his life making up for. But in the overall he's a good guy. He just makes a bad choice. In TASM he's a jerk, constantly making bad choices, before the spider bite and after.

And to the robbery scene in particular, in the very limited space of AF #15, we're given adequate character development to understand why Peter's ego inflates and he makes the poor response during the robbery. He's a nice guy that life has crapped on. So when he develops power, it goes to his head.

Then in Raimi's Spider-Man, we're actually given a scenario where Peter is somewhat justified in his response, but learns that the responsibility of his granted power means he has to be above such pettiness.

But in TASM, the entire concept is so jumbled, and the characters are so incoherently written that the entire scene appears garbled. Everyone is in their own way a jerk. And that's not how the scene is supposed to play out.
All this because Webb felt he had to give a different perspective on a scene that he had no need to present at all.

And the film's problems aren't limited to Peter. Every character is poorly written. Yes, Captain Stacy's request of Peter is silly. Gwen's falling for Peter while he constantly displays such a-holish behavior is bad. Ben dies for making a stupid choice of his own. Connors/Lizard was a poorly constructed villain.

And the real issue is that all of this was done to rebel from the source material, which had perfected the blueprint for creating a complex and troubled character who was still likable. There was no reason for TASM to be a bad film, but Webb and his crew managed to screw it up anyway.
 
I found Peter likable in TASM. He went though alot in the film. I think Peter was more of a moody teenager but that isn't a bad thing for me.

I do think they need to write some more witty dialogue for Andrew as Spider-Man beyond being snarky.
 
I love watching the Joker work.

I just wanna say that I am enjoying reading this civil back-and-forth and haven't had anything constructive to add (except that I want to hug Joker)

You guys are going to give me a swell head in a minute :yay:

I can't express how much I disagree with this sentiment. Superman is the ideal to aspire to; Spider-Man has always been about relatability. Superman is the god who leads by example, Spider-man is the KID whose coming-of-age story we are reading. And coming-of-age stories are, by their very nature, about making some dumb/wrong decisions as a kid and learning the consequences of those decisions. Parker's characterization has always been something of a cocky smart-ass. Who also happens to be a brilliant student who loves his family and tries to do the right thing. But he's still a cocky smartass - he's smarter than everyone in the room most of the time, and he knows it - and he still sometimes lets his ego get the better of him and loses sight of what that right thing is.

Peter learned a very valuable lesson in this movie, but that didn't mean his entire personality was "fixed." He learned from Uncle Ben that when you are in a position to help others, it is your moral obligation to do so. That message landed with Peter, loud and clear. But that doesn't have anything to do with the promise he made, and it doesn't change the fact that right now, he thinks he is superman. He thinks, now that he's got "right" on his side, as well as some pretty cool powers, that he can do anything. Including protect those he loves. Because that's part of his character, that ego, that inflated confidence. Feeling like you're young and invincible is a common (and sadly, sometimes fatal) misguided notion with teenagers. That recklessness is what led to that broken promise, not the lack of a lesson learned. And that's what he's unfortunately gonna have to learn all about soon.

Responsibility is a very wide-ranging concept. He learned a big part of it in this installment, but there's still more to it that he unfortunately hasn't wrapped his head around yet, and it's going to cost him another person he cares about. Which is the life of Peter Parker in a nutshell, lol.

Very nicely put.
 
Peter "is unlikable throughout the film", I say no to this, I find him extremely likeable, but maybe that's because I'm 23, and very young both inside and outside, so I relate.

I don't see much of a problem with the rest of the script, but usually, superhero movies are not known for their great scripts, it's always serviceable, even The Avengers, after seeing it 5 times, I realized that.

The Lizard is not great but IMO, he's not the greatest villain.

TASM is not a bad movie in any way, I'd suggest those who say it is watch really bad movies to understand what bad really is.


See, funny how none of us perceive the same things, I find the characters likeable, and you don't.

The dialogue I find great, very naturalistic, nothing to complain about here.
 
I can't express how much I disagree with this sentiment. Superman is the ideal to aspire to; Spider-Man has always been about relatability.

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.

Superman is the god who leads by example

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.

Spider-man is the KID whose coming-of-age story we are reading. And coming-of-age stories are, by their very nature, about making some dumb/wrong decisions as a kid and learning the consequences of those decisions. Parker's characterization has always been something of a cocky smart-ass. Who also happens to be a brilliant student who loves his family and tries to do the right thing. But he's still a cocky smartass - he's smarter than everyone in the room most of the time, and he knows it - and he still sometimes lets his ego get the better of him and loses sight of what that right thing is.

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 learned a very valuable lesson in this movie, but that didn't mean his entire personality was "fixed." He learned from Uncle Ben that when you are in a position to help others, it is your moral obligation to do so. That message landed with Peter, loud and clear. But that doesn't have anything to do with the promise he made, and it doesn't change the fact that right now, he thinks he is superman. He thinks, now that he's got "right" on his side, as well as some pretty cool powers, that he can do anything. Including protect those he loves. Because that's part of his character, that ego, that inflated confidence. Feeling like you're young and invincible is a common (and sadly, sometimes fatal) misguided notion with teenagers. That recklessness is what led to that broken promise, not the lack of a lesson learned. And that's what he's unfortunately gonna have to learn all about soon.

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.

Responsibility is a very wide-ranging concept. He learned a big part of it in this installment, but there's still more to it that he unfortunately hasn't wrapped his head around yet, and it's going to cost him another person he cares about. Which is the life of Peter Parker in a nutshell, lol.

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.
 
Yeah, I get it. You can't get over the chocolate milk part, and can't or won't recognize it was about the principle, and not the milk itself. If the fan base had been as pedantic as that, Anno, Spider-Man would never have made it past this issue;

AmazingFantasy15Burglar2.jpg




Again you're missing the point. We're not told about the individual criminals because it's irrelevant. The fact the movie hammers home is all of these men are locked up and denied rights they should have but don't all because of a lie that Gordon is sitting on.

A lie he could have stopped ANY time but he didn't. That's why he's made to look and feel like a bad guy when all of this comes out in the movie.



It's still nonsense. By that logic Peter should move a million miles away from Aunt May and not have any close friends at all because all of them can be made targets, too, as easily as Gwen could.

Gotham lived under a LIE that had adverse effects on the law and denied inmates their rights. Think of an analogy like this; a married couple is living in wedded bliss, but the husband is sneaking away and having affairs every chance he gets and the wife is blissfully unaware. The hubby lies to her face every day and pretends she's the only one for him.

Is that a good thing? Living in a sham marriage you don't even know about, like living in a sham city that has peace time based on a whopper of a lie? Is that any better than breaking a promise? No, it's not.


Thank you

Joker.gif
 
One of the major letdowns of the first film, for me, was Peter Parker's characterization. He just wasn't likeable. At points he was simply mean-spirited (his jabs at criminals while dressed as Spider-Man came off more as demeaning and patronizing than witty or clever). He seemed incredibly immature. His quickness to break his promise to Captain Stacy, and his disrespectful comment about "broken promises being the best kind" didn't do any favors to my opinion of the character.
That's what he does with his jabs most of the time, he demeans the receiving end
 
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.

Good post. That was very much the point I was getting at. :up: :up:

It isn't one or the other. It isn't "Peter is relational" or "Peter is inspirational." The character is supposed to be both. In fact, I don't think you can really have one without the other. Together they form likability.
 
Peter was way more of a jerk in the comics, than he's been shown in either of the film universes.
With who? Nick Katzenberg? Or you talk about his days as a teenager with Flash Thompson teasing him?
 
You guys are going to give me a swell head in a minute :yay:

You've earned it though. IMO, you are one of the best posters on this site...well, at least in the Spidey boards. I don't usually go to any of the other sections. I wish I had your debating skills.
 
I can't express how much I disagree with this sentiment. Superman is the ideal to aspire to; Spider-Man has always been about relatability. Superman is the god who leads by example, Spider-man is the KID whose coming-of-age story we are reading. And coming-of-age stories are, by their very nature, about making some dumb/wrong decisions as a kid and learning the consequences of those decisions. Parker's characterization has always been something of a cocky smart-ass. Who also happens to be a brilliant student who loves his family and tries to do the right thing. But he's still a cocky smartass - he's smarter than everyone in the room most of the time, and he knows it - and he still sometimes lets his ego get the better of him and loses sight of what that right thing is.

Peter learned a very valuable lesson in this movie, but that didn't mean his entire personality was "fixed." He learned from Uncle Ben that when you are in a position to help others, it is your moral obligation to do so. That message landed with Peter, loud and clear. But that doesn't have anything to do with the promise he made, and it doesn't change the fact that right now, he thinks he is superman. He thinks, now that he's got "right" on his side, as well as some pretty cool powers, that he can do anything. Including protect those he loves. Because that's part of his character, that ego, that inflated confidence. Feeling like you're young and invincible is a common (and sadly, sometimes fatal) misguided notion with teenagers. That recklessness is what led to that broken promise, not the lack of a lesson learned. And that's what he's unfortunately gonna have to learn all about soon.

Responsibility is a very wide-ranging concept. He learned a big part of it in this installment, but there's still more to it that he unfortunately hasn't wrapped his head around yet, and it's going to cost him another person he cares about. Which is the life of Peter Parker in a nutshell, lol.

:up: Well said.
 
I think some people here just have a problem with Webb's vision of the character maybe, he certainly injects a lot of his personality in there, seen in 500 Days Of Summer.

I related to him much more than I did with Maguire in Spidey, that doesn't make me an ass or anything, I certainly find that a lot of his emotional moments are powerful and sincere.

Agree to disagree........

And the quips when fighting bad guys, how does it come as *****ey or anything? That's Spider-Man, the way he uses his powers, like flickchick says, is like a kid that age would probably use them in real life, do stupid **** or good with it.

Flickchick nails it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,881
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"