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.
