The Amazing Spider-Man Daefoe slams TASM

[Vid Electricz]

You just took one of the weakest joke of the movie, so that comparison is kind of bad, and Uncle Bem being a proper father figure isn't the tone, that's an element of the movie, and the one in the original was a father figure too, just didn't need as many scenes to prove that, the moments where both interacted together showed that, and when Bem showed a little of disapointment when Peter started to act differently also had a lot of weight.

It also didn't look like Peter was much of a nerd, he was athletic, smart, atractive, dressed well, and independent. he was just bullied due to the usual movie logics, just like in Raimi's

Boom. There is zero reason that Garfield's Parker should be considered a "nerd".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodNerd

Take your average attractive actor or actress and stick on Nerd Glasses, a lab coat and some mussed hair and clothes to make them Hollywood Homely. They are probably also Hollywood Dateless, and the social ineptitude may only be an Informed Flaw.

To be fair, they did this with both Garfield and Maguire as they are both handsome guys IRL, despite what the movies try to tell us.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, it counts as poorly executed Spidey humor.

For you. Humor is subjective in it's effectiveness for each person. What you call poor, others can call great.

I liked Doc Ock's line in SM2 when dropping Aunt May, "butterfingers", I mean that's gold right there.

That and the little grin on his face when he said it was awesome.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Nerds don't have to be ugly or wear pocket protectors.

If your book smart, have nerdy interest, and outsider status that's enough to be considered a nerd in the 21st century.

Today's nerds are far more fashionable and dateable these days. And that works for Peter Parker because it explains why he has women lined up to date him despite being a nerd.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You just took one of the weakest joke of the movie, so that comparison is kind of bad, and Uncle Bem being a proper father figure isn't the tone, that's an element of the movie, and the one in the original was a father figure too, just didn't need as many scenes to prove that, the moments where both interacted together showed that, and when Bem showed a little of disapointment when Peter started to act differently also had a lot of weight.

It also didn't look like Peter was much of a nerd, he was athletic, smart, atractive, dressed well, and independent. he was just bullied due to the usual movie logics, just like in Raimi's

Both Maguire and Garfield look nerdy.

 

[Lord]

 

[Vid Electricz]

Both Maguire and Garfield are good looking guys dressed up to look nerdy.

fixed.

Exactly. Hollywood's version of a "nerd".

omg. Look at these hopeless nerds! Both SM1 and TASM are guilty of this, but TASM to a greater extent.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

You just took one of the weakest joke of the movie, so that comparison is kind of bad,

Why exactly? There's plenty of bad jokes in Raimi's movies. I'd have expected you to reply with some of the "awesome" jokes. I can't remember many of them though.

and Uncle Bem being a proper father figure isn't the tone, that's an element of the movie, and the one in the original was a father figure too, just didn't need as many scenes to prove that, the moments where both interacted together showed that, and when Bem showed a little of disapointment when Peter started to act differently also had a lot of weight.

Well, Raimi's Uncle Ben was so much a caricature of the "old good guy" that he wasn't able to reprehend Peter properly. When Peter didn't show himself to paint the kitchen, Ben's only response was to leave him a kind message and his dinner in the over. And when he reprehended him for humiliating Flash, Peter told him off and Ben looked down, says he was right (about saying he was not his father) and promised him to pick him up on time.

On the other hand, when Sheen's Ben reprehended Peter, he actually did.

It also didn't look like Peter was much of a nerd, he was athletic, smart, atractive, dressed well, and independent. he was just bullied due to the usual movie logics, just like in Raimi's

He was thin, not athletic, he was heroic (which just needs you to be determined), not a complete inept, average dressed, just like Maguire's. And he was bullied by Flash maybe because, just as properly explained in the movie, Peter was the one facing him up when necessary, threatening Flash's supremacy.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Why exactly? There's plenty of bad jokes in Raimi's movies. I'd have expected you to reply with some of the "awesome" jokes. I can't remember many of them though.

And there are plenty of bad jokes in TASM. The basketball scene? The supposedly "hilarious" discovering of his powers by breaking things and beating people up on the subway. Utterly cringeworthy in every way.

Well, Raimi's Uncle Ben was so much a caricature of the "old good guy" that he wasn't able to reprehend Peter properly. When Peter didn't show himself to paint the kitchen, Ben's only response was to leave him a kind message and his dinner in the over. And when he reprehended him for humiliating Flash, Peter told him off and Ben looked down, says he was right (about saying he was not his father) and promised him to pick him up on time.

On the other hand, when Sheen's Ben reprehended Peter, he actually did.

car·i·ca·ture noun

: a drawing that makes someone look funny or foolish because some part of the person's appearance is exaggerated
: someone or something that is very exaggerated in a funny or foolish way

As you can see, neither of these apply to Raimi's Ben. If you insist that he is though, then Webb's Ben must also be a "caricature" of an overbearing father figure.

Also, the word is "reprimand"

He was thin, not athletic, he was heroic (which just needs you to be determined), not a complete inept, average dressed, just like Maguire's. And he was bullied by Flash maybe because, just as properly explained in the movie, Peter was the one facing him up when necessary, threatening Flash's supremacy.

Peter in TASM was the perfect hollywood nerd:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodNerd

Handsome, intelligent, confident, well dressed-------> and yet everyone treats him like a nerd/loser for no reason at all, yet we're supposed to buy that he is. lol!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And there are plenty of bad jokes in TASM. The basketball scene? The supposedly "hilarious" discovering of his powers by breaking things and beating people up on the subway. Utterly cringeworthy in every way.

car·i·ca·ture noun

: a drawing that makes someone look funny or foolish because some part of the person's appearance is exaggerated
: someone or something that is very exaggerated in a funny or foolish way

As you can see, neither of these apply to Raimi's Ben. If you insist that he is though, then Webb's Ben must also be a "caricature" of an overbearing father figure.

Also, the word is "reprimand"




Peter in TASM was the perfect hollywood nerd:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodNerd

Handsome, intelligent, confident, well dressed-------> and yet everyone treats him like a nerd/loser for no reason at all, yet we're supposed to buy that he is. lol!

Well in the vast majority of Spider-man comics Parker is handsome, intelligent, and well-dressed. Once he gets older he's also more confident.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Well in the vast majority of Spider-man comics Parker is handsome, intelligent, and well-dressed. Once he gets older he's also more confident.

Peter Parker is meant to be the "average" quintessential "everyman". This is how the character has been his his inception. There are bound to be deviations as different artists draw the character all the time. But Tobey fulfilled this role just fine.

In general, nearly every character in comics books is drawn to be handsome and beautiful if you hadn't noticed.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

And there are plenty of bad jokes in TASM. The basketball scene? The supposedly "hilarious" discovering of his powers by breaking things and beating people up on the subway. Utterly cringeworthy in every way.

It's funny you mention those as they're really close to what Raimi did, with Peter breaking stuff in his room. But it was far less cringe-worthy than when Raimi implied Peter's "humanity" had grown.

And yes, the basketball scene is still good.

car·i·ca·ture noun

: a drawing that makes someone look funny or foolish because some part of the person's appearance is exaggerated
: someone or something that is very exaggerated in a funny or foolish way

Then it's properly used in Peter's case.

As you can see, neither of these apply to Raimi's Ben. If you insist that he is though, then Webb's Ben must also be a "caricature" of an overbearing father figure.

You can use the concept "one dimensional" if you want.

But Sheen's Uncle Ben was able to be kind or severe depending on what his parental role required. Rewarding your son for being irresponsible because you can only be kind or let him to shut you up because you can only be kind is embarrassingly one dimensional.

Also, the word is "reprimand"

Reprimand works as much as reprehend. You might as well check your dictionary before correcting other people.

Peter in TASM was the perfect hollywood nerd:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodNerd

Handsome, intelligent, confident, well dressed-------> and yet everyone treats him like a nerd/loser for no reason at all, yet we're supposed to buy that he is. lol!

Do you think that's what I meant when I said "this is till Hollywood and that cliches are going to be there"? I wonder if you're getting it right this time.

But well, the description you give matches the comics, so it's all good.

 

[Vid Electricz]

It's funny you mention those as they're really close to what Raimi did, with Peter breaking stuff in his room. But it was far less cringe-worthy than when Raimi implied Peter's "humanity" had grown.

How so? Now you're making exceptions based on your bias. The Webb slapstick scene isn't goofy and ridiculous, but the Raimi ones are? (When they are, in reality, both goofy and ridiculous). We've got an unrepentant TASM fanboy here!

And yes, the basketball scene is still good.

"Good" how? lol! In what way is it good or superior to the fight with Flash from SM1. Explain.

Then it's properly used in Peter's case.

Or more accurately, in this case! Now what were you saying about Raimi relying on "outdated" nerd stereotypes? That's what I thought. Yikes.

You can use the concept "one dimensional" if you want.

But Sheen's Uncle Ben was able to be kind or severe depending on what his parental role required. Rewarding your son for being irresponsible because you can only be kind or let him to shut you up because you can only be kind is embarrassingly one dimensional.

You seem to be confused. So what you're trying to say is that you didn't care for the kindhearted understanding version of Ben Parker in SM1 and that you liked the overbearing, hard nosed Bed Parker in TASM. That's cool, but don't try to make it sound like it's a fact that the portrayal is one dimensional.

Reprimand works as much as reprehend. You might as well check your dictionary before correcting other people.

Reprimand actually fits better in this context.

Do you think that's what I meant when I said "this is till Hollywood and that cliches are going to be there"? I wonder if you're getting it right this time.

But well, the description you give matches the comics, so it's all good.

Get what right this time? Point out that TASM is as guilty of relying on tropes, stereotypes and cliches as SM1 is? Oh wait, I did that already. The only question is, which of my arguments will you choose to ignore so you can avoid and dodge their vailidity and relevance?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't mind Electro being a nerd cliche but I do mind when it's Peter Parker for an entire trilogy.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

How so? Now you're making exceptions based on your bias. The Webb slapstick scene isn't goofy and ridiculous, but the Raimi ones are? (When they are, in reality, both goofy and ridiculous). We've got an unrepentant TASM fanboy here!

No, I have always admitted than Hollywood puts its cliches everywhere. But some directors decide to put some meat on them and some others just repeat them as the same one dimensional characters and situations as always.

"Good" how? lol! In what way is it good or superior to the fight with Flash from SM1. Explain.

The character of Flash got some development. It wasn't just portrayed as the one dimensional bully Raimi did.

Or more accurately, in this case! Now what were you saying about Raimi relying on "outdated" nerd stereotypes? That's what I thought. Yikes.

Is this from TASM2?

So, how are we going to criticize/defend a movie that's not even made or viewed by us?

Maybe TASM2 sucks, maybe Webb drops the ball, what do we know?

I'm sorry if you're that desperate you have to talk about movies that are not done or that you haven't seen. The thread is about TASM.

You seem to be confused. So what you're trying to say is that you didn't care for the kindhearted understanding version of Ben Parker in SM1 and that you liked the overbearing, hard nosed Bed Parker in TASM. That's cool, but don't try to make it sound like it's a fact that the portrayal is one dimensional.

I couldn't care when kind-hearted was the only one dimension Raimi put in him. When a fatherly fgure rewarded his son or beimng irresponsible or when he allowed Peter to shut him up, then it was when I got a one dimensional character is not as good as one that's far more fleshed out as was Sheen's uncle Ben, who could get angry and reprehend his son when necessary because he's responsible for making his son a better man, not one that can be irresponsible and talks back whenever he wants because you're unable to say no to him.

Reprimand actually fits better in this context.

Reprehend is equally good. This is when correcting words shows itself as a mere diversion.

Get what right this time? Point out that TASM is as guilty of relying on tropes, stereotypes and cliches as SM1 is? Oh wait, I did that already. The only question is, which of my arguments will you choose to ignore so you can avoid and dodge their vailidity and relevance?

You get your cliches. You either use them as they are or you flesh them out to make them believable, make sitiuation and characters multi-dimensional. Raimi did the former, Webb did the latter.

 

[Green Goblin]

fixed.



Exactly. Hollywood's version of a "nerd".

omg. Look at these hopeless nerds! Both SM1 and TASM are guilty of this, but TASM to a greater extent.

Did Marc Webb said Peter Parker is not a nerd. He would be agreeing with you if he was with us here lol. He always used "loner" and "outsider".

 

[SilentWarriorZ]

I never liked the way TASM portrayed peter to be over smart and less responsible for his own actions even at the end of movie cause it just doesn't give a feel of a hero its just some guy gets power and now he is the boss with his own rules .
This is only thing I want them to correct in upcoming sequel .

 

[Green Goblin]

1. If only!
2. Even if it did, it still has the advantage of being second in line. Imagine you're assigned to write an essay in school, but you find out that one of your friends has already written and had his essay graded. He/She scored well. You have the opportunity to look it over and see how they did it, what they did well, what they didn't do well, etc... This is a good analogy for SM1 and TASM. Raimi was really, in a way, pioneering and creating a template for the contemporary superhero film. TASM should have knocked it out of the park because of this (learning from the pitfalls of others, etc...), but it didn't.

But much of that was simply because it was an origin story. They knew people would give it s*** for it so in some cases they literally went out of their way to make it different (We never heard "with great power comes great responsibility" though Uncle Ben never originaly said it).

For the record, I liked Horner's soundtrack but his action scenes were lacklustre
. I loved the main theme just as much as Elfman's but he did the action music much better.

 

[Vid Electricz]

No, I have always admitted than Hollywood puts its cliches everywhere. But some directors decide to put some meat on them and some others just repeat them as the same one dimensional characters and situations as always.

You actually think there was any substance or depth to the characters in TASM? Sure, there was the pretense of substance, but it never went anywhere. As far as I can see, there was no more depth or substance to any characters in TASM than there was in SM1, no matter how you try to twist it.

The character of Flash got some development. It wasn't just portrayed as the one dimensional bully Raimi did.

Flash wasn't an important secondary or even third tier character in SM1, he was never meant to be developed or part of the larger story. You act as though Raimi tried and failed to develop the character, when in fact, he did exactly what he intended to with the character. Explain how this is a flaw. That's like complaining that Dr. Ratha wasn't developed in TASM, when he was obviously never meant to be.

TASM Flash is a bully who pushes kids faces into food. Why? Because he's a mean bully. They he tells Parker to take a picture. Why? Because he's mean. Then he punches Parker because he says his name. Why? Because he's mean. Then he tells Parker "feels good doesn't it", and then suddently/magically they're best friends at the end. Yeah, real multi-dimensional. lol! Sure he got more screen time, but that doesn't equate to quality character development unfortunately. That's some real solid character work right there . You sure will do whatever it takes to build up this movie into more than it is.

Is this from TASM2?

So, how are we going to criticize/defend a movie that's not even made or viewed by us?

Maybe TASM2 sucks, maybe Webb drops the ball, what do we know?

I'm sorry if you're that desperate you have to talk about movies that are not done or that you haven't seen. The thread is about TASM.

Pocket protector wearing, comb over sporting, buck-toothed, Max Dillon is a perfect example of an "outdated cliche/stereotype" (your words). Just looking at him, one can see that.

Maybe we should go with the nerdily dressed, spectacle adorned, nasally kids with bad haircuts, spouting science jargon in the courtyard scene watching their ipad. Perfect "nerd stereotypes" right there. Peter Parker from SM1 never acted like that.

I couldn't care when kind-hearted was the only one dimension Raimi put in him. When a fatherly fgure rewarded his son or beimng irresponsible or when he allowed Peter to shut him up, then it was when I got a one dimensional character is not as good as one that's far more fleshed out as was Sheen's uncle Ben, who could get angry and reprehend his son when necessary because he's responsible for making his son a better man, not one that can be irresponsible and talks back whenever he wants because you're unable to say no to him.

How was Sheen's Ben more "fleshed out" than Raimi's? I liked both portrayals, but arguing that Raimi's Ben is one dimensional is just ignorant. He's a down on his luck, caring guy who makes the effort to spend time with Peter and who is a concerned father figure looking out for Peter as he grows up (sounds a lot like Sheen's Ben!). The fact that Raimi and Cliff Robertson made you care about the character in so few scenes is a testament to their skill.

Reprehend is equally good. This is when correcting words shows itself as a mere diversion.

It's hard not to be diverted by minutiae like this when your actual argument is so tired, redundant and paper thin.

You get your cliches. You either use them as they are or you flesh them out to make them believable, make sitiuation and characters multi-dimensional. Raimi did the former, Webb did the latter.

I felt that Raimi fleshed out his characters very well, albeit in a different style (his movies functioned within an obviously heightened reality), but well nonetheless. You are faulting him for his stylistic, creative storytelling choices. You didn't like it, fine, but don't act like it's fact, because it's not.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

You actually think there was any substance or depth to the characters in TASM? Sure, there was the pretense of substance, but it never went anywhere. As far as I can see, there was no more depth or substance to any characters in TASM than there was in SM1, no matter how you try to twist it.

I would have said "depth and substance" instead of "some meat on them" if I thought so.

Still, vast improvement over Raimi's take, that's all I say.

Flash wasn't an important secondary or even third tier character in SM1, he was never meant to be developed or part of the larger story. You act as though Raimi tried and failed to develop the character, when in fact, he did exactly what he intended to with the character. Explain how this is a flaw. That's like complaining that Dr. Ratha wasn't developed in TASM, when he was obviously never meant to be.

Flash wasn't that important in TASM's plot either.

And I don't think Raimi even wanted to give Flash more than one dimension. That's why I'm saying I don't like it much, you see.

TASM Flash is a bully who pushes kids faces into food. Why? Because he's a mean bully. They he tells Parker to take a picture. Why? Because he's mean. Then he punches Parker because he says his name. Why? Because he's mean. Then he tells Parker "feels good doesn't it", and then suddently/magically they're best friends at the end. Yeah, real multi-dimensional. lol! Sure he got more screen time, but that doesn't equate to quality character development unfortunately. That's some real solid character work right there . You sure will do whatever it takes to build up this movie into more than it is.

I don't even think he got that much more screen time. It's just that the decided to show more than one side in whatever screen time he got.

Pocket protector wearing, comb over sporting, buck-toothed, Max Dillon is a perfect example of an "outdated cliche/stereotype" (your words). Just looking at him, one can see that.

Maybe we should go with the nerdily dressed, spectacle adorned, nasally kids with bad haircuts, spouting science jargon in the courtyard scene watching their ipad. Perfect "nerd stereotypes" right there. Peter Parker from SM1 never acted like that.

You have seen the movie? No? So much for your informed opinion.

How was Sheen's Ben more "fleshed out" than Raimi's? I liked both portrayals, but arguing that Raimi's Ben is one dimensional is just ignorant. He's a down on his luck, caring guy who makes the effort to spend time with Peter and who is a concerned father figure looking out for Peter as he grows up (sounds a lot like Sheen's Ben!). The fact that Raimi and Cliff Robertson made you care about the character in so few scenes is a testament to their skill.

Because, as I have explained to you over and over, he was able to be more than just one old kind-hearted man.

I lost respect for Robertson's Ben when he was completely incapable of reprimand his son when he was being irresponsible or disrespectful.

It's hard not to be diverted by minutiae like this when your actual argument is so tired, redundant and paper thin.

No, that had everything to do with you trying to correct a word that wasn't wrongly used in the first place. You probably thought grammar correction could make you win points. Sorry, the word I used was right.

I felt that Raimi fleshed out his characters very well, albeit in a different style (his movies functioned within an obviously heightened reality), but well nonetheless. You are faulting him for his stylistic, creative storytelling choices. You didn't like it, fine, but don't act like it's fact, because it's not.

Well, even you have sort of admitted secondary characters had one dimension in Raimi's movies. No, I don't think one dimensional characters are a good think, no matter how purposely it was done.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I would have said "depth and substance" instead of "some meat on them" if I thought so.

...
They're synonymous

Still, vast improvement over Raimi's take, that's all I say.

In your opinion (uninformed as it may be).

Flash wasn't that important in TASM's plot either.

And I don't think Raimi even wanted to give Flash more than one dimension. That's why I'm saying I don't like it much, you see.

Yes, it's your opinion that Flash's character wasn't utilized in a way that was pleasing to you.

I don't even think he got that much more screen time. It's just that the decided to show more than one side in whatever screen time he got.

Except that the tacked on excuse for "development" made no sense in the context. He magically goes from bully to best buddy with ZERO explantation. Lazy, sloppy, stupid writing.

You have seen the movie? No? So much for your informed opinion.

Convenient way to attempt dismissing an argument. It's just you dodging again. Big surprise. I'm sure Foxx will look SOOOOO MUCH different when the movie is release. lol!

And yet you ignore my example of the nerd caricature in TASM:

Maybe we should go with the nerdily dressed, spectacle adorned, nasally kids with bad haircuts, spouting science jargon in the courtyard scene watching their ipad. Perfect "nerd stereotypes" right there. Peter Parker from SM1 never acted like that.

Because, as I have explained to you over and over, he was able to be more than just one old kind-hearted man.

As was Robertson's Ben.

I lost respect for Robertson's Ben when he was completely incapable of reprimand his son when he was being irresponsible or disrespectful.

He was very stern, but understanding when he talked to Peter in the car. You must not have been paying attention. They're two different takes on a character who appeared in three panels before he was killed in AF#15. There is no basis for comparison here. You didn't care for Robertson's take. That's your opinion. Doesn't make it wrong or one dimensional.

No, that had everything to do with you trying to correct a word that wasn't wrongly used in the first place. You probably thought grammar correction could make you win points. Sorry, the word I used was right.

Win points? lol. How old are you? How can you criticize my correction when you were ettempting to differentiate between "depth/substance" and something having "meat to it" (when they mean the same thing). Or is this you trying to "win points"? lol.

Well, even you have sort of admitted secondary characters had one dimension in Raimi's movies. No, I don't think one dimensional characters are a good think, no matter how purposely it was done.

How multi-dimensional was Dr. Ratha? How about Crane dad? Yeah, these secondary character in TASM weren't one dimensional at all .

 

[Senator Pleasury]

...
They're synonymous

In what dictionary? Care to link?

In your opinion (uninformed as it may be).

Multi dimensional over one dimensional.

Even you admit Raimi's take on some characters was one dimensional as a "creative decision."

Yes, it's your opinion that Flash's character wasn't utilized in a way that was pleasing to you.

One dimensional is always a poor way to develop a character. It's not just me.

Except that the tacked on excuse for "development" made no sense in the context. He magically goes from bully to best buddy with ZERO explantation. Lazy, sloppy, stupid writing.

No, Spider-man apparition inspired him, as explained in the movie.

Raimi wasn't even able top use this "magic" of yours to show more than one side of his characters.

Convenient way to attempt dismissing an argument. It's just you dodging again. Big surprise. I'm sure Foxx will look SOOOOO MUCH different when the movie is release. lol!

If he does I'll be here saying so. Until then this is a movie nobody is discussing about since nobody has seen it and it isn't even done.

And yet you ignore my example of the nerd caricature in TASM:

Maybe we should go with the nerdily dressed, spectacle adorned, nasally kids with bad haircuts, spouting science jargon in the courtyard scene watching their ipad. Perfect "nerd stereotypes" right there. Peter Parker from SM1 never acted like that.

And you ignore that I have told you multiple times cliches are everywhere in Hollywood, but it's how you manage them.

As was Robertson's Ben.

No, when Peter didn't help him painting the kitchen as he promised, he didn't reprimand him, but reward him with a kind letter and dinner in the oven. Same when Peter shut him up.

Unlike Sheen's Ben, Robinson's Ben was incapable of being a proper fatherly figure.

He was very stern, but understanding when he talked to Peter in the car. You must not have been paying attention. They're two different takes on a character who appeared in three panels before he was killed in AF#15. There is no basis for comparison here. You didn't care for Robertson's take. That's your opinion. Doesn't make it wrong or one dimensional.

Stern? Preparing him dinner for not standing up to his word and keep silent when Peter told him off? What dictionary is this you're suing where "stern" means "spineless"?

Win points? lol. How old are you? How can you criticize my correction when you were ettempting to differentiate between "depth/substance" and something having "meat to it" (when they mean the same thing). Or is this you trying to "win points"? lol.

No, they don't. "Some meat" means that at least there's something there on a bare cliche. That's not saying it's the most depth character I've ever seen.

How multi-dimensional was Dr. Ratha? How about Crane dad? Yeah, these secondary character in TASM weren't one dimensional at all .

Crane that, when compared to those random New Yorkers in SM1 had a background and a story, so yes, much much multi-dimensional than Raimi's equivalent.

 

[Vid Electricz]

In what dictionary? Care to link?

It's a colloquialism. Pity I have to actually explain this:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substance

substance - the choicest or most essential or most vital part of some idea or experience; "the gist of the prosecutor's argument"; "the heart and soul of the Republican Party"; "the nub of the story"
essence, heart and soul, inwardness, nitty-gritty, pith, gist, kernel, nub, meat, core, sum, marrow, heart, center, centre

They mean the same thing.

Multi dimensional over one dimensional.

Even you admit Raimi's take on some characters was one dimensional as a "creative decision."

"Even I admit"? lol. As though I denied that Flash was one dimensional. He was one dimensional in the same way that Dr. Ratha was. He served his purpose in the story. Period.

One dimensional is always a poor way to develop a character. It's not just me.

Depend on the context. Was the movie Sin City poor because nearly every character was one dimensional? It depends on what the director is trying to accomplish/communicate. Obviously this is beyond your ken.

No, Spider-man apparition inspired him, as explained in the movie.

No. It explains nothing of the sort. You've made this up in your head. In the movie he says "Guy's crazy. Chick dig him." Literally that's it. There's no implication that he's been inspired by Spider-Man to reform. He's just magically best buddies. Like I said, lazy, stupid writing.

btw: the word apparition means ghost. Don't tell me you meant to say the ghost of Spider-Man inspired him. lol!

Raimi wasn't even able top use this "magic" of yours to show more than one side of his characters.

And his movie was more honest because of it. He didn't try to force the tacked on character moments that TASM did (which ultimately failed).

If he does I'll be here saying so. Until then this is a movie nobody is discussing about since nobody has seen it and it isn't even done.

I can see the picture and I can see that visually, he is adhering to the outdated nerd clich/trope/stereotype. Keep dodging.

And you ignore that I have told you multiple times cliches are everywhere in Hollywood, but it's how you manage them.

So how were those nerd cliches managed in an effective, substantial way? They weren't. They were meant to be one note nerd streotypes for Peter to eavesdrop on to learn from them. End of story.

No, when Peter didn't help him painting the kitchen as he promised, he didn't reprimand him, but reward him with a kind letter and dinner in the oven. Same when Peter shut him up.

He reacted differently than Sheen's. So what? is there only one correct way to react in every situation? Maybe in your little mind...

Unlike Sheen's Ben, Robinson's Ben was incapable of being a proper fatherly figure.

In your opinion. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Why was he incapable of being a proper fatherly figure (your words)?

Stern? Preparing him dinner for not standing up to his word and keep silent when Peter told him off? What dictionary is this you're suing where "stern" means "spineless"?

Watch the movie again and pay attention this time. In the car he lectures Peter about beating Flash up. He is stern, but not overbearing. Obviously, you don't understand nuance or subtlety.

No, they don't. "Some meat" means that at least there's something there on a bare cliche. That's not saying it's the most depth character I've ever seen.

See top of post. They're synonymous.

Crane that, when compared to those random New Yorkers in SM1 had a background and a story, so yes, much much multi-dimensional than Raimi's equivalent.

Keep inventing stories in your head. The crane dad has zero background or story. He holds his son after Spidey rescues him and then lines up cranes later. If this is your idea of "character development", then I'm sorry for you.

I see you ignoring my points about Ratha being one dimensional. Keep dodging.

 

[S. Grundy]

Watch the movie again and pay attention this time. In the car he lectures Peter about beating Flash up. He is stern, but not overbearing. Obviously, you don't understand nuance or subtlety.

He's reaching, because Ben and May left him a plate of dinner, they are spineless? What are they supposed to do, not feed him?

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It's a colloquialism. Pity I have to actually explain this:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substance

substance - the choicest or most essential or most vital part of some idea or experience; "the gist of the prosecutor's argument"; "the heart and soul of the Republican Party"; "the nub of the story"
essence, heart and soul, inwardness, nitty-gritty, pith, gist, kernel, nub, meat, core, sum, marrow, heart, center, centre

They mean the same thing.

So you don't know the difference between "some" and "a lot" or "plenty"?

"Even I admit"? lol. As though I denied that Flash was one dimensional. He was one dimesnional in the same way that Dr. Ratha was. He served his purpose in the story. Period.

Flash had character development though. Much more than Raimi's take.

Depend on the context. Was the movie Sin City poor because nearly every character was one dimensional? It depends on what the director is trying to accomplish communicate. Obviously this is beyond your ken.

Yes, Sin City soon became boring because it was just raspy voices male characters. One dimensional cliches.

No. It explains nothing of the sort. You've made this up in your head. In the movie he says "Guy's crazy. Chick dig him." Literally that's it. There's no implication that he's been inspired by Spider-Man to reform. He's just magically best buddies. Like I said, lazy, stupid writing.

Yes it is. Spider-man appears and fights bad guys and suddenly Flash abandons his abusive behavior. You can, yes, call that magic if you want.

btw: the word apparition means ghost. Don't tell me you meant to say the ghost of Spider-Man inspired him. lol!

Wrong.
ap·pear (

-pîr

)intr.v. ap·peared, ap·pear·ing, ap·pears

5. To come before the public.

Sorry pal. You should look for every definition, not just the first one.

And his movie was more honest because of it. He didn't try to force the tacked on character moments that TASM did (which ultimately failed).

Well, if Raimi is unable to create multi-dimensional characters, I'd say he shouldn't try to go beyond his abilities. That, or give the character to someone who can, which fortunately happened.

I can see the picture and I can see that visually, he is adhering to the outdated nerd clich/trope/stereotype. Keep dodging.

It's a movie we're not discussing. You decided to cram it in because you were out of things to say.

So how were those nerd cliches managed in an effective, substantial way? They weren't. They were meant to be one note nerd streotypes for Peter to eavesdrop on to learn from them. End of story.

Making characters with more than just one dimension, that's how. You know that already.

He reacted differently than Sheen's. So what? is there only one correct way to react in every situation? Maybe in your little mind...

When raising your son, rewarding him when he is irresponsible and allowing him to shut you up are precisely NOT the correct way to do it.

In your opinion. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Why was he incapable of being a proper fatherly figure (your words)?

I already explained it, I'll quote myself: "he was completely incapable of reprimand his son when he was being irresponsible or disrespectful."

Watch the movie again and pay attention this time. In the car he lectures Peter about beating Flash up. He is stern, but not overbearing. Obviously, you don't understand nuance or subtlety.

Peter shuts him up and Ben is okay with it:
- I know I'm not your father.
- Then stop pretending to be!
*silence*
*nods*
- Right... I'll pick you up here at 10.

Spineless.
What is subtle about him allowing peter to shut him up.

See top of post. They're synonymous.

Not to "some meat."

Keep inventing stories in your head. The crane dad has zero background or story. He holds his son after Spidey rescues him and then lines up cranes later. If this is your idea of "character development", then I'm sorry for you.

You are wrong. He had a scene where he met Spider-man who saved his son. it's in the movie.

Those random New Yorkers who came out of nowhere and for no reason started to throw things (and corny lines) at Green Goblin, who for no reason didn't react to this, had in fact zero story. That's fact.

I see you ignore my points about Ratha being one dimensional. Keep dodging.

He had indeed no more than one dimension. One character against all in Raimi's movies.

Still much much better.

 

[Vid Electricz]

So you don't know the difference between "some" and "a lot" or "plenty"?

lol. Backtrack alert!

Hopeless, pedantic nitpicking. Trying to split hairs, unable to admit that you were wrong.

Flash had character development though. Much more than Raimi's take.

But none of it made sense. What's your point? You enjoy half-developed, childish nonsense? That's cool I guess...

Yes, Sin City soon became boring because it was just raspy voices male characters. One dimensional cliches.

lol! You can't understand context!

Right. And every Tarantino movie is boring because they're all full of one dimensional characters too . Do yourself a favour and read a book or watch another movie besides TASM.

Yes it is. Spider-man appears and fights bad guys and suddenly Flash abandons his abusive behavior. You can, yes, call that magic if you want.

Might make sense in whatever stories you've concocted in your head, but in reality, the audience was never presented with anything showing why/how Flash would change his ways.

Correlation does not imply causation.

It's the magic of lazy writing.

Wrong.
ap·pear (

-pîr

)intr.v. ap·peared, ap·pear·ing, ap·pears

5. To come before the public.

Sorry pal. You should look for every definition, not just the first one.

Acting like you're right doesn't make you not wrong. lol. You used the word APPARITION:

ap·pa·ri·tion
ˌapəˈriSHən/
noun
noun: apparition; plural noun: apparitions

1. 1.
   a ghost or ghostlike image of a person.
   
   synonyms:ghost, phantom, specter, spirit, wraith;
   
   
   
   

It's obvious that english is your second language, but still. You're blatantly wrong here.

Well, if Raimi is unable to create multi-dimensional characters, I'd say he shouldn't try to go beyond his abilities. That, or give the character to someone who can, which fortunately happened.

Are Tarantino and Frank Miller unable to create multi-dimensional characters because some of their movies feature one dimensional characters?

Whoops! Looks like you've got no idea what you're on about...again!

It's a movie we're not discussing. You decided to cram it in because you were out of things to say.

It's a Marc Webb movie featuring a cliched, outdated stereotype and you can't defend it.

And yet you still avoided answering my question about the nerd stereotypes in the courtyard. Convenient for you.

Making characters with more than just one dimension, that's how. You know that already.

That doesn't even answer the question I posed. Read again and think before you answer.

When raising your son, rewarding him when he is irresponsible and allowing him to shut you up are precisely NOT the correct way to do it.

Wow, you should write the definitive parenting handbook! Not even going to argue this one as it's absurd and you're obviously like, 13.

I already explained it, I'll quote myself: "he was completely incapable of reprimand his son when he was being irresponsible or disrespectful."

Peter shuts him up and Ben is okay with it:
- I know I'm not your father.
- Then stop pretending to be!
*silence*
*nods*
- Right... I'll pick you up here at 10.

Spineless.
What is subtle about him allowing peter to shut him up.

Sounded like a real, human conversation to me. And Ben obviously understands that Peter is going through a hard time and has enough compassion to give him some space and allow him to vent.

But to the simple minded that's "spineless". lol.

Not to "some meat."

Again. Reading comprehension. *sigh* Not your strong suit.

You are wrong. He had a scene where he met Spider-man who saved his son. it's in the movie.

Wrong about what? I never said he didn't. That wasn't my point of contention. Go back and read again.

Those random New Yorkers who came out of nowhere and for no reason started to throw things (and corny lines) at Green Goblin, who for no reason didn't react to this, had in fact zero story. That's fact.

You have a difficult time separating fact from opinion.

Let me try it like you do it:

Crane dad held his son after Spider-Man saved him and then, at the end, for no reason lined up the cranes for him.

You can make anything sound awful depending on how you word it (much like you did above).

He had indeed no more than one dimension. One character against all in Raimi's movies.

Obvious hyperbole is obvious.

Still much much better.

All in all, it's been fun, but you obviously have a very difficult time grasping basic concepts/understanding how fiction/fantasy/characters (let alone the world/reality) actually works.