lol. Backtrack alert!
Hopeless, pedantic nitpicking. Trying to split hairs, unable to admit that you were wrong.
Your fail at reading properly is not my problem. I wasn't backtracking as I was reminding you my real ,words before you changed them.
But none of it made sense. What's your point? You enjoy half-developed, childish nonsense? That's cool I guess...
I think having much more development than Raimi's makes it better.
lol! You can't understand context!
There's no context in Sin City that justify poor characterization.
Still, the movie was better than Raimi's Spider-man 1.
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.
No, many Tarantino movies are great. And all of them are better than Spider-man 1.
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.
Well, when you have multi dimensional characters, you can deduce thing easily.
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.
a ghost or ghostlike image of a person.
synonyms:ghost, phantom, specter, spirit, wraith;
So, when you read the first definition in a dictionary, you rule out the rest of them. That explains a lot.
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!
Well, if Raimi (and I repeat, just like in my previous post, "if") can't make one multi-dimensional charcter, then yes, Tarantino and Miller are better than him at that.
It's a Marc Webb movie featuring a cliched, outdated stereotype and you can't defend it.
Of course I can since at least Webb put some meat on them. This time read that properly.
And yet you still avoided answering my question about the nerd stereotypes in the courtyard. Convenient for you.
Then stop making it convenient for me cramming other movies in.
That doesn't even answer the question I posed. Read again and think before you answer.
Yes, those characters were stereotypes. As I told you Hollywood put them everywhere. Raimi decided his very main characters should be mere cliches. Webb said, let's put bare cliches in unimportant one scene characters, not in Peter Parker, Uncle Ben, etc.
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.
If you don't think you can reply properly I, much as yourself, wouldn't recommend you to try.
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.
Yes, sounded like a real life conversation between a son and a spineless father. Ben do understand what he's going through, it's just that he's unable to reprimand him so he can learn to be responsible. Peter didn't have a problem shutting him up.
Again. Reading comprehension. *sigh* Not your strong suit.
Well, it is you who ignored/didn't read that word.
Wrong about what? I never said he didn't. That wasn't my point of contention. Go back and read again.
Your words: "The crane dad has zero background or story."
Wrong, he did have a previous encounter with Spider-man. You should admit you're wrong before moving on.
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).
Crane dad was grateful to the man who saved his son, therefore he helped him back when he could. You didn't get that? That explains so much.
Obvious hyperbole is obvious.
Based on truth. One that you have admitted yourself.
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.
I admit I have difficulties grasping your concept of one-dimensional characters being better than fleshed out ones.