The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Dane Dehaan IS Harry Osborn

[Spideyfan117]

I think they just touched up on the Ultimate route and went in-depth with his wealth. If you look at the way he's portrayed in the Ultimates, he dresses as if he has money. He dresses unlike other high schoolers.

I guess the womanizer thing just goes with going in-depth with the wealth part. I don't have much of a problem with it. It kind of opposites Peter's character.

Eh, Franco's version was much more like the Ultimate version in attitude. He's Peter's protector from Flash and the rest. He was also more the charming pretty boy that Ultimate Harry is (when he's not having a mental breakdown).

Dehaan's version looks more like the kind of guy that is going to use his money as a shield/weapon and to get into the in-crowd.

 

[Nicko-Ray]

Eh, Franco's version was much more like the Ultimate version in attitude. He's Peter's protector from Flash and the rest. He was also more the charming pretty boy that Ultimate Harry is (when he's not having a mental breakdown).

Dehaan's version looks more like the kind of guy that is going to use his money as a shield/weapon and to get into the in-crowd.

Fair. I guess we'll just have to wait for some footage to see.

 

[Vid Electricz]

How about you stop the sarcasm for a start?

Son's of billionaire's often mess around and "get in" with women.
Most of the time they are only after the money.

Once again, this is just sad. I'm not even going to start on this whole mess and how wrong it is, but I will say this: Just because you think "billionaires often mess around" (lol), this means that Harry must be a womanizer? Because certainly he can't be his own unique character . He must be a stereotype built on vague generalities. Don't know what I expected from a group that purports that "all teenagers act the same"...

Now you're just trying to be obnoxious

By railing against misogynisitc behavior and unfounded generalities? Right.

Franco's Harry was not much of a womaniser and in fact seemed to genuniely want to find a girl to love. Perhaps this Harry embraces the rich boy image and is under no disillusion that many women are interested in him for his money.

Perhaps he will be less of a downer than Franco's Harry was.

Wow. That sounds really familiar...Ah yes, it sounds exactly like Harry from the comic books! Some of these complaints are so counterintuitive it's hard to believe.

 

[JOE]

Vid plays devil's advocate with everyone. He likes to debate and question people's opinions for his sheer enjoyment. I don't see why people are still surprised with this.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Once again, this is just sad. I'm not even going to start on this whole mess and how wrong it is, but I will say this: Just because you think "billionaires often mess around" (lol), this means that Harry must be a womanizer? Because certainly he can't be his own unique character . He must be a stereotype built on vague generalities. Don't know what I expected from a group that purports that "all teenagers act the same"...




By railing against misogynisitc behavior and unfounded generalities? Right.



Wow. That sounds really familiar...Ah yes, it sounds exactly like Harry from the comic books! Some of these complaints are so counterintuitive it's hard to believe.

It's time for another episode of...

Life Lessons with Vid Electricz

fictional misogyny on film for character development = bad.
malicious inconsiderate attitude toward strangers on the internet = good.

 

[Green Goblin]

Vid plays devil's advocate with everyone. He likes to debate and question people's opinions for his sheer enjoyment. I don't see why people are still surprised with this.

Or low key trolling

 

[JOE]

It's time for another episode of...

Life Lessons with Vid Electricz

fictional misogyny on film for character development = bad.
malicious inconsiderate attitude toward strangers on the internet = good.

 

[JOE]

Or low key trolling

He's the captain of his debate team. He has a standard to maintain.

 

[Green Goblin]

Once again, this is just sad. I'm not even going to start on this whole mess and how wrong it is, but I will say this: Just because you think "billionaires often mess around" (lol), this means that Harry must be a womanizer? Because certainly he can't be his own unique character . He must be a stereotype built on vague generalities. Don't know what I expected from a group that purports that "all teenagers act the same"...




By railing against misogynisitc behavior and unfounded generalities? Right.



Wow. That sounds really familiar...Ah yes, it sounds exactly like Harry from the comic books! Some of these complaints are so counterintuitive it's hard to believe.

Different interpretation, a more grounded one. As Dehan said "Franco did his thing, I'll do mine".

 

[SilentWarriorZ]

This Harry maybe Womanizer or not but definately a psyco inside and although I don't expect Harry to go green in this movie so early as its looks quite crowded he might be the reason for gwen's death in this movie .
Also we might get an MJ cameo in the end as a long distant friend attending at her funeral .

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

He's the captain of his debate team. He has a standard to maintain.

lol they must give him extra credit for winning an argument on the internet.

 

[Vid Electricz]

It's time for another episode of...

Life Lessons with Vid Electricz.

Does it come on before or after the "Let's complain about other posters instead of replying to the content of the post! Starring pr0xyt0xin" Show?

fictional misogyny on film for character development = bad.
.

Right, because these attitudes in no way normalize this sort of behaviour or mindset of people in real life.

malicious inconsiderate attitude toward strangers on the internet = good.

Malicious? Inconsiderate? Seriously? lol. A bit of sarcasm in response to an already sarcastic, mean-spirited post? Yeesh.

All I know is that I don't see anyone actually replying to any of the actual arguments or points I bring up (In this case about Harry Osborn's portrayal)

 

[Green Goblin]

I think Vid should be a moderator here.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

[/COLOR]

Does it come on before or after the "Let's complain about other posters instead of replying to the content of the post! Starring pr0xyt0xin" Show?




Right, because these attitudes in no way normalize this sort of behaviour or mindset of people in real life.



Malicious? Inconsiderate? Seriously? lol. A bit of sarcasm in response to an already sarcastic, mean-spirited post? Yeesh.

All I know is that I don't see anyone actually replying to any of the actual arguments or points I bring up (In this case about Harry Osborn's portrayal)

How is anything RedBlueWonder or WarriorDreamer said to you mean-spirited? RBW politely requested you stop with the sarcasm (which, by the way, I think the entire community here would appreciate). And WD casually pondered whether Dehaan would be less of a downer than some may have personally felt Franco was, y'know in their opinion. Dat mean spirit.

And what do you want me to respond to? That James Franco was more comicbook-accurate than Dane Dehaan could or could not potentially be? Yeah, I ignore the Raimi vs Webb debates if and whenever possible. Sue me. Seems that you're always on the forefront of those debates though. So kudos. Assuming you don't get enough feeling of self-worth on your own from actively defending a 10 year old film. Or defending fictional women on film and the individuality of american teens.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I think Vid should be a moderator here.

 

[JOE]

All I know is that I don't see anyone actually replying to any of the actual arguments or points I bring up (In this case about Harry Osborn's portrayal)

They don't reply because they just think you're a Debbie Downer.

It's one thing to share criticism, but when your posts consistently come across as negative it just gives people a bad vibe. People don't come on these boards to read about all the problems with every single topic. Just lighten up a bit man, this is me being sincere. It's okay to like something and get excited for it, we won't think you're any less of a man for it.

 

[Vid Electricz]

How is anything RedBlueWonder or WarriorDreamer said to you mean-spirited? RBW politely requested you stop with the sarcasm (which, by the way, I think the entire community here would appreciate). And WD casually pondered whether Dehaan would be less of a downer than some may have personally felt Franco was, y'know in their opinion. Dat mean spirit.

Oh, his statement that all women are only attracted to loads of money? Right. Perfectly innocent. Not at all a hurtful, sweeping, unfounded blanket statement. My perfectly reasonable response to an insulting statement like that was not unjustified.

And what do you want me to respond to? That James Franco was more comicbook-accurate than Dane Dehaan could or could not potentially be?

Based on the information ad set pics we've gotten. Yeah. That's what goes on around here. Speculation, comparisons, etc...

Yeah, I ignore the Raimi vs Webb debates if and whenever possible. Sue me. Seems that you're always on the forefront of those debates though.

Effectively dodging the argument. That's fine.

So kudos. Assuming you don't get enough feeling of self-worth on your own from actively defending a 10 year old film. Or defending fictional women on film and the individuality of american teens.

lol. Because I pointed out the verisimilitude that Harry's character had to the comics in SM1, my "self worth" depends on "actively defending it"? Who's being condescending now?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

As far as Dane's Harry being a womanizer goes... We'll see. The term womanizer (in my experience) is either very loosely defined or just quite subjective. For instance, look at Harry Osborn in SSM. He pursued multiple girls in the course of that show's very short lifespan. Considering the two seasons probably only took place in the course of one school year. He dated both Gwen and Glory. He treated them... decently for the most part. Besides his drug abuse problem he was a decent boyfriend. But some might still consider him a womanizer for being interested in multiple girls in the same time frame.

But this is how some young people, particularly males (as i know personally) can act. I'm choosing my words carefully so as not to step on any toes with generalizations.

I personally have dated multiple girls at the same time as far back as age 15. Of course I'm not saying ALL young men do this. I'm just saying whether it makes a guy a womanizer is up to the individual to decide. Maybe Dehaan used the term lightly. And maybe he won't be disrespectful toward women at all.

I don't know much about billionaires inherently being womanizers... but in comic books lore, I mean, between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark alone... There does seem to be some grounds for that argument.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Oh, his statement that all women are only attracted to loads of money? Right. Perfectly innocent. Not at all a hurtful, sweeping, unfounded blanket statement. My perfectly reasonable response to an insulting statement like that was not unjustified.

Who did he insult?! This is what we call a victimless crime. By pulling out the "Justice" card, you are effectively turning a conversation about speculation and contemplation into a debate with negative undertones.

Why? Why do this? Who are you protecting? Women who aren't attracted to money? He didn't specify "all women" or even any specific type of women.

Do you think no women are attracted to money? Hell, I think a large amount of men and women are attracted to money... I know several.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Who did he insult?! This is what we call a victimless crime. By pulling out the "Justice" card, you are effectively turning a conversation about speculation and contemplation into a debate with negative undertones.

Right. So if I make a remark that's blatantly racist (as his was blatantly sexist and misogynistic), as long as I don't specify any particular individual, there's no harm and no foul. Makes perfect sense

The conversation was turned negative with his remark to begin with, regardless of whether he (or you) choose to acknowledge it.

Why? Why do this? Who are you protecting? Women who aren't attracted to money? He didn't specify "all women" or even any specific type of women.

He wrote:

He's got a load of money. Girls like money. They like money alot.

Sounds a lot like he's saying all girls are attracted to money (In fact that is what he's saying).
He then proceeded to follow it up with a statement about how billionaires are usually womanizers (huh?).

Do you think no women are attracted to money? Hell, I think a large amount of men and women are attracted to money... I know several.

I think that individuals should be judged on their own merits on a case by case basis, as opposed to making vast, sweeping generalizations that don't do that particular group of people any favours. Is that still unclear?

 

[Vid Electricz]

As far as Dane's Harry being a womanizer goes... We'll see. The term womanizer (in my experience) is either very loosely defined or just quite subjective. For instance, look at Harry Osborn in SSM. He pursued multiple girls in the course of that show's very short lifespan. Considering the two seasons probably only took place in the course of one school year. He dated both Gwen and Glory. He treated them... decently for the most part. Besides his drug abuse problem he was a decent boyfriend. But some might still consider him a womanizer for being interested in multiple girls in the same time frame.

wom·an·iz·er:
1. ( intr ) (of a man) to indulge in many casual affairs with women; philander


And that's the polite way of putting it. There is a big difference between "dating" and "using" someone.

But this is how some young people, particularly males (as i know personally) can act. I'm choosing my words carefully so as not to step on any toes with generalizations.

I personally have dated multiple girls at the same time as far back as age 15. Of course I'm not saying ALL young men do this. I'm just saying whether it makes a guy a womanizer is up to the individual to decide. Maybe Dehaan used the term lightly. And maybe he won't be disrespectful toward women at all.

Maybe not. We'll have to see, but using a word like "womanizer" to describe a character is quite loaded and carries many negative connotations.

I don't know much about billionaires inherently being womanizers... but in comic books lore, I mean, between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark alone... There does seem to be some grounds for that argument.

Bruce Wayne only pretended to be a womanizing lothario though. His actual character is nothing of the sort. Just as Harry Osborn's character shouldn't be. We'll see what they do with it.

 

[Green Goblin]

The sarcasm from Vid's posts... It's so strong you can actually smell it.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Nice name

 

[Green Goblin]

Nice name

See Vid that is the Vid we all want to see, happy and loving.
Thank You

 

[TheWallCrawler]

By railing against misogynisitc behavior and unfounded generalities? Right.

You're right about the fact that Harry being ritch doesn't automatically make him a womanizer, but because we already knew he's gonna be that in the movie we were just saying how it could be possible for a guy like Harry to be a womanizer, not "well he's ritch so it's obvious that he's a womanizer too"