The fact is, I really am not.
he wasn't a bumbling loser.
Yes he was. By spider-man 2, everything Peter did just became increasingly pathetic. Any sympathy the character had was completely gone by the time sm3 came around. I remember clearly when I went to see sm3, the entire audience laughed their asses off at the scenes where Peter was supposed to command our sympathy because his haplessness and his dopey character became a joke. A pastiche of one man's pathetic personality.
A far cry from Peter/Spidey in the comics yes, but he was a much more modern day nerd than Andrew Garfield.
Ey? I think you're out of touch as to what a nerd is. Being a nerd is an expansive label and in my experience, I can honestly say that for the last 15 years at least, being a nerd doesn't carry the same cliched stigma it used to have. One can be a nerd and still not be attributed with the social ineptitude that Maguire presented us with and the point of the movie was to bring the comics to the big screen. Peter's character in the comics is timeless and didn't need to be watered down and for him to come off as a pathetic loser to garner sympathy and relatability. The USM comics is a classic example of taking 1960s Peter and bringing him to the 21st Century without making him look like some social ****** because even when Stan was writing the comics, Peter may have been awkward but he was never written as some chronic social ****** the way he was portrayed in Raimi's movies.
He's just kind of shy and uncertain and socially awkward, there was a lot of character development and he was a lovable character.
Peter in Raimi's movies was a *****. Simple as.
And what character development are you talking about? Sure, Peter came to understand the meaning of power, responsibility and forgiveness but he himself, his personality never changed. He allowed himself to be bullied, showed no backbone and not once did he show an initiative of confidence. He was a soft spoken, teary-eyed, dopey-looking ***** that only decided to show people he had a pair in between his legs when he came into contact with the symbiot.
Personally I think it's absolutely ludicrous that the Raimi films are being bashed to death by the same people who said back in 07 "there's NO WAY spider-man 3 could be bad" I see people pointing out how Spider-Man has a 65% approval rating on rotten tomatoes, when it must have dropped at least 10 points in the past few months!
I don't care for any of this because I've been here for just over 10 years and I've launched many campaigns of my hate for Raimi's spidey flicks but this is a new take and another chance for spidey to be done to a standard that may be fitting to me. Jury's out for now but I'll see you next tuesday.
Toby Maguire was a good Peter Parker for the script he was working with, and Andrew Garfield is as well. Neither one of them are comic book Peter though. The real problem is that the Spider-Man franchize is being made by a studio that i honestly think has no idea what they're doing.
So you've seen the movie? Well that's odd because I know Peter from the comics, Maguire wasn't him and yet from all the footage I've seen thus far of this movie, Garfield seems to have nailed comic book Peter but I can't substantiate it yet as, I'm yet to see the film.
