How close is Maguire to the comics?

[S. Grundy]

He did not have any powers yet he still saved that girl from the fire. In TASM Peter had no powers but he saved the boy from the bully. Both of these instances highlight that the core of Peter Parker his heroic. His powers are the catalyst which lets him do it successfully.

You're kinda missing the point. Yes, Peter in SM2 was powerless, but he had experience as a hero, he had learned to be hero because of the power he was granted.

Peter in ASM, is already heroic without powers. So, what does he have to strive for if being a hero is already inherent within him? Going from zero to hero was basically one of the big points about the character.

 

[henzINNIT]

How the f*** did this turn into Rami vs Webb again seriously every f***ing Spider-Man thread here turns into it without a days break. It's really annoying. Who started it? Come on own up.

Thread was derailed on page one. Shame cause Joker posted some great comic art before we got stuck on this crappy argument debating two films that are essentially the same.

 

[Vid Electricz]

He did not have any powers yet he still saved that girl from the fire. In TASM Peter had no powers but he saved the boy from the bully. Both of these instances highlight that the core of Peter Parker his heroic. His powers are the catalyst which lets him do it successfully.

Yes, but Peter learns that it's his duty (responsibility) to be heroic after he loses his Uncle because of his own irresponsible actions. It's a character arc/learning curve. So while I didn't feel Peter standing up to the bully was the worst thing in the world, it was certainly unnecessary (as with a great many things in TASM).

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I wouldn't bother arguing this with him, his idea of how a relationships work is very grade school. Two people holding hands = stealing a girlfriend.

That is, only if you or your dvd player somehow skipped what happened before that: Peter letting her know he is in love with her. If you skipped that, watch the whole scene again. If your dvd player did, call a technician.

Sorry what? lol. Sorry for your increasingly desperate attempts at discrediting one movie and praising of another? I accept your apology.

Yes, they saw the tray get stuck, but again, there is no implication that anyone saw the web coming directly out of his wrist.

You're right, there's no implication. It is actually EXPLICIT:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

They all saw those spider-web-looking things that had one end on a tray and the other at Peter's hands.

Nope. No skinny 17 year old boy can stick a ball to his hand, jump 20+ feet AND smash the backboard.

It's not entirely impossible though. Spider-webs on the other hand...

It's ALL fantasy though, and suspension of disbelief. That's how sci-fi/fantasy/adventure stories work. The fact that you don't understand that is worrisome and a little disconcerting...

The way it's done in one movie doesn't justify nor give free pass to every movie.

Same thing with the subway then. Those guys saw his face and saw him stick to the ceiling. How is that different than the wrestling promoter seeing his face? Answer: it's not.

Difference? As you know, the wrestling place guy was a cheap man who was robbed his precious money and Peter let the burglar escape. On top of that, Peter was cocky to him ("I missed the part where it's my problem"). I'm sure you know that, don't ignore it.

People on the train might have beeb angry at him, but Peter didn't rob them or allow them to be robbed.

This never happened in the movie. Period. They see peter running away holding a white string attached to a tray (for all they know). They didn't see it come from his wrist and didn't know it was a web.

Yes it happened, as you could see in the screeshots, they did see it and they did laugh at that.

Not a skinny 17 year old boy jumping 20+ feet and shattering the backboard. That's superhuman.

It's not entirely impossible though. Spider-webs on the other hand...

Never happened. Watch the movie again. No one actually sees any "web" coming from his wrist, and it's never implied.

See the pictures again.

And apparently no one makes such deductions in TASM- even given their equally ample evidence in parallel to SM1, so by your logic, the characters in TASM are one dimensional. Good job.

No, in TASM there were no spider-webs. Not the same.

No one knew they were spider webs. You can't add validity to your argument by making stuff up.

On the other hand, everyone saw Peter's hand sticking to the basketball and his 20+ foot jump...

Well, they looked like spider-webs and everyone saw them. That's right there in the movie and the pictures I posted.

Many people might achieve high jump. How many can have webs coming from his wrists?

Nope. No professional or olympic athlete can do what he did- as a skinny 17 year old boy nonetheless.

Yes, they can:
[YT]P6vcWP3sGlc[/YT]

So you don't like Raimi's humour. So what?

I don't know. You seem to be making a bif fuzz around it.

I don't like Webb's pandering pre-teen humour. This is the crux of your argument. You don't like Raimi's sense of humour and you can't reconcile that. You think it's a fact that it's bad, because YOU don't like it. This is the mindset of a child.

I don't just think it's bad, I'm explaining why.

Look at how you composed this sentence and think about what

it says. Yes, I agree, it is like Raimi's, but with poorer results.

I want to correct myself here: bothy scenes in both movies were equally bad.

Funny, I don't remember the comic where Peter talked back to Aunt May or Captain Stacy, stole chocolate milk or broke his promise to a dying man as he does in TASM. You call SM1 Peter pathetic and weak, well, I call TASM Peter pushy and selfish. It's easy when one only sees what one wants- as is the case with you.

So, both have differences with the comics. One is far a worse loser and everyone's punching bag and the other has some character and spine, even before getting super-powers.

Huh? It was still Peter Parker. His negative characteristics were just amplified. She still flirted with him. Gwen as well (I see you keep ignoring that). Therefore YOU are wrong.

Yes, Gwen was the only girl that seemed attracted to Peter's intelligence (at least academic intelligence). Took the poor guy three movies. MJ felt pity for him and Betty never cared about him until he got possessed by an alien.

This is just sad. You keep talking about desperation. This right here is the perfect example ^

Let's apply this way of thinking to TASM. Gwen sees Peter get punched out and falls in love. He reveals his identity on the third time they run into each other and we are never given a reason that they care about each other.

So easy. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

Well, Garfield's Peter proved Gwen to be heroic and interested in her.

All Maguire's Peter did was being bullied by everyone and running into MJ accidentally.

lol. Seriously? That's why she likes him? Is he 11 years old on the playground? Otherwise I see no other reason. Please explain the "depth" of their relationship.

Mature girls feel attraction towards a man's feelings and bravery.

It's the immature girl that become the bully's girlfriend (as MJ was Flash's) or the rich son-of-daddy's girlfriend (as MJ was Harry's).

You have a very peculiar understanding of how story and drama works (if you could even call it an "understanding"). Obviously I'm dealing with someone who can't grasp the story/character arcs of a straightforward adventure movie. Not a personal attack, just evidenced in the redundant arguments you make over and over again.

You are the one who admittedly likes one-dimensional characters that act for no reason. So much for your understanding of drama.

 

[henzINNIT]

Yawn. You guys ever step back and think about what you're dedicating so much time to?

I honestly don't care which public display of super human antics is more inexcusable.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Yawn. You guys ever step back and think about what you're dedicating so much time to?

I honestly don't care which public display of super human antics is more inexcusable.

 

[Green Goblin]

You're kinda missing the point. Yes, Peter in SM2 was powerless, but he had experience as a hero, he had learned to be hero because of the power he was granted.

Peter in ASM, is already heroic without powers. So, what does he have to strive for if being a hero is already inherent within him? Going from zero to hero was basically one of the big points about the character.

Because he is a hero. Experience does not matter, Peter Parker is a good person. If he just took the picture you would be calling him a dick. Standing up for the kid was the right thing to do.

Peter is awkward and unpopular. That does not mean he's George Mcfly.

 

[Green Goblin]

That's funny,

As opposed to dark, gritty, seriousness of skateboarding to Coldplay, basketball hijinks, "Freddy" the mutant rat, Peter falling into an abandoned wrestling ring, etc... Doesn't get more childish than that.

I'd argue that TASM tries to put on the illusion that it's "more realistic" than the Raimi series, but the Raimi series is ultimately more mature (even though it does have a very strong tongue-in-cheek sense of humour)

You started this flame war... The blood spilt tonight is on your hands lol.

 

[S. Grundy]

Because he is a hero. Experience does not matter, Peter Parker is a good person. If he just took the picture you would be calling him a dick. Standing up for the kid was the right thing to do.

Peter is awkward and unpopular. That does not mean he's George Mcfly.

A lot of people would argue that's one of the big points about the character of Peter Parker, that he needs to learn to be heroic. That being a hero is something that is already natural to him, and his powers just bring it out more - it robs the character of a major element that Lee and Ditko were going for.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

A lot of people would argue that's one of the big points about the character of Peter Parker, that he needs to learn to be heroic. That being a hero is something that is already natural to him, and his powers just bring it out more - it robs the character of a major element that Lee and Ditko were going for.

Peter's journey is about what he does with his new powers, regardless of what he was before getting them. It's how he reacts to his new condition of super-human. In the comics he was a good guy, then the powers made him a "star," arrogant and indifferent towards other people, which is why he let the burglar escape, which meant Uncle Ben's death.

 

[Green Goblin]

A lot of people would argue that's one of the big points about the character of Peter Parker, that he needs to learn to be heroic. That being a hero is something that is already natural to him, and his powers just bring it out more - it robs the character of a major element that Lee and Ditko were going for.

I wouldn't exactly call not taking a picture of a bullied boy heroic, that was more of just doing the right thing.

It's not like he went and said "I'm Peter Parker, and I'm here to stop you flash!"

 

[chaseter]

Wow, didn't realise SM2 took heavy inspiration from a CB arc.

A lot of people don't realize that because they think Marc Webb is Jesus and Raimi is Satan.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

A lot of people don't realize that because they think Marc Webb is Jesus and Raimi is Satan.

I did realize that though. Because I read 1960's Spider-man comics.

 

[chaseter]

2 points for you.

 

[Dragon]

Here's what Stan Lee thinks- From an interview in September:

What's your all-time favorite movie superhero performance?

That's so difficult. I think the performance of Tobey Maguire as "Spider-Man," because he was such an unexpected big success. And I think Robert Downey Jr. as "Iron Man," because he just portrayed that character as if he was born to be Iron Man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/stan-lee-marvel-spider-man_n_3917020.html

 

[Spidey's Curse]

I always thought raimi (and therefore tobey, maybe....) only saw one side of peter.... the nerdy side. even when peter (616) was still wearing the glasses in high school, he always had a smart ass remark for everthing/everyone. to me, they never really got that.... they just tried to turn pete into the shyest, cliche nerd ever... and he never overcame that.
he should've become the popular funny guy of the comics. huge character growth missed, IMO.

 

[Venom75]

I always thought raimi (and therefore tobey, maybe....) only saw one side of peter.... the nerdy side. even when peter (616) was still wearing the glasses in high school, he always had a smart ass remark for everthing/everyone. to me, they never really got that.... they just tried to turn pete into the shyest, cliche nerd ever... and he never overcame that.
he should've become the popular funny guy of the comics. huge character growth missed, IMO.

I think there's truth to that,especially in Spider-man 3. As many know,once he got the black suit he still acted like a nerd,a more confident nerd,but a nerd nonethless. Not the angry symbiote controlled Peter that we all expected.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Truth be told, I like Tobey Maguire as a person, and I like the Raimi trilogy for the things it does right, but one of the things it practically never did right was Peter's characterization.

As others have said, Maguire's Parker never matured and grew, he stayed the awkward little nerdy nobody. But that reverberates to his Spider-Man as well. I'm not married to Spidey making jokes, but he should have some kind of personality, and Maguire (except in the trilogy's video games, where the writing was more accurate) had next to no personality as Peter and Spidey.

Parker in the comics (and well, every other adaptation sans-Raimi) has a soul, a substance that makes him stick out once you've noticed him. Pre-bite, he just was more to-himself which kept people from getting to notice him.

In fact I'll commit a cardinal sin: aside from the botched Symbiote aspects of 3, that was the first time in the whole series where Maguire started to make an impression... and it was because the story called for Peter to be arrogant. Sad that he had to be arrogant to start seeming like the comics Peter. Being more talkative to the villains and citizens and being lively at the Spider-Man rally ("Shazam!") approachs the pragmatic Parker of the comics.

2 was the low point of his characterization to me. Yes, in the books Peter's life is filled with misery (to some degree, 2 kind of went too far), but Peter generally always has a pragmatic "oh well, that's the Parker luck" quality where he keeps moving forward. But in the film Peter is just a sad sack the entire time. You get no sense that he has a positive core. He just seems clinically depressed. With better directing (or a director with better understanding of the character), Pete in the film could have had his depressed parts, depressed enough to quit Spider-Man, but still seeming like an upwardly positive person, as if he is more than just a guy who needs Prozac.

I'm not trying to be a Raimi basher, because I'm not, but Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield really do have a better grasp of Peter than Raimi did. When I saw the first film back in '02, I knew that even though the film nailed that universe overall, it was missing a central core that made it "Spider-Man" to me. Only later did I realize it was that the main character was little like the one I expected to see.

What I wouldn't give to see Garfield in the first trilogy, because then those films'd be fixed of the biggest problem I have with them: Peter Parker. Maguire could have been much better as Peter... but not with Sam Raimi dictating.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Maguire is physically as close as just about any other young white male who is average-slightly above average height. He even did okay toning up for production, i.e. "yep, big change!" scene.

He did a great job pulling off an intelligent, "normal guy" Pete, so he gets props for that. He also does a good unassuming and invisible Peter, or how I would describe "pre-spidey" Peter.

But I feel like anytime Peter is unassuming or cowardly after the bite, he is only acting. He is putting on a front because Spider-Man gave him a butt load of confidence. Anytime he wears glasses after the bite its a disguise. So that's something that I think Tobey and Raimi got wrong.

I also think Tobey is lacking in certain likable aspects that Peter's always held in my eyes. Peter to me, should be witty (if only in his head) and outspoken (around his friends) and strategically cunning (even when he's not Spider-Man). Tobey's emotive responses (namely crying, but also love and excitement) are weak and hard to watch. For me, of course.

Again, not a lot of this is Tobey's fault. The script of the films and their portrayal of Peter/Spidey may have rang true for many fans. But I feel that they missed the mark on a couple things and that's just my personal interpretation of my favorite comics.

This especially. While Raimi and co did a good job of echoing events in the comics, the character of Peter himself always felt off to me. Peter in the comics does get picked on and stuff goes bad for him but even in his earliest stories he wasn't some put upon loser. At least not to me. He would have a comeback (in his thoughts or out loud), he had a confidence to him Tobey just lacked for me. I never read him as a "nerd". More of a misfit/outcast.

In the first film I think his character is best represented. He has an energy to him, he has a few good one liners and the confidence in the writing and the performance. Raimi fixated on the "Peters life sucks all the time" aspect and let it consume the character until he lost most of his character aside from his smarts.

The first Spider-Man is really the only home run of the original series imo.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Truth be told, I like Tobey Maguire as a person, and I like the Raimi trilogy for the things it does right, but one of the things it practically never did right was Peter's characterization.

As others have said, Maguire's Parker never matured and grew, he stayed the awkward little nerdy nobody. But that reverberates to his Spider-Man as well. I'm not married to Spidey making jokes, but he should have some kind of personality, and Maguire (except in the trilogy's video games, where the writing was more accurate) had next to no personality as Peter and Spidey.

Parker in the comics (and well, every other adaptation sans-Raimi) has a soul, a substance that makes him stick out once you've noticed him. Pre-bite, he just was more to-himself which kept people from getting to notice him.

In fact I'll commit a cardinal sin: aside from the botched Symbiote aspects of 3, that was the first time in the whole series where Maguire started to make an impression... and it was because the story called for Peter to be arrogant. Sad that he had to be arrogant to start seeming like the comics Peter. Being more talkative to the villains and citizens and being lively at the Spider-Man rally ("Shazam!") approachs the pragmatic Parker of the comics.

2 was the low point of his characterization to me. Yes, in the books Peter's life is filled with misery (to some degree, 2 kind of went too far), but Peter generally always has a pragmatic "oh well, that's the Parker luck" quality where he keeps moving forward. But in the film Peter is just a sad sack the entire time. You get no sense that he has a positive core. He just seems clinically depressed. With better directing (or a director with better understanding of the character), Pete in the film could have had his depressed parts, depressed enough to quit Spider-Man, but still seeming like an upwardly positive person, as if he is more than just a guy who needs Prozac.

I'm not trying to be a Raimi basher, because I'm not, but Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield really do have a better grasp of Peter than Raimi did. When I saw the first film back in '02, I knew that even though the film nailed that universe overall, it was missing a central core that made it "Spider-Man" to me. Only later did I realize it was that the main character was little like the one I expected to see.

What I wouldn't give to see Garfield in the first trilogy, because then those films'd be fixed of the biggest problem I have with them: Peter Parker. Maguire could have been much better as Peter... but not with Sam Raimi dictating.

Omg, I thought I was the only one!!!!!

 

[Picard Sisko]

I thought Tobey was good as Peter Parker from the very early issues of TASM (+AF15), but he never progressed like his comic book counterpart. By the third movie (or even the second), he should have developed a better sense of humor and more confidence. I always loved in the comics when Peter would get angry and take it out on Jameson.