The Amazing Spider-Man How Do ASM's Acting Performances Rank For CBMs?

I actually thought that Scarlett Johannson was spot on for Black Widow, except the lack of a more russian-sounding accent. But spies normally train their accents anyway.

Actually, all of the Avengers are well casted.

 

They were crap...except for the actor who played LOKI.

 

..Ok then.

 

Don't pay attention to KAW; he's known to have a very close mind.

 

I have a very open mind for good/great acting. I just felt that most of the actors were just walking around waiting for the next action scene to begin. The characters felt as if their lines were being fed to them, with little to no emotion behind their eyes. If you're into things blowing up every other scene with a fight around every corner, then The Avengers is for you. Personally, I never felt anyone was in danger, no matter how grand the choreographed action sequences played itself out. Tongue and cheek to say the least and hokey performances all around.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can leave my brain on the shelf for a popcorn flick from time to time. It's just that it's becoming Marvel Film Studio's trademark. I guess if it makes a gazillion dollars, why stop, eh?

 

LOL... "Close" to what?

 

Well.. I meant outside of the Avengers in their respective movies also..

But I felt that the actors for Hawkeye and Black Widow even did a good job.

 

The performances were by and large very well done. Very strong cast in this film; Stone, Field, Sheen, Ifans, Leary, and Garfield were all excellent despite the sub-par writing. Especially Garfield, he's the Daniel Craig of Spider-Man as far as I'm concerned. A different, but refreshingly convincing take on the character and his alter-ego. The only bad performance was Chris Zylka as Flash. Poor guy didn't have a clue what he was doing. Every time he opened his mouth, or moved, for that matter, I cringed.

As for how they compare, it's hard to say definitively. Peter/Spidey was the only main role written well enough and extensively enough to warrant comparison, and with that being said I would put him up there with the likes of Downey, Hemsworth, and Evans, easily. He'd be a great addition to the Avengers if the studios could come together and pull it off.

 

Really? I thought Chris Zylka gave a great performance. At least Flash was actually a dynamic character this time.

 

Dynamic? How so? I didn't think his performance was convincing at all. Aside from that, he was only used for a handful of scenes to push a couple of plot points. I can't see him as dynamic at all when we barely got to see two greatly underdeveloped facets of his character(Peter's nemesis, then his sympathizer).

 

Yeah, no way is Garfield second in my all-time favorite CBM acting list. I'm gonna post my list when I get the time, though.

 

I think Andrew should win a few awards hopefully. I think he showed quite a range myself.

 

I comparison it is. Previously he was used for like 1 scene as a cliched school bully. And he didn't change one bit.

 

Non sequitur. A lackluster predecessor doesn't automatically make this poor performance worthwhile. No sense in arguing over which turd has a more pleasant aroma.

 

Err.. I liked the evolution of Flash in this movie.

It showed his bully side, his embarrassment from Pete. Then it showed him attempting to comfort Pete, and then saying "it feels good right?'' when Peter pushes him into the lockers. That shows that the reason he bullies might be because of a death in his family.. After this he tries to become friends with Peter.

I thought it was a good showing and evolution for a pretty minor character in the movie.

 

Yeah. I agree. His character was just used for the nerd-finally-beats-bully aspect of the movie in SM1. No evolution at all.

 

Not to mention he looked nothing like what I would imagine Flash to look like.

 

It makes it better. Thus an improvement.

And the fact that a minor character got some evolution this time makes it good enough.

 

We're not talking about improvements, we're talking good performances. A polished turd may be an improvement on a turd, but it's a turd nonetheless. Whatever the case, what kind of logic is that anyway? This is akin to declaring that the kid who scored 10% on the math test is a genius since one of his peers scored 8%...when both are clearly failures. If you disagree, then hey that's fine, but if you want to debate or give your reasons, tell me why this performance was good, not why another was bad.

Look, I get it that this is the TASM board and people love this movie. No shame in that. I do notice; however, that whenever there's something about the film that people legitimately know to be bad, they immediately bring up the shortcomings of another movie as a way to claim that the current scene, plot point, or performance is good. Sorry, but that logic doesn't work. The movie isn't perfect, folks, it won't kill you to admit the flaws. Every single performance in this film doesn't deserve an Oscar...it's almost sickening to see people defending every little detail about this movie, but I digress.

We can agree to disagree, but like I said in the first place, I think the rest of the performances were very well done regardless, which is part of the reason why I felt Flash's portrayal was noteworthy; it was the only really bad performance among the rest of the cast.

 

I stated why I thought the portrayal of Flash in this movie was good.

But thanks for pretty much telling me that I like a turd. (btw, who uses that kind of wording without thinking of how immature that sounds?)

 

And I was clear on why I feel differently. Agree to disagree, we obviously don't see eye to eye with regard to one anothers reasoning.

Way to overreach. I'm not sure if the analogy went over your head, but if you took it as an insult that's your own fault.

 

Comparing something someone likes to a turd isn't an insult?