I could have sworn you gave it an 8.5 at one point.
That happens with any movie though. I gave the Avengers an even 10/10 after the first viewing, lowered it to a 9/10.Yeh that was my initial score right after first seeing it. I've had time to articulate my problems with the film since then and dropped the score accordingly, but overall I'm still positive about and its sequel.
That happens with any movie though. I gave the Avengers an even 10/10 after the first viewing, lowered it to a 9/10.


Which reminds me, the swinging stuff in the scene looks way more real than TASM
I suppose it's because in TASM the enviroment was rendered cgi and in Spider-Man it was CGI in a real enviroment. I really wish they'd go back to that...
You are using all your terms pretty loosely.
7.5 or maybe an 8 if I'm stoned.
omg. Good thing I'm working on my masters thesis here and not posting on a superhero message board! Oh wait...
But that's cool, I'll try to be more like you from now and post more contentless rejoinders.
Which reminds me, the swinging stuff in the scene looks way more real than TASM
I suppose it's because in TASM the enviroment was rendered cgi and in Spider-Man it was CGI in a real enviroment. I really wish they'd go back to that...
The problem is that you are being very abrasive and contentious about your opinion, but when someone calls you out on your misuse of terms and inconsistencies, you backtrack and go "well good thing I'm on a forum and this isn't a serious discussion!" Well, you've been treating it like a serious discussion... until people pointed out your mistakes.
My rejoinder wasn't contentless, it was pointing out a recurring issue with your arguments. That said, I'm honored that you want to be more like me... imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
"Recurring issue with your arguments"? Aside from my overzealous use of the word "direct", I've got no idea what you're on about-but you should feel free to point out any other instances of my "misuse of terms (plural) and inconsistencies(huh?)"...You act like it's a consistent thing, but really, you're just embellishing and exaggerating to bolster your claim.
That said, I sure didn't see any actual counter argument from you to my very lucid and clear post expounding on my point about the sloppily written nature of Peter's consistent, inexplicable irresponsibilty, negligence and selfishness in TASM...
Come on, man. When the whole force of your argument hinges on terms like "direct responsibility" and "father figure," and then you have to backtrack and admit you misused those terms, are you really going to act surprised that your argument isn't found compelling? I don't need you to footnote terms in an online discussion. But sheesh, at least use the terms correctly.
Because that wasn't my point of contention. My argument was that Peter was not directly responsible for Uncle Ben or Captain Stacy's death. I don't see why you commenting on a tangential point necessitates that I respond.
But anywho, I think I've made my point, whether you appreciate it or not. So adios for now.
Star mask, you shall be missed.