The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - Part 86

[Leenie]

I do feel bad for Garfield, but no matter how the first script turned out, I imagine he would have still opted for that mumbly yet cocky version of Parker.

Garfield was playing Spider-Man as the ICONIC character that he is, and not the nuanced person that an actor should be striving for.

I can't say I'll miss him all that much as the franchise will do just fine without him. However, his errors are dwarfed by the mistakes of the people around him.

In a way, I feel bad for Garfield clearly because he seemed to be so excited to play the character. He came across as a genuine fan to me. It just sucks that he had to work with the cards he was dealt. Based on the leaked e-mails, it seems clear to me that Garfield is not happy with how the final product turned out.

There were some decisions that I'm pretty sure that Garfield made with the character that I did not care for at all (the cockiness as Peter, the stuttering that made him more like a drug addict to me than an awkward nerd, the forced Brooklyn accent ...). I think that with a better script AND with a director who was confident in his/her vision and who wasn't a "yes man" with everything, I think that Garfield could have been great.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Sooo ... It's okay for you to reference Spider-Man 3, but not me? Mkay.

PS- I liked Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen in Spider-Man 3. I thought she was cute and likable due to her sunny disposition. I just wish the movie had given her more to do. Adding her into the mix was unnecessary, given the screentime she had. If they needed to have a female character to get MJ jealous over, then it probably should have been Betty Brant (an already established character in the Raimi films). Obviously Gwen was added because "omg she's in the comic books, gotta reference her for the fanboys" ... Much like how Venom was.

I never compared both franchises.

Try again buddy.

 

[Leenie]

I never compared both franchises.

Try again buddy.

Hurm, you didn't seem to have a problem with those who did (the pro-TASM people, that is). I only brought up Spider-Man 3 in my posts as a use of comparison because others brought it up to me first.

But okay. I'm the only one with a bias.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Hurm, you didn't seem to have a problem with those who did (the pro-TASM people, that is). I only brought up Spider-Man 3 in my posts as a use of comparison because others brought it up to me first.

But okay. I'm the only one with a bias.

If I had engaged in a debate with whoever brought it first, I would call it unnecessary, like I did with you.

That's like saying "I only jumped off the bridge because other people were doing it too.", zero common sense.

K?

 

[Leenie]

If I had engaged in a debate with whoever brought it first, I would call it unnecessary, like I did with you.

That's like saying "I only jumped off the bridge because other people were doing it too.", zero common sense.

K?

lol, comparing all of these films is like jumping off a bridge.

I personally have no issues with comparing the two series of Spidey movies (whether one prefers the first series, or the second; doesn't matter, I think the comparisons are valid). I think at this point it's pretty much inevitable.

It's about discussion, and comparing and contrasting is a part of that discussion. K?

 

[Andrew Lucas]

lol, comparing all of these films is like jumping off a bridge.

I personally have no issues with comparing the two series of Spidey movies (whether one prefers the first series, or the second; doesn't matter, I think the comparisons are valid). I think at this point it's pretty much inevitable.

It's about discussion, and comparing and contrasting is a part of that discussion. K?

Again, you don't get it. It's about doing something just because other people do. Geez..

There's a thread for that. The mods were pretty clear to avoid any comparisons in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion thread, that's why a place was created with the objective to give people that right.

So, go there, it's pretty immature when someone brings something that isn't related to the topic just to say "Look, my movie is so much better, can you see it?!", so don't blame me for calling you biased. I was fine until you brought Spider-Man 3 and then it's fanboys crawled from their holes just to "", I never went to Raimi's thread and stated how much I like the latest franchise (despite loving both) and etc, by your logic, I'm allowed to go in there and do that, but I can't really because people will get ******** and will report me, when they do the exact same thing around here.

Is there anything else you want to say about this movie? Because if you want to discuss something not related to it, there's PM.

 

[Leenie]

Again, you don't get it. It's about doing something just because other people do. Geez..

There's a thread for that. The mods were pretty clear to avoid any comparisons in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion thread, that's why a place was created with the objective to give people that right.

So, go there, it's pretty immature when someone brings something that isn't related to the topic just to say "Look, my movie is so much better, can you see it?!", so don't blame me for calling you biased. I was fine until you brought Spider-Man 3 and then it's fanboys crawled from their holes just to "", I never went to Raimi's thread and stated how much I like the latest franchise (despite loving both) and etc, by your logic, I'm allowed to go in there and do that, but I can't really because people will get ******** and will report me, when they do the exact same thing around here.

Is there anything else you want to say about this movie? Because if you want to discuss something not related to it, there's PM.

Say what you will, but my posts have been relevant to this film. I've made a plethora of posts recently about my many problems with this film, and I have been discussing and debating my issues with other people (which, hey, that's what a forum is for). But you just say that "I don't get it," because hey, let's be pompous with our opinions. I may disagree with the fans of these newer films, but I'm not going to tell the fans that they're wrong or stupid, or say that "they don't get it" simply because I'm debating with them. It's a discussion, and I'm simply just expressing my point of view about this film.

Last time I checked, this thread wasn't a "I love Marc Webb's Spider-Man Thread!" And guess what? I wouldn't bother to take the time to invade or troll a thread like that and hate all over those films, because I would have zero place in that thread. This is a general discussion thread. There's a difference.

 

[The Joker]

Commish Gordon: 'We were in this together and then you were gone'
Batman: 'Batman wasn't needed any more. We won'

Superman Returns sucks.

Nope. What you really mean is so he could have himself a good 'ol normal life instead of superhero one that's wrecking his personal life.

Was Spidey hiding away in brooder ville for months and months when he was having them MJ memories? Bet the answer is nope. DKR is awesome but you know it's like an out of continuity what if sort of story. It's not canon. Hal was under the influence of the yellow emotional entity named Parallax.

Exactly.

The failure of TASM2 and the ending of the franchise mainly bothers me because of how Garfield got the short end of the stick. He was great as both Peter and Spidey, and with the right material, he could have given us a truly amazing version of Spider-man.

I feel you can say that about most of the actors in the TASM franchise. Had they gotten better scripts and direction they could have been great.

Nine times out of ten with bad CBMs the problem is not with the actors but the scripts and direction. I mean look at Schumacher's Batman movies for example. Kilmer, O'Donnell, Carey, Jones, Thurman etc all could have played really great versions of their characters with a good script and proper direction.

I do feel bad for Garfield, but no matter how the first script turned out, I imagine he would have still opted for that mumbly yet cocky version of Parker.

Garfield was playing Spider-Man as the ICONIC character that he is, and not the nuanced person that an actor should be striving for.

I can't say I'll miss him all that much as the franchise will do just fine without him. However, his errors are dwarfed by the mistakes of the people around him.

I agree.

Say what you will, but my posts have been relevant to this film. I've made a plethora of posts recently about my many problems with this film, and I have been discussing and debating my issues with other people (which, hey, that's what a forum is for). But you just say that "I don't get it," because hey, let's be pompous with our opinions. I may disagree with the fans of these newer films, but I'm not going to tell the fans that they're wrong or stupid, or say that "they don't get it" simply because I'm debating with them. It's a discussion, and I'm simply just expressing my point of view about this film.

Last time I checked, this thread wasn't a "I love Marc Webb's Spider-Man Thread!" And guess what? I wouldn't bother to take the time to invade or troll a thread like that and hate all over those films, because I would have zero place in that thread. This is a general discussion thread. There's a difference.

You don't have to justify your posts, Leenie. You're doing just fine

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Say what you will, but my posts have been relevant to this film. I've made a plethora of posts recently about my many problems with this film, and I have been discussing and debating my issues with other people (which, hey, that's what a forum is for). But you just say that "I don't get it," because hey, let's be pompous with our opinions. I may disagree with the fans of these newer films, but I'm not going to tell the fans that they're wrong or stupid, or say that "they don't get it" simply because I'm debating with them. It's a discussion, and I'm simply just expressing my point of view about this film.

Last time I checked, this thread wasn't a "I love Marc Webb's Spider-Man Thread!" And guess what? I wouldn't bother to take the time to invade or troll a thread like that and hate all over those films, because I would have zero place in that thread. This is a general discussion thread. There's a difference.

Sorry for following the rules then

So? Did I ever say that you can't post unless you liked the movie? No. I even replied to your negative reply (lol) with no problems at all, as mentioned several times before, what killed was when you started with the SM3 crap, I went through the movie's release and aftermath so I don't have the patience to deal with these type of posts again.

They still happen and that's why I ignored (or blocked) some other posters who never add anything to the discussion besides indirectly provoking people, except for you, at least you neutrally expressed your points to a certain point.

Where do you get these silly notions that I don't want to see negative posts around here, Leenie? Seriously, did you even bothered to read everything I've said? Dude...

I get it. You don't like TASM, that's perfectly fine, I have friends who don't like it as well, here and on the physical world, and guess what? Nothing changed.

 

[Daltonio]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=485629

Alright guys, daily we get complaints about threads going off-topic and devolving into an Old vs New debate/flame war. In order to limit this from happening, we're going to have a thread EXCLUSIVELY for such debate. You may NOT engage in Raimi vs Webb debates in other threads, nor can you allow threads to devolve into Raimi vs Webb debates. If that happens, the zero tolerance policy comes back, and this thread is closed.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=485629

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29927879&postcount=574

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29927901&postcount=576

Only Andrew Lucas get in trouble for not being civil.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

You can't oversimplify it like that, with TASM 2 you can because it was the movie that oversimplified Peter's grief over Gwen into 1 minute of screentime.

Agreed. They never very good at showing how death affect Peter. Not with Uncle Ben or Captain Stacy or Gwen.

In a way, I feel bad for Garfield clearly because he seemed to be so excited to play the character. He came across as a genuine fan to me. It just sucks that he had to work with the cards he was dealt. Based on the leaked e-mails, it seems clear to me that Garfield is not happy with how the final product turned out.

There were some decisions that I'm pretty sure that Garfield made with the character that I did not care for at all (the cockiness as Peter, the stuttering that made him more like a drug addict to me than an awkward nerd, the forced Brooklyn accent ...). I think that with a better script AND with a director who was confident in his/her vision and who wasn't a "yes man" with everything, I think that Garfield could have been great.

Agreed. I was glad that Andrew and Amy Pascal and others at Sony were not happy with ASM movies. Not just fans that not happy so it proves the new reboot movies were bad and needed big changes.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Was Spidey hiding away in brooder ville for months and months when he was having them MJ memories? Bet the answer is nope. DKR is awesome but you know it's like an out of continuity what if sort of story. It's not canon. Hal was under the influence of the yellow emotional entity named Parallax.

Bad examples there Mr. Lantern.

.

Actually, in Spider-man: Reign, Peter has been retired from being Spider-man and haunted by visions of Mary Jane for years, not months. It makes no difference if DKR is part of the main continuity because it still showed the hero walking away for an extended period of time, something which you asserted that heroes never do. Moreover, Hal being a host for Parallax was a retcon 15 years after Emerald Twilight, and even in the most recent DC crossover, Convergence, Hal claimed partial responsibility for Parallax's actions because it was his own personal grief that allowed Parallax to take him over.

My point remains that both in comic books and comic book movies, there are a plethora of examples where the hero goes through a period where his or her need for reflection or grief halts his or her duties as a hero. So, those are perfectly viable examples.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=485629

Thanks, Daltonio

Some people only remember that rule when it's on their favor.

 

[Leenie]

Sorry for following the rules then

So? Did I ever say that you can't post unless you liked the movie? No. I even replied to your negative reply (lol) with no problems at all, as mentioned several times before, what killed was when you started with the SM3 crap, I went through the movie's release and aftermath so I don't have the patience to deal with these type of posts again.

They still happen and that's why I ignored (or blocked) some other posters who never add anything to the discussion besides indirectly provoking people, except for you, at least you neutrally expressed your points to a certain point.

Where do you get these silly notions that I don't want to see negative posts around here, Leenie? Seriously, did you even bothered to read everything I've said? Dude...

I get it. You don't like TASM, that's perfectly fine, I have friends who don't like it as well, here and on the physical world, and guess what? Nothing changed.

Your comment right here leads me to believe that you are not cool with the people who have different opinions:

I was fine until you brought Spider-Man 3 and then it's fanboys crawled from their holes just to "", I never went to Raimi's thread and stated how much I like the latest franchise (despite loving both) and etc, by your logic, I'm allowed to go in there and do that, but I can't really because people will get ******** and will report me, when they do the exact same thing around here.

Also, like I said before: I was not the first one to bring up Spider-Man 3 into the discussions in this thread. And when others would respond to my posts with a comparison, I was fine to partake in the conversation.

You seem to be fine with people bringing up Spider-Man 3 as long as they're bashing it. What say you about those posts (since "we can't go into the comparison territory")?

 

[Keehar]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29927879&postcount=574

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29927901&postcount=576

Only Andrew Lucas get in trouble for not being civil.

Way to go Octopus.

Actually, in Spider-man: Reign, Peter has been retired from being Spider-man and haunted by visions of Mary Jane for years, not months.

Spider-Man Reign? That out of continuity mini where Peter is like 70 years old? Hahahaha that's your defence?

It makes no difference if DKR is part of the main continuity because it still showed the hero walking away for an extended period of time, something which you asserted that heroes never do.

Whatchoo talking about Willis? Of course it makes a difference if it's out of continuity. They do all kinds of crazy out of character things in OOC stories because they can get away with it because fans know it's not canon. You might as well say Spidey is a flesh eating zombie because Marvel did an OOC story like that hahaha.

Moreover, Hal being a host for Parallax was a retcon 15 years after Emerald Twilight, and even in the most recent DC crossover, Convergence, Hal claimed partial responsibility for Parallax's actions because it was his own personal grief that allowed Parallax to take him over.

Nope it wasn't 15 years later it was 10 years later and they still retconned it because it sucked. And Hal didn't claim nothing, it was revealed for fact that Parallax chose Hal at the behest of Sinestro who was puppeteering a hard-light duplicate of himself in the battery during their battle on Oa.

My point remains that both in comic books and comic book movies, there are a plethora of examples where the hero goes through a period where his or her need for reflection or grief halts his or her duties as a hero. So, those are perfectly viable examples.

Your examples are all out of canon or were retconned. You have no valid point to defend the crappy ASM 2 Peter.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Way to go Octopus.



Spider-Man Reign? That out of continuity mini where Peter is like 70 years old? Hahahaha that's your defence?



Whatchoo talking about Willis? Of course it makes a difference if it's out of continuity.



Nope it wasn't 15 years later it was 10 years later and they still retconned it because it sucked. And Hal didn't claim nothing, it was revealed for fact that Parallax chose Hal at the behest of Sinestro who was puppeteering a hard-light duplicate of himself in the battery during their battle on Oa.



Your examples are all out of canon or were retconned. You have no valid point to defend the crappy ASM 2 Peter.

You said that heroes never took a break because of grief/depression, and I provided numerous examples in both comics and movies. Citing retcons and cannonical parameters are irrelevant semantics in this instance because they are are part of the various mythos of major heroes. You might not have liked the story point, but the undisputed fact is that it's an oft-used device in the history of comic book characters.

BTW, I mentioned the recent DC Convergence (as in the last couple of months) and Hal did claim guilt for the Parallax incident to Kyle Rayner. Even when Kyle mentioned that the JLA didn't blame him, Jordan refused to be talked out of his depressed state.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Your comment right here leads me to believe that you are not cool with the people who have different opinions:

Also, like I said before: I was not the first one to bring up Spider-Man 3 into the discussions in this thread. And when others would respond to my posts with a comparison, I was fine to partake in the conversation.

You seem to be fine with people bringing up Spider-Man 3 as long as they're bashing it. What say you about those posts (since "we can't go into the comparison territory")?

Yeah. I'm not cool with other opinions, yet, I'm here since this movie got released and you're the first one to ever say such thing, that must say something about me, because you're making false assumptions based on one post that doesn't even send off that impression.

Sure, do the same stuff because other people are doing it as well.

Again, and again, I wasn't discussing with anyone before you, so, if they're bringing the other franchise into the discussion, that's not my problem because I'm not involved, they know the rules, and I don't need to hunt them for not following the rules established a long time ago.

 

[Keehar]

You said that heroes never took a break because of grief/depression

Nope wrong again. That ain't what I said http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=31520937&postcount=454

and I provided numerous examples in both comics and movies. Citing retcons and cannonical parameters are irrelevant semantics in this instance because they are are part of the various mythos of major heroes. You might not have liked the story point, but the undisputed fact is that it's an oft-used device in the history of comic book characters.

HA! No you didn't. You mentioned two out of canon stories that don't count because they're as valid as Spidey being a flesh eating zombie or Batman being a vampire who kills his villains by ripping their throats out or any of the other crazy OOC stories. You used crazy OOC tales to try and defend dumb Garfield Spidey. They don't count.

BTW, I mentioned the recent DC Convergence (as in the last couple of months) and Hal did claim guilt for the Parallax incident to Kyle Rayner. Even when Kyle mentioned that the JLA didn't blame him, Jordan refused to be talked out of his depressed state.

HA! Hal blaming himself for it doesn't make him actually guilty. It's still a fact that Parallax chose Hal at the because of Sinestro. Hal feeling the guilts because of it doesn't change that.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Nope wrong again. That ain't what I said http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=31520937&postcount=454

. You used crazy OOC tales to try and defend dumb Garfield Spidey. They don't count.



HA! Hal blaming himself for it doesn't make him actually guilty. It's still a fact that Parallax chose Hal at the because of Sinestro. Hal feeling the guilts because of it doesn't change that.

You missed the entire point. Sometimes heroes feel guilt or self-doubt, even to the point of crippling depression. If you're going to tell me that Hal's expression doesn't resemble Garfield's Spidey at the end of TASM2, you can only be doing so out of emotional bias, not logic.




Also, Guy Gardner had a panic attack during Convergence as well, despite the fact that you think heroes never show periods of emotional weakness. There are just too many instances that disprove your assertion for this to even be a debate.

 

[Keehar]

You missed the entire point.

Nope I didn't. You ain't made a valid point yet because you don't even know what you're arguing. You didn't even read my posts properly. Tsk tsk.

Sometimes heroes feel guilt or self-doubt, even to the point of crippling depression.

Yep never said they don't. Fact. Most heroes have had it.

So what? Any of them in a story that ain't some crazy OOC story ever go and mope for months and months while their city goes to hell like idiot Garfield Spidey did?

Nope.

If you're going to tell me that Hal's expression doesn't resemble Garfield's Spidey at the end of TASM2, you can only be doing so out of emotional bias, not logic.

HA! Generic sad face like that resembles hundreds of sad faced characters in sad moments and times. What you think that is supposed to prove? That Garfield was feeling miserable with himself at the end? Gee whizz we didn't need you to tell us that Mr. Lantern.

You have proved nothing so far with all this GL stuff.

Also, Guy Gardner had a panic attack during Convergence as well, despite the fact that you think heroes never show periods of emotional weakness. There are just too many instances that disprove your assertion for this to even be a debate.

Did Guy Gardner go and mope for months while his city went to hell? Nope.

Also go get yourself some specs Mr. Lantern. You can't read or you're just ignoring stuff. I linked you to the post of what I actually said. I never said heroes never show periods of emotional weakness. Nope nope. Here I'll post it again just to show you again that you're still wrong since you ignored it in the last post.

Other superheroes don't just get over deaths either, but they don't spend friggin months doing nothing but moping and mourning like dopey Garfield did.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=31520937&postcount=454

I can put that in font size 20 if you still can't read that haha.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Your comment right here leads me to believe that you are not cool with the people who have different opinions:

Also, like I said before: I was not the first one to bring up Spider-Man 3 into the discussions in this thread. And when others would respond to my posts with a comparison, I was fine to partake in the conversation.

You seem to be fine with people bringing up Spider-Man 3 as long as they're bashing it. What say you about those posts (since "we can't go into the comparison territory")?

You're right Leenie. I have problems with Andrew Lucas trolling me before because he didn't like my opinion. Had to call moderator in to tell him to stop.

Nope I didn't. You ain't made a valid point yet because you don't even know what you're arguing. You didn't even read my posts properly. Tsk tsk.

Yep never said they don't. Fact. Most heroes have had it.

So what? Any of them in a story that ain't some crazy OOC story ever go and mope for months and months while their city goes to hell like idiot Garfield Spidey did?

Nope.

HA! Generic sad face like that resembles hundreds of sad faced characters in sad moments and times. What you think that is supposed to prove? That Garfield was feeling miserable with himself at the end? Gee whizz we didn't need you to tell us that Mr. Lantern.

You have proved nothing so far with all this GL stuff.

Did Guy Gardner go and mope for months while his city went to hell? Nope.

Also go get yourself some specs Mr. Lantern. You can't read or you're just ignoring stuff. I linked you to the post of what I actually said. I never said heroes never show periods of emotional weakness. Nope nope. Here I'll post it again just to show you again that you're still wrong since you ignored it in the last post.

Other superheroes don't just get over deaths either, but they don't spend friggin months doing nothing but moping and mourning like dopey Garfield did.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=31520937&postcount=454

I can put that in font size 20 if you still can't read that haha.

Agreed. All hero look sad like that when they lose loved one but they don't quit and wallow in pity for lots of months when they needed. Andrew Garfield Spider-Man was terrible.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

You missed the entire point. Sometimes heroes feel guilt or self-doubt, even to the point of crippling depression. If you're going to tell me that Hal's expression doesn't resemble Garfield's Spidey at the end of TASM2, you can only be doing so out of emotional bias, not logic.




Also, Guy Gardner had a panic attack during Convergence as well, despite the fact that you think heroes never show periods of emotional weakness. There are just too many instances that disprove your assertion for this to even be a debate.

Spot on.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Agreed. All hero look sad like that when they lose loved one but they don't quit and wallow in pity for lots of months when they needed. Andrew Garfield Spider-Man was terrible.

You're an old-timer here like me, Doc, so I'm going to assume that you're also a little older in actual age and a little more experienced in comic book lore than most Hypesters. I'm shocked that you think that the ending of TASM2 is somehow unique.

Heroes having some of kind of catastrophic event, walking away for a long time, then having a cathartic moment that brings them back into the fray could easily be considered a comic book cliche'. It's much like having an evil double, being depowered, being powered up to godlike status, having a significant other killed, being "dead" and eventually resurrected, or being mind-controlled by an arch-nemesis. It's happened so much with DC and Marvel characters that it's old hat now. TASM2 ran in the same year that X-men: DOFP was employing the exact same plot device with Charles Xavier. TASM2's ending isn't even an extreme example of a hero taking a break, let alone a unique event. It wasn't even unique in comic book adaptations of the year 2014.

Spot on.

That was a surprisingly good story. I'm a complete Kyle Rayner mark and seeing him as rookie again flooded me with nostalgic nerd euphoria.

As for TASM2, I really can't fathom the viewpoint that it somehow out of character for Spider-man. That kind of scenario is a staple of comic book lore.

 

[The Joker]

Why are you having difficulty fathoming something that is factually true? It should be the other way around. Nobody is saying that a hero taking some time out to grieve because of a tragedy or a loss of a loved one never happens. But not for months on end abandoning their superhero duties while the people/city they protect suffers like in TASM 2, which is very much out of character for Peter. But you're here posting Green Lantern facial expressions in some attempt to validate that, which is something that makes no sense at all.

That doesn't happen, unless you're talking about those elseworlds out of canon tales, which are the only examples you've been able to cite, which are not valid examples for in character traits because the sky's the limit on the insane things they do in tales like that, some of which have already been cited to you.

Even in the infamous 'Spider-Man no more story' in the comics, he didn't abandon his Spider-Man duties for weeks or months. It was a matter of days, and during the story we see him go through personal conflict about what he's doing, and do some soul searching, just like in Spider-Man 2. As others have already said, with TASM 2's sloppy one minute montage of Peter's months and months of quitting and wallowing in misery, we see nothing insightful like that. Just him spending countless time hanging around Gwen's grave.

You mentioned X-Men Days of Future Past as using the same plot device as TASM 2. It absolutely 100% did not. Charles Xavier had not formed his X-Men team yet. He did not break up the X-Men and sink into depression. He just abandoned his school for mutants. The X-Men had not happened yet, which is why Wolverine was telling him later that when he does meet the X-Men team like Scott, Storm, Jean etc in the future that he has to guide them, lead them because they'll need him. Had he abandoned the X-Men team and done that, then you'd have a valid movie example.

It's the same with The Dark Knight Rises example you tried to use on the previous page. You said Batman quit for years because of Rachel and Harvey's death. Also 100% untrue. He quit because Gotham didn't need him any more. Organized crime was cleaned up because of the Dent Act. This is verbally stated several times in the movie. He didn't abandon his city for a long time because he was wallowing in grief like Peter did in TASM 2. That didn't even happen in the comics when he lost Gwen. He had reason to feel guilt for her death in there, too, unlike in TASM 2.