This epic douche damn near RUINED spiderman

This message has been deleted by an administrator

100% agree with you, Garfield was soo annoying as Peter Parker/Spider-man and also not that good at acting imo.

TM was the perfect Peter Parker/spiderman. If spiderman is a cocky wise cracking hipster douche you can't root for him and the essence of what makes him so great is gone.

But that's what Spider-Man is, that's how he has always been in the comics and it's one of the reasons comic readers like him so much.
So, yeah, don't pretend like you're a fan of Spider-Man as a character, you're not.

BTW, most critics (to wit: far more knowledgeable than you and thus more worthy of being listened to) agree that one of the salvageable things in ASM 2 was the actors (Garfield, Stone and DeHaan in particular).
And they loved ASM. So, yeah, your opinion is wrong.

PS, Tobey Maguire is a terrible actor, always has been and always will be. Just look at his career: he hasn't done anything worthy or good since Spider-Man 3. While Garfield keeps making highly artistic and overly praised movies. Unlike Maguire, he doesn't need Spider-Man to be famous or to be considered even remotely good (and that's just by stupid fanboys).

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! These are the IMDB Boards!"

You're mistaken.
When it comes to judging art, opinions can be wrong. It's when they go against the consensus by authorities and, when it comes to movies, those authorities tend to be the critics.
Mind you, nobody can hold it against you to sustain a wrong opinion, but it is still wrong.

And don't kid yourself, you can't refute any of my points because I am right on all of them:
Wisecracking is spider-man's signature, that's fact, not opinion, ask any comic book fan.
Maguire's disappointing post-spider-man career is fact, not opinion. Just check his IMDB page and how those works were received.
Garfield's brilliant career is also fact, not opinion. Just look at how well received most of his work has been and continues being so.
ASM 2's casting being the best part of it is also fact (again, consensus by authorities). Read most of the reviews.
ASM being well liked by critics is also fact: certified fresh in RT.

PS: You have a lot of cheek to call me a troll when you're the one who posts a detractor thread on the actor's board. Seriously, that's trolling in its purest form; save this crap for Tobey Maguire's board or whatever other subpar actor you happen to be a fan of.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! These are the IMDB Boards!"

But Spidey can't always wisecrack all the time if sh!t happens, like getting other citizens killed while he fights bigger threats than some thugs on the street, Tobey did a bad@ss impression of what Spidey should be, Garfield is just another way to sell to target audience e.g. comic book nerds, teen girls etc and I'm particularly don't like spider-man any more, but I use to read some of the comics back in the day (from 90's-2000's). BTW Maguire ain't a terrible actor, go watch Brothers, he did a fine job in there.

I also preferred Andrew Garfield, but for you to say an opinion is wrong based on 'authorities' is silly. Just because the critics have a common ground reaction to a certain movie or performance doesn't make their opinions fact more so that anyone else's. That's not how it works.

you are very childish and naive (I feel some immaturity from you as well)

... No, it isn't. Saying that the Mona Lisa is an awful painting would be factually wrong.

When it comes to judging art (which cinema is), fact is the consensus set by the authorities, That's how it works.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! These are the IMDB Boards!"