Really underrated, and I think unfairly panned despite their quality. Andrew Garfield is still my favorite Spider-man/Peter Parker with deftly handled narratives and characters. I'm looking forward to Spider-man: Homecoming, but I'm sad that we won't be seeing at least one more Andrew Garfield Spider-man movie.
...
unfairly panned
Hey, Spencer. I disagree.
*Scattered narrativeIt's a narrative focused on character than plot and particularly attentive to how the story is influenced by character development.
*insufferable love story despite the chemistry between leadsI STRONGLY disagree with this. It's a complicated love story concerning the ethics of Peter and Gwen continuing their relationship in the face of a promise to Gwen's dying father who saved his life.
*Inconsistent toneI agree with this. Not so much for Alexsi (as he functions as a "simple villain" that functions as both narrative bookends and "return to the status quo" for peter. I do agree that inconsistent against pieces like Dr. Kafka, but even then it was used in order to make the audience sympathize with Max's situation because of his treatment and to further his point of view and character.
*Endless amounts of fan service and sequel baitI disagree. Harry promises to bring down the Sinister Six onto Peter, but both this and the Rhino are meant to demonstrate that in the face of everything that is barrelling down on Peter, he'll face it with optimism and hope and not submit to despair in the face of loss. It's not like the "Robin" name in The Dark Knight Rises or the "Knightmare" scene in BvS where you need to know the comic history to function.
*Villains who are weak at best (Lizard, Harry) and irritating at worst (Electro, Rhino)The villains are incredibly complex people (except for Alexsei who I mentioned before as serving a particular purpose (not to mention that there have been violent crazy Russian mobsters like Stefano Vitabile who were actually as nuts as Alexsei). Connors was a complex character whose motivations against Richard Parker mirrored Peter's own journey, Max was a sympathetic/pathetic everyman whose misformation made him give up on hope in a parallel storyline to Peter's and was a genuine threat, and Harry was a desperate man trying any course offered to him that ALSO connected into the idea of hopelessness in the film.
The first TASM also gets an important part of the origin wrong by having Uncle Ben be responsible for his own death.That's not actually true because the it's the criminal who shoots him dead. It's not like BvS where Thomas Wayne actively fights an armed man and gets killed because he's a moron. Uncle Ben sees the gun after the burglar drops it and is surrounded by innocent people. Ben tries to stop this because the burglar is a danger to everyone around him and Ben sees that it's his responsibility, no matter the danger, to protect others if he has the ability to do so - NOT CHOICE, responsibility.
Hey, Spencer. I disagree.
It's a narrative focused on character than plot
It's a complicated love story concerning the ethics of Peter and Gwen continuing their relationship in the face of a promise to Gwen's dying father who saved his life.
the audience sympathize with Max's situation
Harry promises to bring down the Sinister Six
The villains are incredibly complex people
Connors was a complex character
Max was a sympathetic/pathetic everyman
Harry was a desperate man trying any course offered
it's the criminal who shoots him dead.
Uncle Ben sees the gun after the burglar drops it and is surrounded by innocent people
I mostly disagree with your assessment of the TASM series of films.
Big shockerNo need for a disparaging attitude, dude.
Tell that to Captain America: Civil War. A narrative motivated by character development and arcs concerning the relationship between these two characters that's not going to be cleared up in a villain vs. hero fist fight or finding a Maguffin.
It's never a good idea to put one before the other in either case. In TASM 2's case, It makes the story and structure of the movie an absolute trainwreck.
The problem is that it feels like back-tracking and being unable to make up it's mind on what the arc is supposed to tell us about the characters. What's more, It also makes Peter come off as extremely immature and indecisive. If he's willing to defy the dying wish of her father, Be with her. If he doesn't, Don't be with her but don't try and have it both ways.I'm not saying Peter isn't torn by indeciveness, because that's a central problem for him in the story, not an objective flaw. It's not back-tracking since this is a mature issue. Peter and Gwen love each other, but Peter is torn by his ethical and moral quandary of keeping his word to Captain Stacy after his death. His indecisiveness is BECAUSE of his maturity in considering the situation; he grows by the end of the film further by realizing that, much like Captain Stacy, Gwen's choice to help Peter and to be apart of her life are all her own, and nobody elses.
Something that could be done while keeping the tone consistent and it's a failure anyway since Max is not a sympathetic character.Life has absolutely pounded Max into the ground. His ideas were stolen and used by the company he works for (that has no respect for him) and the only bright spot in his life was his one meeting with his hero. After being declared dead, shot at, treated like a monster, had his hero (in his mind) betray him, be captured, and tortured and experimented on, I could sympathize with Max's anger, but he also doesn't believe there's hope for himself in rejoining society. How can you not sympathize with the guy?
The Ravencroft and OsCorp material fits in with Max's and Harry's roles in the story as well as Richard Parker's backstory. It's APART of the narrative. It's not like Flash's cameo in Batman v Superman where it doesn't tie into anything. Smythe is the representative of OsCorp as a soulless uncaring company that doesn't care for Max which pushes Max further into his depression, and Felicia acts as someone Harry can actually trust and helps him in the narrative. And I don't see why prominant characters in the comics can't be in stories and NOT be the main characters in a story if they serve a narrative purpose. Victor Zsasz in Batman Begins, Crossbones in Civil War, Barbara Gordon in The Dark Knight, Colossus in X2. All of these famous characters in the comics have smaller roles in the films, but that doesn't inherently make the films worse since they're actually focused on the characters they have and use other characters in minor roles without stopping the film while paying homage to them. You want to talk about unncessary characters placed in films that aren't used well, we can showcase Dr. Crane in The Dark Knight Rises acting as a judge.
The whole business with Oscorp Secret Projects and the Ravencroft Institute, pointlessly naming minor characters after important Spider-Man ones (Smythe, Felicia) are all straight up sequel bait for the Sinister Six. Even the Villains (Electro, Green Goblin) are completely wasted because there just there to mark time for their roles in it.
Y'know, it's the sign of a insecure man when he has to denigrate another's opinion because he doesn't agree with it.
Wow, just Wow.
He was a random scientist who just happened to know Peter's dad and once he mutated, He was just a generic monster with unclear motivations, a stupid design and none of the comic book character's sympathetic qualities. His master plan made no sense and was completely unnecessary.He's not a random scientist. He desperately searches for the ability to regrow his arm in an attempt to become a "whole person" again in his mind and sees his handicap as debilitating. He hates Richard Parker because their research was so close and Richard took away that opportunity. He resented the entire Parker family because of this and emotionally admits that he wrongly took it out on Peter and his family for abandoning him (which runs parallel to Peter's belief that his own father abandoned his family). He didn't believe in subjugating other desperate people to an experiment that he wasn't sure would work, which is why the scene where he tells Dr. Ratha he won't help him. Because Ratha says "screw it" and decides to go to the veteran's hospital to test try it on desperate soldiers who want to regrow their limbs, Connors decides to test it on himself, regardless of the consequences so no one else will have to. It seems to work, until he realizes the side-effects. Connors' mind also starts being affected by the serum and believes that the ability to cure other peoples' conditions and sicknesses overtakes the need to go through a process. He sees it as an end to widespread suffering, without seeing the dangers. He has good reasons, but the path to Hell is usually paved with such.
There was nothing sympathetic about Max, Nothing that "paralleled" his story with Peters, and there was really no reason for him to be in that movie period. He never hoped to be normal, He never looked up to Spider-Man as an inspiration to be better, He deluded himself into thinking a man he had known for less than a minute was his best friend. It's an awfully written character, a cheesy performance that felt like it belonged in a Schumacher movie and honestly, He was pointless. Seriously cut him out of the movie and what changes?Yeah, there was. He was a man who life had unfairly trampled on. Besides the aforementioned crappy luck and abuse the man has suffered, he looked up to Spider-man because he gave him hope (*WINK, WINK, HERE'S THE THEME***) out of a rough existence. Max's whole plot line is about self-delusion in both literal and figurative methods. His character flaw is that he justifies his actions based on how he himself had been treated. He empowers himself as his own 'hero' when Harry tells him that he needs him (another theme of the film that characters 'needing' one another) and plans to It changes SIGNIFICANTLY because Max's storyline of losing hope and being the instigator for the OsCorp meddling changes the structure of the story.
He was also an idiot without Harry Osborn's defining trait and whose motivation for trying to kill Spider-Man at the end was non-existent ("I hate you because you didn't give me what I wanted right then that I now realize I shouldn't have taken") It's an awful representation of both Harry and the Green Goblin period.He wants Spider-man's blood because he believes it has regenerative properties. Harry is doing this because he's absolutely terrified of living a life where his condition will slowly eat away at his nervous system (already starting by the shaking) and kill him like it did his father. He's using OsCorp's resources to find a cure for himself. He's desperate because he's understandably scared. He turns to Spider-man for help, and Spider-man doesn't because the last time he gave someone the key to his genetics, he had to contend with the Lizard. Harry was thrown into even MORE dire circumstances because the board tried to frame him for experimenting on Electro and had the OsCorp resources cut from him, causing him to test out the Spider genetics in a last-ditch effort to cure himself knowing that this would be his only opportunity to do it before the board threw him out and he could no longer get access to this material. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that the genetics of the spider venom was tailored to the Parkers' DNA, and thus his condition got worse. He feels that if Spider-man had given him his blood earlier to heal himself, he would have had an opportunity to examine it and find a way to heal himself, and that was something Peter denied him.
Because Ben lunged at him. The robber gave no indication he was going to shoot Ben until Ben tried to lunge at the gun and of he hadn't tripped, The guy would've been on his merry wayHe lunged for the gun, to stop the burglar from using the gun, as he was CLEARLY careless about it and there were innocent people around. The burglar clearly used the gun with lethal intent as he Uncle Ben is trying to disarm him and points it straight at his gut. The Burglar was a danger to everyone around him, and Uncle Ben tried to stop him.
The guy had a loaded gun with the safety off, running away from a robbery and into a group of people. He's not just "merrily walking" when he confronts Uncle Ben, nor is he anything close to worried or upset when he FIRES the gun and leaves Uncle Ben to die on the streets.
They guy was trying to run away, he wasn't going to open fire on a crowd of innocent people.
Tell that to Captain America: Civil War.
BECAUSE of his maturity in considering the situation;
How can you not sympathize with the guy?
You want to talk about unncessary characters placed in films that aren't used well, we can showcase Dr. Crane in The Dark Knight Rises acting as a judge.
He desperately searches for the ability to regrow his arm in an attempt to become a "whole person" again in his mind and sees his handicap as debilitating.
Connors' mind also starts being affected by the serum
, he looked up to Spider-man because he gave him hope
It changes SIGNIFICANTLY because Max's storyline of losing hope and being the instigator for the OsCorp meddling changes the structure of the story.
He feels that if Spider-man had given him his blood earlier to heal himself, he would have had an opportunity to examine it and find a way to heal himself, and that was something Peter denied him.
He lunged for the gun, to stop the burglar from using the gun,
The guy had a loaded gun with the safety off, running away from a robbery and into a group of people.
Captain America Civil War has a plot structure and a narrative through line, It's not a sequence of unrelated plot points you could place in any random order.As does TASM2. These events start unrelated but BUILD to an ending involving all parties involved. It's just like how Crossbone's terrorist actions, Zemo's actions in Cleveland, and Tony's discussion at MIT aren't related at first, but BUILD into a grand story.
The way he jerks Gwen around throughout the summer is anything but mature.What?? They both lose Captain Stacy, and Peter starts up the relationship again because they love each other. Then in TASM2, he becomes absolutely guilt-ridden and can't continue the relationship. He's not doing it throughout the entirety of the Summer.
He tries to honor Captain Stacy's dying wish but is unable to because of his feelings for her but waffles on it throughout the movie and well before that because of what Gwen said. The whole "will they/won't they" plot line they have is pointless. Either be with Gwen throughout the movie with no "I break up with you" BS or keep your distance from her and get back at the very end before she dies. Don't try and go the middle ground, It's incredibly tedious.It's CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. He's trying to mediate between what he wants, he and Gwen's relationship, and his moral promise to Capt. Stacy. It would be like criticizing Bruce Wayne for agonizing over the moral struggle of giving himself up to the police in The Dark Knight. Character's struggling with what to do is apart of storytelling. He is also determined to stay out of a romantic relationship with Gwen when they meet again as friends (as he tries to undermine) but at the end of the day when realizing he could lose her forever, he realizes that he can't live without her and understands that he doesn't have power over her decisions as a person, and neither is her father.
You can't make a character sympathetic just because life never deals him a fair hand, How the characters react to their circumstances is an important part as well. Max Dillon never feels like anything approaching a real human being, He's a complete stereotype, a human cartoon that looks like he walked off the set of Batman Forever.Max is someone incredibly dutiful to his profession as an electrical engineer. He continues his profession even though it's in the face of a corporation taking advantage of him. When he's being assaulted and threatened by the cops, he's begging them to stop and trying to reason with them as he's adjusting to his new form. He terrified and scared and just wants to be left alone, and (to him) his whole world turns on him.
Worser [sic] than two random Oscorp executive being named after a roboticist and a cat burglar even though they have nothing to do with either profession? (Zsasz was still a serial killer in Begins, and Crossbones was still a mercenary in Civil War)They function within the film in their particular roles in the film. And YOUR argument was that they were "pointlessly naming minor characters after important Spider-Man ones". They didn't need to make Zsasz in Batman Begins despite being a far more prominent character in the comics (he doesn't even get a LINE in Batman Begins). Also, are we talking about comic book source material faithfulness, or incorporation in terms of storytelling? Because those are two different things.
He's not entirely unsympathetic as it stands but he's nowhere near as compelling as he should be.I thought it was a well-enough motivation for him as a character and made him sympathetic and interesting.
But we don't get a sense of why he's come to this "they'd be better off as reptiles" mentality. He's just suddenly and willingly the bad guy no explanation of how he got there.It's not that "they're better off reptiles". It's that "there are so many people suffering from ailments, diseases, and conditions and I can cure them of it." He's not willing to be a bad-guy. He doesn't kill the cops trying to stop him, he doesn't try to kill Gwen, and the only reason he kills Capt. Stacy is because he's helping Spider-man destroy what he believes is a good evolutionary step for humanity.
He develops this pathetic delusion that they're best friends and then turns on him because he thinks Spidey set him up to be shot at (which he literally could not have planned for)YES! HE DOES!!!! He's a pathetic man whose situation is sad, but his responses once he gets power and anger is deplorable. That's the POINT! He defines himself by resentment and oppressors before establishing his own identity as a person. He wants people to "see him" and recognize who he is, like Spider-man, without realizing that Spider-man doesn't get this attention intentionally, but Max doesn't register this because he thinks Spider-man is like him - desiring appreciation for who he is and what he works towards.
That doesn't justify Max's inclusion in the story. Again, I submit to you, Cut him out of the movie and what changes?A very large one that sets up the second half of the film. Dillon is experimented on by OsCorp illegally and use Harry as a scapegoat for the testing to get rid of both of them. Without Electro, Harry can't make it into the vault for the "cure" and equipment and without THAT, it wouldn't set the stage for Peter and Gwen to encounter Harry at the power plant if they didn't have to contend with Electro.
Because Harry's life is ruined and over. If Spider-man/Peter had given him his blood, he may have understood that the spider venom would have had an adverse reaction to Harry's blood, or even could have offered him the opportunity to CREATE a cure out of his blood. Spider-man was Harry's last hope of finding ethical ways of finding a cure, as Harry merely ASKED for Spider-man's blood rather than trying to take it by force.
That's an extremely vague reason to want revenge on a guy who flat-out warned him that his blood could kill or do something even worse to him.
The guy had not used the gun and had no intention of using the gun. He had no intention of shooting Uncle Ben until the guy attempted to wrestle the gun away from him. If Uncle Ben hadn't moved, The guy would've just run away with no casualties at all."No intention of using the gun" doesn't sound as logical as a reason when he takes the gun with him. He DOES have the desire to use the gun as he struggles with Uncle Ben to specifically point it at him and fire at him. Not an accident. Not going off by chance. He specifically POINTS IT at Ben and fires because he's trying to stop him. The burglar could have easily dropped the gun and ran, but he decided to struggle with Uncle Ben. What's missing from this argument is the idea that the burglar has no influence over whether or not the gun goes off (especially if they have control of it). It would be like saying Thomas Wayne justified Joe Chill's shooting in Batman Begins because Thomas startled him by moving too quickly and commanding him not to point the gun at his wife.
Which he had tucked into his shirt. If he hadn't tripped or the gun hadn't flown out, He would've just run past Ben as it was not his intention to kill him.A loaded gun is dangerous, and running into a group of people in desperation and looking like he's running away from something isn't exactly screaming "I'm an innocent man just out for a stroll." Not to mention that the burglar made no attempt at justifying himself and just struggled for the gun.
As does TASM2
What??
It would be like criticizing Bruce Wayne for agonizing over the moral struggle of giving himself up to the police in The Dark Knight
It's CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT.
Max is someone incredibly dutiful to his profession as an electrical engineer. He continues his profession even though it's in the face of a corporation taking advantage of him.
They didn't need to make Zsasz in Batman Begins despite being a far more prominent character in the comics
made him sympathetic and interesting.
there are so many people suffering from ailments, diseases, and conditions and I can cure them of it."
He's a pathetic man whose situation is sad,
Without Electro, Harry can't make it into the vault for the "cure" and equipment and without THAT,
If Spider-man/Peter had given him his blood, he may have understood that the spider venom would have had an adverse reaction to Harry's blood
"No intention of using the gun" doesn't sound as logical as a reason when he takes the gun with him.
Ben and fires because he's trying to stop him.
A loaded gun is dangerous, and running into a group of people in desperation and looking like he's running away
That must be why there's so many articles stating the exact opposite. These plot threads don't build into one overarching story, They pretty much exist in a completely separate universe.Bandwagon and arguments from incredulity are logical fallacies, so using them as argument points isn't exactly a strong way to make your point.
In the chinese restaurant scene,Gwen says "you've done this to me again and again, This time I break up with you". Clear proof that this isn't the first time Peter's tried to break up with Gwen.It's not exactly "clear proof" since there rocky start of their relationship in TASM1 where they started up and ended their relationship several times, not just "ending" it.
Are you kidding me? These struggles have nothing in common. Bruce tries his best to find out where the Joker is and the makes up his mind to turn himself in, He tries something, It doesn't work, He commits to another course of action, He isn't indecisive, He doesn't go back and forth on his decision like Peter does.The point of contention I have with your argument is the idea of indecisiveness paralyzing a character for a particular decision. Not the context. Bruce DOES go back and forth between decisions. He refuses to reveal himself to the Joker for his identity, then he decides to reveal himself, then decides to let Harvey take the fall for Batman.
"A character arc is the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story. If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story." That's what happens in both TASM films. Peter's choice is to cut her out of his life in order to do what believes in as "protecting her". The power isn't over someone else but denying sharing his life with her out of fear she will also die like her father did.
You mean the kind that doesn't actually develop a character at all. If Peter's arc is learning that he and her dead dad don't have power over her decisions, That's incredibly stupid. Obviously, You can't have power over someone else.
He was a killer with knife marks etched into his skin, Why wouldn't they call him Zsasz?. Felicia was just a random oscorp executive who happened to be a woman, She could've been Alison Monigrain and it would have made no discernible difference.Your argument was that they made "important comic Spider-man characters" minor characters rather than major ones. First off, that's EXACTLY what Zsasz is. Only a fleeting glimpse of the character from the comics with none of the intriguing stuff regarding his ritualistic murders in the comics. Why am I alright with it? Because the story in Batman Begins DOESN'T FOCUS ON ZSASZ. He's an easter egg - a supporting side-character that doesn't interfere with the movie, but comic fans will enjoy seeing him in a smaller role. Zsasz's scars aren't focused on in the story. He LITERALLY COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONE ELSE and nothing would have changed in the story since it doesn't matter that it's Victor Zsasz. You could have had Deacon Blackfire or Calendar Man as that character and nothing would have changed.
He's come to that conclusion because his experiment resulted in him curing himself, which gives him faith in his own experiments as well as starts influencing his mind to drive himself to spread the genetic change given how experimental the cure was. He's also not a crazy monster in his entirety since A) he's motivated by what he believes is an ethical reason, and B) doesn't actively try to terrorize and kill people. He's just trying to spread the Lizard genetics over the city.
Again, We don't get a good sense of why he's come to that conclusion. His one proclamation to Peter about "saving/curing lost souls" doesn't make him sympathetic because it's not played up very well. He's just a big crazy monster who wants to turn other people into big crazy monsters.
But hes not sympathetic, he's a cartoonish, nerd stereotype.But he is sympathetic. He's a shy awkward person desperately trying to find validation in his life and there ARE people in this world who do act such as him. You've NEVER met someone like this? Back in College, I had part-time jobs where the IT department was practically flooded with people like this.
Without Electro, Harry doesn't get barred from Oscorp and can make it to the vault without holding someone at gunpoint because he owns the company.Harry's desperation and being thrown out of OsCorp is important to the context of his character. Him experimenting with the Spider venom is a last resort as everything else is taken away from him. If you DON't HAVE Harry being blamed for Electro, then he doesn't lose access to the company. You can re-write the film to where Electro's presence isn't there, but if you edit the current film without Electro, it literally doesn't make functional sense as a narrative without him (not even touching the story and character elements).
Peter says he doesn't know himself what will happen. Harry thinks that if Peter had given him access to his genetics earlier, he could have worked with it to find a cure. The problem is that Connors was also well-intentioned and smart, and he still fell to create something terrible. And this isn't even considering the context of Peter being distrusting of OsCorp.
Which is something Spider-Man already explicitly warned him about, so once he disfigures himself using Spider-Venom, he really has no one to blame but himself.
But hes not sympathetic,
I have a gun. I don't take it out for leisurely strolls and it's far from being considered a responsible gun owner to be running with it so brazenly in a crowded area with basically no security measures on it, like having it in a holster. Also, pistol permit holders in New York are legally obligated to carry concealed, with specifics to holsters and not in your pants waistband. That's dangerous and stupid, and clearly Ben saw this and noticed that this guy was a danger.
It's his possession, It belongs to him. Just because it flew out of his jacket doesn't mean hes going to pick it up and start firing into the crowd and he wouldn't have shot Uncle Ben at all if Ben hadn't lunged at the gun
His motivation for going after Spider-Man is stupid and his motivation for forming the Sinister Six at the end are non-existent.Harry views what Peter did as a betrayal to him and if he had worked with him, then he could have saved himself and avoided the Hell he went through in the film. Harry's normal life is over, and all he can see now is revenge against Peter. I don't see how his motivations don't make sense, especially in the context of Harry believing that Peter had ruined his life by taking away his last shred of HOPE.
Something he wouldn't have done if Ben hadn't tried to stop him.You can see it as a moral quandary, but I personally fall on the side of someone trying to do the right thing is disarming an obviously dangerous person who clearly doesn't mind brandishing a loaded weapon in public and keeping it from hurting anyone else. Also, the burglar CHOOSES to fire his weapon at Ben, not just drop it and leave.
Just because hes not an "innocent man" strictly speaking doesn't mean he intends to hurt anyone and it most certainly wasn't his intent to hurt Ben until the man tried to wrestle him for the gun.See the aforementioned reasons for why this man is clearly not a responsible gun owner above, it wasn't his intent to directly hurt Uncle Ben, but having Uncle Ben step in and try to wrestle the loaded gun that was improperly handled away from someone clearly running away in desperation. There's a moment where Ben sees the gun, and he and the burglar make eye-contact, clearly showcasing that the burglar is worried about him taking the gun away from him. Obviously, this is not a "whoops, my gun fell out, so sorry" moment. Ben even YELLS at him to not go towards the gun, as this man is clearly not just a friendly neighborhood member of the GOA having himself a nice evening run wearing shades and acting aggressive.
so using them as argument points isn't exactly a strong way to make your point.
TASM1 where they started up and ended their relationship several times
Bruce DOES go back and forth between decisions.
A character arc is the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story. If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story."
easter egg - a supporting side-character that doesn't interfere with the movie, but comic fans will enjoy seeing him in a smaller role.
He's just trying to spread the Lizard genetics over the city.
He's a shy awkward person desperately trying to find validation
Harry's desperation and being thrown out of OsCorp is important to the context of his character.
Harry thinks that if Peter had given him access to his genetics earlier, he could have worked with it to find a cure.
1. feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
Ben saw this and noticed that this guy was a danger.
. Harry's normal life is over,
on the side of someone trying to do the right thing is disarming an obviously dangerous person who clearly doesn't mind brandishing a loaded weapon in public and keeping it from hurting anyone else.
but having Uncle Ben step in and try to wrestle the loaded gun
You weren't illustrating that. You were literally saying "well, other people agree with me" as a basis of your argument, which is a logical fallacy given that that particular argument isn't based on legitimate criticism, but rather vague generalizations.
Illustrating how TASM 2 doesn't have a narrative throughline is me "making my point".
The multiple subplots throughout the film (Peter and Gwen's drama, Max's antics and Harry searching for a cure to his vaguely defined terminal disease) never connect in any meaningful way.That is just not true, especially if removing any element of the story hinders character development or plot.
No they didn't. They spent the entirety of that movie flirting and making cutesy awkward small talk but nothing to suggest it's the events of that movie that Gwen refers to when she says "you've done this to me again and again".Yes, they did. Peter has changed their relationship several times very quickly. They start their relationship after initial flirtation, then he breaks up with her after the death of her father, then he wants to be with her again at the end of the first film.
Not like Peter does.Peter's indecision comes out of a wrestling with abstract ideas of ethics. Bruce's indecision comes out of something similar to reveal himself to the world to save others.
Bruce doesn't commit to one choice of action, decide to go back on it, change his decision back to the previous course of action and then change his mind again to the first course of action.Yes, he does. It's literally that with his identity. At first, he doesn't reveal it even though it will save lives, then he decides to do it, then he decides to back out of the plan once Harvey Dent takes the fall.
Something that never happens to Peter Parker in TASM 2. Learning the painfully obvious (It's Gwen's decision to keep seeing him, not hers) is not an arc.First, it's a relationship. They BOTH have a decision to keep seeing each other. It's not painfully obvious when Peter is trying to be an ethical person when promising her DYING FATHER WHO SAVED HIS LIFE that he would keep her out of his life. Peter understands that it's wrong to keep her out of his life because they love each other, and ultimately the one who's proven wrong is Captain Stacy because it is Gwen's choice to be apart of Peter's life, with Peter upholding his promise out of an obligation to Captain Stacy more than genuinely siding with George's reasons for leaving Gwen out of Peter's life.
Even if it was a cameo, Zsasz was still more or less the same and served the same purpose he did in the comics (a dangerous killer), The random female Oscorp executive had no reason to be named Felica because she has nothing to do with her comic book counterpart in any way not even a minute similarity.A subversive femme fatale working slyly with the antagonist to steal something in the film ISN'T Black Cat esque to you? Also, this is a pretty miniscule criticism given that a character's adherence to source material is a distant second to storytelling and writing.
Gwen submits to Peter in the chinese restaurant that its not his fathers choice or his but he still says he can't do it but then right when shes about to leave for england, He decides the opposite. A character arc can't just be a character acting different in another part of the story without explanation, There needs to be a logical sequence of events that change the characters outlook. When does this ever happen in TASM2 for Peter?He decides the opposite because he's facing the reality of never seeing her again. When they break up, she's still in the city and still apart of his life, but it's not until that she'll no longer be in his life that he's forced into action and his love for her supersedes any reason for them not to be together.
Because he sees that the entire world has turned on him. The people of New York, OsCorp, and even his hero, Spider-man, seemingly forget about him and view him as a monster, with him as the man in charge.
His motivation just isn't delved into deeply enough to make him a sympathetic character worth investing in because we don't really know why he wants to create a world without weakness.
It's not enough to say "His life sucks, Feel bad for him" He needs to be at least to a small degree, likable or endearing and to act like an actual Human being. Max does none of this, He's a creepy stalker who becomes an even more powerful creepy stalker.First, on a conceptual level, it is enough. You don't need to know about a person's endearing qualities in order to feel sympathy for them. You're adding an addendum to sympathy that doesn't exist. Second, Max is filled with optimism and joy when he considers Spider-man as a hugely beneficial member of society. Even though he's tired and just wants to celebrate his birthday, he happily goes to do his work, even talking with the eels as if they were pets. That coupled with his terrible place in life, it's easy to feel for the guy.
You don't need Electro or Harry being thrown out of his company for him to be desperate. He still finds special projects, Felicia still tells him about the spider venom, Him experimenting with it and turning into the "Green Beevis" has nothing to do with Electro.Yes, you do need him to be desperate enough to use the venom without knowing the consequences since this is last chance to get access to the company's resources to heal him. He finds the special projects and Felicia helps him break into special resources. He DOES need Electro, especially in terms of having the power to break into OsCorp (which Harry can't do alone).
Not only does he have no way of actually knowing that, It's never stated in the movie. The writing just gives off the impression that he's angry at Spider-Man for not giving him his blood even though he was painfully disfigured by the equivalent if it.Harry wants the blood, and the film SPECIFICALLY points out that Peter doesn't know what the ramifications will be if he wants to use the blood. Harry is desperate, and that's clouding his judgment. He thinks Spider-man's blood is a cure-all for the problem, and he's already starting to have the affects of his family's condition. If he gets his hands on Peter's blood, then (in Harry's mind) he can find a cure for himself which he think Spider-man is denying him. Honestly, this is DIRECTLY in the movie. I can't make it any more apparent.
I felt that Foxx had a good performance as a socially awkward man who turned his insecurities back on the rest of the world. I've seen men act and look like Jamie Foxx in real life.
and I felt none because of Foxx's goofy performance, over the top appearance and stalker tendencies.
It wasn't his responsibility to stop this guy, He's an elderly man with a wife and nephew to take care of. It wasn't like the thief was going to pick up the gun and shoot Ben with it, He would've just run away and Ben and the people surrounding him would've been no worse off."He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things! That's what's at stake here. Not choice. Responsibility."
Through No fault of Peter or Spider-Man's, Putting together a team to get "revenge" on someone who isn't really at fault for anything that happened to you is incredibly petty.We keep coming back to this. Harry thinks that Peter denied him the opportunity to cure himself by withholding his blood. Harry sees Peter's inaction as what damns Harry instead of working with him.
And fi Uncle Ben hadn't tried to do that, He wouldn't have died simple as that. It wasn't the intention of the robber to kill Uncle Ben until Ben tried to wrestle the gun away from himBen had a moral obligation to himself to help other people. The thing you just keep missing is the fact that the burglar chose to shoot him. It wasn't an accident, and the burglar chose to shoot him rather than merely drop the gun and leave, and even after Ben shouts at him not to go near the gun. The burglar is completely in the wrong here in killing Ben.
You weren't illustrating that
That is just not true,
They start their relationship after initial flirtation, then he breaks up with her after the death of her father, then he wants to be with her again at the end of the first film.
Bruce's indecision comes out of something similar to reveal himself to the world to save others.
Peter upholding his promise out of an obligation to Captain Stacy more than genuinely siding with George's reasons for leaving Gwen out of Peter's life.
A subversive femme fatale
Because he sees that the entire world has turned on him.
First, on a conceptual level, it is enough
you do need him to be desperate enough to use the venom without knowing the consequences since this is last chance to get access to the company's resources to heal him
He thinks Spider-man's blood is a cure-all for the problem
"He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things! That's what's at stake here. Not choice. Responsibility."
Harry thinks that Peter denied him the opportunity to cure himself by withholding his blood
burglar chose to shoot him.
TASM 2 does not have a central conflict, nothing to tie the various subplots throughout its runtime together, It's a series of unrelated plot points that either don't converge or do so in extremely contrived and ham-fisted ways.Yes, it does have a central conflict. Peter and Gwen coming to terms with their relationship. It's an emotional conflict that is the heart of the film. The subplots ARE tied together that come together naturally and makes sense with character growth.
Except it is.Saying something multiple times doesn't make it true.
Then why does Gwen say "you've done this to me again and again" if she's just referring to the events of the first movie? This isn't "changing their relationship" several times, it's twice.I think she's referring to the changes in their relationship status, which had been changed by Peter. They started in TASM on the rooftop, they stopped with the death of Captain Stacy, they started back at the end of TASM, and now they stopped at the beginning of TASM2.
Except theres no indecision on Bruces part really. He tries his best to track down the Joker, decides to turn himself in to save lives and realizes what Harveys trying to do when he falsely turns himself in as Batman. His situation has nothing to do with Peter lacking the maturity to commit to a course of action.There is through action and inaction. Bruce is unable to reveal himself the first time around in The Dark Knight because he thinks Batman as a symbol and not a man is more important. In all that time that the Joker runs rampent (with a bit of confusing body counts by the end of the film), Bruce still allows other people to die for him because he's unwilling to reveal himself. When Harvey takes the fall for him, he refuses to commit to his action of revealing himself to lure out the Joker.
Nothing "subervise" or Femme Fatale-esque about her.She undermines the very company she works for to give Harry the chance to save himself, and abusing the trust the company had given her to educate Harry on location of the Venom.
The problem is that the scenes involving Max in his civilian life are simply much too goofy to fit in tonally with the rest of the movie, especially when he's talking to his Spider-Man mural.I wouldn't say goofy. I'd consider it far more sad and pathetic with Max's life.
Again not a character arc because Peter never learns anything like that here. He spends the little screentime he doesn't have pining over Gwen researching his dead, boring parents and after he finds the Roosevelt train (god that plotline was stupid), He decides he wants to be with Gwen after all. Realizing he wants to be with Gwen on the basis that he'll never see her again when she goes to england is not a character arc.Again, yes it is a character arc. He realizes that he constantly loses people in his life - his parents, Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, and even Curt Connors to some extent. This is the first time where he's going to lose someone by choice and inaction, rather than by fate, and he can't accept that anymore. It's why the "Do I have to lose you, too?" with the picture of himself and Gwen when he's trying to piece together his parents history. I liked the search for the parents for what it brought about for plot potential with the venom back at OsCorp and the genetically altered Spider's origin, as well as the character conflict with Peter and Aunt May.
And he's immediately proven wrong when he shoots himself up with the spider-venom so why does he want to kill him for not giving him the means to jumpstart what he now knows to be a terrible mistake which is what Spider-Man warned him about.Harry doesn't know what Peter learns from Richard Parker's tapes. Harry also thinks that if he had the blood, he could find a cure and experiment with it with OsCorp's resources. In Harry's mind, taking away that option makes him all the more desperate.
But Ben's not helping anyone by lunging at a man with a gun, If anything hes putting more people at risk because he's increased the chance that the gun will accidentally go off.You think a desperate gun-wielding burglar with the safety off who's running away from a robbery is less dangerous than a guy trying to stop him?
And he still thinks this why? Even so it's still incredibly stupid especially given that he's more or less completely fine by the end of the movie.Because if he had his blood earlier, he could have experimented with it. It actually fits nicely with Harry's own story arc.
I know and the burglar wouldn't have chosen to shoot him or anyone if Ben hadn't tried to lunge at the gun, therefore Ben is responsible for his own death.A) No, you don't. The man bringing a loaded gun with the safety off and more than willing to use it against Uncle Ben is a clear indication he had no problem using it against civilians. B) Uncle Ben didn't shoot himself. That was the burglar, who chose to pull the trigger, despite having the ability to merely run away with his stolen money, was told not to reach for his gun in the middle of a public place, and left Uncle Ben to die. Once again, it'd be like saying that because Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins moved too fast in stepping in front of his wife that he was ultimately responsible for both his and Martha's death.
Yes, it does have a central conflict.
I think she's referring to the changes in their relationship status, which had been changed by Peter.
, Bruce still allows other people to die for him because he's unwilling to reveal himself.
he refuses to commit to his action of revealing himself to lure out the Joker.
She undermines the very company she works for to give Harry the chance to save himself, and abusing the trust the company had given her to educate Harry on location of the Venom.
I wouldn't say goofy. I'd consider it far more sad and pathetic with Max's life.
This is the first time where he's going to lose someone by choice and inaction, rather than by fate, and he can't accept that anymore.
Harry also thinks that if he had the blood, he could find a cure and experiment with it with OsCorp's resources.
You think a desperate gun-wielding burglar with the safety off who's running away from a robbery is less dangerous than a guy trying to stop him?
Because if he had his blood earlier, he could have experimented with it.
A) No, you don't. The man bringing a loaded gun with the safety off and more than willing to use it against Uncle Ben is a clear indication he had no problem using it against civilians.
B) Uncle Ben didn't shoot himself.
it'd be like saying that because Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins moved too fast in stepping in front of his wife that he was ultimately responsible for both his and Martha's death.
The Peter/Gwen stuff is not a central conflict, not in a way in that it's something that all characters in the movie react too.A main plot line does not need to affect every character the same as central players. How Harry and Max's story feeds into Peter's tale is paramount to the themes of the film.
None of the other subplots tie into Peter and Gwen's relationship drama. Not the villains and their goals, Not Peter's parents, Nothing.I strongly disagree. Harry's desperation in searching for a cure had made him lose his hope, which he then decided to take away from Peter. Max's story was one of personal empowerment at the expense of others who Harry was able to use. Electro is also the one responsible for bringing Peter and Gwen together to help save the city and solidify Gwen's stance that regardless of one's own powers or personal wants, anyone should be able to stand up and fight for what they believe in, even accepting the dangers that come with it. Peter's parents' involvement with Peter is them providing emotional closure for Peter and spurring him on to not lose Gwen either. Not to mention that Max ties into the theme of HOPELESSNESS
I think you might be nit-picking this one through, especially in terms of what you think she's referring to. It does make sense if she means that Peter has changed their relationship abruptly in the past.
If that's the case, It doesn't make any sense for Gwen to refer to Peter breaking up with her as "You've done this to me again and again", She's referring to something specific here and if Peter's only done it the one time, It doesn't make any sense for her to say it that way.
That has nothing to do with being indecisive, He recognizes what Harvey's trying to do and adjusts his plan accordingly to drive the Joker out of hiding.He stops himself from revealing his own identity because Harvey took the fall for him. He then continues to not-reveal who he is. The Joker was a man of his word, despite his insanity. Bruce can't destroy the icon of the Batman because it has been too important to the city, but because of that, he sees his means as justification of the ends, including sacrificing other people. I'm not judging him on that standpoint alone, as Bruce genuinely believed that keeping batman as a symbol and outside of the law was the only way to take down both the mob and The Joker without getting tangled in the legal system.
She's not undermining anything or anyone, She's simply following her boss's orders and doing what she's told. This is all before he's booted out of Oscorp.No, she actually undermines the entire corporation by working with Harry by allowing him to get access to OsCorp's off-limits technology is subterfuge. She deceives and undermines the company to help Harry....it's....you can't interpret it any other way.
I would. Foxx's performance combined with the music of the scene made it feel like we had stepped inside a Schumacher Batman movie.God, no, I wouldn't agree with that. Even recent superhero films have had FAR worse antagonists in terms of the actors they had playing them, like Jesse Eisenberg with Lex Luthor, Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse, or Cara Delevingne as Enchantress. Now THOSE are terrible performances without an ounce of redeemable writing or acting.
So deciding out of the blue that it's worth all the potential danger and everything Captain Stacy warned him about to be with Gwen if the alternative is that he can't see her again counts as a character arc?First, it's not out of the blue. Peter is struggling with this choice through the entire film as well as dealing with Gwen's perspective in his life as a superhero. Second, Peter's arc is also connected to the EXPLICITLY STATED idea that Gwen is responsible for her own actions as well as the outcomes. Not Peter. Not Captain Stacy. Her. And it's because of Gwen's decision to help Peter in his time of need against Max that she helps save THE ENTIRE CITY including countless lives. Losing Gwen by choice is the ultimate betrayal. Peter's arc is the fear of losing another person he loves. But this is a loss by choice, which becomes an unconscionable action for him to commit to since he genuinely loves Gwen and Gwen loves him. Peter is wrong for forcing people away from him and doing so because he believes that it's only him who should be in the line of fire when danger occurs. He's proven wrong by the fact that Gwen helps him save the lives of all of those people. The alternative is denying Gwen the chance to help others with her power (read: agency) to act for the sake of others. As Gwen points out, nobody wins from this situation. Not Peter, not her, and not her father who is no longer around. Peter struggles with the ethics of this but is spirited by the decision that he can't lose her and that she willingly accepts the dangers that come with his life as Spider-man.
Him getting his hands on Spider-Man's blood had nothing to do with him being booted out of Oscorp, so even if Spider-Man had agreed to give him some, Harry still would've been kicked out so no resources.Harry would have still had access to the blood to begin experimenting on. Him getting kicked out of OsCorp doesn't happen right after his meeting with Spider-man.
The Spider venom and Spidey's blood are basically the same thing, The movie doesn"t do a good job of illustrating the differences if that isn't the case, so from what we see of it, Spidey's blood would've had more or less the same effect as the Venom did. So Harry's motivation for trying to kill Spider-Man is still *beep*Actually, they do. The venom only works for Peter because Richard Parker had tailored the venom to his genetics, meaning that anyone outside of the Parker bloodline would have an adverse reaction to it; they explained that in the Richard Parker video tape scene you think was pointless.
The man had a loaded gun in a public place and shouted to him to get away from it. It's clear that he had no intention of being peaceful especially since he'd rather struggle and kill an old man trying to keep him away from a gun than just running away.
Ben wasn't stopping the man from firing into the crowd, The guy would've likely just picked up the gun and continued running away. Ben's interference is what increased the chances of the gun going off.
That remains an extremely petty not to mention stupid reason for forming a supervillain team, especially compared to Harry's actual, far more compelling motivation from the comics and everywhere else.I thought this wasn't to go into the "well, in the comics, they did this" angle of characterization, because frankly, what they did with Talia and Bane for TDKR was absurd in terms of differences in personality and rationale.
There is no indication that he intended to use the gun until Ben tried to wrestle it away from him.Seeing as how he had a loaded weapon and easily would struggle for it and kill for it, it's kinda hard to argue he had no intention to use it, especially with the safety off.
Had Ben done nothing, The guy would've picked it up and continued to run away.Ben had just seen the gut tackle a bunch of civilians and lose his gun. He saw that as a public danger and decided to act on that to save other peoples' lives. He had a responsibility to be a defensive agent in the world for others.
Allow me to use your line of reasoning for Ben Parker that I'll now use for Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins: "Man, Thomas should have stayed still and not moved in front of his wife. The robbery was bloodless and was going along without provocation until Thomas totally startled the burglar by making a sudden movement. It was absolutely stupid how they were all clearly unarmed and in no position to act irrationally, and yet, Thomas decided to startle the burglar and get himself and his wife killed, leaving Bruce an orphan."
These situations are nothing alike. Thomas didn't provoke the mugger into shooting him, The mugger shot at Martha on his own accord. He wasn't going to just walk away.
A main plot line does not need to affect every character the same as central players
I strongly disagree.
I think you might be nit-picking this one through
He stops himself from revealing his own identity because Harvey took the fall for him. He then continues to not-reveal who he is.
No, she actually undermines the entire corporation by working with Harry by allowing him to get access to OsCorp's off-limits technology
. Even recent superhero films have had FAR worse antagonists
Peter's arc is the fear of losing another person he loves.
Harry would have still had access to the blood to begin experimenting on.
they explained that in the Richard Parker video tape scene you think was pointless.
The venom only works for Peter because Richard Parker had tailored the venom to his genetics, meaning that anyone outside of the Parker bloodline would have an adverse reaction to it
because frankly, what they did with Talia and Bane for TDKR was absurd in terms of differences in personality and rationale.
It's clear that he had no intention of being peaceful especially since he'd rather struggle and kill an old man trying to keep him away from a gun than just running away.
it's kinda hard to argue he had no intention to use it,
He saw that as a public danger and decided to act on that to save other peoples' lives.
"Man, Thomas should have stayed still and not moved in front of his wife
I still love it too. Was looking forward to seeing a third.
I liked Tom Holland, at least what we've seen of him so far, but as of now, Garfield is still my favourite by far.
I think I'd look forward to any type of Spider-Man movie, but Homecoming has got me weary with the inclusion of Tony Stark.
Of course it seems inevitable considering he 'discovered' him in Civil War but having Spidey as a protégé of Tony has never appealed to me.
Still, it could be great and I hope it is.
Was looking forward to seeing a third
Admittedly that sounds terrible and I'm glad that I didn't get to see that particular story.
However, the series was cancelled more or less immediately so it may not have gone in that direction.
I was looking forward to seeing more of Garfield's Spider-Man after Gwen's death and seeing what direction he may go, what supporting cast he may meet and so on. I really enjoyed both TASM films and would liked to have seen where it might lead.
I was more enthusiastic about the future of that iteration of Spider-Man than one who doesn't seem to have any reason to not be funded by Tony Stark moving forward(based on his Civil War appearance).
But I'm still looking forward to Homecoming.
I was looking forward to seeing more of Garfield's Spider-Man after Gwen's death and seeing what direction he may go
Spider-Man than one who doesn't seem to have any reason to not be funded by Tony Stark
It already shot that potential in the foot with that awful ending and since the film had already butchered an important part of Spider-Man lore (The Osborn/Goblin storyline), dispensed with Emma Stone and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark Webb can't make a good villain to save his life, I was not looking to the next one.
Tony Stark's inclusion doesn't really bother me and Tom Holland basically does everything fans credit Garfield for but even better, He doesn't quip to the point where it's excessive and his Peter Parker is definitely more faithful than Garfield's ever was.
This doesn't make any sense in response to what I said.
We don't know anything else about him. We don't know how he got his powers. We don't know if he has an Uncle Ben or why he became Spider-Man.
Please tell me what you think is definitely more faithful given that?
may I ask what issues of Peter's High School era you have read?
you making several mistakes when referencing the source.
My apologies, I was referring to the film series in general and the places it could go from there on. Garfield's Spider-Man himself never left much of an impression on me, I found him a pretty easy to dislike kind of character though that was mainly down to how he was written. If Sony ended up continuing TASM series, They seriously needed to sack the writers and do an overhaul. Garfield certainly wasn't terrible but he just never really left much of an impression that made me want to see more of him in the role.
Well its not Spider-Mans movie but from what we did see, All of that above-mentioned stuff can be easily inferred.
As opposed to making him an aloof outsider who likes to skateboard in school halls, stumbles over himself when talking and takes pictures of girls without there knowledge or consent?
Both the original Ditko/Lee stories and the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book as well and I fail to see how Garfield's portrayal was the most faithful of the bunch here.
Like?
If it is the case, Aunt May seems pretty receptive of Tony's flirtation considering her Husband was murdered just 6 months ago or so.
So what you're essentially saying is that he's closer to the source material because so far all we've seen is him fight as Spider-Man?
He is a modern take on that personality and attitude.
he's too timid and nice.
Gets tripped up and doesn't say a thing, gets pushed around and just looks up with sad eyes until Harry sticks up for him.
I didn't see this Peter Parker in the Lee Ditko run,
Superficial things like a skateboard isn't what bothers me
That's not surefire evidence that Uncle Ben never died, That could just be her being polite because she knows Tony's reputation. Plus in the comics she did end up having more love interests after Ben and was even remarried.
Well just from the way he talks to Tony Stark as Peter Parker, He just comes off as more naturally likable and relatable than Garfield did even though we didn't delve into his backstory.
I didn't see that at all. The original Lee/Ditko Peter Parker came off to me as a very shy , nerdy kind of guy who still attempted to make friends and interact with people even though they didn't pay him much heed. Garfield's Peter was an aloof outsider who was that way because he wanted to be, who had little interest in interacting with anyone or making friends unless they came to him. There were also little things that just bugged me like him skateboarding in the halls despite a teacher asking him not to and him taking a picture of Gwen without her knowledge or consent.
I never once got the impression that pre-spider bite Peter Parker (whether it be Lee or the Ultimate version) was confrontational or stood up to bullies on a regular basis, The spider-bite is what gave him the confidence to do those things later on. Admittedly, We didn't get to see much of that in the first Raimi movie because it's about him graduating.
I don't really see how that's different from Peter getting the crap kicked out of him by Flash until Gwen intervenes in the first TASM.
Plus in the first Raimi movie, Peter tells Harry about what jerks Flash and his friend are. If Ditko/Lee Peter had been tripped or pushed around, I don't see him confronting or trying to pick a fight with the guy who did it just like he didn't do it when Flash scooped up the girl Peter was trying to ask out and told him to get lost.
From a visual standpoint, He represented that version of Peter very well and even though we didn't get to know the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man for very long before the bite, I didn't see how the way Tobey acted or carried himself conflicted with that or the Ultimate Peter Parker for that matter.
It begs the question why they chose to include it since it adds nothing to the story. What's more, The Amazing Fanatsy#15 showed how well-liked by his teachers was as opposed to TASM where Peter keeps skateboarding despite what the teacher told him.
Garfields Peter Parker just felt like more a checklist of demographics to appeal to rather than a consistent character.
first one was alright (entertaining but nothing special or outstanding) but i do love this one !
shareTASM films are 2 and a half hour trailers for films that will never happen, they are better left forgotten.
shareI remember how many arguments I had with people here on how poorly directed and written those films were.
The only redeeming qualities of TASM series were the fact it was released after Spider-Man 3. And even then they were still inferior to the lowest part of the Raimi series and Emma Stone....Which she basically played the same character as she does in every of her films. Its cute, but it can't carry the franchise.
There was literally no sense of direction, portrayal design, or a script that could have saved that series. That frankly left a black hole in many fans that loved the first series and grew up on the character before.
I knew the days are numbered from the first movie. And that was despite my dislike for that terrible experience of watching and how they butchered my favorite character and story arc.
Both of these movies feels like a group of moody emo teens filmed one on depressing day and the next on a happy one. They simply have no relation to one another and feel completely different by tone, story and atmosphere. You can't carry on a series with no sense of direction whatsoever as this. And they clearly had no idea where to carry on from day 1, and got the wrong people to pull the strings for this project.
Even if Holland is far more likeable than Garfield ever was, "Homecoming" still doesn't feel like a welcome reboot as it naturally should have been and the studios still insist on trying to fit the tone to the current generation instead of digging further to the past to the far more important and dominate fan base of the character. Raimi managed to do a beautiful homage and respect to how the character originally was and that is why these films spoke to everyone and not just kids, teens and Marvel fans.
"Homecoming" is basically a complete politically correct change of the character, story arc, and atmosphere. I realize that they gotta mix things up with a 3rd series, but I'm not so sure this is the way to do it. Hopefully, I'm mistaken. But the trailer really didn't left an impression on me and actually felt more underwhelming from TASM trailers.