Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Because Parker IS a pushover?
If I recall correctly the only time he wasn't he overdid it and got his uncle killed thus he became an even bigger guilt-ridden self-punishing doormat, he snarks when wearing a mask because wearing it make him a bit less insecure, but he is still basically a doormat with the added guilt from the death of his uncle first and Gwen Stacy later.
He akwoledges it to a certain extent in some stories, like when Fury comes to recruit him in Secret War for his latverian shenanigans, but is still unable to resist it.

If you take it out of the character, you don't have Spiderman anymore, even if you put the snark and wisecracking Peter Parker without the guilt-tripping is not spiderman anymore.

Peter Parker isn't a pushover. Even when he was known as "Puny Parker," he still stood up to Flash in school, even going so far as to have a boxing match with him instead of taking his crap.

And the Secret War example isn't a good one, because Bendis has always written 616 Spider-Man as a buffoon. Peter Parker is a science genius, but you wouldn't know it when he's written by Bendis. His Spider-Man is a straight up goofy idiot who can't shut up and who no one respects because he's a manchild moron. (Needless to say, I'm not a fan of Bendis' portrayal).

He should have the guilt tripping, yes, but Raimi's Peter was too whimpy and too much of a pushover. The only time he showed any balls was when he was under the influence of the symbiote. The real Peter Parker isn't a "doormat." Guilt-ridden, neurotic, worrisome self-punisher, yes. Doormat pushover? No way. This is the guy who refused to stop trying to take out Juggernaut even though every single thing he did to stop him failed. This is the guy who has stood up to Jonah, his boss, and gotten in his face. Back when Norman knew Spider-Man's identity, Peter stood up to Norman in public instead of just playing nice. This is the guy who, when he teams up with the Punisher, establishes a "if we're doing this, we're doing it my way - no killing!" rule. Peter Parker is a lot of things, but a whimpy crybaby pushover isn't one of them.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

I read a few stories from various eras and I don't remember him snarking outside thought-balloons when he wasn't wearing his costumes.

And no, that part in new avengers when the team is stripped, tied up and left hanging doesn't count.

Then again perhaps I just "won the lottery", so to speak.

He's definitely "Spider-Man-y" outside of the costume. He's "mild mannered Peter Parker," not "meek and quiet pushover Peter Parker." I mean, he's had sex with a supermodel, dated a lot of hot women, taken on pretty much every bad guy in the Marvel U and won, graduated, taught school... he's not that dorky kid with big glasses anymore, and Peter has come a long way. Even Peter Parker of the comics would think Raimi's Peter Parker is a dork. Especially in more modern comics, Peter does quip and be funny outside of the suit. His friends, colleagues, coworkers know him to be snarky, goofy, funny. He's not Mr. Cool, he's very much an adorkable dork, and people know that about him. Part of why Flash became one of his best friends is that Peter stopped being that powerless kid he used to be and they came to an understanding after Peter had undergone growth.

Spider-Man is an excuse for him to release some of his inhibitions because of the mask, and there's a freedom in that, but he's not a completely different person when he's Spider-Man versus when he's walking around as Peter Parker.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

He's definitely "Spider-Man-y" outside of the costume. He's "mild mannered Peter Parker," not "meek and quiet pushover Peter Parker." I mean, he's had sex with a supermodel, dated a lot of hot women, taken on pretty much every bad guy in the Marvel U and won, graduated, taught school... he's not that dorky kid with big glasses anymore, and Peter has come a long way. Even Peter Parker of the comics would think Raimi's Peter Parker is a dork. Especially in more modern comics, Peter does quip and be funny outside of the suit. His friends, colleagues, coworkers know him to be snarky, goofy, funny. He's not Mr. Cool, he's very much an adorkable dork, and people know that about him. Part of why Flash became one of his best friends is that Peter stopped being that powerless kid he used to be and they came to an understanding after Peter had undergone growth.

Spider-Man is an excuse for him to release some of his inhibitions because of the mask, and there's a freedom in that, but he's not a completely different person when he's Spider-Man versus when he's walking around as Peter Parker.

Yeah that's why I didn't get the complaints about Garfield's personality outside the suit, he's always like that, it's just more restrained when he's not fighting crime behind the mask.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Yeah that's why I didn't get the complaints about Garfield's personality outside the suit, he's always like that, it's just more restrained when he's not fighting crime behind the mask.

If it's a good movie, I honestly don't care all that much about characterization. If his characterization works within the context of the movie they're telling, then I'm cool with it.

My favorite movies of all time to this day are still the first two Spider-Man movies. They mean a lot to me as a person. That being said, anytime he tried to be quippy, it didn't work. Maguire just couldn't do it. The wrestling stuff, the "here's your change!" moment from the second movie, it all just seemed forced. It was better that they minimized that aspect of the character as opposed to throwing in all kinds of sarcastic remarks that would not have worked within the story that Raimi was trying to tell, as well as the abilities of Maguire.

Andrew Garfield had pretty much everything I ever wanted in a Spider-Man. Mostly in the second movie. The first movie was kind of all over the place since the whole Ben's killer thing goes completely off the rails. But despite Garfield's presence, the movies themselves were bad.

So I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that if the characterization isn't ideal, to me, that's okay, as long as whatever they choose works in the movie.

[Geoff D]

I feel the same way, for me it's not so much about whether a character is 100% faithful but whether that incarnation works in the cinematic world that's been established, and ultimately whether the overall movie works or not. I also love the first two Raimi movies, and I concur with Feige that Spidey 2 is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. Is Maguire the highlight? Not really, no, but he doesn't have to be because everything else is so good and he's still got just enough of that Spidey cheekiness ("That's a nice outfit, did your husband make it for you?") to make it work. Garfield's Spidey is undoubtedly the highlight of the ASM movies because he's brilliant when the mask goes on, but when the rest of the movie around him is so poorly written his performance isn't enough to make up the difference IMO.

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

He should have the guilt tripping, yes, but Raimi's Peter was too whimpy and too much of a pushover. The only time he showed any balls was when he was under the influence of the symbiote. The real Peter Parker isn't a "doormat." Guilt-ridden, neurotic, worrisome self-punisher, yes. Doormat pushover? No way. This is the guy who refused to stop trying to take out Juggernaut even though every single thing he did to stop him failed. This is the guy who has stood up to Jonah, his boss, and gotten in his face. Back when Norman knew Spider-Man's identity, Peter stood up to Norman in public instead of just playing nice. This is the guy who, when he teams up with the Punisher, establishes a "if we're doing this, we're doing it my way - no killing!" rule. Peter Parker is a lot of things, but a whimpy crybaby pushover isn't one of them.

The "showing balls" of when he was wearing the black costume in the movie was being a bully or the way a "wimpy" pushover sees a "strong" person if you prefer.
The point is that Parker being a pushover is more fitting than Parker being a hipster with the twilight look like Garfield, also I might add that some of your examples are from a later period of Spidey's growth if I might recall and standing up to supervillains is not really his problem, otherwise he wouldn't be a superhero.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I feel the same way, for me it's not so much about whether a character is 100% faithful but whether that incarnation works in the cinematic world that's been established, and ultimately whether the overall movie works or not. I also love the first two Raimi movies, and I concur with Feige that Spidey 2 is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. Is Maguire the highlight? Not really, no, but he doesn't have to be because everything else is so good and he's still got just enough of that Spidey cheekiness ("That's a nice outfit, did your husband make it for you?") to make it work. Garfield's Spidey is undoubtedly the highlight of the ASM movies because he's brilliant when the mask goes on, but when the rest of the movie around him is so poorly written his performance isn't enough to make up the difference IMO.

Pretty much.

I never read the comics or watched the toons though, so Maguire IS Spider-Man to me. I think I will always measure anyone else against his performance and style, which for me is the "true" Peter Parker. I am sure that gives some comics fans fits but it is what it is.

[DisneyBlu]

I saw Bella Thorne's part in the Scream show and she is a laughably bad actress. I can't believe some people want her to play a character as complex as Mary Jane.

[Agent Bond]

t's a Sony film, but Feige basically says Marvel is producing it like one of their own films. That should make you feel better, not worse.

That doesn't work for me. Nice try though.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I feel the same way, for me it's not so much about whether a character is 100% faithful but whether that incarnation works in the cinematic world that's been established, and ultimately whether the overall movie works or not. I also love the first two Raimi movies, and I concur with Feige that Spidey 2 is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. Is Maguire the highlight? Not really, no, but he doesn't have to be because everything else is so good and he's still got just enough of that Spidey cheekiness ("That's a nice outfit, did your husband make it for you?") to make it work. Garfield's Spidey is undoubtedly the highlight of the ASM movies because he's brilliant when the mask goes on, but when the rest of the movie around him is so poorly written his performance isn't enough to make up the difference IMO.

Until The Dark Knight came along Spider-man 2 was widely accepted to be the best superhero film ever made. In most of the publications I read at the time it was celebrated as an excellent film, not just a great superhero film. I think one of the biggest reasons for that was Raimi was allowed to stretch his legs as it were and put his own stamp on the character.

Despite not being too much of a Spidey enthusiast I was bowled over by Raimi's first 2 Spider-man films. They struck a wonderful balance of humour, pathos, character development, and action imo. Unfortunately I've never been drawn to see Garfield's Spidey films as I have an aversion for him and Emma Stone, lmao. I just can't either of them.

[IscariotJ]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Unfortunately I've never been drawn to see Garfield's Spidey films as I have an aversion for him and Emma Stone, lmao. I just can't either of them.

I quite like them, whereas the missus won't watch them. She tried the first, and gave up at the point the mechanical web spinners were brought in. As daft as it sounds, she was willing to accept he'd gained abilities from the bite, but couldn't understand why not the web.... I thought Garfield did reasonably well following Maguire, though I think some of that might have been because I thought Maguire had a tendency to be a tad too emotional, even a bit wishy washy, but that's just me.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by IscariotJ

I quite like them, whereas the missus won't watch them. She tried the first, and gave up at the point the mechanical web spinners were brought in. As daft as it sounds, she was willing to accept he'd gained abilities from the bite, but couldn't understand why not the web.... I thought Garfield did reasonably well following Maguire, though I think some of that might have been because I thought Maguire had a tendency to be a tad too emotional, even a bit wishy washy, but that's just me.

Your missus speaks sense, hehe. I'll watch them eventually and probably end up liking them in all honesty, but I'll have to will myself to sit down and watch the first one. The spinners are part of the comics too, aren't they, unless they've changed it recently? But Maguire was great as Parker. He was meek at first and socially awkward, but he had a good heart. I felt he did a great job of embodying the constant struggle of the "With power comes great responsibility" theme that was central to Raimi's Spidey IMO. They kinda lost me with SM3 though. It wasn't a bad film, but nowhere near the quality of the first 2. Sandman was unnecessary; Venom on his own (with a more suitable Eddie Brock) and tying up the remaining plot strands to do with Harry would've ended things up nicely.

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Despite not being too much of a Spidey enthusiast I was bowled over by Raimi's first 2 Spider-man films. They struck a wonderful balance of humour, pathos, character development, and action imo. Unfortunately I've never been drawn to see Garfield's Spidey films as I have an aversion for him and Emma Stone, lmao. I just can't either of them.

You just can't either of them? What does that even mean?

[IscariotJ]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Your missus speaks sense, hehe. I'll watch them eventually and probably end up liking them in all honesty, but I'll have to will myself to sit down and watch the first one. The spinners are part of the comics too, aren't they, unless they've changed it recently? But Maguire was great as Parker. He was meek at first and socially awkward, but he had a good heart. I felt he did a great job of embodying the constant struggle of the "With power comes great responsibility" theme that was central to Raimi's Spidey IMO. They kinda lost me with SM3 though. It wasn't a bad film, but nowhere near the quality of the first 2. Sandman was unnecessary; Venom on his own (with a more suitable Eddie Brock) and tying up the remaining plot strands to do with Harry would've ended things up nicely.

I'm not too sure what's in the comics, tbh. My ( and I think the missus', though she'll deny it ) knowledge of spider-man lore mainly came from the the 80's cartoons, and then the Maguire films. Having Spider-Man being able to spin web, naturally, as it were, just sort of fit. I mean why have the spider sense and be able to climb walls, but not be able to spin a web?

I enjoyed SM3, though I admit I felt like giving Parker a slap when he was dealing with his "fame" ( something I think Garfield dealt with better in ASM2 ). I liked the whole fitting up Spider-Man / Venom story line, though. I've a feeling it would have been a better movie had they concentrated on that, instead of adding it to the Sandman. To me, SM3 / ASM2 suffer from the same problems, which I'm sure explains why they were the final movies in the respective runs.

If Tom Holland's portrayal is somewhere between Maguire / Garfield, I don't think he'll go far wrong....

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

You just can't either of them? What does that even mean?

I missed out "stand." I'm new to touch screen typing.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Your missus speaks sense, hehe. I'll watch them eventually and probably end up liking them in all honesty, but I'll have to will myself to sit down and watch the first one. The spinners are part of the comics too, aren't they, unless they've changed it recently? But Maguire was great as Parker. He was meek at first and socially awkward, but he had a good heart. I felt he did a great job of embodying the constant struggle of the "With power comes great responsibility" theme that was central to Raimi's Spidey IMO. They kinda lost me with SM3 though. It wasn't a bad film, but nowhere near the quality of the first 2. Sandman was unnecessary; Venom on his own (with a more suitable Eddie Brock) and tying up the remaining plot strands to do with Harry would've ended things up nicely.

Skip the first one, it's a crime against cinema and you already saw it done better in 2002. Second one is worth a watch at least once.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Skip the first one, it's a crime against cinema and you already saw it done better in 2002. Second one is worth a watch at least once.

Haha, that's certainly not a ringing endorsement. Now I'm curious to learn if i t really is as bad as you're saying.

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

I missed out "stand." I'm new to touch screen typing.

Okay good. I thought for a second you were talking as some kids these days do where they say they just can't even. Thankfully that isn't the case.

[kamphausd1]

Personally, I've never been able to understand why so many people think the Raimi films are good.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Personally, I've never been able to understand why so many people think the Raimi films are good.

I would say nostalgia but none of them are that old. I guess people don't care if a director completely butchers a character like Spider-Man and horrifically miscasts Mary-Jane. Oh well, at least I have the Amazing films to watch whenever I want.