Follow

    Spider-Man

    Character » Spider-Man appears in 17252 issues.

    Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider as a teenager, granting him spider-like powers. After the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter learned that "with great power, comes great responsibility." Swearing to always protect the innocent from harm, Peter Parker became Spider-Man.

    something interesting to debate. what do you think?

    Avatar image for marvelman92
    MarvelMan92

    6206

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    months ago i was banned in superherohype for giving out my opinion about tobey maguire. it wasn't harsh or anything like that but the mods just banned me anyway. i went on the college computers to sign in again but the moment i've stated my opinions they just banned me just like that because i exist. the reason i came on board becuase this guy named doctor jones said something interesting and alot of people seem to agree. and by people i mean haters. so this is something he had to say:

    what doctor jones had to say about tobey and andrew:

    Tobey. It's not even a contest. Along with Raimi's direction, Tobey was so honest and real with such earnestness that he felt like flesh and blood. He's most definitely the Peter from the Ditko/Lee/Romita era but he makes him even more relatable. People get too caught up on the comics at times, and prefer Garfield on the grounds that he is "more faithful" which I would dispute anyway. But Maguire was more faithful because of the core principles that they stayed true to. His niceness, his selflessness, his confliction, just his overall humanity.It was just so real.Spider-Man 2 exemplifies this so well. That scene between him and Aunt May at the beginning when she breaks down in front of him over the $20 dollar bill.The performances.That humanity.The sadness in Maguire's face that he's trying to hold back.That is Peter Parker. Maguire doesn't seem to get enough credit around here.

    Garfield's Peter was a punk. Definitely more modern, but he was the complete opposite of who Peter and who Maguire's Peter was: A selfish *******. The sad thing is it was terrific casting and had the chance to beat Maguire, but that didn't happen. I can't go into much detail because it will be one long rant, but how Peter was written and directed in the film is not Peter Parker. I don't care how funny his Peter is or how much he looks like Peter, I hardly saw Peter.

    People seem to overlook Peter's humanity and identifiable qualities which is the fundamental aspects of what makes Peter Parker so popular in the first place in favor of his sarcasm and wit and how tall and skinny he is.I can't argue about you thinking he was dull, that's your opinion.But at least within the writing and the direction that showed us something rather than a "nerd" who looked up a how to on batteries on Youtube."Look I'm a nerd and smart! See how I built this lock on my door!" "Look I'm a nerd! See how I can spout off scientific facts!" There was no subtext, no layering, nothing that gave dimension to Peter's character traits. Other than his father being a scientist. And we all know how in depth that was executed and informed us about Peter and his father, because those films were such father and son films.

    on his accusation about andrew' flaw as a character

    Which flaws exactly? Can you tell me Peter's central journey in ASM2? What was his overall struggle that he overcame and learned at the end? How did he change? How did he better himself as a human being? Besides being stuck on a girl's decision as to what to do with her own life instead of his. Besides Gwen. Or was it when Peter quit in the last ten minutes of the movie that he had to overcome ten minutes later? Which was which exactly? Where was this distinguishable? You seem to be more passionate about his Peter, so maybe you can tell me.

    about garfield's spider man:

    You're only proving my point. You focus so much on how Spider-Man quips as to whether or not Spider-Man's humanity hinges on his quips. Maguire's Spider-Man may not have quipped much, but it is wiser used than Garfield's "wit" was more condescending and jerkish if anything.

    The point is to care for Peter before caring about Spider-Man. The difference was I cared because I cared about Peter's struggles first and foremost.

    Fidelity be damned, that does not matter unless the vision, the writing, the subtext within it, is there. Quips do not make up for that if there isn't something sustaining it.What was so strong that sustained Peter as a human being that made people love Garfield?

    Because the world just loves and identifies with Garfield's Peter's witty person who would be a believable alter ego to the fast talking Spider-Man and his Spidey that is way more accurate than the Raimi's monotone, barely quips version.America is in deep anticipation about Garfield's next character changing journey as Peter Parker. It's so palpable, the frustration of Garfield not being Spider-Man anymore. People care so much about 2018 when ASM3 rolls around.That's presumptuous to think he threw it in there "to shut up the fans." Raimi is a fan himself, along with his passion, it's not unreasonable to think he knew of the expectations.But also a filmmaker with a distinct vision and is able to go through what works for the story that he is telling, even if it means jokes being sacrificed here and there or fitting more nerd stuff for the sake of it. Everything felt right for the story and was confluent with that on that level at the very least. SM3 unfortunately, he did not have that, but at least with SM3 gave a central discernible journey for Peter that I can sum up in a sentence amidst the mess of everything else.Good for you. I'm happy that you got your preferred Spider-Man, as I knew not everybody loves the Raimi films or the interpretation. That's fine and will always happen. But there's a difference between a few things that are more faithful here and there than an all encompassing story and carrying out a distinct vision that resonates with audiences. And whether you like them or not, they resonated with the world.Some people on a single website, and the internet does not wholly represent the average joe what they think of these Spider-Man films. And if they don't care for these movies, then they don't care for Garfield's Spider-Man as much. Otherwise, they would have seen it because Spider-Man is why these go see it. The stupid argument, "It doesn't matter who you put in the Spider-Man costume, as long as Spider-Man people will see it," is rendered ******** now. Spider-Man is nothing without the quality of filmmaking that needs the character as much as the character needs the filmmaking.But that's because you have to care about Peter first, even when they may not know it. It takes skill to do that, skill these new movies lacked, little fan preferences aside. It makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.At least in the screenplay there were not as idiotically constructed as something like the first Peter/Harry scene in ASM2. The subtleties and complexity and subtext is so wonderful. Like the line, "How long have we known each other?" "Since we were kids." Oh, yeah. Writing at its finest. Or who can forget the first and only Harry/Norman scene in ASM2. Where they actually talk about their relationship and spell it out for us. There's angst there too. So I guess that's better. But like you said, SM2 was made to appeal to 9 year olds, therefore, I guess it was written with a 9 year old mindset.

    about this whole stupid twilight and TDK nonscense

    No. Sony never stuck to their guns. The only thing that they are is fickle and only going by what the market demands. They only went the darker and grittier route (because apart from a few stories, that's so faithful to the overall of Spider-Man anyway ) because of the post TDK world and to capture the teen girl Twilight crowd and were going to go even lower budget to reflect this. It's not confirmed but it's not unreasonable to put this together.And when that didn't set the world on fire (like it was ever going to anyway, who really wants to see yet another origin story? People were perfectly fine with the first one done ten years prior)Then ASM2 was merely a response to the post Avengers market with the forced, stupid built in universe that was never going to sustain itself and the more light tone (a better direction since this is more Spider-Man like anyway, I'll give them that credit)They are only riding the coattails without an inspired thought in their heads and they are paying for it now. They don't know what makes Spider-Man work. And the two uneven films reflect that. So I can't even give them credit for their original direction.When you say ASM2 could have been executed better, you make it sound like there was nothing wrong with the fundamentals from the very beginning. It sucked because the people making it had no clear vision.At least Raimi and co built their stories on a separate integrity and independence and just wanted to tell a great story. They knew the appeal of that Spider-Man is about Peter Parker and his struggles and Spider-Man himself. They understand that audiences will watch Spider-Man, but not without the core story and caring for it and its characters. They tapped into that on a skillful level that yes, despite what you think, did resonate. SM3, as bad as it can be, it's no accident it was the highest grossing film of 2007. People liked it. By that point, because were caught up in the journey of Peter Parker. But I guess it's because they were made for nine year olds.The thing with Peter is that when he is confident he can attract the ladies, it's just he still is an awkward, nerdy guy at his core and I liked how it was a real progression for him to get there. It's subtle, but you can see the shift in Maguire's performance from awkward nerd to a more confident young man, yet still doesn't lost those qualities, and little by little we get to see a little more of a side to him as MJ starts to see it. Throughout the movie you can see the confidence of Peter built up more, being more joking (joking you say??), self deprecating, even running up to her when Harry had to ask him to go up to her in the first scene. Then he has to turn her down at the very end. I always loved the irony of that. It's so atypical for a blockbuster for the hero turning down the girl after he gets her in favor of his responsibility to himself and his uncle. What a terrific arc.

    so any thoughts on those statements. the only reason i put them there is that since he said something interesting i like to hear what you guys have to say about that. what do you think of maguire as peter? is he more human? does he really capture the essence of the ditko/romita era?

    Avatar image for strider1992
    Strider1992

    18531

    Forum Posts

    5604

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 16

    User Lists: 10

    In all honesty neither of them have portrayed a faithful character. Maguire was too wet and Garfield was too hip. If you took the best qualities from both of them and rolled them into one you'd have the perfect Spider-man.

    If you had to push me for an answer however I would favor Garfield. Maguire seeming to have all of Parker's sensitivity but none of his strength making me honestly dislike the character. Garfield's portrayal while an obvious panda to the younger generation I can forgive more due to him being based on the Ultimate version of Pete and due to the fact that his Spider-man had the right humor.

    Avatar image for master_of_suprise
    MASTER_OF_SUPRISE

    787

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 31

    User Lists: 0

    I have to agree with strider each had something the other lacked. Though I domdisagree on if I had to choose one. IMO Garfield didn't really capture Peter by the slightest until the second film.

    This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.