Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Flying Spaghetti Monster, Aug 20, 2019.
It's the best comic movie since Batman 89 and not just because of the artwork.
..and all represent the source in ways the MCU could not touch, instead, making Parker "Spider-Lad, The Boy Wonder" to Iron Man--a begging side-kick wannabe with some surrogate daddy issues on the side, but never did we get a sense of the individual Peter Parker and how this kid dealt with operating in the adult world that was not overloaded with fanciful creatures and energy blasts .
The whole second film was about that. Punctuated by how the fanciful creatures and energy blasts were literally an illusion without substance.
Yes yes yes, we all know how much you hate the idea of Marvel characters interacting with one another and how absolutely everything must be in its own little world no matter what.
We didn't get that from Raimi either, we got some mopey sadsack.
I gotta get me some of whatever you're smoking.
No wait, I don't want anything to do with it if that's your reaction.
This isn't any more true now than the last time you tried to go with this.
True, but he will post anything no matter inaccurate/historically false to defend the overflowing MCU bowl that Spider-Man was drowning in.
Far From Home made me care about Tom Holland's Peter in a way that I hadn't before because it used his relationship to/with Tony as a springboard rather than a crutch.
Precisely. Toby was an emo dimwit who had the acting range of a walnut.
Don't you mean Andrew Garfield?
Nah. While ASM was shit, Garfield's performance crapped on Toby's wooden, emo twit portrayal. Raimis Peter Parker is Peter Parker in name only.
Garfield wasn't perfect, but he was much better than Maguire's. Everytime I think about revisiting the Raimi films and reevaluating my low opinion of them, I remember how awful his and Dunst's performances were in all three. Bleah.
Wait wait wait. You think *Maguire's* Parker was the emo one over Garfield's?
Without a doubt. Garfield had infinitely more charisma and likeability when compared to the twit.
A) No. (And I liked Garfield, though in large part because of his chemistry with Emma Stone.)
B) That's... not what emo means.
You can, and should, have heroes interact without having one be the apprentice or protege of the other. Disliking that kind of relationship doesn't mean you dislike all interactions and want to have none.
Peter was very mopey, depressed in a lot of the Stan Lee comics.
Tell that to X-Men fans (more precisely, FoX-Men fans) who can't stand the idea of mutants existing in a world with non-mutant Supers or Aliens.
Having Spidey be the apprentice to another character is what his relationship to Fury was in Ultimate, I don't recall anyone complaining there. I don't recall anyone complaining about Batman mentoring the Flash in the DCEU.
And he was also quite cocky and arrogant too. Which Raimi never did.
As Spider-man, yes. That's part of Spidey's schtick. Cocky and arrogant on the outside with quips and mockery. Inside and as Peter very mopey. and down on himself.
Even as Peter, he was plenty snarky under Stan.
Separate names with a comma.