Why I didn't like Andrew Garfield (and other Spidey observations)…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Marvel/DC
LegendInMyMind — 9 years ago(December 12, 2016 03:37 PM)
I didn't like Garfield much in the role, myself. And a lot of that has to do with how the films were made, sure, but he was a very twitchy guy. He was so on edge. He also didn't do a great job of dividing the two sides of the role, Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Peter Parker is the guy who carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. Spider-Man is very freeing for Peter, it's not constraining, and it's where the personality really comes out. Peter Parker is traditionally very reserved, but Spider-Man gives Peter an outlet to really open upironically in anonymity. And that's what's fun about the "fantasy" of Spider-Man, that it relates this character who channels so much of himself into something else that it's practically like he removes the weight of the world from his shoulders by putting on a mask and swinging around and saving people and fighting bad guys.
I found Garfield's portrayal to be one where there's no differentiation between Spidey and Pete. He's just as carefree and unrestrained as Peter as he is as Spidey, and that didn't gel with me. I thought they missed the point on that. Also, I gotta say, if we're going with a comic book characterization, Spider-Man will make his jokes and his quips and be his witty ol' self early on in storiesbut he gets serious. He's not Deadpool with webs. He's human. He's the most human superhero, emotionally speaking. When the stakes are at their highest, when the tension is fully mounted, and when things get personal (like they tend to do at the end of these films), Spider-Man focuses up. He gets more serious. He gets angry, he stops with the jokes and the quips and he takes the gravity of his predicament with utmost sincerity.
And so in rendering Peter Parker's personality, I personally believe that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have gotten it more "correct" so far. I understand that people have a lot of expectations of Spider-Man's witty banter, etc., and I thought Raimi's handling of it was fairly appropriate and accurate. Spider-Man talked early in the film, but stakes get dire the closer to the finale that we get. And Spider-Man is not just about comedy, it's about drama. -
ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony — 9 years ago(December 12, 2016 07:14 PM)
What I didn't like about Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man/Peter Parker was that he continued to stalk Gwen even though, as Taylor Swift would say, her dad said stay away from Juliet. He basically broke his promise to Captain Stacy who made that last request on his death bed. In the end, he gets both Gwen and her father killed. Yep, two of the Stacys killed because of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker. Like father, like daughter.
Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend ship Fluttershy and Discord -
LegendInMyMind — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 03:27 PM)
The number one thing working against the Amazing Spider-Man film series was Sam Raimi's original films. If you look at the way they approached the same topics that Raimi did, they did so with a "change for the sake of change" attitude. "Okay, well, he did that and we can't do that, so let's do this instead!" And it just doesn't work.
That's the thing that's disappointing to me about starting the MCU Spider-Man back in high school. Because it runs the risk of the same thing, having to deviate away from what Sam Raimi did just so you don't look like you're copying it, even if doing so runs contrary to what we like about the character. Like, Liz Allen is the new girl, but is that because Gwen and MJ come later or is that because we won't see either of them at all..? Things like that bother me about this, and I want to like it. I've been reading Spider-Man for 20 years, I don't want to doubt the property. But say they made Spidey in his mid-20s. All of that character history that fans hold onto (that they now have to circumvent for risk of repeating what the previous two series did) would have been in the character's background, kinda like the Hulk. Giving themselves a completely clean slate would actually mean moving the character FURTHER AFIELD than he's been to date. Show us a college graduate Spider-Man struggling alongside his wife Mary Jane Watson to make ends meet. Hell, give him a little May Parker (or Annie May Parker, as it is now). That would have been something new rather than starting back at square one and then deciding how to get to a "definitive" incarnation without retreading the same old ground.
I don't like how they've handled this film. I love certain aspects of it, like the casting of Keaton. And that has me excited. But it just feels like it's missing something important. -
JupiterStorm — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 12:07 AM)
I agree for the most part, except about Tobey and Sam. That interpretation of the character is awful. Tobey's Peter seemed to hate Spider-Man and saw it as nothing but a burden, they're disregarding such an important part of the character - that Peter is a kid of lfes being Spider-Man, and as Spider-Man he just wants to have fun. Don't get me wrong, he has to learn that being Spider-Man isn't all fun and games. I really can't stand Tobey's weird, silent, spineless, pushover version of the character.
-
Decomposed — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 02:22 AM)
Tobey's Peter seemed to hate Spider-Man and saw it as nothing but a burden, they're disregarding such an important part of the character - that Peter is a kid of lfes being Spider-Man, and as Spider-Man he just wants to have fun.
I think he had more than enough fun as Spider-Man in the first movie. There are so many scenes where he is just swinging around and trying his powers.
For me Raimi's movies (the 1st and 2nd only) are the best adaptations of the character on the big screen. They are not perfect, but much better than the Amazing Spider-Man films.
For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3 -
LegendInMyMind — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 05:02 PM)
It's not that Peter hated Spider-Man, it's that Spider-Man, as much fun as Peter has while he's in costume (and you can see the comedic joy on his face in Spider-Man 2 when he jumps off the roof screaming "I'm back!"), takes a toll on Peter Parker. That has long been a character point. There's a part of it that is therapeutic for Peter, but it's also a big part of the weight that he's carrying on him. Spider-Man has often gotten in the way of Peter living his life. That's a story that resonated with Raimi, the weight of heroism, and it's something he wanted to address.
I'll always say that Raimi dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3. It was a misguided movie. He tried to satisfy himself creatively while also making the film the studio wanted him to make, and it didn't work. It could have been a great movie, there's a version of it that's great. But that troubling result doesn't, or at least shouldn't, taint what he got to say about the character with those first two films. I still hold them both as some of my favorites in the genre. -
Decomposed — 9 years ago(December 15, 2016 07:58 AM)
I still can't forgive Raimi for failing so hard with SM3. I was so stoked for this movie. The first 2 films were a dream come true for me as I grew up with the comics and the animated series. My hype meter had reached the sky. I was hanging in the IMDb board everyday and I had watched the trailers a thousand times.
Then it came out Boy, what a disappointment.
For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3