Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
I find it hilarious that the Sony Leaks are the first time that Sony Japan (the parent company of SOE) heard of the Marvel/Sony talks. And that their reaction to finding out about all of SOE's demands, and then walkong away from negotiations was basically: "Get the fuck back there."
And honestly, good on Andrew Garfield. He realised how much Executive Meddling was going on, and protested it. Marvel should toss him a role just to fuck with Sony.
I'm not saying there aren't other people who could do a good Peter Parker, but I'll be really upset if Andrew Garfield gets replaced. He was easily the highlight of the Amazing movies, and it feels like getting rid of him would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.Yeah, I agree, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone carried those two movies (especially the second one, the first one was really well written imho). The guys at Sony are idiots.
But you know what, at this point I don't even give a f...what Sony does. The only Spider-man movies I want from them are those which feature Andrew Garfield and continue the story Web somehow managed to tell despite all the meddling. Remove him, and the reboot is dead, imho. And if they don't use him either way...well, then give it back to Marvel. They can create a teenager version of spider-man, which would not exactly be a new angle, but one which hasn't been explored enough imho (not at all in the first trilogy and only one movie long in the reboot).
I had the slight hope that they might bring Spider-man back on track with TAS 3, but without Andrew Garfield - nope!
![]()
![]()
Eh, I find Andrew Garfield to be a terrible 'Peter Parker', to be honest. Too cool looking to be him. He really didn't convince me as the "awkward lonely teen".
He does nail the wise cracking, though. His Spider-Man is definitively great. Make me wish he somehow merged with Toby Maguire (who did a good "Peter Parker", but not so great "Spider-Man").
(yes, I know there is no real "Peter Parker" and "Spider-Man" distinction. He doesn't change personality when he puts the costume. I am just talking like that to make my point clearer)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The Japanese execs probably have a much less biased view of the situation and are like "Look if Marvel wants to fucking work with us FUCKING WORK WITH THEM". I think the big stumbling block on the western side has historically been Avi Arad, who helped launch Marvel's first wave of movies but by the time the MCU rolled around he'd been squeezed out.
So at this point it looks like he's just letting his bitterness towards Marvel (which is understandable but is a bad way to work in a business) get in the way, which is why the other execs cite him as such a problem in the leaked documents.
edited 13th Dec '14 8:51:15 AM by comicwriter
![]()
You know, I have read the "he is a bad Peter Parker but a good spider-man" judgement way too often by now. First of all: TM was soooo goofy. He didn't act like a nerd, he acted like a freaking idiot. And I never bought that this guy would feel comfortable to leap from roofs. Yes, Peter Parker was supposed to be a nerd, but he was supposed to be a nerd we can imagine doing something as crazy as being spider-man.
Plus, AG is right: Spider-man was created to be a nerd because there was a time at which the nerd was perceived as the loser. Those losers rule the world nowadays. Being a nerd is cool. I think it was a really good call to portray Peter Parker as a loner instead, someone who tends to be socially awkward, but not overly so, because it still has to be believable that he would become Spider-man (and in this context, giving him a skateboard was a genius move, because it explains why he would feel comfortable with his new abilities).
I think that AG nails both parts of his role.
edited 13th Dec '14 8:57:17 AM by swanpride
![]()
![]()
Peter's always been a Cool Loser at best, though. IMO the essence of Peter Parker is "Everyman" not "socially awkward," and unlucky Doom Magnet, not an outright loser.
I think Andrew hits the concept of an everyday teen, not really popular (in fact a bit unpopular) but mostly just looking like nothing special on the surface very well, as well as showing how much Spider-Man brings what's below the surface out.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:09:43 AM by KnownUnknown
Yeah as much as I'm eh on the Amazing Spider-Man movies that is one area i have to agree with. I think a lot of people's perception of Parker as a nerd comes from dated 80's stereotypes about geeks being people in sweater vests with thick glasses who get beaten up and stuffed into lockers by the football players.
Obviously there is still some bullying but in an era where Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead are massive mainstream successes, video games are a bigger industry than Hollywood, and movies based off comic books and fantasy novels are regularly top earners, there's simply far less of a stigma. Geek stuff is effectively mainstream at this point so you aren't going to see a kid like Peter treated the same way he was in the original 60's comics.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:11:06 AM by comicwriter
Acting like a goofy idiot is better than acting like a cool aloof guy (actually, in the comics Spider-Man is a goofy idiot, albeit in a different way). At last you can believe he gets picked on in school. But you are right he then never managed to make his Spider-Man believable. Even outside the costume he should have some crazy streak on him.
You will notice I haven't used the word "nerd", and that was deliberate. I've heard this counterargument before. The problem with Garfield's Peter Parker is not that he isn't a Hollywood nerd. The problem is that he is not a loser. He is a cool aloof teen. He acts and looks like Edward Collen. In a age where Edward Cullen is popular, Garfield's Parker really didn't convince me as a school loser.
To be fair, I don't think the problem is Garfield's acting. He actually does nail the awkward dialog as much as he does the wisecracking. It is more a directing thing. His character is just too cool looking for him to ever work as a loser at school.
PS:The type of nerd Peter Parker was at the comics is not, in fact cool today. He wasn't you video game geek who can understand everything about TV and movies. He was the kid who always arrived first at class, answered all questions and was always studying. He dressed just a bit too formal be weird. Maybe it have changed in the last half decade, but back in 2008 this stereotype still existed in my high school and was still definitively considered "not cool".
![]()
Pete Became a Cool Loser after become Spider Man. That is definitively how he is nowadays, but it wasn't back in his origins.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:15:59 AM by Heatth
Even in the 60's Pete wasnt all that downtrodden. He was clearly unpopular, but beyond Flash laughing like a moron at him every so often (which he eventually just stopped paying attention to) it didnt really effect him and the story quickly took his character in a different direction, which was mostly "struggling to balance Spider-Man with an everyday life." Hell, one of the most popular girls in school was blatantly in love with him.
Thats not only debatable (since he wasn't written all that differently from one issue of the original run to the next, and being Spider-Man didn't really change his school life for a while), but note that "before he became Spider-Man" is like one half of the first issue. Calling it his "origins" is misleading.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:21:06 AM by KnownUnknown
![]()
I think it has, then, because my school was full of that kind of people and they were also the popular kids who won class president/prom royalty elections and were named MV Ps in sports or bands. I mean, I was that kid in high school (a year and a half ago) minus the "dressing well" part.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:20:31 AM by czhang
![]()
I know it is half of the first issue (and, no it is not misleading to call "origins", it is your standard procedure back then for super heroes origins stories). But if you want to focus on that part of his life (as the movies does, before he gets bitten) than you have to do it right. I just felt the movie really tried hard to make me feel like Garfield was a complete loser, to play up the "revenge on the jock" scene, while not actually delivering that. If they had actually just glossed over that and didn't try to pretend Peter was a complete isolated loser, than I wouldn't have much problem.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:21:46 AM by Heatth
Characterization should be based on how the character is actually written (and its not like that period of time hasn't been revisited), not assumptions based on vague parts of the backstory. And again, being Spiderman didn't change his school life that much during the original run, which is a major reason why its misleading. There's no reason to assume that things were different from the way we were told they were.
I think The Spectacular Spiderman is the adaptation that translates his school life as it was originally best: he's teased but not typically bullied (unless something puts him at odds with Flash) nor outright unpopular, and has friends and a regular life even if they're not the most popular set, and is even occasionally friendly with the so-called bullies (in the original run iirc the only real holdout was Flash).
edited 13th Dec '14 9:28:59 AM by KnownUnknown
I recall that all of the cool kids kept trying to invite him to stuff and then getting annoyed when he had to do science or studying or spidering.
Forever liveblogging the Avengers![]()
The characterization should be based on how the character is written on the story you are writing in particular. Again, if they weren't doing that origins story, then there would be no problem in making a modern day Spider-Man.
The problem with him not being bullied or outright unpopular is because the movie actually acts like he was bullied or was outright unpopular. That was Peter's thing with Flash. That is what he messed with him as soon as he got super powers. These scenes would be very different if Peter was supposed to be just your average kid.
Also, I note you and swanpride contradict each other on your perception of how Peter Partker was supposed to be on the movie. You claim he was just supposed to be your average kid, which would be fair. But swanpride said he was supposed to be a 'loser', just a different kind from the classic "Hollywood nerd". That was my interpretation as well and the basis of my problem with the character (he didn't convince me as a "loser")
Btw, to reinforce my point on this "origins" thing. Lets take Doctor Strange as an example. For how long, in-comic, he was actually an arrogant doctor? That was how he was in his "origins story", but that also lasted less than on issue. Nonetheless, if the movie focus on that story, then it will be weird if he isn't arrogant, even though the character haven't be so for ages. So, yeah, I don't think is unfair to focus on a few bits of back-story and early characterization, when the movie is actually adapting said back story and early characterization.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:32:29 AM by Heatth
In the movie, Peter knew Flash - who was more of a general bully, or at least had other targets he preferred, and not specifically after him - and only incurred his wrath when he directly put himself in Flash's way. Even though Flash is way out of focus in the films, this is rather similar to the way Flash was originally written in regards to Peter - mostly bluster, only getting actually aggressive towards Peter rarely (the main example I remember being when he was jealous of Liz' crush on Peter and challenged him to a fight).
To contrast Dr. Strange, his arrogant origins effect his characterization and is made explicit in the story. Again, the assumption that Peter was more of a loser than was actually shown is just that: an assumption. At best it's an exaggeration.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:43:55 AM by KnownUnknown
Okay. I am sorry, I am not sure what the point is. I still think the movie tried to portray Peter Parker as a loser and failed to deliver.
To be crystal clear, that is my problem with the character. The movie tried to convince me he was a complete loser. I didn't buy it. Other than that I think the character works very well. After the first half an hour or so, I have no problem in how Peter Parker and Spider-Man were done.
How does Strange arrogance effects the character any more than Peter nerdiness/loserness? It was something the character was in the past and then grew out it. For Strange, the fact he used to be an arrogant ass doesn't really impact his character anymore. While Peter Parker is actually still kind of a awkward nerd in comic, even today. It is just he also learned woe to be [[Cool Loser cool over time
edited 13th Dec '14 9:48:51 AM by Heatth
![]()
![]()
I guess I can see that, even if I don't agree. I'm not saying you don't have a point (Peter's origins being a "know weakness to know strength" story in part), but the idea that Peter is supposed to be this "socially awkward loser" archetype bugs me - in part because I associate it with Joe Quesada, who had an opinion on who Peter we that I felt made little sense, and because interpreting him like that robs him of some of the most endearing parts of his personality.
edited 13th Dec '14 9:54:59 AM by KnownUnknown
"Hey guys wanna go see the open air nuclear experiment with me?"
"lol nerd we're going to the soda shoppe for an egg cream, loser"
"They'll see! One of these days, they'll all see!"
Its a good thing Peter's uncle died. Peter was showing some supervillain tendencies.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersJust to clarify, when I wrote loser, I meant that Peter in the movie was the guy who got constantly overlooked and had trouble to connect with other people. I really don't get where the assumption comes from that good looking people automatically don't end up being the ones on the side-lines. Group dynamic doesn't work that way.
![]()
![]()
Well, the problem with Quesada was he didn't allow Peter to grow as a character (and, to be fair, he is not alone there). This have no bearing in a reboot of the franchise. I certainly don't think Peter should be a "socially awkward loser" archetype forever. But he was one in his origins story, and that was what the movie was trying to portray. Presiselly because this really only matter in the origins story, I bet I would have less problem with him in the sequel if I ever get around to watch that.
It isn't really how he looks. This influences the overall perception, of course, but it is not the entirely of it. The thing is that he also acted kinda cool. To me it seemed he was the type who would make a nice group of friends, even if he was far from being the most popular kid in school. But the movie seemed to go out its way to convince me he was a loser with little to no friends, which simply didn't sit well with me.
Then again, it is really hard to convince someone would have little to no friends in the first place, without being stereotypical. Even complete 'losers' tend to band with each others.
edited 13th Dec '14 10:16:01 AM by Heatth

The Sony hack is the gift that keeps on giving
.