Sequels Tobey Maguire was miscast as Spider-Man

[sithgoblin]

i kinda wish tobey acted like this
[YT]Lyw2ZnbJsJQ[/YT]

but tobey did great!
happy with his performance

Holy holy HOLY! That was amazing.

 

[spida-man]

Considering most of the time it was a stunt man underneath the costume....

what are u talking about? tobey did most of his own stunts. stunt man was barely used

 

[strikezone89]

Tobey Is A Great Spider-man/Peter.
His Perfomance In All 3 Films Was Brilliant t:
And I Want To See Him Come Back For The Next Trilogy.

agreed

 

[Jordacar]

When I first heard that Maguire was going to play Peter, I was ecstatic. By that point, he had shown himself to be a fine young actor, and he definitely has the right look.

Now, I realize that Maguire's style of acting is way different from how Peter Parker is typically portrayed, even in the comics. Peter, shy nerd that he is, always comes across more emotional and expressive (which contrasts him with a lot of other superheroes), while Maguire's acting is usually more subdued.

Of course, it took me 3 whole movies to take note of this fact, so he and the filmmakers must've been doing something right all this time.

 

[Venomfan]

except Peter was never shy in the comics, except like the very first issue

 

[Rac]

There were lots of miscasting in Spider-Man trilogy. Only ones that were spot on were Jameson, Norman Osborn, Otto Octavius, Curt Connors and Sandman.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

jameson was cast well but written poorly and ended up becoming comic relief for all the wrong reasons.

 

[The Joker]

There were lots of miscasting in Spider-Man trilogy. Only ones that were spot on were Jameson, Norman Osborn, Otto Octavius, Curt Connors and Sandman.

I'd add Captain Stacy to that list, even though he was utterly pointless in Spider-Man 3.

 

[Blader5489]

I'd add Captain Stacy to that list, even though he was utterly pointless in Spider-Man 3.

I never understood this. Why do you consider Captain Stacy pointless? He was just a supporting character, his role didn't need to extend beyond what it was. It was just a nice nod to the comics by giving a name fans will know to what could have been just "generic police captain."

Same thing with Dr. Connors. He's just a minor character in this trilogy, but fans can appreciate the fact that he's "Dr. Connors" as opposed to "generic physics professor." Nobody complained that Connors was pointless, so why complain about Captain Stacy like that?

 

[The Joker]

I never understood this. Why do you consider Captain Stacy pointless? He was just a supporting character, his role didn't need to extend beyond what it was. It was just a nice nod to the comics by giving a name fans will know to what could have been just "generic police captain."

Same thing with Dr. Connors. He's just a minor character in this trilogy, but fans can appreciate the fact that he's "Dr. Connors" as opposed to "generic physics professor." Nobody complained that Connors was pointless, so why complain about Captain Stacy like that?

Captain Stacy was pointless because his character was totally unneeded in the plot. He was simply there as a nod to the fans. As a character, he didn't do anything that only his character could have done in the story. No real interactions with Gwen ["What's she doing up there?" when he sees his daughter dangling off a building with an out of control crane coming at her. LOL!]. His big scene was telling Peter and May that Marko was Ben's real killer. And he wasn't used in any significant way in that scene. Any Cop character could have done that scene. He didn't even have his trademark cane or pipe in any of his scenes.

At least Curt Conners was someone Peter turned to to studied the symbiote and gave us info about it in SM-3, and was a factor in the stress of Peter's life with his college assignments in SM-2.

 

[Visionary]

That's because fans are hell bent on damn-near everything being like the comics, Marvel isn't, they're content with the changes.

 

[Blader5489]

Captain Stacy was pointless because his character was totally unneeded in the plot. He was simply there as a nod to the fans. As a character, he didn't do anything that only his character could have done in the story. No real interactions with Gwen ["What's she doing up there?" when he sees his daughter dangling off a building with an out of control crane coming at her. LOL!]. His big scene was telling Peter and May that Marko was Ben's real killer. And he wasn't used in any significant way in that scene. Any Cop character could have done that scene. He didn't even have his trademark cane or pipe in any of his scenes.

Exactly! It could have been any generic cop, but they chose to give him a name that comic fans would recognize. What would you rather have, Captain Stacy or a nameless police captain? Obviously the former is the better choice because even if he isn't integral to the plot of this film, at least he has now been established as a character for a future movie.

It's the same deal with Betty Brant or Robbie (Connors may have been a bad example). They could have just been generic Daily Bugle employees, but instead Raimi gives them names that comic fans are familiar with as a nod to the source material and as a way of establishing them for future stories where they may become more important.

I don't see what the big deal is. They're just minor characters anyway, and personally I would rather have minor characters that are pulled from the comics as opposed to just nameless extras.

 

[The Joker]

Exactly! It could have been any generic cop, but they chose to give him a name that comic fans would recognize. What would you rather have, Captain Stacy or a nameless police captain? Obviously the former is the better choice because even if he isn't integral to the plot of this film, at least he has now been established as a character for a future movie.

Right. You've just reaffirmed what I've said. He was strictly there for fans. Not in any way needed or essential to the plot.

It's the same deal with Betty Brant or Robbie (Connors may have been a bad example). They could have just been generic Daily Bugle employees, but instead Raimi gives them names that comic fans are familiar with as a nod to the source material and as a way of establishing them for future stories where they may become more important.

I don't know about that. Betty and Robbie are the voices of reason and some of the few friendly faces Peter gets in these movies. They make a welcome oasis from the blustering irrational Jameson in the Daily Bugle scenes.
Robbie defends Spider-Man from Jonah's accusations, and Betty is the sweet friendly girl who gives Peter a warm welcome, and even tries to boost his confidence.

I don't see what the big deal is. They're just minor characters anyway, and personally I would rather have minor characters that are pulled from the comics as opposed to just nameless extras.

Who said it was a big deal? Nobody has made a thread over it or anything like that. You made an issue out of this. I simply pointed out that Captain Stacy was pointless to the story of SM-3. Nice to see him as a fan, but wasted and pointless in the script.

 

[Blader5489]

I don't know about that. Betty and Robbie are the voices of reason and some of the few friendly faces Peter gets in these movies. They make a welcome oasis from the blustering irrational Jameson in the Daily Bugle scenes.
Robbie defends Spider-Man from Jonah's accusations, and Betty is the sweet friendly girl who gives Peter a warm welcome, and even tries to boost his confidence.

But you could have had any random Bugle editor defend Spidey from Jameson, and you could have had any random girl act nice to Peter. But since there are already characters like that in the comics, why not just call them Robbie and Betty? It doesn't change their roles, but it's a nice touch for the fans and it establishes these characters for future stories.

It's exactly the same with Captain Stacy. Like Robbie and Betty, he doesn't do anything that some nameless extra couldn't have done, but calling him Captain Stacy is a nice nod to the fans and introduces a character to be used in the next film. Think of Dr. Connors in SM2--he may as well just have been some generic college professor, but by calling him "Dr. Connors" you establish a new character to be used in the future (which he was, in SM3).

 

[The Joker]

But you could have had any random Bugle editor defend Spidey from Jameson, and you could have had any random girl act nice to Peter. But since there are already characters like that in the comics, why not just call them Robbie and Betty? It doesn't change their roles, but it's a nice touch for the fans and it establishes these characters for future stories.

That's exactly the difference between Captain Stacy's role and Robbie's and Betty's. Robbie and Betty do in the comic books what they do in the movies. So, they are needed for their roles. It wouldn't make any sense to have other characters do it.

You think anyone would bat an eyelid if some other Cop told Peter and May that Marko was Ben's killer? No. But if we had another editor or secretary for Jameson doing the things that Betty and Robbie do in the comics, everyone would be complaining.

Think of Dr. Connors in SM2--he may as well just have been some generic college professor, but by calling him "Dr. Connors" you establish a new character to be used in the future (which he was, in SM3).

Yeah, nobody disputed that. They didn't have to have Conners be the college professor. But, his role at least had some purpose. He was an element of stress and pressure on Peter's life for his college work. A reason for Peter to give up being Spider-Man.

Captain Stacy may as well not have existed to Peter in SM-3.

 

[The Joker]

*Double post*

 

[Blader5489]

That's exactly the difference between Captain Stacy's role and Robbie's and Betty's. Robbie and Betty do in the comic books what they do in the movies. So, they are needed for their roles. It wouldn't make any sense to have other characters do it.

You think anyone would bat an eyelid if some other Cop told Peter and May that Marko was Ben's killer? No. But if we had another editor or secretary for Jameson doing the things that Betty and Robbie do in the comics, everyone would be complaining.

I understand that. I'm just saying, if they're going to use a cop in the movie, even in a minor role, why not call him Captain Stacy? It's not an hindrance to the plot, and, like Connors, he's there for some future movie to make better use of.

 

[Blader5489]

Edit - Whoops, wrong thread.

 

[The Joker]

I understand that. I'm just saying, if they're going to use a cop in the movie, even in a minor role, why not call him Captain Stacy? It's not an hindrance to the plot, and, like Connors, he's there for some future movie to make better use of.

Blader, I never said I was against them using Captain Stacy. I never said I was unhappy to see him in the movie. My one and only point was that he was pointless to the movie plot. Even to the characters he's supposed to be connected with, like his daughter, Gwen.

He didn't serve any specific purpose unique to his character. He was simply there for us comic book geeks.

 

[DACrowe]

People never be happy.

I personally think Maguire is not perfect casting, but he gave an amazing performance as Peter Parker. I say that because he made the audience empathize and root for him every step of the way and gave a performance in the first two many will not forget and associate with the character. It was iconic.

Yeah, I would've liked Peter to be more confident in the sequels (without just being an ass like in SM3) and there to be more one-liners as Spidey, blah blah blah. But these weren't my movies. These were Sam Raimi's filtered (by Sony and Marvel)'s movies. As they are I judge them for what they are and if they reasonably stayed true to the spirit of the comics. I wish MJ was more wild and less insecure, I wish that GG had a prosthetic mask, etc. but in the end I enjoyed the movies greatly for what they were and as did I Tobey's performance.

It can be one-uped and surpassed, but he actually set a high benchmark in some ways that I bet many fans will not acknowledge unless the next one is a bad casting choice. Only time will tell.

Also outside of MJ, I'd say the casting for these movies has been pretty spot on. Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson, JK Simmons, Thomas Hayden Church, Dylan Baker, Elizabeth Banks and Bryce Dallas Howard (though wasted) were all perfectly cast into their roles. I also feel some of the changes made to Harry Osborn and Eddie Brock were for the better (albeit the former's is so streamlined they lose much of the character's richness and depth in the comics and the latter just didn't have enough screen time to be properly developed, but at least he now has a feasible motive).

In fact the only casting I regret is Dunst as MJ, but even that does not detract my enjoyment of the SM movies. YOu either like them or you don't. It seems pretty clear that at least this incarnation of them is done. Let's move on, people. Really.

 

[Rac]

jameson was cast well but written poorly and ended up becoming comic relief for all the wrong reasons.

That's true.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Tobey Maguire is a guy that has what it takes to be Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He's proven it in three amazing Spider-Man films and personally, I have a hard time imagining somebody else as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He played the "weight of the world on shoulders" Peter Parker so great and I really felt like I was lookin at/reading a Spider-Man comic. That's jsut my thoughts and opinions on Tobey magurie a Peter parker/Spider-Man.

 

[Venomfan]

Tobey Maguire is a guy that has what it takes to be Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He's proven it in three amazing Spider-Man films and personally, I have a hard time imagining somebody else as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He played the "weight of the world on shoulders" Peter Parker so great and I really felt like I was lookin at/reading a Spider-Man comic. That's jsut my thoughts and opinions on Tobey magurie a Peter parker/Spider-Man.

you would be saying the same thing if anyone else had played Peter in the movies, and then when someone suggests Tobey to take over you'd say its a bad decision and the other guy should stay

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

you would be saying the same thing if anyone else had played Peter in the movies, and then when someone suggests Tobey to take over you'd say its a bad decision and the other guy should stay

No, I wouldn't. Almost everytime I post and you reply, it's always the same exact thing that you say. You're basically saying that as fact, but you can't read my thoughts, you don't know if I'd feel the same way that you think I feel. It's getting so freakin stupid. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but this needs to stop.​

 

[Venom 1988]

No offense SMH12, but at times you do come off as a walking billboard for Sony/Marvel