The Amazing Spider-Man 2 why do people consider andrew garfield's peter parker a jerk?

[Mad Ones]

When Gwen was about to go into her life changing interview, Peter couldn't shut up long enough to consider that maybe she has important things to do. This character lived in his own selfish world.

 

[LizardMan07]

There's something off about that sentence, I thought it was tense, but I don't think it is, it's just reading weird to me, funny that

 

[spider-neil]

When Gwen was about to go into her life changing interview, Peter couldn't shut up long enough to consider that maybe she has important things to do. This character lived in his own selfish world.

The wibbly wobbly selfish world of Peter Parker where selfish people are prepared to uproot their lives to move to another country for their loved one.

 

[LizardMan07]

And again, the whole don a mask and save the city thing

 

[Mad Ones]

There's something off about that sentence, I thought it was tense, but I don't think it is, it's just reading weird to me, funny that

Maybe if I changed "couldn't" to "wouldn't"? Lol

One could argue that Peter wanting to move to London was pretty selfish. She was ready to move on with her life, but he wouldn't let her. I by all means don't think that makes him a bad person, though.

 

[LizardMan07]

I think she just wanted to pursue her future, not ditch Peter.

She was just a dedicated person, and her goals were more important to her than Peter. Peter made the selfless choice and let her have both.

Obviously, it's a little selfish too, what about Aunt May and the City he swore to protect?

 

[spider-neil]

There is no way a person who is willing to up sticks to another country for your partner can be construed as selfish. Also, at the oxford interview Peter's last words were 'good luck'.

 

[Webhead38]

For me, the sticking point on Parker is not so much the actor but the script treatment given him. Parker does not really operate much within the lesson of "With great strength comes great responsibility". He toys with it, but always abandons it to get what he wants. And when Webb examines that principle, he does so in a extremely convoluted way. Example - Why have Parker do a no-show at Captain Stacey's funeral only to have him start flirting with her at the very end of the picture? Can Parker dismiss his sense of guilt that quickly?

They just put her dad in the ground while he ignores his memory to stay away from her, but then he's back flirting the next day in school? Sounds pretty disingenuous to me. And that's the problem. Webb doesn't allow these characters to sit in a reflective position for two minutes before he's ready to move them to the next act. So it comes off feeling like there is no accountability and Parker is right back to justifying what he wants.

I thought he did a much better job of flushing that out in ASM2, but once again the post-death chapter is too hurried. And although we understand Parker has suffered through several seasons at Gwen's grave site, once again Webb doesn't really hang on that very long because he wants him to get back into the role of Spider-man to advance the film, instead of giving the character time to heal IN FRONT of the viewer. I think Spider-man should not have returned at the end.

Parker had too much on his plate for Webb to end the movie by essentially saying, "Spidey's back." So I like the actor just fine. I just don't think Webb or his script writers give due diligence (or weight) to Parker's accountability in these situations that are essentially the foundation for why he is Spider-man anyway.

 

[Spider-knight]

For me, the sticking point on Parker is not so much the actor but the script treatment given him. Parker does not really operate much within the lesson of "With great strength comes great responsibility". He toys with it, but always abandons it to get what he wants. And when Webb examines that principle, he does so in a extremely convoluted way. Example - Why have Parker do a no-show at Captain Stacey's funeral only to have him start flirting with her at the very end of the picture? Can Parker dismiss his sense of guilt that quickly?

They just put her dad in the ground while he ignores his memory to stay away from her, but then he's back flirting the next day in school? Sounds pretty disingenuous to me. And that's the problem. Webb doesn't allow these characters to sit in a reflective position for two minutes before he's ready to move them to the next act. So it comes off feeling like there is no accountability and Parker is right back to justifying what he wants.

I thought he did a much better job of flushing that out in ASM2, but once again the post-death chapter is too hurried. And although we understand Parker has suffered through several seasons at Gwen's grave site, once again Webb doesn't really hang on that very long because he wants him to get back into the role of Spider-man to advance the film, instead of giving the character time to heal IN FRONT of the viewer. I think Spider-man should not have returned at the end.

Parker had too much on his plate for Webb to end the movie by essentially saying, "Spidey's back." So I like the actor just fine. I just don't think Webb or his script writers give due diligence (or weight) to Parker's accountability in these situations that are essentially the foundation for why he is Spider-man anyway.

I agree that the development of Peter Parker is just hindering when it comes to endings. Most of the time before the ending Peter is written fine and originally is better but when it comes to endings there are just some missed opportunities to end dramatically.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I was seriously disappointed with the way ASM showed Peter, it wasn't the Peter I grew up with. Sure he may be more relatable to today's angry high school nerds, but that's not the character. Peter is a goody two shoes, he has a brief moment of selfishness that's quickly turned into guilt that is the guiding force in his life. Peter isn't the teen who talks back to Aunt May, he's the one the goes out and gets a job to help provide for the family when Uncle Ben is gone. His quips are a defense mechanism, he's not doing it to just berate a mugger/car thief, hell, he probably wouldn't be making quips with a mugger/car thief. He uses it on supervillians to one calm himself down and two to throw the villain off their game. He wouldn't show up to dinner at Gwen's parents at Gwen's bedroom window (basically giving away his secret identity right there, although he does it right after dinner anyway), he wouldn't talk back to Captain Stacy and he'd definitely keep his promise to Captain Stacy longer than a couple days. This Spider-man was a cocky jerk and really for one reason, he never learned the great power, great responsibility thing and he doesn't feel the full burden of guilt for Uncle Ben's death. Peter should be portrayed as a stereotypical "good kid", not an arrogant teenager.

 

[Spider-knight]

I was seriously disappointed with the way ASM showed Peter, it wasn't the Peter I grew up with. Sure he may be more relatable to today's angry high school nerds, but that's not the character. Peter is a goody two shoes, he has a brief moment of selfishness that's quickly turned into guilt that is the guiding force in his life. Peter isn't the teen who talks back to Aunt May, he's the one the goes out and gets a job to help provide for the family when Uncle Ben is gone. His quips are a defense mechanism, he's not doing it to just berate a mugger/car thief, hell, he probably wouldn't be making quips with a mugger/car thief. He uses it on supervillians to one calm himself down and two to throw the villain off their game. He wouldn't show up to dinner at Gwen's parents at Gwen's bedroom window (basically giving away his secret identity right there, although he does it right after dinner anyway), he wouldn't talk back to Captain Stacy and he'd definitely keep his promise to Captain Stacy longer than a couple days. This Spider-man was a cocky jerk and really for one reason, he never learned the great power, great responsibility thing and he doesn't feel the full burden of guilt for Uncle Ben's death. Peter should be portrayed as a stereotypical "good kid", not an arrogant teenager.

I was gonna debunk you until I saw "stereotypical good kid". You really had me fooled man. I do Agree though that the way he handled the car theif was going way too far

 

[Spiderine]

I didn't like the scene where he walks on stage at his graduation and grabs Gwen and gives her the kiss in front of everyone. That didn't seem like something Peter would ever do. It felt very awkward for him to do that. Even if everyone knew they were in a relationship. I could see all the fellas giving him high fives and getting the attention of the ladies if you know what I mean. That's not Peter.

 

[LizardMan07]

Yeah, that put me off a bit too. Seemed like an Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone moment more than a Peter/Gwen moment, which is a bit silly.

But Peter did "get the attention of the ladies" as the comic books went on.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Peter is supposed to be someone people relate to, and he delivers in those two movies
All people have their naughty moments, sometimes people do things a bit harsher than what Peter did in those two movies

Why Spider-Man showed up to Harry? Harry asked Peter, he asked about his friend Spider-Man, and Peter wanting to be a good friend did not want to disappoint Harry so he showed up to him masked, but he also did not want to risk using something with unguaranteed results on him

 

[SpideyK]

Yup.

Peter was kinda betweeen a rock and a hard place with the blood thing. S**t would hit the fan, regardless of him agreeing to give his blood away or not.

 

[Frodo]

I actually didn't mind Garfield's Peter , but I do think he was a bit less likeable in ASM 1, and that's mainly because I think Sony was trying to go for a more edgy / moody teen heart throb akin to a CW drama. Again, they were trying to make him different from Macguire's Parker but I think he came off as less likeable .

I do think he was portrayed much better in ASM 2 when they decided to ditch the whole troubled/outsider youth shtick , and just had him be the normal conflicted science nerd he usual is. Ironically I think ASM 2 Parker is leaps and bounds ahead of the ASM version of Parker and is alot more likeable and you root for him alot more. Gwen pretty much seemed the same to me where as Peter seemed to be written alot better in part 2 than 1.

 

[Victarion]

I didn't find TASM Peter to be particularly angry. I don't think you can realistically look at high schoolers that would fit in Peter's clique and seriously refer to them as angry. On the other hand, I didn't dislike Tobey's Peter Parker...I was just ambivalent.

 

[Frodo]

He was more moody and angsty in ASM as opposed to angry , but they were trying to have it both ways I feel.

They wanted him to be the tortured yet socially awkward outsider while at the same time being the sort of goofy and nerdy guy that Macguire was. I think Sony felt they should go the more angsty semi-rebel /outsider route with Peter while at the same time they also wanted him to be the science nerd of the comics. It kinda reflects Sony's attempt to have its cake and eat it too mentality with the reboot films in general.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

He was more moody and angsty in ASM as opposed to angry , but they were trying to have it both ways I feel.

They wanted him to be the tortured yet socially awkward outsider while at the same time being the sort of goofy and nerdy guy that Macguire was. I think Sony felt they should go the more angsty semi-rebel /outsider route with Peter while at the same time they also wanted him to be the science nerd of the comics. It kinda reflects Sony's attempt to have its cake and eat it too mentality with the reboot films in general.

IMO, they made Peter a layered individual. Just like a regular person. He wasn't a caricature or a simple one-two dimensional character.

 

[Frodo]

IMO, they made Peter a layered individual. Just like a regular person. He wasn't a caricature or a simple one-two dimensional character.

I really didn't think so , at least not for ASM 1. Maguire's Parker had alot more layer's than Garfield's Parker did imo, but that has to do more with the scripts they were given. Macguire's Peter was the average person where as Garfield's always felt like a slick teen in a tv drama who was angst ridden. I think that's another reason why Macguire's Parker may appeal more to non comic fans as opposed to Garfield's.

He was layered and represented more the every man as opposed to the outsider that they were trying to go for in ASM 1 . He wasn't the best looking guy, or the funniest guy. He really was "average" and had more going for him than the "aw shucks" sterotype fanboys try to characterize him as. While I think Garfield is closer to the character of the comics in alot of ways, Macguire really captured Stan Lee's concept of the average joe getting these amazing powers and how he would stumble and struggle with them, yet ultimately triumph .

 

[Victarion]

Maguire's Parker was a stick in the mud. Franco's Harry was more interesting and charismatic.

 

[The Joker]

I really didn't think so , at least not for ASM 1. Maguire's Parker had alot more layer's than Garfield's Parker did imo, but that has to do more with the scripts they were given. Macguire's Peter was the average person where as Garfield's always felt like a slick teen in a tv drama who was angst ridden. I think that's another reason why Macguire's Parker may appeal more to non comic fans as opposed to Garfield's.

He was layered and represented more the every man as opposed to the outsider that they were trying to go for in ASM 1 . He wasn't the best looking guy, or the funniest guy. He really was "average" and had more going for him than the "aw shucks" sterotype fanboys try to characterize him as. While I think Garfield is closer to the character of the comics in alot of ways, Macguire really captured Stan Lee's concept of the average joe getting these amazing powers and how he would stumble and struggle with them, yet ultimately triumph .

Hear hear

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Maguire's Parker was a stick in the mud.

Hey now, that's incredibly insulting. To sticks in the mud.

Franco's Harry was more interesting and charismatic.

Agreed. Easily the best character arc throughout that series was Franco's Harry and in a way, he ended up becoming the real hero with his actions at the end of SM3. It's interesting to note, per the producer's commentary on one of the films, Franco was originally considered for the part of Peter Parker.

 

[The Joker]

What's so interesting about that? Cillian Murphy and Heath Ledger were both considered for Batman before Bale. Good thing they didn't get it. Because they were perfect for the roles they eventually played, just like Maguire was perfect for Spidey. And Franco was perfect for Harry.

Everything worked out for the best.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

What's so interesting about that?

It's a neat little fun fact. I always like the behind-the-scenes info we get about production processes, casting choices and how they came to those decisions, also the little details that directors or cast members or other production staff share about particular scenes. Sometimes they have these interesting or cool stories to tell about filming certain shots, bits of dialogue, etc.