-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4362823]I think Garfield is a terrific actor. I just don't think he was right to play a superhero, and certainly not Spider-Man. He was passionate about the project and so on...and it's a good example of someone being talented, capable, and passionate (i.e. a "true fan") and still not being right for the part. But given the nature of the Marc Webb project and so on, I don't think anyone else could have done good there. Mind you I don't think Tom Holland is right either. I think he's worked so far mainly as a supporting character to Iron Man and that's how the movies made him work with the character.
Peter Parker is a hard character to get right because he is so dynamic with so many changes to him. You need an actor who can grow and take different aspects which is hard. Someone like Al Pacino in the first Godfather movies where we see him be a romantic hero, the "kid" brother of the family, and then have him become husband, father, patriarch. We see someone go from being naive to being totally ruthless and cold-blooded. There Pacino plays a character with a lot of different states and facets and each one works and is consistent to what came before. A more heroic example is Harry Potter, where we see the actors as kids and then teenagers and end with them as adults. Although personally I think the actor who played the Neville kid is what you want in a Peter Parker. Total dork to total badass and it's convincing and earned.
Peter starts from the Ditko era as a specky teenage loner without friends who somehow over issues becomes a handsome hunk that Gwen Stacy and Betty Brant, and Liz Allan pine for. As Spider-Man he's supposed to be an awkward underdog hero but also someone that both Mary Jane Watson and Felicia Hardy finds sexy and irresistible and basically a romantic glamorous figure for some people. Tobey Maguire for instance visibly looked like the Ditko Peter but he was then brought into a Romita world and he remained this quiet, lonely, sad guy. Garfield visually looks like the Romita Peter more than any other actor but he's also not quiet at all, and basically comes off as an ******* and not in a flawed-but-good way but as a regular prick. Holland's Peter again looks like Ditko Peter but with a certain blandness and niceness that does nothing for the character. His main emotional range is bug-eyed shock and talking enthusiastically.[/QUOTE]
I think the best thing I can say about Garfield is that he was really able to capture Spider-Man's personality and quips to a degree we didn't get with Maguire.
Holland...I dunno. He doesn't really sound or act any different as Spider-Man and he barely quips. I don't think he has Spider-Man's voice like Garfield did.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4362823]I think Garfield is a terrific actor. I just don't think he was right to play a superhero, and certainly not Spider-Man. He was passionate about the project and so on...and it's a good example of someone being talented, capable, and passionate (i.e. a "true fan") and still not being right for the part. But given the nature of the Marc Webb project and so on, I don't think anyone else could have done good there. Mind you I don't think Tom Holland is right either. I think he's worked so far mainly as a supporting character to Iron Man and that's how the movies made him work with the character.
Peter Parker is a hard character to get right because he is so dynamic with so many changes to him. You need an actor who can grow and take different aspects which is hard. Someone like Al Pacino in the first Godfather movies where we see him be a romantic hero, the "kid" brother of the family, and then have him become husband, father, patriarch. We see someone go from being naive to being totally ruthless and cold-blooded. There Pacino plays a character with a lot of different states and facets and each one works and is consistent to what came before. A more heroic example is Harry Potter, where we see the actors as kids and then teenagers and end with them as adults. Although personally I think the actor who played the Neville kid is what you want in a Peter Parker. Total dork to total badass and it's convincing and earned.
Peter starts from the Ditko era as a specky teenage loner without friends who somehow over issues becomes a handsome hunk that Gwen Stacy and Betty Brant, and Liz Allan pine for. As Spider-Man he's supposed to be an awkward underdog hero but also someone that both Mary Jane Watson and Felicia Hardy finds sexy and irresistible and basically a romantic glamorous figure for some people. Tobey Maguire for instance visibly looked like the Ditko Peter but he was then brought into a Romita world and he remained this quiet, lonely, sad guy. Garfield visually looks like the Romita Peter more than any other actor but he's also not quiet at all, and basically comes off as an ******* and not in a flawed-but-good way but as a regular prick. Holland's Peter again looks like Ditko Peter but with a certain blandness and niceness that does nothing for the character. His main emotional range is bug-eyed shock and talking enthusiastically.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you about Pacino ( one of the greatest actors ever). James Stewart would have made a perfect Peter Parker as an adult, Kurt Russell who started out as a child star and moved into action films could also have made a great Peter Parker and been badass enough to be Spider-Man.of course, there are few actors on that level these days.
-
[QUOTE=Frontier;4362883]I think the best thing I can say about Garfield is that he was really able to capture Spider-Man's personality and quips to a degree we didn't get with Maguire.
Holland...I dunno. He doesn't really sound or act any different as Spider-Man and he barely quips. I don't think he has Spider-Man's voice like Garfield did.[/QUOTE]
Garfield certainly did show an understanding of Spider-Man and so on. Of course Tobey's Peter did quip in the first film, like that scene where he's with Jameson when Goblin attacks -- "Quiet junior, the grownups are talking!" Then that scene in the second film where he takes the elevator. And Tobey Maguire and JK Simmons' interactions were pure gold and it's totally the chemistry you see with comics Peter and comics Jameson.
-
[QUOTE=NC_Yankee;4362888]I agree with you about Pacino ( one of the greatest actors ever). James Stewart would have made a perfect Peter Parker as an adult, Kurt Russell who started out as a child star and moved into action films could also have made a great Peter Parker and been badass enough to be Spider-Man.of course, there are few actors on that level these days.[/QUOTE]
Jimmy Stewart was like in his 30s when he played Mr. Smith and then he fought world war 2 and did it's a wonderful life where he was older (and aged additionally by his war experiences). So I don't think he was ever right to play Peter (leaving aside that his career pretty much ended when Peter Parker made his comics' debut). I always felt that James Stewart was more the Uncle Ben figure for Peter. And Cliff Robertson who was a young up-and-coming actor in the '50s was perfectly cast as Ben because to a contemporary audience he evokes the same sentiments that Stewart did in that time. He connected to an older era of cinema.
But I agree you need an everyman type actor to play Peter. Someone like Dustin Hoffmann in the 70s, or the young Tom Hanks (who now I think should be Jameson), Tobey Maguire. The problem is there aren't many everyman type actors these days. Paul Rudd is one, in a younger age he could have been Peter, but now he's a brilliant Scott Lang and basically the secret weapon for why Endgame works.
-
I leave this thread for two days and it's already ballooned out of control.
-
[QUOTE=PCN24454;4363052]I leave this thread for two days and it's already ballooned out of control.[/QUOTE]
Any thread that even hints at MJ not being the be all and end all of Spidey love interests has a habit of doing that lol.
-
[QUOTE=Celgress;4363056]Any thread that even hints at MJ not being the be all and end all of Spidey love interests has a habit of doing that lol.[/QUOTE]
You meant the be all end all of Spidey's life. Period.
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;4363086]You meant the be all end all of Spidey's life. Period.[/QUOTE]
touché friend touché lol
Edit Heck, you have people (on the Internet) who even argue MJ is the co-star of the story or more important to Spidey mythos than Uncle Ben, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Green Goblin or Venom.
-
[QUOTE=Celgress;4363204]touché friend touché lol
Edit Heck, you have people (on the Internet) who even argue MJ is the co-star of the story or more important to Spidey mythos than Uncle Ben, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Green Goblin or Venom.[/QUOTE]
Venom?
Really?
A character who didn't exist until over 25 years into Spidey's publication?
-
[QUOTE=Celgress;4363204]touché friend touché lol
Edit Heck, you have people (on the Internet) who even argue MJ is the co-star of the story or more important to Spidey mythos than Uncle Ben, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Green Goblin or Venom.[/QUOTE
You have this half right. I do not think MJ is the Co-Stsr of ASM, but she is more important then Venom ( Barely makes the Top 10), Goblin ( you can make an argument that Ock is of equal importance to Norm), as for Aunt May, MJ should be more important then Aunt May ( which is an issue I have with OMD and Life Story), Uncle Ben only appeared live in one issue ( Amazing Fantasy 15), so MJ wins there as well, JJJ is a great character but not Peter's wife, so he is not more important tben MJ. My list: 1: MJ. 2: JJJ. 3: Otto..3a: Norm. 4: Felicia. 5: Aunt May. 6: Gwen. 7: Curt Connors/Lizard. 8: Flash. 9: Miles. 10: Venom
-
yeah but none of them are more important than big wheel we can all agree
-
[QUOTE=NC_Yankee;4363239]Uncle Ben only appeared live in one issue ( Amazing Fantasy 15), so MJ wins there as well[/QUOTE]
Spider-Man's origin and motivation is more important than Love Interest #3.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4362889]Garfield certainly did show an understanding of Spider-Man and so on. Of course Tobey's Peter did quip in the first film, like that scene where he's with Jameson when Goblin attacks -- "Quiet junior, the grownups are talking!" Then that scene in the second film where he takes the elevator. And Tobey Maguire and JK Simmons' interactions were pure gold and it's totally the chemistry you see with comics Peter and comics Jameson.[/QUOTE]
Maguire got quips but he wasn't able to effectively pull them off as well as Garfield or even Holland with, like, the two quips he had in [I]Homecoming. [/I]
Ironic because he probably got the most quips of all the live-action movie Spider-Men.
-
[QUOTE=Lee;4363301]Spider-Man's origin and motivation is more important than Love Interest #3.[/QUOTE]
One would certainly think so looking at matters objectively. You could tell a good Spider-Man story in a new form of media without a love interest but not without Uncle Ben at least as the alluded to setup.
-
[QUOTE=Celgress;4363589]One would certainly think so looking at matters objectively. You could tell a good Spider-Man story in a new form of media without a love interest but not without Uncle Ben at least as the alluded to setup.[/QUOTE]
So we've gone from people asking if MJ really is the main love interest to people realizing she is the main love interest to wondering if Spider-Man even needs a love interest.
This is quite a thread.
