Why do so many people hate TASM series?

[Hugo Strange]

The script is horrible.

[Dboi2001]

Those are stereotypical attributes and while it's important that cheerleaders or waiters or other customer care affect these traits, it's not at all so for characters in a story.

Um yes they are important to characters in the story especially Spider Man who’s always been witty

It really isn't a 1:1 because ultimately a similar scene can play different based on everything around it. Like Tobey's Spider-Man came off as an actual Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man who was not yet comfortable with interacting with people as a role model and so even his attempt to affect that tone came off as dorky but earnest, which felt consistent to the character Tobey was. Whereas with Garfield's Peter there was an element of pandering and showboating in all his "Spider-Man meets the plebes" scenes. Like that bit where he wears a fireman's hat in the middle of a crisis...that kind of silliness. It just didn't make sense or feel right.

The problem is this is Spider Man 2 where he’s been a friendly neighborhood spider man for a while now. And no it didn’t feel dorky it felt stiff. Plus part of the point with spider man is when Peter puts on the mask he can act differently and be more confident

It's not a sports competition. You can't judge actors based on "who emotes most", "who comes across as customer-care Spider-Man better"? You have to take an overall thing to account. Also have to put acting in context with screenplay, direction, and tone.

How about just being a generally better actor? Simply put Garfield just gave more range than Tobey

It's not like people being awkward around the love of their lives is an uncommon or new experience. Especially in the case of Tobey's Peter where he never told MJ his feelings. The key bit is when Spider-Man after dropping her by that roof garden swings away whooping in cheer.

Again Peter as Spider Man is suppose to be confident and different from just Peter Parker. And the way he said it wasn’t awkward

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man isn't accurate to the characters in the comics in a lot of ways, especially not with Tobey's Peter and Kirsten's MJ. It's a specific interpretation and Raimi is trying to be true to that interpretation. Raimi was a casual reader of the comics and what he took away from it was Peter was a constant insecure dude angsting over stuff, and he felt that morose inner life mixed with an old-fashioned sincerity was the best way. He found that in Tobey and went with it. He also felt that it made the movies into a classic boy-meets-girl love story rather than the considerably more realistic and nuanced romance in the comics. Still he made it work.

And this is why I liked Peter and Gwen better in TASM. It just felt more natural and realistic. Simply put I felt there was just no chemistry between Tobey and Durst

My point is that the interesting version of Gwen, the best written and most consistent version of her, was the Gwen "who wasn't nice". The Gwen before she became Peter's girlfriend. You know, "Resting b--ch face" Gwen, the Regina George of ESU.

Well I disagree

Compared to the comics...i.e. Lee-Ditko Gwen, Ultimate Gwen, heck even hysterical over-the-top Gwen in some of the later L-R issues...she's not a better character than the comics. Gwen's most notable characteristics in the comics is that A) She hated Spider-Man, B) She blamed Spider-Man for her father's death. If you remove both of these but choose to adapt the Death of George Stacy (as TASM-1 partially does) and The Night Gwen Stacy Died (as TASM-2 does), you are not doing the story and character of the comics justice.**

No she really is better in TASM. She had her own ambitions and actually helped Spiderman instead of just being either a bitch or damsel

Emma Gwen in the TASM movies is an ideal girlfriend, i.e. "the cool girl" from that famous Gone Girl monologue, there to facilitate the demands and lifestyle of a unstable, moody, intense brooding guy. She's super-rich while he's a moocher who leeches off his struggling aunt and keeps wasting time chasing the ghost of his deadbeat Dad (if still alive as the movies hints). It's quite disproportionate. She's a poorly written character that somehow works thanks to Emma Stone's effortless likability and screen presence. But just because she was the most watchable character in bad movies doesn't mean she's somehow a good character by any means.

You haven’t explain how she is poorly written

Kirsten Dunst's MJ on the other hand was a more complex and interesting character, and whatever else she was, she was definitely not "bland" and certainly not the B-word you use so casually. Both Dunst's MJ and Stone's Gwen are quite different from the characters in the comics in many ways, but on the whole Dunst's MJ has far more in common with the MJ in the comics than Stone's Gwen has with the Gwen in the comics.

I’m sorry but no. In Spider-Man all she does is get in trouble and look dead and in Spider Man 2 she borderline toys with Peter and again ditches her fiancee at the alter.

** As an addendum, let me add that TASM-1 in particular is severely dated for its Cop-Propaganda or Copaganda as they call it these days. The fact that George Stacy is reinterpreted from a senior plainclothes detective to a cop in uniform, that George Stacy gets a heroic moment where he saves Spider-Man's life from Lizard all feeds into the usual lionizing of police that many argued that the movies tied to. What makes these insidious is that the George Stacy of the comics, both in "Death of George Stacy" and the two-part story dealing with the aftermath of his death, ASM#91-92, went to great steps to divorce George Stacy from those elements and as such the movies register like A) betrayal of the source, B) tone-deaf misreading of the dramatic values of those stories, C) providing a halo to the police in the time of stop-and-frisk (tail end of Bloomberg's Mayoralty which ended in 2013, movie came out in 2012).

I don’t get what you are talking about. Having one cop as a good guy isn’t propaganda. What do you want all cops to be assholes? I’d say Homecoming is more propaganda to corporations since they never criticize stark for screwing over regular people like Adrian

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Um yes they are important to characters in the story especially Spider Man who’s always been witty

Characters aren't always just one trait. Spider-Man in the comics is a someone who insults opponents and makes jokes and has an element of comedy, but he's also internally, as Peter Parker, someone who angsts a lot and complains and so on, with a lot of personal emotional conflict. Obviously the thing is to try and do justice to the full spectrum but even then a film-maker is going to emphasize some traits more than others. Sam Raimi chose to emphasize the serious side of Peter more than the other stuff. That's a valid interpretation and creative choice.

And I don't think Garfield's Spider-Man was witty. Sure he made some jokes and stuff in battle but they weren't especially good jokes.

Plus part of the point with spider man is when Peter puts on the mask he can act differently and be more confident

And we got that in Spider-Man 1. Like right after Peter meekly listens to Jameson's insults, Spider-Man arrives and saves him from Goblin and doesn't miss a beat in webbing up Jameson's face telling him to "let mom and Dad talk". We never got a similar contrast with Garfield or Tom Holland.

How about just being a generally better actor?

You can be the best possible actor and still be unsuited for a role if the script and direction aren't up to the mark. George Clooney for instance is a good actor but he was quite unsuited for playing Batman in Batman and Robin. Andrew Garfield not being good as Spider-Man doesn't mean he's a bad actor. In fact he's quite capable in general.

Simply put Garfield just gave more range than Tobey

No he didn't. He played both roles too intensely and wasn't really convincing.

Simply put I felt there was just no chemistry between Tobey and Durst

The greatest romantic moments in Spider-Man movies are in Spider-Man 1, between Tobey and Kirsten. Not in the Garfield movies. There was never a moment in those movies like Tobey Maguire effortlessly using the tray to grab all the stuff falling from the air at once, or the upside down kiss.

She had her own ambitions and actually helped Spiderman instead of just being either a bitch or damsel

Let's get one thing clear. You can't judge a character's value or worth based on how much or how little they help the hero. Nor are female characters simply "b-word or damsel" just for needing some kind of help or anything in return from the hero.

Emma Gwen in the Amazing Spider-Man series exists as an idealized transcendent female and not as a real character. She's all compassionate, all loving, all funny, all charismatic...she is the "cool girl". As Gillian Flynn said, "Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want." That applies to Gwen in these movies. She never makes demands on Peter, isn't going to call him out for something as basic as mooching off his struggling Aunt**, doesn't provide any complications to being a superhero. The only issue in their relationship is her Dad's ghost and so on, which is lame as hell, and quite inaccurate to the comics.

You haven’t explain how she is poorly written

She's overly idealized. Her basic traits are that she's smart and she loves Peter unconditionally. She has no edges outside that. As bland as even Lee-Romita Gwen was, even whiny crying Gwen at least made real demands on Peter. Gwen's hatred for Spider-Man and blaming him for her father's death at least gave some conflict, tragedy, and pathos to their relationship. You go back to Kirsten Dunst's MJ she had to undergo a lot of character development and sort out her own issues (namely her neurosis about her abusive father which leads her to a series of deadbeat boyfriends that tend to resemble her father -- Flash, Harry) where her relationship with Peter was something that served her character as much as it did Peter's. Both of them have difficulties opening up to one another, which is one of the aspects that's actually true to the original characters (As Gerry Conway said about Peter and MJ, "Only a damaged person deserves to be in a relationship with someone as damaged as Peter" which might be a little outdated in language but he meant it in a sense of someone having personal neurosis and flaws to overcome).

I don’t get what you are talking about. Having one cop as a good guy isn’t propaganda. What do you want all cops to be assholes?

Captain George Stacy in the comics was a moderate liberal policeman who often told his colleagues to stop persecuting Spider-Man and tried to be a voice of reason. If you change that character and make him into a tough cop who dislikes Spider-Man for breaking the law in a period where police were getting more militarized, then that does put you on the wrong side of history.



** Another issue with the Garfield Spider-Man movies. Where Tobey Maguire's Peter is shown getting work and living on his own away from Aunt May and trying to make something for himself...we hardly ever see Garfield Peter do anything substantial. Removing the Daily Bugle and any avenues of work, and spending most of the movie on the Gwen romance and Peter chasing the dead end of his deadbeat dad's legacy, makes him come off as a loser mooching off his poor Aunt who he lies to all the time, makes tense, and this despite the fact that he's responsible for the death of Uncle and the major breadwinner of the family. He comes across as a real s--theel far more than any other version of Peter (616, Ultimate, Raimi, even MCU where at least the Iron Man sponsorship and fanboying provides some kind of security and insurance to May).

[Matt Parker]

Yeah. Neither of them create a sense of Spider-Man as a different character than regular Peter that Tobey Maguire did in the first and second movie. Tobey's Spider-Man wasn't a motor mouth but he was funny, like webbing Jameson up and going, "Let mom and dad talk". Especially since that followed a scene of Tobey's Peter meekly taking Jameson's abuse and walking out.

I disagree with this. Tom quips in the costume much more that Tobey did, especially in Homecoming. You got the sense that he was trying to create a distinct persona in the suit in several scenes in that movie, such as when he tries to create a Bugs Bunny like pose before interrupting the ATM robbers. Admittedly, this isn't as present in the team up movies (where he has less screen time and everyone is quippy so they emphasize him being dorky to make him stand out against the crowd) or in Far From Home, but Homecoming nailed the Spider-Man personality for me. Far From Home dropped the ball a bit with quips, but you still had the (admittedly cut out) scene where he fought the Manfredi Mob, as well as a few more quips here and there (the stealth costume not fitting, giving Happy a hard time about dating May, etc).

Tobey did quip here and there, but it wasn't consistent enough to feel like an organic character trait. It felt like fan service, like checking off a box. Spider-Man is quippy, so lets have him make two or three jokes a movie so that we technically fill the quota. Tobey was so meek and monosyllabic, especially in 2.

Tom isn't as quippy as the comic book Spider-man, but he cracks at least two jokes in pretty much every Spider-man centric scene in Homecoming.

I know we've talked about Tom on these boards before and just don't quite agree so I suppose we just read these movies differently. Cheers!

[Matt Parker]

I don’t get what you are talking about. Having one cop as a good guy isn’t propaganda. What do you want all cops to be assholes? I’d say Homecoming is more propaganda to corporations since they never criticize stark for screwing over regular people like Adrian

First, I apologize for making two MCU centric posts in this TASM thread! It just seems like most of the folks on here aren't big MCU Spidey fans and I feel the need to jump in and defend those movies (because I like them a lot) when I see people talk abut them on here. Not that people who dislike those movies aren't valid, but I just like to play devil's advocate I guess.

I would argue that Homecoming is very, very sympathetic to Adrian being screwed over by Stark and that the reason Peter doesn't join the Avengers at the end of that movie is because, after hearing Adrian's speech about Stark not really caring that much for the little guy, realizes that he doesn't want to be a full time Avenger. He wants to stay in New York cleaning up the streets. Sure, he still works with the Avengers in Infinity War and Endgame, but that was an end of the world situation. Far From Home shows that he didn't stay a permanent member of the team and went back to fighting street crime. Sure, the movies don't wholly condemn Stark (because we know that he is a good person who tries to do the right thing), they also don't exonerate him. He doesn't live in the same world that Peter doesn't, and he doesn't see how his actions impact regular people.

Again, sorry to sound like a raving MCU fanboy .

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I disagree with this.

I get that.

Tom quips in the costume much more that Tobey did, especially in Homecoming.

The issue is that he doesn't act all that differently as Peter as compared to Spider-Man. Where you got elements of that with Tobey's Spider-Man in the first movie at least.

But again, that's how I see it, and obviously that's compounded by other issues in those movies. The fact that we see Spider-Man having so much "Face-Time" which was something that Raimi started from Spider-Man 2 onwards.

[Spidey_62]

I admire how much of a ridiculous disaster TASM2 is, it feels like a relic of the late 90s superhero movie era but it only came out 6 years ago. It is actually enjoyable to me for how weird and strange it is, but there is genuinely some good in it. I like the saturated palette of the movie, the crazy Zimmer score, the Spidey suit, Andrew as Spidey most of the time (there never was enough contrast between the two personas, but I like Andrew in the role well enough, he was really passionate about it), Emma as Gwen, Gwen's death and the aftermath (I like how they illustrated how much it devastates Peter where 6 months pass and he really doesn't do anything but visit her grave every day).

The whole movie feels like a giant advertisement instead of a movie, it is just paced so strangely like it's scatterbrained and remembering what else it wants to set up or throw in. Oh he beat Electro now there's no villain, time for a montage with Philip Philips as he remembers he wanted to search for his parents; all the while promising the death of Gwen the whole time because it knows it'll please the fanboys. Just the whole producer driven mentality of putting stuff in to set up other stuff really hurt the movies because it's clear TASM wanted to be one thing whereas the sequel is a completely different beast tonally because the producers realized darker wasn't necessarily in anymore/even needed for Spider-Man. All the deleted scenes like the ones with Peter's dad at Gwen's grave is ridiculous, one that shows quite well how much they really didn't know where they were going with things. The overabundance of parent plot was unnecessary, especially in TASM2 with the special blood plotline which shouldn't be a thing ever with Spider-Man.

I do like how much stock they were trying to put into Spider-Man's world and the characters in it, not even really doing more than lipservice having certain characters around sure, but I like the world being populated by Spider-Man characters and Spider-Man himself being important rather than the MCU Spidey movies which feel more like lighthearted not-really-important adventures like Ant-Man movies, and his world is so intertwined with others he starts to lose his autonomy as a character.

So yeah, TASM is an alright movie- there's some genuinely good stuff in there with the coming-of-age stuff with Gwen and all that and the performances are good but making the decision to do the origin again I still think was dumb because that takes so much of the movie's runtime to do something that had already been done well before but doing it again only a bit differently when more time could have been spent developing things like the Lizard crap. He was such a missed opportunity in that movie.

I think that sums up the TASM franchise pretty well, I don't hate it but it's just a giant missed opportunity. TASM mostly feels like "been there done that, but done better elsewhere"- like Revolutionary Jack stated, there's nothing done more iconic in the TASM franchise than the Raimi franchise. There's nothing as well-remembered as the upside down kiss, there's nothing there genuinely striking or memorable. I'd say people are more invested in the MCU rendition just because they were invested in the MCU already, and the first time we ever saw that version of Spidey had a pretty iconic and memorable entrance into that world holding Cap's shield right as a first impression.

Marc Webb tried his best, it seems like he really excelled at the teenage interest stuff and romance and keeping things pretty grounded, but the Lizard stuff just does not work very well- it's baseline serviceable but underdeveloped and doesn't feel like he's as into that stuff. Then TASM2 you can tell he really cares about the romance stuff again but struggles to bring the other 30 things Sony wanted in there together.

It's still crazy to me that franchise ended with TASM2 in 2014 then 2 years later the character was rebooted in the MCU.

[Dboi2001]

so is Spider Verse copaganda? Or does that get a pass because Jefferson Davis is black? You realize that Stacy realizes the error of his judgement in both Peter and Spider-Man right?

I will admit the difference between Peter and Spider-Man in Tobey should be more drastic but it isnt because Tobey is always so stiff. But I do think we get some contrast in TASM like how Spidery acts around the cop vs when he is talking face to face with Captain Stacy. And you literally contradicted yourself

Well I feel Andrew played a much better Spider-Man and yes he did show more range than Tobey. Like that is just an objective truth. In TASM we see Peter being permissive when Flash hit him with the ball, polite and respectful to teachers, awkward around girls and assertive when someone is being bullied all within the opening. With Tobey through the entirety of the Spider Man trilogy it is either quiet pushover, crying or stiff attempts at humor. You are also overlooking the 10 year gap between Spider-Man and TASM so what was nerdy in 2002 is different in 2012

Maybe Gwen is over idealized(which i disagree she is shown to be kinda reckless and not showing concern for her own safety) but she still has a much better arc that MJ had through 3 movies. Gwen wants to be with Peter but she also understands that her father didn't want it and she wants to go to Oxford. The best parts of TASM and TASM2 were Peter and Gwen. Sorry but it takes more than a flashy scene and upside kissing to have a good romance. In Spider-Man Peter just stares at her with other guys while living his fantasy as Spider-Man, in Spider-Man 2 MJ keeps playing with not just Peter's feelings but John's too and in spider-man 3 while they gave her some ambitions it just got buried with the other plots going on. Gwen is easily a much better love interest and is more than a damsel in distress

Peter is 17 in TASM and 18 in TASM2 how is that mooching off his aunt? You act like he is 28. Were you living on your own when you were 17 moocher? Tobey was 23 after the first act in Spider-Man and living on his own. And he DOES work for the bugle. TASM2 shows him sending JJJ photos of Spider-Man

[KCJ506]

I give the ASM films credit for Peter and Gwen's chemistry and the first one for being the first Spider-man film where Peter's love interest doesn't get kidnapped. Hell Gwen was actually helpful as she prepared the Lizard cure and even stayed at Oscorp to make sure it was finished even though Peter had asked her to leave.

[Dboi2001]

First, I apologize for making two MCU centric posts in this TASM thread! It just seems like most of the folks on here aren't big MCU Spidey fans and I feel the need to jump in and defend those movies (because I like them a lot) when I see people talk abut them on here. Not that people who dislike those movies aren't valid, but I just like to play devil's advocate I guess.

I would argue that Homecoming is very, very sympathetic to Adrian being screwed over by Stark and that the reason Peter doesn't join the Avengers at the end of that movie is because, after hearing Adrian's speech about Stark not really caring that much for the little guy, realizes that he doesn't want to be a full time Avenger. He wants to stay in New York cleaning up the streets. Sure, he still works with the Avengers in Infinity War and Endgame, but that was an end of the world situation. Far From Home shows that he didn't stay a permanent member of the team and went back to fighting street crime. Sure, the movies don't wholly condemn Stark (because we know that he is a good person who tries to do the right thing), they also don't exonerate him. He doesn't live in the same world that Peter doesn't, and he doesn't see how his actions impact regular people.

Again, sorry to sound like a raving MCU fanboy .

don't exonerate him? Peter basically worships him

But fine how about Spider-Verse you think Spider-verse is copaganda because Jefferson Davis is a cop who doesn't like Spider-Man or is it OK because he is black?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

so is Spider Verse copaganda?

A) You started this conversation about TASM. So we are discussing the stuff in that movie and its sequel.

B) It's quite poor form to defer criticism by going "whatabout". Which you have done throughout this thread where any criticism against TASM is deferred by going after MCU, the Raimi movies, and now ITSV. That's not a good defense. Defend the movies on its own terms or don't.

C) Making Jefferson a cop, happened in the PS4 game first and that game's portrayal of police was controversial long before the current protests (and it was criticized here).

D) In the case of ITSV, even if you could make an issue of it, and I think some do, it's balanced by other stuff. Whereas in TASM-1, those issues are quite clear without any extenuating virtues to counter it.

You realize that Stacy realizes the error of his judgement in both Peter and Spider-Man right?

The fact is that it's a total break and turn from the Captain Stacy of the comics all to reinforce Stacy as a cliche'd typical authority figure which legitimizes the cloak in which he is presented.

Captain Stacy in the comics:
-- Liked Peter Parker and approved his relationship with Gwen.
-- Independently figured out Peter was Spider-Man and kept the secret.
-- Believed that Spider-Man was good and tried to help him.
-- On his deathbed he gave validation to Peter and told him to take care of Gwen.
-- After his death, a right-wing politician on an explicit white supremacist platform presents George as an idiot, and the story condemns him for using George's death to discredit his approach.

Not a single one of this is true to TASM-George. If you depart so much from the source material and overturn the actual political context in which George's death happened all to present a polished image of the Thin Blue Line...then I can't help but call that police propaganda.

Like that is just an objective truth.

Nope.

Sorry but it takes more than a flashy scene and upside kissing to have a good romance.

In life sure. In the movies you need the flashy stuff because this is cinema, the audience needs a special moment to feel what the characters feel. Peter-Mary Jane in the Raimi movies was the most iconic movie romance after Titanic.

Peter is 17 in TASM and 18 in TASM2 how is that mooching off his aunt?

Peter was 15 in AF#15 and even Pre-Burglar Peter with a huge chip on his shoulder was dedicated to making money to pay back Ben and May. Peter in ASM#1 and the entirety of the Lee-Ditko era always tried to hustle for cash, including working for the Bugle to provide money to help his aunt.

It's important that TASM-Spider-Man make some attempts to make money and help his Aunt.

Were you living on your own when you were 17 moocher?

I worked jobs as soon as I could and used whatever little money I could to ease the expenses my parents would otherwise spend on me, allowing them to take care of other expenses. I started small, i.e. paying my own cell bills (which I have consistently done since I started my earliest gigs), then moving up step by step until I could support myself. I also bought gifts, and other stuff. Am now independent and I save stuff for the folks and fam.

[Dboi2001]

A) You started this conversation about TASM. So we are discussing the stuff in that movie and its sequel.

B) It's quite poor form to defer criticism by going "whatabout". Which you have done throughout this thread where any criticism against TASM is deferred by going after MCU, the Raimi movies, and now ITSV. That's not a good defense. Defend the movies on its own terms or don't.

C) Making Jefferson a cop, happened in the PS4 game first and that game's portrayal of police was controversial long before the current protests (and it was criticized here).

D) In the case of ITSV, even if you could make an issue of it, and I think some do, it's balanced by other stuff. Whereas in TASM-1, those issues are quite clear without any extenuating virtues to counter it.

Fine then I'll focus solely on TASM. As for your other points,

one Davis was always a police officer

and two Davis is literally exactly like Stacy in TASM and **** that article. What do you want cops to look like assholes in Superhero movies? I hate to break it to you but Superheroes aren't realistic so who cares if they make cops the good guys when the bad guys are homicidal maniacs? I will admit it would be neat to get a Spider-Man movie or game where police do try to hunt down Spider-Man since he is still a vigilante... Oh wait

The fact is that it's a total break and turn from the Captain Stacy of the comics all to reinforce Stacy as a cliche'd typical authority figure which legitimizes the cloak in which he is presented.

Captain Stacy in the comics:
-- Liked Peter Parker and approved his relationship with Gwen.
-- Independently figured out Peter was Spider-Man and kept the secret.
-- Believed that Spider-Man was good and tried to help him.
-- On his deathbed he gave validation to Peter and told him to take care of Gwen.
-- After his death, a right-wing politician on an explicit white supremacist platform presents George as an idiot, and the story condemns him for using George's death to discredit his approach.

Not a single one of this is true to TASM-George. If you depart so much from the source material and overturn the actual political context in which George's death happened all to present a polished image of the Thin Blue Line...then I can't help but call that police propaganda.

So do you want Jim Gordon to be an ******* in the new Batman movie? Jesus why do you hate police officers so much? As for the comics you admit none of the movies are very accurate so your criticism that George Stacy is too different is a moot point. He was still a great character with understandable motives and was vital to Peter realizing he wasn't acting like a hero going on a revenge mission to find Ben's killer and also showed a more personal take as to why some citizens of NYC hate him. Stacy's was because Spider-Man was going on a vendetta and not caring about if the police have a strategy. Peter was focusing on the short term

Nope.

Yes

Yes

yes

Yes

and yes

In life sure. In the movies you need the flashy stuff because this is cinema, the audience needs a special moment to feel what the characters feel. Peter-Mary Jane in the Raimi movies was the most iconic movie romance after Titanic.

It doesn't save the piss poor chemistry and lifeless looks they give each other. Also if movies need to be flashy why are you criticizing Garfield for being too intense?

Peter was 15 in AF#15 and even Pre-Burglar Peter with a huge chip on his shoulder was dedicated to making money to pay back Ben and May. Peter in ASM#1 and the entirety of the Lee-Ditko era always tried to hustle for cash, including working for the Bugle to provide money to help his aunt.

And do ANY of the movies do that? But once again Peter was working at the Bugle in TASM2

It's important that TASM-Spider-Man make some attempts to make money and help his Aunt.

And he does in TASM2

I worked jobs as soon as I could and used whatever little money I could to ease the expenses my parents would otherwise spend on me, allowing them to take care of other expenses. I started small, i.e. paying my own cell bills (which I have consistently done since I started my earliest gigs), then moving up step by step until I could support myself. I also bought gifts, and other stuff. Am now independent and I save stuff for the folks and fam.

I'm sure you did bud

[Matt Parker]

I think these movies are aight. The first one is really good on paper and I enjoy a lot about it, especially the romance, but it's a pretty forgettable movie. Even though I have a lot of issues with the first two Raimi films, there is something really iconic and watchable about them. They're movies I watch at least once a year most of the time and they just have some onscreen magic that neither TASM movie has.

The second installment some great moments and the best live action Spider-Man costume, but it is a complete mess that reeks of corporate desperation. The fact that it completely ditches the aesthetic of the first movie for what feels like a slightly hipper update of the Raimi universe is so bizarre and it makes the series feel disjointed. I think the Geekvolution review of this movie is pretty spot on.

I still like Emma Stone as Gwen. I still think the casting choice of Dane DeHan as Harry is inspired and could have been amazing if he was given more material to work with. I also think Gwen's death scene was pretty good. There's stuff to like, but it's few and far between compared to what came before and after.

The reason they get so much hate is that they just don't feel like a unique or distinct vision. The Raimi films really shoot for a fun, retro feel and the MCU take, as controversial as it is, has created a likable version of Peter that general audiences have really seemed to latch onto. These movies are just kinda bland and they feel pretty insignificant now. It's hard for me to justify rewatching them when the story was never finished, ya know?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

one Davis was always a police officer

No he wasn’t.

I will admit it would be neat to get a Spider-Man movie or game where police do try to hunt down Spider-Man since he is still a vigilante

There’s the 2000 Activision game.

As for the comics you admit none of the movies are very accurate so your criticism that George Stacy is too different is a moot point.

Well you were the one who raised comics accuracy to say that Garfield was more accurate than Maguire. In any case the fact is that there should still be overall faithfulness to some aspect of the character. Not something so much on the other end the character’s spectrum.

I am just pointing out that even outside issues of fidelity to source, tone and so on, these movies still have elements that are quite dated. Speaking as a fan of Raimi’s SM-1, even that movie has a weak homophobic line that obviously wouldn’t fly today. So I don’t see why you have an issue with me pointing that out?

...

A bunch of clips from the movies is not objective proof that Garfield is a better actor than Maguire. There is no such thing.

Also if movies need to be flashy why are you criticizing Garfield for being too intense?

It’s about tone. A big romantic moment has to be grand and romantic. Scenes that are bridges to bigger scenes, ie the quiet character scene to scene stuff should be of a different tone and played a certain way. If you do one approach for all scenes it doesn’t work.

To quote a line from a movie The Bad and the Beautiful: "I could make this scene a climax. I could make every scene in this picture a climax. If I did, I would be a bad director. And I like to think of myself as one of the best. A picture with all climaxes is like a necklace without a string. It falls apart. You must build to the big moment and sometimes, you must build slowly."

That applies to acting too. You need to build to big moments to make it work. Garfield is all intensity in every scene, mugging in every moment and getting maximum emotion in every moment and it doesn't work.

And he does in TASM2

A throwaway scene that doesn’t stick out and is basically a glorified Easter egg. That’s not enough. In the first movie he’s a moocher.

A lot of people pointed out that Garfield's Peter was quite unlikable in those movies, he played Peter as a potential school shooter in the early parts of the movie (which itself is dated and baseless) when that wasn't who Peter was in AF#15 or in USM.

[Agent Z]

Tobey was a great Peter Parker.
Tom manages to be a really fun Spider-man.

Garfield manages to do neither.

They try to tell us he's a social outcast, but they show him as a good looking, smart-assed skater, who's good at sports and has a genius level IQ. You can do one or the other. Do you want social outcast Spider-man or do you want cool good at everything Spider-man? The movie tried to do both an it fell flat. He was never a believable loner.

Being a loner isn't about how smart or good looking you are. People get bullied or ostracized for all sorts of reasons.