Is Peter Parker a loser?

[Vortex85]

His apartment was destroyed in a superhero fight, he then moved in with the Avengers but had to leave due to Civil War, leaving him homeless. How does that make him a loser?

True. At that time I had no idea what was going on. Seemed like a totally new continuity and unrelated to civil war. Harry was back with no explination (I know it's been explaned since then). As far as I knew he had been living with her for a while and been a bum. Anyway, I never bought those issues and still haven't read much of BND. I've tried but can't.

I do agree that since Big Time Peter hasn't been portrayed as a loser at least. It just seemed that way more at the start of BND, by skimming through the issues.

[Vortex85]

indeed. thanks to tobey people's escapism has come true making even comic book fans think peter is a loser and i don't mean with what his should've been if he hadn't been spiderman. i mean he's the type of guy who rides around in a moped with a helmet while wearing nerdy clothes in a nerdy position, getting picked on by EVERYONE even the bus driver and nerds, say some aw shawks stuff like that punch me i bleed line, have a bland love interest, etc. yes, peter gets nervous around a few girls but he wasn't much of a loser at the same time.

i believe people don't give garfield enough credit since they accuse him of stupid things for all the wrong reasons. 2 i'd understand but that's because of stupid editing. andrew at least tries to be flawed like peter while tobey is just some perfect kid.

Yeah it really is annoying. I wish we would have gotten a better start for Spider-Man as far as the characterization went down. I liked the movies, but that was my one major beef with them. It just felt like some ultra geeked up version and it stuck around in the second and third movie too, which made no sense since in the comics, Peter wasn't like that at all anymore.

[marvelguy25]

Since Brand New Day, he has gotten a well paying job, bought his own apartment and is now running his own business. If that is a loser, I wish I was one.

Also, Joe Quesada isn't editor in chief any more so if you want to direct your anger at someone for making Peter the successful business man loser he is now it should be directed at Axel Alonso.

i meant before big time and my beef with peter being a loser comes from the raimi films which made me hate tobey because that isn't what peter is at all. sure he's geeky but he grew confident and he may be geeky but not some caricature.

oh i am hating alonso since the marvel universe will reboot itself based on the movies. at least i hope not.

[Huntsman Spider]

At his core, Peter isn't a loser. He's smart, witty, attractive and has superpowers.

However, at his heart as others have said, he is a loser. He never makes the most of his potential because he's giving too much of himself to other people. If he has the chance to further his life (e.g continue a date) or further someone else's (saving them from a building) he is always driven to the right choice. He is a loser because he doesn't let life give him anything, if it's going to take away from anyone else. He isn't a loser, he's successful and smart - but he can't make the best of his potential, thus being a loser compared to what he should be.

That actually makes sense when you consider what motivates him to be a hero in the first place. Trying to advance himself and his own life led him to ignore someone in need of help, and that cost him the life of one of the few people who gave a damn about him and always supported him no matter what. He learned the price of selfishness the hard way, and as much as he's paid for his selflessness over the years, it's better on his conscience than letting people get hurt or worse because he's too focused on his own desires.

[Darth Kal-el]

the only thing that makes him a loser is himself. When he doesn't take himself seriously, others won't. Like running around in web underwear or Peter not showing up for important business meetings. It makes other characters view him less or some not seeing him live up to his potential. When he takes control like in ends of the earth or spider island, he is the best. But he is inconsistent and it comes from how he views himself and others pick up on that as both Spider-Man and Peter. He has the ability to be a leader like CAP and rival reed and Tony in science and Ock. But he holds himself back. Parker luck comes from Peter and is his own excuse

[Celgress]

the only thing that makes him a loser is himself. When he doesn't take himself seriously, others won't. Like running around in web underwear or Peter not showing up for important business meetings. It makes other characters view him less or some not seeing him live up to his potential. When he takes control like in ends of the earth or spider island, he is the best. But he is inconsistent and it comes from how he views himself and others pick up on that as both Spider-Man and Peter. He has the ability to be a leader like CAP and rival reed and Tony in science and Ock. But he holds himself back. Parker luck comes from Peter and is his own excuse

Agreed, as I pointed out earlier I think subconsciously Peter feels he doesn't deserve to be happy and sabotages himself accordingly.

[Inhuman X]

When I think about it, sometimes I come to the conclusion that most superheroes in comics would be complete losers without their super qualities tacked on, from IQ to super agility. One reason in particular is that they wouldn't be as entertaining written as successful people otherwise. They need those superior abilities to be some one as much as we look for them to make a supers comic. Otherwise there is little point, they would just be a role model we read about in Business Weekly or something. I guess that is also part of what makes them popular, relatable in stories to get caught up in, to people. Most folks are ordinary rather they want to admit it or not and being able to point at a character and say he's kind of like me and what if I had those super powers is part of the wonder of the genre and its popularity.

[Huntsman Spider]

Agreed, as I pointed out earlier I think subconsciously Peter feels he doesn't deserve to be happy and sabotages himself accordingly.

That's actually somewhat canon as of Superior Spider-Man #30. Otto acknowledges that Peter's always been the better man where it really counts, but Peter doesn't believe that of himself and thus subconsciously sabotages himself. Really, Peter's problem, as other characters have called him out on over the years, is that he takes too much responsibility and blame upon himself for things that are ultimately out of his hands and thus punishes himself far more effectively than any of his enemies could.

[marvelguy25]

That's actually somewhat canon as of Superior Spider-Man #30. Otto acknowledges that Peter's always been the better man where it really counts, but Peter doesn't believe that of himself and thus subconsciously sabotages himself. Really, Peter's problem, as other characters have called him out on over the years, is that he takes too much responsibility and blame upon himself for things that are ultimately out of his hands and thus punishes himself far more effectively than any of his enemies could.

agreed. it's part of the flaw i like. it's more human being in that position

[marvelguy25]

months ago i was banned in superherohype for giving out my opinion about tobey maguire. it wasn't harsh or anything like that but the mods just banned me anyway. i went on the college computers to sign in again but the moment i've stated my opinions they just banned me just like that because i exist. the reason i came on board becuase this guy named doctor jones said something interesting and alot of people seem to agree. and by people i mean haters. so this is something he had to say:

what doctor jones had to say about tobey and andrew:

Tobey. It's not even a contest. Along with Raimi's direction, Tobey was so honest and real with such earnestness that he felt like flesh and blood. He's most definitely the Peter from the Ditko/Lee/Romita era but he makes him even more relatable. People get too caught up on the comics at times, and prefer Garfield on the grounds that he is "more faithful" which I would dispute anyway. But Maguire was more faithful because of the core principles that they stayed true to. His niceness, his selflessness, his confliction, just his overall humanity.It was just so real.Spider-Man 2 exemplifies this so well. That scene between him and Aunt May at the beginning when she breaks down in front of him over the $20 dollar bill.The performances.That humanity.The sadness in Maguire's face that he's trying to hold back.That is Peter Parker. Maguire doesn't seem to get enough credit around here.


Garfield's Peter was a punk. Definitely more modern, but he was the complete opposite of who Peter and who Maguire's Peter was: A selfish *******. The sad thing is it was terrific casting and had the chance to beat Maguire, but that didn't happen. I can't go into much detail because it will be one long rant, but how Peter was written and directed in the film is not Peter Parker. I don't care how funny his Peter is or how much he looks like Peter, I hardly saw Peter.

People seem to overlook Peter's humanity and identifiable qualities which is the fundamental aspects of what makes Peter Parker so popular in the first place in favor of his sarcasm and wit and how tall and skinny he is.

I can't argue about you thinking he was dull, that's your opinion.But at least within the writing and the direction that showed us something rather than a "nerd" who looked up a how to on batteries on Youtube."Look I'm a nerd and smart! See how I built this lock on my door!" "Look I'm a nerd! See how I can spout off scientific facts!" There was no subtext, no layering, nothing that gave dimension to Peter's character traits. Other than his father being a scientist. And we all know how in depth that was executed and informed us about Peter and his father, because those films were such father and son films.

on his accusation about andrew' flaw as a character

Which flaws exactly? Can you tell me Peter's central journey in ASM2? What was his overall struggle that he overcame and learned at the end? How did he change? How did he better himself as a human being? Besides being stuck on a girl's decision as to what to do with her own life instead of his. Besides Gwen. Or was it when Peter quit in the last ten minutes of the movie that he had to overcome ten minutes later? Which was which exactly? Where was this distinguishable? You seem to be more passionate about his Peter, so maybe you can tell me.

[marvelguy25]

about garfield's spider man:

You're only proving my point. You focus so much on how Spider-Man quips as to whether or not Spider-Man's humanity hinges on his quips. Maguire's Spider-Man may not have quipped much, but it is wiser used than Garfield's "wit" was more condescending and jerkish if anything.

The point is to care for Peter before caring about Spider-Man. The difference was I cared because I cared about Peter's struggles first and foremost.
Fidelity be damned, that does not matter unless the vision, the writing, the subtext within it, is there. Quips do not make up for that if there isn't something sustaining it.What was so strong that sustained Peter as a human being that made people love Garfield?

Because the world just loves and identifies with Garfield's Peter's witty person who would be a believable alter ego to the fast talking Spider-Man and his Spidey that is way more accurate than the Raimi's monotone, barely quips version.

America is in deep anticipation about Garfield's next character changing journey as Peter Parker. It's so palpable, the frustration of Garfield not being Spider-Man anymore. People care so much about 2018 when ASM3 rolls around.

That's presumptuous to think he threw it in there "to shut up the fans." Raimi is a fan himself, along with his passion, it's not unreasonable to think he knew of the expectations.But also a filmmaker with a distinct vision and is able to go through what works for the story that he is telling, even if it means jokes being sacrificed here and there or fitting more nerd stuff for the sake of it. Everything felt right for the story and was confluent with that on that level at the very least. SM3 unfortunately, he did not have that, but at least with SM3 gave a central discernible journey for Peter that I can sum up in a sentence amidst the mess of everything else.

Good for you. I'm happy that you got your preferred Spider-Man, as I knew not everybody loves the Raimi films or the interpretation. That's fine and will always happen. But there's a difference between a few things that are more faithful here and there than an all encompassing story and carrying out a distinct vision that resonates with audiences. And whether you like them or not, they resonated with the world.

Some people on a single website, and the internet does not wholly represent the average joe what they think of these Spider-Man films. And if they don't care for these movies, then they don't care for Garfield's Spider-Man as much. Otherwise, they would have seen it because Spider-Man is why these go see it. The stupid argument, "It doesn't matter who you put in the Spider-Man costume, as long as Spider-Man people will see it," is rendered ******** now. Spider-Man is nothing without the quality of filmmaking that needs the character as much as the character needs the filmmaking.

But that's because you have to care about Peter first, even when they may not know it. It takes skill to do that, skill these new movies lacked, little fan preferences aside. It makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

At least in the screenplay there were not as idiotically constructed as something like the first Peter/Harry scene in ASM2. The subtleties and complexity and subtext is so wonderful. Like the line, "How long have we known each other?" "Since we were kids." Oh, yeah. Writing at its finest. Or who can forget the first and only Harry/Norman scene in ASM2. Where they actually talk about their relationship and spell it out for us. There's angst there too. So I guess that's better. But like you said, SM2 was made to appeal to 9 year olds, therefore, I guess it was written with a 9 year old mindset.

about this whole stupid twilight and TDK nonscense

No. Sony never stuck to their guns. The only thing that they are is fickle and only going by what the market demands. They only went the darker and grittier route (because apart from a few stories, that's so faithful to the overall of Spider-Man anyway ) because of the post TDK world and to capture the teen girl Twilight crowd and were going to go even lower budget to reflect this. It's not confirmed but it's not unreasonable to put this together.

And when that didn't set the world on fire (like it was ever going to anyway, who really wants to see yet another origin story? People were perfectly fine with the first one done ten years prior)

Then ASM2 was merely a response to the post Avengers market with the forced, stupid built in universe that was never going to sustain itself and the more light tone (a better direction since this is more Spider-Man like anyway, I'll give them that credit)

They are only riding the coattails without an inspired thought in their heads and they are paying for it now. They don't know what makes Spider-Man work. And the two uneven films reflect that. So I can't even give them credit for their original direction.

When you say ASM2 could have been executed better, you make it sound like there was nothing wrong with the fundamentals from the very beginning. It sucked because the people making it had no clear vision.

At least Raimi and co built their stories on a separate integrity and independence and just wanted to tell a great story. They knew the appeal of that Spider-Man is about Peter Parker and his struggles and Spider-Man himself. They understand that audiences will watch Spider-Man, but not without the core story and caring for it and its characters. They tapped into that on a skillful level that yes, despite what you think, did resonate. SM3, as bad as it can be, it's no accident it was the highest grossing film of 2007. People liked it. By that point, because were caught up in the journey of Peter Parker. But I guess it's because they were made for nine year olds.

The thing with Peter is that when he is confident he can attract the ladies, it's just he still is an awkward, nerdy guy at his core and I liked how it was a real progression for him to get there. It's subtle, but you can see the shift in Maguire's performance from awkward nerd to a more confident young man, yet still doesn't lost those qualities, and little by little we get to see a little more of a side to him as MJ starts to see it. Throughout the movie you can see the confidence of Peter built up more, being more joking (joking you say??), self deprecating, even running up to her when Harry had to ask him to go up to her in the first scene. Then he has to turn her down at the very end. I always loved the irony of that. It's so atypical for a blockbuster for the hero turning down the girl after he gets her in favor of his responsibility to himself and his uncle. What a terrific arc.

so any thoughts on those statements. the only reason i put them there is that since he said something interesting i like to hear what you guys have to say about that. what do you think of maguire as peter? is he more human? does he really capture the essence of the ditko/romita era?

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

No he's not, A loser has no friends, never gets married to a considerate and caring wife (he married Mary Jane Watson, it happened), is not one of the best, is not someone Hank Pym consider to be smarter than he is, not someone respected by cops when Jameson makes these conflicting accusations that split the streets, and a loser does not get the support of a district attorney proving he's not guilty of two deaths (Norman Osborn and George Stacy)

May Reilly depended on Peter, no one finds a loser reliable.
Jonah Jameson and Joe Robertson trusted Peter Parker as a photo journalist, even Kate Kushing did, a loser does not get people appreaciating his work, even if it's not professional.

In a team up I think Batman would punch and abandon Peter after his second pun. Bats would feel Peter isn't taking this seriously

Really?
Batman's first sidekick is a wisecracker, was that way since the 40s.
Batman allied himself with both masked Flashes, they made puns in their career, Wally more notably than Barry.
Batman got Plastic Man into the Justice League and tolerated his extensive amount of humor more than the likes of Aquaman and Wonder Woman, and they are royalty, royalty need to be patient.
Even Superman and Batman made a few puns together.

[marvelguy25]

No he's not, A loser has no friends, never gets married to a considerate and caring wife (he married Mary Jane Watson, it happened), is not one of the best, is not someone Hank Pym consider to be smarter than he is, not someone respected by cops when Jameson makes these conflicting accusations that split the streets, and a loser does not get the support of a district attorney proving he's not guilty of two deaths (Norman Osborn and George Stacy)

May Reilly depended on Peter, no one finds a loser reliable.
Jonah Jameson and Joe Robertson trusted Peter Parker as a photo journalist, even Kate Kushing did, a loser does not get people appreaciating his work, even if it's not professional.
Really?
Batman's first sidekick is a wisecracker, was that way since the 40s.
Batman allied himself with both masked Flashes, they made puns in their career, Wally more notably than Barry.
Batman got Plastic Man into the Justice League and tolerated his extensive amount of humor more than the likes of Aquaman and Wonder Woman, and they are royalty, royalty need to be patient.
Even Superman and Batman made a few puns together.

and we have ourselves a winner. seriously, since the raimi films people and long time comic fans and spiderman fans expected him to get mistreated especially the bus drivers and nerds and even act like a stereotypical nerd loser. i have met a couple of nerds and met geeks and they don't act like this nor get treated like this. when i think of a vicitim i think of one who bgets pantsed in public and in school, get's pummled, gets food thrown at him, etc. with how raimi made parker he made him into a sadly everyday sterotypical generic loser. it was even more insulting not giving any of the characters from the comics like flash and betty any characters. it's part of the reason why i didn't mind the bugle not being shown in 1 and 2 because if you are gonna introduce tjese characters and use them in a trilogy at least give them a character and moments with our protagonist.

[phantom1592]

about garfield's spider man:




so any thoughts on those statements. the only reason i put them there is that since he said something interesting i like to hear what you guys have to say about that. what do you think of maguire as peter? is he more human? does he really capture the essence of the ditko/romita era?

Honestly, When someone says things like 'fidelity be damned' or ' People get too caught up on the comics at times, and prefer Garfield on the grounds that he is "more faithful" ' I tend to dismiss what they say. I'm looking for faithful. I want my movie characters to be like the comic characters...

I really enjoyed Tobey's portrayal. I liked the nerdy loser in the first one... I did not like it in the other two. He should have grown more confident. Though I still think Spider-man 2 is my favorite of the five.

Garfield however I believe the better Spider-man. He felt more 'real'. He WAS nerdy and awkward around people... but it was a more subtle kind of shy and awkward and I felt it worked. The scenes with Peter and Harry or Pete and Gwen were gold. And once he put on the mask... He gained the confidence that Comic Pete always had. Were his puns and quips insulting? Absolutely. They are in the comics too. His whole thing has always been to annoy and infuriate his enemies until they get so angry they make a mistake.

I also appreciated his solution to the 'girlfriend dilema' that all 5 movies have had. Tobey's version was painfully stupid. There is nothing I hate more than hearing a superhero whine about how he can't date the girl he likes because they'll be in danger... 1) MJ was kidnapped in EVERY even when they were separate. 2) As soon as he was single he'd flirt with Betty or date gwen... because apparently THEIR life doesn't mean anything...

I REALLY hated that... 'my life is too dangerous' does NOT equal 'I want to see who else is on the market...'

Garfield actually NAILED that dilemma quite well. He was torn between love of the girl... and his promise to keep her safe. And it tore him up. When they WERE apart... He kept a safe distance and tried to protect her... but he didn't stop loving her or looking for someone else..

I am SOOOOOO glad they decided against bringing in MJ into AS2 that would have undercut everything.

And quiet honestly. words can not describe how much I loved seeing Spider-man protecting that kid from the bullies and then helping him with his science fair project. Protecting the body... and then boosting his spirit too. it would have been so easy to have him just swing away... but that was the kind of 'little heroics' that elevated the Garfield Spider-man into the Hero that I grew up reading.


Tobey's were good... I just like Garfield better. And having a teenager be a little rude to his mother figure while juggling everything he does... REALLY didn't change that. That just felt more real to me too.

[Minerboh]

In the aspects that matters, Spidey is a winner.
Now in the aspects of profesional and romantic lives, he doesn't face problems any ordinary man is not facing
(ehm, minus a certain deal with the devil and a brain switch).