|
Post by poelzig on Feb 11, 2019 17:56:32 GMT
Hes just bland. Bring back Andrew Garfield. 10x the actor, perfect Peter Parker and gave great emotional beats to his arc. Garfield was terrible. He was a smug douchebag with a perpetual smirk. Also what was up with all the villains in the millennial spidey movie needing to be tragic as opposed to just being criminals?
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 11, 2019 17:58:01 GMT
I believe Taylorfirst was just being sarcastic with his post. Ah. In that case I apologize for not picking up on the sarcasm, taylorfirst1 . My mistake. No need to apologize. My hidden point was that people relate to fictional characters in many different ways and some characters are more relatable to certain people than others.
On a separate note;
If I only watched movies where I saw myself in the main character, I would only watch really boring movies.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Feb 11, 2019 18:00:00 GMT
The more I think about SMH, the more I reconsider my initially favorable thoughts on it. I was mostly blown away by Michael Keaton’s performance and (related) the twist and the ensuing suspense scene in the car—and I think both aspects are still very well-done. But I don’t like the movie’s version of Spider-Man, and the points raised in this thread explain why perfectly. Agreed. I wrote several posts about this when SMH was released. Maguire's Peter Parker had a lot more problems to deal with and most people have experienced similar problems at 1 time or another so Maguire's Peter Parker is much more relatable and we can emphathize with Maguire's Peter Parker. Holland's Peter Parker basically has an almost perfect life and zero problems to deal so Holland's Peter Parker isn't relatable at all. Moreover, while Maguire's Peter Parker always felt as though he had to carry the weight of the entire city on his shoulders, Holland's Peter Parker doesn't feel that he has any "great responsbility" and acts like a spoiled, arrogant brat whose only motivation for being a hero is to show off and try to impress an egostical billionaire. As for the car scene with Michael Keaton, while that was the best (and only good) scene in SMH, it was still far below these 2 great scenes in the original Spider-Man movies: 1. When Spider-Man catches up to the thief who shot Uncle Ben in the warehouse and Spider-Man sees the thief's face for the 1st time and realizes it's the same thief he let get away earlier. 2. When Peter finally confesses to Aunt May that he lied about going to the library the night that Uncle Ben was killed. I recently saw Spider-Man 2 again and thought it was as fantastic as ever. My favorite is still probably the original Superman, which I’ve loved from the first time I saw it as a kid. (I’m happy I’ve now seen Star Wars, but I wish I would have gotten to enjoy it as a kid, when I got to see Indy and Superman.) But Spider-Man 2 is right up there—probably my next favorite superhero movie. My favorites (in order of release date) are: Superman: The Movie Superman II Spider-Man Spider-Man 2 The Dark Knight Wonder Woman Those are the Mt. Rushmore of superheroes and those movies are definitely the best superhero movies ever made. I was just thinking out loud he other day, that Donner, Raimi and Nolan are by far my All Time Favorite superhero films.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 11, 2019 18:03:36 GMT
Ah. In that case I apologize for not picking up on the sarcasm, taylorfirst1 . My mistake. U iZ DUM! AND I IZ STINKEE TOO!
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2019 18:05:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2019 18:08:02 GMT
Agreed. I wrote several posts about this when SMH was released. Maguire's Peter Parker had a lot more problems to deal with and most people have experienced similar problems at 1 time or another so Maguire's Peter Parker is much more relatable and we can emphathize with Maguire's Peter Parker. Holland's Peter Parker basically has an almost perfect life and zero problems to deal so Holland's Peter Parker isn't relatable at all. Moreover, while Maguire's Peter Parker always felt as though he had to carry the weight of the entire city on his shoulders, Holland's Peter Parker doesn't feel that he has any "great responsbility" and acts like a spoiled, arrogant brat whose only motivation for being a hero is to show off and try to impress an egostical billionaire. As for the car scene with Michael Keaton, while that was the best (and only good) scene in SMH, it was still far below these 2 great scenes in the original Spider-Man movies: 1. When Spider-Man catches up to the thief who shot Uncle Ben in the warehouse and Spider-Man sees the thief's face for the 1st time and realizes it's the same thief he let get away earlier. 2. When Peter finally confesses to Aunt May that he lied about going to the library the night that Uncle Ben was killed. My favorites (in order of release date) are: Superman: The Movie Superman II Spider-Man Spider-Man 2 The Dark Knight Wonder Woman Those are the Mt. Rushmore of superheroes and those movies are definitely the best superhero movies ever made. I was just thinking out loud he other day, that Donner, Raimi and Nolan are by far my All Time Favorite superhero films. You forgot Burton. But, hey: could be worse. Innit? Your nose could be gushing blood!
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 11, 2019 18:38:36 GMT
I wasn't raised on a farm in Kansas so I can't relate to Superman I'm not a billionaire playboy whose parents were shot in front of him so I can't relate to Batman I'm not a lower middle class orphan from Queens so I can't relate to Spider-Man Am I supposed to hate all of their movies because of this? The whole basis for this thread is idiotic. Well, in fairness, Spider-Man was crafted to be a more relatable superhero than what came before, including Batman and Superman. A legit dork (not pretending to be like Clark), poor, fallible at making decisions, etc. I myself do like this Spider-Man, but agree his daily life problems aren't as fleshed out as Tobey's.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 11, 2019 18:41:55 GMT
Hes just bland. Bring back Andrew Garfield. 10x the actor, perfect Peter Parker and gave great emotional beats to his arc. Garfield was terrible. He was a smug douchebag with a perpetual smirk. Also what was up with all the villains in the millennial spidey movie needing to be tragic as opposed to just being criminals? Parker is meant to look and feel more confident than the flat out shy nerd that Maguire was or the dweeb that Holland is.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Feb 11, 2019 19:11:48 GMT
Ah. In that case I apologize for not picking up on the sarcasm, taylorfirst1 . My mistake. No need to apologize. My hidden point was that people relate to fictional characters in many different ways and some characters are more relatable to certain people than others.
On a separate note;
If I only watched movies where I saw myself in the main character, I would only watch really boring movies. I would only see really cool ones!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 11, 2019 19:18:52 GMT
^^^At the risk of still being impervious to sarcasm (and I’m usually pretty good with telling sarcasm, too!), I’d like to point out that “seeing oneself in the main character” does not mean that the viewer/reader/listener is supposed to say, “Oh, that’s my life too,” as Luke Skywalker duels his father or Indiana Jone runs from the boulder. How boring your life is (or not) doesn’t enter into it; the point is that it’s almost wish-fulfillment, to the point that you’re saying, “I wish that were me doing x…” The character is not an overly-detailed, deeply-characterized personage; it’s a mirror for the audience.
That’s what I mean by calling these stories “outward-facing”; another word for it, at the risk of stereotyping, is a “masculine” story.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2019 19:35:31 GMT
^^^At the risk of still being impervious to sarcasm (and I’m usually pretty good with telling sarcasm, too!), I’d like to point out that “seeing oneself in the main character” does not mean that the viewer/reader/listener is supposed to say, “Oh, that’s my life too,” as Luke Skywalker duels his father or Indiana Jone runs from the boulder. How boring your life is (or not) doesn’t enter into it; the point is that it’s almost wish-fulfillment, to the point that you’re saying, “I wish that were me doing x…” The character is not an overly-detailed, deeply-characterized personage; it’s a mirror for the audience. That’s what I mean by calling these stories “outward-facing”; another word for it, at the risk of stereotyping, is a “masculine” story. Out if curiosity, what would you describe as a "feminine" story?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 11, 2019 19:46:55 GMT
Out if curiosity, what would you describe as a "feminine" story? The terms aren’t mine, and I think they’re far from perfect, but I’ve heard the traditional novel, with all the word entails (in-depth characterization, creating each character as a separate person not intended as a mirror for the reader; attempts at realism; watching others’ story rather than picturing oneself as a character), described as “feminine.” One of my biggest problems with the term is that it seems to imply the material as masculine or feminine, which is not the point at all: Henry James’ works would fit the “feminine story” label perfectly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 19:47:12 GMT
I do but not for the same reasons as before. He's young and eager and wants to do well. He has goodness. Even though I hate the "really old movie" bit, I think the actor does a really good job and the character takes after Captain America in spirit. He's really young, actually looks his age as a teenager, but he only needs a bit of molding before becoming the next natural leader. He's smart and I think he can get people to follow him.
I still would have preferred a different direction for them to take the character (older, established) but what's done is done and he's doing it quiet well. I don't like the Iron Spider suit but they've used it for some good spots so it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 11, 2019 19:55:11 GMT
Skaathar One of the best analyses of this sort I’ve seen was, amusingly enough, about the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland (of all things!). In his analysis, Dan Olson writes:
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2019 20:39:10 GMT
Out if curiosity, what would you describe as a "feminine" story? The terms aren’t mine, and I think they’re far from perfect, but I’ve heard the traditional novel, with all the word entails (in-depth characterization, creating each character as a separate person not intended as a mirror for the reader; attempts at realism; watching others’ story rather than picturing oneself as a character), described as “feminine.” One of my biggest problems with the term is that it seems to imply the material as masculine or feminine, which is not the point at all: Henry James’ works would fit the “feminine story” label perfectly. The reason I ask is because I've come across these terms before but in the fictional novel community not in movies, and the definitions I have for masculine and feminine stories seem a bit different than yours though there are similarities. I don't think it's fair to apply my definition to movies though, as a big part of what makes the story feminine or masculine is the character's inner monologue, and that's not usually something you can easily show in movies. However, I don't think attempts at realism, deep characterization or non-mary sueness are exclusive to being only masculine or feminine. This is simply good writing and can be present in either.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 12, 2019 0:21:36 GMT
If I may ask, what are the definitions you’ve heard, Skaathar ? I may be misinterpreting something. I do not think an inner monologue makes or does not make a story masculine or feminine: I read a (terribly-written) Indiana Jones book once where half of it was Indy’s inner monologue, and I’d definitely consider it masculine. I differentiate realism from naturalism in most cases (all stories should feel naturalistic, but not all stories should feel realistic), but realism probably wasn’t the right word anyway; what I mean is a sense that (quoting Olson again, as I feel he summed it up very well) “you're not out to recreate the world from scratch but to understand it and discern the harmonious whole in which you are certain you somehow have a place.” If the masculine story is about doing, about getting through obstacles, the feminine story is about being, about understanding the world and the larger, cohesive whole; in it, “you’re a spectator. You’re invited to relate to someone else’s make-believe life.” That’s my point about characterization, not its depth per se but rather its relation to the spectator. I like Indiana Jones a lot, but in Raiders of the Lost Ark he’s basically a blank slate because we’re partially projecting ourselves on to him. It’s the same with Luke Skywalker, especially in Star Wars. There’s nothing wrong with giving the character greater characterization—in fact, I’d argue it’s a good thing—but it’s a step away from masculine storytelling (which, again, is not necessarily a bad thing). Compare a hero like Robert Taylor’s Mark Brandon in Valley of the Kings, one of Spielberg and Lucas’s biggest influences for Raiders, to the Indiana Jones of Last Crusade, and the point becomes clear (I think). (Indeed, just compare the Indy of RotA to the Indy of TLC.) Brandon is a pure blank slate for whom the viewer is supposed to project his wish to be an explorer/adventurer/pseudo-knight-in-shining-armor, rescuing the maiden and saving the day. TLC’s Jones has a family, back story, a reason for why he’s doing all this. Or, as an even more extreme example, take the James Bond of Doctor No and compare him to the James Bond of Skyfall. They’re completely different, and not only because they’re played by different actors. One we like immensely but whose life and core we don’t really know (or, for that matter care to know); for the other we get extensive analysis and backstory, an understanding of what makes him tick. Neither is bad, necessarily. Both, rather, are necessary for good storytelling. My only fear is that we’re nowadays leaning so far towards the “feminine” side of it (again, possibly not the right word) that we’re neglecting the positive aspects of “masculine” storytelling. Olson’s very interesting article (again, on the Haunted Mansion): longforgottenhauntedmansion.blogspot.com/2012/06/haunted-mansion-is-blue-and-phantom.html
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 12, 2019 18:09:51 GMT
If I may ask, what are the definitions you’ve heard, Skaathar ? I may be misinterpreting something. I do not think an inner monologue makes or does not make a story masculine or feminine: I read a (terribly-written) Indiana Jones book once where half of it was Indy’s inner monologue, and I’d definitely consider it masculine. I differentiate realism from naturalism in most cases (all stories should feel naturalistic, but not all stories should feel realistic), but realism probably wasn’t the right word anyway; what I mean is a sense that (quoting Olson again, as I feel he summed it up very well) “you're not out to recreate the world from scratch but to understand it and discern the harmonious whole in which you are certain you somehow have a place.” If the masculine story is about doing, about getting through obstacles, the feminine story is about being, about understanding the world and the larger, cohesive whole; in it, “you’re a spectator. You’re invited to relate to someone else’s make-believe life.” That’s my point about characterization, not its depth per se but rather its relation to the spectator. I like Indiana Jones a lot, but in Raiders of the Lost Ark he’s basically a blank slate because we’re partially projecting ourselves on to him. It’s the same with Luke Skywalker, especially in Star Wars. There’s nothing wrong with giving the character greater characterization—in fact, I’d argue it’s a good thing—but it’s a step away from masculine storytelling (which, again, is not necessarily a bad thing). Compare a hero like Robert Taylor’s Mark Brandon in Valley of the Kings, one of Spielberg and Lucas’s biggest influences for Raiders, to the Indiana Jones of Last Crusade, and the point becomes clear (I think). (Indeed, just compare the Indy of RotA to the Indy of TLC.) Brandon is a pure blank slate for whom the viewer is supposed to project his wish to be an explorer/adventurer/pseudo-knight-in-shining-armor, rescuing the maiden and saving the day. TLC’s Jones has a family, back story, a reason for why he’s doing all this. Or, as an even more extreme example, take the James Bond of Doctor No and compare him to the James Bond of Skyfall. They’re completely different, and not only because they’re played by different actors. One we like immensely but whose life and core we don’t really know (or, for that matter care to know); for the other we get extensive analysis and backstory, an understanding of what makes him tick. Neither is bad, necessarily. Both, rather, are necessary for good storytelling. My only fear is that we’re nowadays leaning so far towards the “feminine” side of it (again, possibly not the right word) that we’re neglecting the positive aspects of “masculine” storytelling. Olson’s very interesting article (again, on the Haunted Mansion): longforgottenhauntedmansion.blogspot.com/2012/06/haunted-mansion-is-blue-and-phantom.htmlThe way I understand it, a "masculine" type of storytelling usually focuses on how the lead character interacts with the world around them. How they affect the world. In this case we can say it's "outward facing". It's very physical, based more on what someone is doing. The "feminine" type of storytelling usually focuses on how the world affects the lead character (as opposed to how the character affects the world). It's more "inward facing" because instead of emphasizing what the character is doing it instead focuses on how those actions make them feel, their psychology behind those actions and how they're affected by them. Less physical and more about emotions and feelings. Now obviously there's going to be some overlap. Every decent story will always need to address both what's happening (physical) and the emotions/thoughts behind it (psychological). The difference therefore lies in which one the writer focuses more on: More physical/outward focus is male, more psychological/inward focus is female. To illustrate my point, here's an example of a fight scene written from a "masculine" and "feminine" model: Masculine: The knight swung his sword in a mighty overhand blow, only to be blocked by the viking's shield. He jumped back to avoid his opponent's counter attack but slipped on the muddy ground. He scrambled backwards, lashed out with his feet and connected against the man's knee. As the viking fell on him he took out his dagger and repeatedly stabbed his opponent till the man stopped moving.
Feminine: The knight was in a fury as he fought, every swing fueled by rage. Yet as more of his blows were blocked and turned aside, doubt started to blossom in his chest, eventually turning into full blown fear as he slipped and lost his footing. Panic infused him and he lashed out blindly, eventually coming out of his haze only to find his opponent already dead lying on top of him and a bloody dagger in his hand.
Anyway, my point about the internal monologue was that "feminine" storytelling is very dependent on understanding the character's inner thinking. How they feel about the events, their thoughts and emotions as they go through the actions, etc. And since movies are audio-visual formats, they tend to be very physical. It's far easier to show what's happening rather than making you understand how the character is feeling at every moment. That's why I said that movies tend to use more of the "masculine" model. But like I said, it's perfectly doable to create deep and realistic characters using either model, as long as the writing is good. It's also possible to create "wish-fulfillment" characters and placeholder characters with either model.
|
|