Movie Defense Force: The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Better Than Broody Gritty Wah Wah

[Gerardo Vazquez]

I find myself agreeing with both Jim, and Bob. The action in the film was amazing fun and some of the best I'd seen in a superhero movie since the Avengers, and Cap 2, but the plot was incredibly stupid/contradictory, and everything Bob said about the movies only existing for rights, and the creators not "getting" Spider-man also rang true. If there's one thing I'd have to disagree with Jim on it'd be the comedy, which was better physical than vocal. Anytime any sort of conversation or exchange was supposed to make me laugh it ended feeling unfunny, stilted, and awkward, very bad rom-com kinda stuff, whereas anytime Peter tripped over something, or webbed something into his own face, I found myself rolling on the floor laughing. The last film also had this going for it, like in the scene where Peter accidentally squeezes too much tooth paste, breaks his own alarm clock, or accidentally sticks to a random women's clothes. Comedy gold.

 

[Darth_Payn]

I do believe I just heard the sound of Jim throwing down the gauntlet at MovieBob's feet. It's on. Do you hear me? IT IS ON!

 

[hornedcow]

The new siper-man was camp. It just was. I lot of people can't handle a bit of camp. The movies were a mess but they weren't some kind of travesty. I think people take superheroes too seriously. The Amazing Spider Man 2 is a failure but it is not the same kind of failure as something like "Dark Knight Rises" or the new Spooperman movie. Some people prefer a campy farcical mess to grim faced uncomfortably.

I'm sorry, the defense that the movie was camp is not enough. Have you seen what Marvel Studios has putting out? That's how you do slightly campy fun action movies. And they're still good movies. But what do you know, they're rolling in money and affection while mentioning Man of Steel or apparently even the Dark Knight Rises (which was a good film and a fitting end to the trilogy as I see it , certainly better than this fucking mess) in a positive context will get you as much lashback as liking any contentious movie. So no, it's not that people want superhero movies have to be too dark and gritty, if anything the opposite is true, it's that ASM2 was an absolute fucking shambles of a movie, a twenty foot step down from the first one, which in and of was pretty mediocre, if fairly inoffensive. We should demand more of films than an hour forty of bright flashy action sequences and "witty" quips, even when they're just summer blockbusters meant for fun.

 

[Biran53]

Great looking visual effects and a decent cast clearly doesn't mean shit when glued together by the left over saliva from the dribbling, idiotic duo that "wrote" this trite. Kurtzman and Orci need to get out. Now. Before I cannot resist the urge to force them.

 

[immortalfrieza]

What's sad about this is that ASM1&2 even need a Movie Defense Force episode. Both movies fit Spider-Man to a T, it's probably the best that's been done since the 1994 animated series. The plot makes plenty of sense, the movies don't get to ridiculously bogged down with the romance plot, the lead girl is actually useful and has more brains than a lamppost, the villains are fun and their motivations make sense, (as much as the motivations of superpowered psychopaths ever make sense anyway) and this Spider-Man manages to perfectly balance the oh-woe-is-me guy and the silly quipping superhero, what's not to like?

Honestly? If you don't like these movies, you wouldn't have liked Spider-Man to begin with, or if you are a fan you've grown out of it apparently.

 

[sageoftruth]

Now I want Bobby to make a video defending... Steam I guess. Ubisoft works too.

Better yet, I'd like to see Jim and Bob write a debate column about Spider Man 2, kind of like the "Extra Consideration" articles that this website used to have.

 

[JimB]

Both movies fit Spider-Man to a T.

What are your standards for "fitting Spider-Man," immortalfrieza? Because as far as I'm concerned, if the movie can't get "with great power comes great responsibility" right, then it has not told a Spider-Man story.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Both movies fit Spider-Man to a T.

What are your standards for "fitting Spider-Man," immortalfrieza? Because as far as I'm concerned, if the movie can't get "with great power comes great responsibility" right, then it has not told a Spider-Man story.

And how has the movies not gotten "with great power comes great responsibility" right? Peter is busy juggling his school, family, relationships, and superhero life in both movies. The difference here is that he's still able to balance them in these movies without having to sacrifice one over the other at this point. Just because Peter isn't manically depressed because he's forced into doing a thousand things at once while failing at most because life keeps putting through the meatgrinder doesn't mean "with great power comes great responsibility" isn't being done well. Quite the contrary, thus far they have been treating the whole concept a lot more realistically than even the comics have ever portrayed it, not throwing ridiculous amounts of crap at Peter all the time and having Peter just put up with it all.

What are my standards? Fine, I'll tell you. Here's the main things:

1. The personalities of the characters must be true to most portrayals of them. Spider-Man for instance is a fun loving wisecracking superhero while Peter is a genius but overall is an average down to earth guy (not a nerd BTW, Peter hasn't been portrayed like that in anything but the Sam Raimi movies for decades) that people can identify with. The villains are much more flexible in that regard though, they've been portrayed differently in just about every adaption they've been in.

2. The "with great power comes great responsiblity" mentioned already.

3. The plots must make sense, the motivations for the characters must make sense, and when something happens, if you think "what would Spider-Man do?" that's more or less what actually happens. Making the characters into useless idiots just to make the plot work is probably my biggest problem with all fiction, especially when it comes to things like love interests, and that's something the ASM movies have avoided doing thus far.

 

[JimB]

And how has the movies not gotten "with great power comes great responsibility" right?

Again, I haven't seen the second one, so maybe they fixed it somehow, but in the first movie, Peter did not become Spider-Man because he had a responsibility to use his power. He did it for vengeance. His purpose was very clear: he wanted to get revenge on whoever killed Uncle Ben, not to atone for his own failure allowing that murder to occur. Later in the movie, he fights the Lizard and I guess that kind of feels like a responsibility, but it's weird and confusing to me because him suddenly being responsible comes out of nowhere. There was no build-up to it, just him suddenly telling Gwen he's responsible, and I get the unshakable feeling it has nothing to do with character growth and only happens because that justifies the character's presence in the film's scripted climax.

Just because Peter isn't manically depressed because he's forced into doing a thousand things at once while failing at most because life keeps putting through the meatgrinder doesn't mean "with great power comes great responsibility" isn't being done well.

...Nothing you just described has anything to do with responsibility. Responsibility is owning your actions and the consequences of your actions, not being depressed and failing at things. Peter never owns his part of Uncle Ben's death, and the thing he does own--the Lizard's origin--is just kind of nonsensical in terms of the character's portrayal up to that point.

What are my standards? Fine, I'll tell you.

Well Christ, don't hurt yourself.

Spider-Man for instance is a fun-loving, wisecracking superhero while Peter is a genius but overall is an average down to earth guy (not a nerd, by the way; Peter hasn't been portrayed like that in anything but the Sam Raimi movies for decades) that people can identify with.

I feel like for you to make any of those statements, you have to have not read anything Dan Slott has done with the character in the last however the hell many years Mr. Slott has been writing him. I mean, even ignoring the Superior Spider-Man arc, let's look at his current run on the Amazing Spider-Man. In four issues, Spider-Man has had his suit ripped to pieces so he had to make underwear from his own webbing just to stay decent, had those images blasted across the internet while he begged the crowd not to do it, got stuck in the underwear because the webbing wouldn't dissolve as quickly as he wanted it to, and had to do the pee-pee dance in front of the Avengers because he couldn't urinate through them; then he goes to his office, tries to institute a Casual Friday and to be the "fun boss," and all his employees start laughing at him behind his back for being a dork.

I agree with the bit about Spider-Man loving fun, but for him it's a way of combating the oppression of a world that keeps grinding him down. His humor is like gallows humor, an attempt to keep his head above water. He's one of the most depressed heroes out there, but he keeps trying and keeps putting on his game face, which is absolutely commendable and not to be diminished; but still, he does those things because he needs them as a defense, not for their own sake.

The plots must make sense, the motivations for the characters must make sense, and when something happens, if you think "what would Spider-Man do?" that's more or less what actually happens.

I disagree with this, for reasons previously stated.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Again, I haven't seen the second one, so maybe they fixed it somehow, but in the first movie, Peter did not become Spider-Man because he had a responsibility to use his power. He did it for vengeance. His purpose was very clear: he wanted to get revenge on whoever killed Uncle Ben, not to atone for his own failure allowing that murder to occur. Later in the movie, he fights the Lizard and I guess that kind of feels like a responsibility, but it's weird and confusing to me because him suddenly being responsible comes out of nowhere. There was no build-up to it, just him suddenly telling Gwen he's responsible, and I get the unshakable feeling it has nothing to do with character growth and only happens because that justifies the character's presence in the film's scripted climax.

What are you talking about? Peter's entire character development in the first movie hinges around him learning to let go of his petty vendetta and use his powers for the good of everyone else. The second movie focuses on Peter struggling to reconcile his responsibility to his friends and love ones with that of his responsibilities as a superhero while recognizing that he's putting them at risk by being a superhero.

I get the distinct feeling that those who hate on these movies either never watched them or never really paid attention when they did.

...Nothing you just described has anything to do with responsibility. Responsibility is owning your actions and the consequences of your actions, not being depressed and failing at things. Peter never owns his part of Uncle Ben's death, and the thing he does own--the Lizard's origin--is just kind of nonsensical in terms of the character's portrayal up to that point.

As mentioned, a big part of Peter's character development is learning the responsibility that comes with having the powers he does. Peter doesn't own up to anything involving Ben's death because he recognizes it doesn't matter.

How is it nonsensical? Peter spends most of the movie helping Connors complete his research, and afterwards when the guy goes nuts he goes to stop him because he's the only one who can and he was responsible for making the problem happen to begin with.

I feel like for you to make any of those statements, you have to have not read anything Dan Slott has done with the character in the last however the hell many years Mr. Slott has been writing him. I mean, even ignoring the Superior Spider-Man arc, let's look at his current run on the Amazing Spider-Man. In four issues, Spider-Man has had his suit ripped to pieces so he had to make underwear from his own webbing just to stay decent, had those images blasted across the internet while he begged the crowd not to do it, got stuck in the underwear because the webbing wouldn't dissolve as quickly as he wanted it to, and had to do the pee-pee dance in front of the Avengers because he couldn't urinate through them; then he goes to his office, tries to institute a Casual Friday and to be the "fun boss," and all his employees start laughing at him behind his back for being a dork.

Considering Dan Slott has been butchering the character in every way he possibly can ever since he started with Spider-Man, I'm not surprised.

 

[JimB]

What are you talking about? Peter's entire character development in the first movie hinges around him learning to let go of his petty vendetta and use his powers for the good of everyone else.

If I have forgotten something, then by all means enlighten me, but as I remember it, he spends the first half of his time in costume just hunting down and beating up criminals in a manhunt for Ben's killer, gets into a fight with Captain Stacy defending his right to do so, and only starts caring about responsibility the minute a supervillain shows up and hucks a few cars off the side of a bridge.

As mentioned, a big part of Peter's character development is learning the responsibility that comes with having the powers he does. Peter doesn't own up to anything involving Ben's death because he recognizes it doesn't matter.

Then he is not being responsible.

How is it nonsensical?

I don't know another way to say it that I didn't say already. I find the shift in his character paradoxical because he ducks any accountability for his own actions throughout most of the movie, then suddenly decides out of nowhere he's responsible for the Lizard's existence and has to go punch him. It feels like his character was rewritten at the last minute, possibly while editing the movie, because people realized that as he'd been written, he would not know or care about the Lizard unless the Lizard got in Peter's way.

Considering Dan Slott has been butchering the character in every way he possibly can ever since he started with Spider-Man, I'm not surprised.

So when you talk about the character, you have a greater right to determine the character's essence than his writers? Uh huh.

 

[immortalfrieza]

If I have forgotten something, then by all means enlighten me, but as I remember it, he spends the first half of his time in costume just hunting down and beating up criminals in a manhunt for Ben's killer, gets into a fight with Captain Stacy defending his right to do so, and only starts caring about responsibility the minute a supervillain shows up and hucks a few cars off the side of a bridge.

So Peter is a teenager who gets powers and decides to use said powers and decides to use them for his own personal revenge trip like a stupid irresponsible teenager that got powers would very likely do, but much bigger problem than the fact that some guy killed his uncle comes around and he realizes that he's one of the few who can and should do something, so he does. That certainly is much more realistic than one guy getting killed and Peter suddenly deciding the entire world's problems are his problems. People BECOME responsible, they aren't responsible right out of the box, and if that is what you wanted then you have incredibly unrealistic expectations.

Then he is not being responsible.

How so? Peter recognizes that going out of his way to find his uncle's killer is selfish of him when he could be doing so much more so he drops it and starts doing more isn't being responsible? It would be VERY irresponsible of Peter to do otherwise.

I don't know another way to say it that I didn't say already. I find the shift in his character paradoxical because he ducks any accountability for his own actions throughout most of the movie, then suddenly decides out of nowhere he's responsible for the Lizard's existence and has to go punch him. It feels like his character was rewritten at the last minute, possibly while editing the movie, because people realized that as he'd been written, he would not know or care about the Lizard unless the Lizard got in Peter's way.

You somehow watched a very different movie from Amazing Spider-Man 1 and thought it was Amazing Spider-Man 1 then, because I can't otherwise see how you could possibly think that. The entire movie is about giving reason for the very same shift in Peter's character you are talking about, going from only giving a damn about himself and his own problems to helping others and stopping the Big Bad because that's the responsible thing to do.

So when you talk about the character, you have a greater right to determine the character's essence than his writers? Uh huh.

When his writers decide to show a complete lack of respect for the character, his history, and his supporting characters and their history, unlike the Amazing Spider-Man movie writers BTW, you damn well bet I do. Just because they're the writers doesn't give them the right to stamp all over the character any more than anyone else has the right to, as in nobody has that right.

 

[JimB]

So Peter is a teenager who gets powers and decides to use said powers and decides to use them for his own personal revenge trip like a stupid irresponsible teenager that got powers would very likely do, but much bigger problem than the fact that some guy killed his uncle comes around and he realizes that he's one of the few who can and should do something, so he does. That certainly is much more realistic than one guy getting killed and Peter suddenly deciding the entire world's problems are his problems.

That you would dismiss his uncle, the only father figure he has any clear memories of, as "one guy;" that you would diminish the personal loss and the visible pain his mother-figure endures because of his own selfishness, as being irrelevant toward teaching a lesson about responsibility, makes me think you and I may be too far apart to have any common ground here. The thought of someone being devoted to an ideological position without giving weight to immediate and personal expressions of it, like a feminist not caring about a woman she knows getting sexually harassed, is just bizarre to me.

People become responsible, they aren't responsible right out of the box, and if that is what you wanted then you have incredibly unrealistic expectations.

Are...are you arguing that watching your father-substitute die in the street because of your actions and learning a lesson from that is being responsible "right out of the box?" Is that what you're saying?

How so?

I said, "Responsibility is owning the consequences of your actions." You said, "Peter refuses to own the consequences of his action." I provide you with a definition of the word, and you tell me how Peter does not fit that definition.

You somehow watched a very different movie from the Amazing Spider-Man and thought it was the Amazing Spider-Man then, because I can't otherwise see how you could possibly think that.

God damn it, stop that. I have already once explicitly invited you to tell me where I am mistaken if you think I am, so please don't just give me some glib crap about me having watched another movie and then tell me, "No, you're wrong because it happened." Tell me when and where it happened; tell me what scenes I either didn't see or have forgotten.

Just because they're the writers doesn't give them the right to stamp all over the character any more than anyone else has the right to, as in nobody has that right.

Leaving aside that you have not illustrated or demonstrated how anyone has "stamped all over the character," you are factually incorrect here. The people who own the character have an absolute and unassailable right to do with their fictional character whatever they want, and the writers of the comics have as much of that rights as the owners grant them. Anything that is published is published with the owners' permission; therefore, the writers had the right to write what was published.

 

[immortalfrieza]

That you would dismiss his uncle, the only father figure he has any clear memories of, as "one guy;" that you would diminish the personal loss and the visible pain his mother-figure endures because of his own selfishness, as being irrelevant toward teaching a lesson about responsibility, makes me think you and I may be too far apart to have any common ground here. The thought of someone being devoted to an ideological position without giving weight to immediate and personal expressions of it, like a feminist not caring about a woman she knows getting sexually harassed, is just bizarre to me.

Of course Uncle Ben is just "one guy", that's exactly what he is. Uncle Ben is just another one of the countless people who have died from an unfortunate murder. Part of being responsible is being able to recognize when what you are doing is too insignificant compared to what else you could be doing and doing that instead, regardless of the personal investment involved in whatever it was you were doing before. I've said it before and I'll say it again, THE ENTIRE PLOT of the movie is Peter slowly coming to realize that using his powers for petty vengeance isn't what he should be doing with them and to forgo that to use those powers for the benefit of many. It's a "protagonist's journey to hero" story, not a "some guy gets killed and the protagonist is suddenly the perfect hero" story like you seem to expect.

Are...are you arguing that watching your father-substitute die in the street because of your actions and learning a lesson from that is being responsible "right out of the box?" Is that what you're saying?

That's what YOU are saying. What you are asking for is Uncle Ben dies by an action that's only barely related to anything Peter did and for Peter to suddenly decide to use his powers intelligently and responsibly right off the bat, despite that he has little to no reason to do so at that point. That's not how any good character development or plot works, or how people in reality work.

I said, "Responsibility is owning the consequences of your actions." You said, "Peter refuses to own the consequences of his action." I provide you with a definition of the word, and you tell me how Peter does not fit that definition.

I did not tell you how Peter didn't fit that definition you gave, I told you how he did. You provide me with the definition of the word, and I tell you how Peter grows to become just that. I said that, whatever Peter did and whatever consequences he has to deal with, it is irresponsible of him to continue chasing Uncle Ben's killer when he could be doing so much more and he realizes this, the Lizard's appearance being the main catalyst that got it into his head. Also, responsibility is about more than simply "owning the consequences of your actions," it's also to ensure your future actions are positive or at least neutral results to the best of your abilities, which is what Peter is doing by the end of the movie.

Besides, tell me how Peter could honestly "own the consequences" of the crime of simply not wanting to get involved to catch that guy? Bring his uncle back to life? Tell everybody that he could have stopped the random crook before the fact who by unbelievable coincidence ended up killing his uncle? Go to the cops and tell them he was the vigilante swinging around catching blond crooks and end up in jail as a result? Peter doesn't HAVE any reasonable way to "owning the consequences of his actions", and if he did it would only result in hurting everyone around him further, make him suffer unnecessarily, and further impede his ability to use his powers for good, so doing so would be no less if not more irresponsible. Catching his uncle's killer is in fact the closest Peter can reasonably come to "owning the consequences" of refusing to catch the guy before, making sure he doesn't hurt anyone else. However, by the last third or so of the movie Peter has more important things to worry about.

God damn it, stop that. I have already once explicitly invited you to tell me where I am mistaken if you think I am, so please don't just give me some glib crap about me having watched another movie and then tell me, "No, you're wrong because it happened." Tell me when and where it happened; tell me what scenes I either didn't see or have forgotten.

What do you want me to do, describe the entire plot of the Amazing Spider-Man verbatim? I say this because everything you've been saying about it is so drastically divorced from EVERYTHING that happened in the movie I'd end up having to do just that. The only reasonable conclusion that can be made is either you didn't watch the movie and are whining about it anyway or barely paid any attention when you did. How else can you get things so blatantly obviously wrong?

Watch the movie and pay actual attention this time, that's the only advice I'm going to give you. There is no point in me sitting here telling you every scene in the movie and how every one shows how you are mistaken, especially since you probably wouldn't get it anyway even if I wanted to bother to do that.

Leaving aside that you have not illustrated or demonstrated how anyone has "stamped all over the character," you are factually incorrect here. The people who own the character have an absolute and unassailable right to do with their fictional character whatever they want, and the writers of the comics have as much of that rights as the owners grant them. Anything that is published is published with the owners' permission; therefore, the writers had the right to write what was published.

Wrong. A writer's duty is provide stories the readers enjoy, and if they can't then the comics will not be purchased. A big part of that is being faithful and consistent with the characters involved and sensible and just as consistent with the plotlines. Ironically we've been talking about responsibility this entire time, and it is the writer's responsibility or rather the lack of it that's the issue here.

The entire Clone Saga, Civil War, One More Day, Brand New Day, killing Peter off and replacing him with his greatest antagonist... I could go on for weeks. If you don't already know why they've "stamped all over the character" I'm not going to bother to describe the plots of dozens and dozens of comics, read them yourself. If you've done that and can't can't see how this "stamped all over the character" despite how readily apparent that is, then I can't help you see it no matter what I do.

 

[JimB]

That you would dismiss his uncle, the only father figure he has any clear memories of, as "one guy;" that you would diminish the personal loss and the visible pain his mother-figure endures because of his own selfishness, as being irrelevant toward teaching a lesson about responsibility, makes me think you and I may be too far apart to have any common ground here.

Of course Uncle Ben is just "one guy;" that's exactly what he is.

Right. No common ground, then.

Are...are you arguing that watching your father-substitute die in the street because of your actions and learning a lesson from that is being responsible "right out of the box?" Is that what you're saying?

That's what you are saying.

I genuinely don't know what to say to this, or to think about it. That you can pooh-pooh watching the caregiver with whom you have lived for eighty percent of your life on this Earth die because of what you failed to do despite having ample opportunity and ability to have done as an unreasonable excuse for a person to learn a lesson about responsibility...I don't know how to process that, and in my confusion I honestly want to dismiss you as being deliberately dishonest for the sake of winning an internet argument. This problem is compounded by your arguing for the sanctity of the comics' representation of the character, which I guess doesn't extend to the very first story ever told about him.

I did not tell you how Peter didn't fit that definition you gave, I told you how he did. You provide me with the definition of the word, and I tell you how Peter grows to become just that.

By using language that directly contradicts it. Yeah, no.

Beside, tell me how Peter could honestly "own the consequences" of the crime of simply not wanting to get involved to catch that guy?

He can recognize that people die from his failures, and that survivors will spend a lifetime suffering the loss of those deaths, and work to protect people rather than indulge in petty, childish revenge fantasies of bullying criminals.

What do you want me to do, describe the entire plot of the Amazing Spider-Man verbatim?

I would be entirely satisfied with you citing scenes and describing how the actions and dialogue in those scenes support your belief instead of just telling me that I have to choose between believing the memories of details I personally possess or the details you refuse to describe or allude to in any way and then acting pissed off when I don't believe the lack of evidence you offer. If you're not willing to do even that little, then please let me know now so I can stop treating this conversation as one that's happening in good faith.

Watch the movie and pay actual attention this time, that's the only advice I'm going to give you. There is no point in me sitting here telling you every scene in the movie and how every one shows how you are mistaken, especially since you probably wouldn't get it anyway even if I wanted to bother to do that.

Heh. I do love how you have set up a scenario in which you refuse to explain to me how I am wrong, and that I am not convinced by your lack of arguments is a sign of my intellectual failings.

Wrong. A writer's duty is provide stories the readers enjoy, and if they can't then the comics will not be purchased.

Nothing about anything you said on this topic is relevant. It has no bearing on anyone's rights. At best, it is an allusion to your own right not to buy content you dislike. That's it. It doesn't change or even relate to the rights and owner has to do what he will with his property.

If you've done that and can't can't see how this "stamped all over the character" despite how readily apparent that is, then I can't help you see it no matter what I do.

You keep saying things like this. If you want to declare yourself the winner of this televised fight and stop responding, I wish you would do so directly and quit insulting my intelligence. I am asking you to define terms; to tell me what "stamping on the character" even fucking means, since as far as I can tell, it means, "writing something that immortalfrieze dislikes, which dislike is being used as an excuse to declare himself ultimate authority on what constitutes Spider-Man." It would then be helpful if you'd explain how the events you referenced do so, because while I can guess at your reasons, I cannot know them unless you fucking tell me.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

I've told you all that's needed to be said, repeatedly in fact. Any halfway reasonable human being would have conceded that I was correct long time ago. However, you are not reasonable, you are just a hater complaining about something you've never seen before and a superhero you never would have liked to begin with, just like everybody else that's complaining about these movies.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I liked the intro with the car chase and the Rhino. Everything else I didn't like.

 

[JimB]

I've told you all that's needed to be said, repeatedly in fact.

No, you haven't. All you have said is, "I'm right, and the proof that I'm right is you don't know I'm right."

Also? You do not get to decide for me what needs to be said. You can decide for yourself how much you're willing to say, but you have no right nor authority to declare you own completely unsubstantiated opinions as meeting some arbitrary and undefined standard of proof. Given your multiple refusals to cite any examples that back up your position, I am forced to conclude that you simply don't have any such examples. I'm sure you will write that off with some scoffing dismissal, but please do not think I have forgotten that I've asked you in three different posts for exactly what it would take to convince me that you're right, and you have each time refused to provide it in favor of insulting me. I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you just plain have no evidence and are trying to change the subject by calling me crazy.

 

[immortalfrieza]

No, you haven't. All you have said is, "I'm right, and the proof that I'm right is you don't know I'm right."

Also? You do not get to decide for me what needs to be said. You can decide for yourself how much you're willing to say, but you have no right nor authority to declare you own completely unsubstantiated opinions as meeting some arbitrary and undefined standard of proof. Given your multiple refusals to cite any examples that back up your position, I am forced to conclude that you simply don't have any such examples. I'm sure you will write that off with some scoffing dismissal, but please do not think I have forgotten that I've asked you in three different posts for exactly what it would take to convince me that you're right, and you have each time refused to provide it in favor of insulting me. I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you just plain have no evidence and are trying to change the subject by calling me crazy.

No, what I've said is the entire damned movie is the evidence. Just because you aren't willing to admit that it's valid evidence or even that the evidence is there doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you've never watched the movie and are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I only watched the first ASM and liked way more than Raimis movies. Andrew G. is the best spiderman actor so far. His Peter Parker is great and reminds of good sm comic stories.

Missed this one in the movies but it will be watched.