so? also Spiderman isn't meant to be some OP marvel demigod, power doesn't even matter in Spiderman movies, you might be watching for the wrong reason otherwise.
What you seem to be describing as criticisms of the movie is just that you want the reboot to be the same as the original. This isn't Hollywood 2001 anymore. The superhero genre can be taken seriously and there are 5 films for the new Spidey universe to unravel, give them a chance. There's loads of things the originals didn't have either. Correct female lead, correct timeline, they didn't have Peter schoollife, they didn't have the police department subplot... they barely had Peter Parker...Both have pros and cons but my personal favourite is Amazing Spiderman. To be totally honest as much as I know it's a bad movie...I LOVE Spiderman 3. Always have as a kid and still now so I understand where you might be coming from. I think all 3 films are bad films but at least Spiderman 3 has fun with it.
Don't disrespect my Garfield like that please ^-^
Just because he is good looking does NOT make him not Peter Parker. In fact the 'nerd' Hollywood stereotype is so outdated and as this is a modern Spiderman film Peter is more like a common geeky student of today. We live in a time where 'Geekiness' is generally accepted, he IS the same awkward and nerdy Peter- just not as visually as previous versions. He still stutters, has awkward posture and body language, is a boy genius, fun-mannered and carefree when swinging through New York and has problems fitting in at school.
Sounds like Peter Parker to me, the criticisms of Garfield are always so shallow, like nobody has actually thought them through in any detail. See more than just face value and you'll realise Garfield was probably the second best thing about the (needed) reboot. Also is THIS seriously any better?
You must be registered for see images
]
