Better Peter Parker Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield?

[PenguinJoe]

So even though I'll prob wait till the new Spider-Man is on netflix to watch it those of you who saw in in the theaters who do you like better?

[Solid Snake PAC]

hrmmmm....I think Garfield brought the stress and emotion better, and he was great in the 3rd act. Though he couldn't get the nerd right. Maguire did. I'm 50/50...though Garfield did do better work w/ his love interest. Sooooo i'm going w/ Garfield.

[FantasticVSDoom]

Didn't like Maguire at all and actually enjoyed ASM so Garfield it is...

[Shannon Nutt]

Unfair poll...Tobey had three shots at the portrayal. That said, given what we've seen so far, I liked Tobey better, but I like the new movie more. Why? Better direction, better script, and Emma Stone trumps Kirsten Dunst any day of the week. ;)

[trespoochies]

I wasn't a fan of Maguire - until I saw Garfield in the role. Maguire wins hands down.

[RoboDad]

Shouldn't there be poll options for "I like both equally well" and "I think both sucked"?

[Solid Snake PAC]

And "Twikoff" too.

[freshticles]

I think Maguire is an annoying, piss-poor excuse for an actor with a face that's so goofy, it's hard to look at. I choose Garfield by default.

[PenguinJoe]

And "Twikoff" too.

I don't get the "Twikoff" joke and I don't care about it. I keep seeing it but I think it's dumb.

[Solid Snake PAC]

it's cuz you don't get it.

[The Cow]

I don't get the "Twikoff" joke and I don't care about it. I keep seeing it but I think it's dumb.

It's an east coast thing. That would be good facebook material to talk to your ex-gf about.

[Hokeyboy]

Nicholas Hammond or GTFO

[Groucho]

I voted for Maguire:

* Garfield's suit was too shiny
* Didn't like the first-person stuff
* Gidget didn't work for me as Aunt May
* Where's my favorite character (Jolly Jonah Jameson)?

[Mike86]

I liked almost everything in The Amazing Spider-Man, but didn't like Garfield all that much to be honest. He wasn't horrible but I didn't buy him as a nerdy character like Peter should be. I'm going to go with Maguire.

[Chadm]

neither.

[IIG]

Maguire>Garfield and Spider-Man>Amazing Spider-Man. And it's not close for me.

[B5Erik]

Tobey Maguire played Peter Parker.

Andrew Garfield seemed to be playing Anakin Skywalker from Attack of the Clones.

Tobey Maguire easy.

The first two Raimi Spider-Man movies are WAY better than ASM. Spider-Man 3 is equal to ASM in quality (although both have completely different flaws).

[B5Erik]

Nicholas Hammond or GTFO
I always thought that he was well cast in the role as a college age Peter Parker. I totally bought him as Peter Parker. Especially the Peter Parker from the 70's comics. Robert F. Simon was great as J. Jonah Jameson, too.

Too bad those scripts and effects were so bad on that series.

[Dragon Tattoo]

Tobey Maguire played Peter Parker.

Andrew Garfield seemed to be playing Anakin Skywalker from Attack of the Clones.

Tobey Maguire easy.

The first two Raimi Spider-Man movies are WAY better than ASM. Spider-Man 3 is equal to ASM in quality (although both have completely different flaws).

:lol:

Best fucking laugh I've had all day.

[B5Erik]

Seriously, though, who is Garfield supposed to be playing? Peter Parker the skateboarding, hoodie wearing, angry, whiny, bratty rebel without a clue?

I grew up reading Spider-Man comics in the 70's and 80's. I watched the poorly written 1970's TV series (good casting, though), watched the cartoons, and really got to know the character over a 20 or so year span. Maguire wasn't a perfect Peter Parker, but at least he was recognizable as Peter Parker. I don't know the character that Andrew Garfield played in The Amazing Spider-Man, but I do know he's not the real Peter Parker. And Garfield's performance wasn't very good, either...

[Labor]

You'd have to be completely effing mental to think Tobey Maguire a better Peter Parker or Spider-Man, like you probably aren't fit to operate within society.

[brianluvdvd]

:lol:

Best fucking laugh I've had all day.

You'd have to be completely effing mental to think Tobey Maguire a better Peter Parker or Spider-Man, like you probably aren't fit to operate within society.

What's with all the insults if you give your opinion of this movie and it happens to be negative? It wasn't like Erik just said that Garfield sucks and then moved on. He gave reasons which I feel are valid and happen to agree with. Guess I can't operate within society now. :rolleyes:

I wonder if this is a youth vs. age thing?

[CaptainMarvel]

I think Tobey was actually maybe a little better in the first one, but Tobey's character seemed to devolve into a weepy crybaby as the movies went on (with the exception of the horrible symbiote-influenced portion of SM3... *shudder*).

I loved both incarnations. I'd have to rate ASM as my favorite right now, but I've been rewatching the originals this week and they're really good too (except SM3... *shudder*).

[stingermck]

Garfield by a mile. But Tobey wins for best crying all the time.

[Meglos]

What's with all the insults if you give your opinion of this movie and it happens to be negative? It wasn't like Erik just said that Garfield sucks and then moved on. He gave reasons which I feel are valid and happen to agree with. Guess I can't operate within society now. :rolleyes:

I wonder if this is a youth vs. age thing?

It's a "treating the internet like a bathroom stall wall" thing.

[Hokeyboy]

What's with all the insults if you give your opinion of this movie and it happens to be negative? It wasn't like Erik just said that Garfield sucks and then moved on. He gave reasons which I feel are valid and happen to agree with. Guess I can't operate within society now. :rolleyes:

I wonder if this is a youth vs. age thing?
http://networkcultures0806792.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/215499488_8pszr-l-2.jpg

[Tarantino]

it's cuz you don't get it.

You don't either. It's an Otter thing, not an every poll thing.

[chris_santucci]

Let's just say that Garfield's debut trumps Maguire's, but the second installment improved so many elements, including Maguire's lines and material. Let's wait for a trilogy to complete before any broad conclusions are made.

My take--http://www.film-matters.net/2012/07/amazing-spider-man-review.html

[Dr. DVD]

Maguire was way better a Peter Parker and Spider-Man IMO. Garfield was okay, but he didn't seem to have the lighthearted nature of Maguire.

[Jules Winfield]

B5's reasoning was well argued. Labor and Dragon Tatoo's counter arguments sound like a butthole trying to lay its first fart.

[Meglos]

:lol::thumbsup:

[shadowhawk2020]

I voted for Maguire:

* Garfield's suit was too shiny
* Didn't like the first-person stuff
* Gidget didn't work for me as Aunt May
* Where's my favorite character (Jolly Jonah Jameson)?

Wondering what any of this has to do with Garfields performance compared to Today's? Unless he had final say in the suit, special effects, casting and script writing.

They are all valid criticisms of the overall movie.

[shadowhawk2020]

It's weird because I liked Tobey as Peter better (until Tobey turned completely whiny), but I thought Garfield was a better SpiderMan.

[Dragon Tattoo]

B5's reasoning was well argued. Labor and Dragon Tatoo's counter arguments sound like a butthole trying to lay its first fart.

I can't wait till all the Raimi apologists die off. Should happen within a few years time, judging by the apparently vastly different age demographics for these two series.

[Nick Martin]

No vote for anonymous stuntman in costume?

[Hokeyboy]

There are Raimi apologists now? :lol:

[Meglos]

There are Raimi apologists now? :lol:

We're a secret masonic order, closely affiliated with the Bruce Campbell Overraters.

[Hokeyboy]

"For The Love Of The Game" >>> "Drive"

There, I said it...

[Nick Martin]

Here's a poll:

Darkman or Dark Knight?

Dark Meat?

[B5Erik]

I can't wait till all the Raimi apologists die off. Should happen within a few years time, judging by the apparently vastly different age demographics for these two series.

First off - apologists? So people who like good movies are apologists now? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Second - if you're waiting for people in my age group to die off you're in for a long wait (especially when it comes to me)...

[Jaymole]

I haven't seen the new ASM yet, but from the clips I've seen, Garfield has the bigger bulge so I picked him.

[Jules Winfield]

I can't wait till all the Raimi apologists die off. Should happen within a few years time, judging by the apparently vastly different age demographics for these two series.

I think us Raimi "apologists" would die of shock if you ever gave a valid argument.

[fumanstan]

It's weird because I liked Tobey as Peter better (until Tobey turned completely whiny), but I thought Garfield was a better SpiderMan.

This matches my opinion. I thought Maguire was a better Peter to start off with, but Spidey 3 really ends up making look like a giant tool. Garfield was a better Spider-Man as far as the wise cracks go.

[Sondheim]

Comparing the first films in each series, I liked Garfield significantly more than Maguire - though it did take me longer to get warmed up to Garfield's version of the character, and I did think there were some inconsistencies in his portrayal (mainly due to the scripting.)

I also think Garfield is the better actor (I first saw him in the great Boy A, and I've been impressed by the four things I've seen him in since.)

[FRwL]

If you guys don't like Garfield you will love this where they TAKE Garfield out but leave everything else in:
www.garfieldminusgarfield.net

[Hokeyboy]

^Yay! Welcome to 2006 all over again! ;)

[Rocketdog2000]

Seriously, though, who is Garfield supposed to be playing? Peter Parker the skateboarding, hoodie wearing, angry, whiny, bratty rebel without a clue?

I grew up reading Spider-Man comics in the 70's and 80's. I watched the poorly written 1970's TV series (good casting, though), watched the cartoons, and really got to know the character over a 20 or so year span. Maguire wasn't a perfect Peter Parker, but at least he was recognizable as Peter Parker. I don't know the character that Andrew Garfield played in The Amazing Spider-Man, but I do know he's not the real Peter Parker. And Garfield's performance wasn't very good, either...

Yeah, but I didn't find Maguire any more recognizable a Peter Parker than Garfield was. Granted, I never read a ton of Spidey comics, but I don't remember the character being such an innocent, naive, puppy dog eyed, "aw-shucks" dofus, geek with almost no confidence the way Maguire portrayed him. If anything he went a little too far in that direction. Peter Parker was a nerd - as in "I like science and learning more than sports or other 'manly' type activities" - but he was never that much of a tool. The only time I thought Maguire really came off as Peter Parker was when he was talking to other smart people, like Norman Osborne, Curt Conners or Otto Octavious. Other than that, he seemed frightfully inept most of the time, or in social situations.

Garfield's take is much more in line with Marvel's Ultimate version of Spider-man - which was an updating of the character to be what he would be like in today's youth culture. This is pretty much exactly the performance Garfield gave. You may not like it, or recognize it as the "classic" Peter Parker of yore, but I don't think it was supposed to be either. Clearly, one of the reasons of re-booting the series was to be able to make changes like this, which they felt might benefit the character more to today's youth market.

[B5Erik]

Yeah, but I didn't find Maguire any more recognizable a Peter Parker than Garfield was. Granted, I never read a ton of Spidey comics, but I don't remember the character being such an innocent, naive, puppy dog eyed, "aw-shucks" dofus, geek with almost no confidence the way Maguire portrayed him. If anything he went a little too far in that direction. Peter Parker was a nerd - as in "I like science and learning more than sports or other 'manly' type activities" - but he was never that much of a tool. The only time I thought Maguire really came off as Peter Parker was when he was talking to other smart people, like Norman Osborne, Curt Conners or Otto Octavious. Other than that, he seemed frightfully inept most of the time, or in social situations.

The Peter Parker of Raimi's movies (particularly the first two) was straight out of the first 50 or so issues of The Amazing Spider-Man comic. Parker WAS a total nerd. A geek and a doofus socially (with almost no confidence, just like Maguire's performance). But he was damned smart - darned near brilliant. He was the, "Aw, shucks," type. He took care of his aunt as her health failed.


Garfield's take is much more in line with Marvel's Ultimate version of Spider-man - which was an updating of the character to be what he would be like in today's youth culture. This is pretty much exactly the performance Garfield gave. You may not like it, or recognize it as the "classic" Peter Parker of yore, but I don't think it was supposed to be either. Clearly, one of the reasons of re-booting the series was to be able to make changes like this, which they felt might benefit the character more to today's youth market.
Fuck today's youth market. They're stupid and ignorant and have bad taste. AND as was proven by the superior box office numbers of the first 3 Spider-Man movies going with the more traditional Peter Parker got better results. There's no need to cater to the lowest common denominator.

I haven't bought a comic book in 15 or so years, and I don't give a rat's ass about the Ultimate universe. It's not Marvel canon, so it doesn't matter. It's an alternate universe, so to make a movie more based on that than the, "Real," Marvel universe is stupid.

Come on - Peter Parker a skateboarding, hoodie wearing, bratty, rebel without a clue? Really?? By catering to the current trends the movie will seem MUCH more dated in 10 or 15 years than if they went with the classic Peter Parker (who has a timeless element about him).

[Rocketdog2000]

I haven't bought a comic book in 15 or so years, and I don't give a rat's ass about the Ultimate universe. It's not Marvel canon, so it doesn't matter. It's an alternate universe, so to make a movie more based on that than the, "Real," Marvel universe is stupid.

So then I'm guessing you also hated The Avengers, because that movie is based as much on The Ultimates (the Ultimate universe version of the Avengers), than it is the "Real" Marvel universe. And to imply it's "stupid", is equally stupid. It's a choice. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. Just that you're perhaps going a bit overboard with your description of Garfield's performance. You're entitled to your opinion, I just don't agree with it, or, thought we saw the same movie. I don't think that Garfield was entirely perfect as Peter Parker, either. But for my money, his take was more what I would expect from the character than I got with Tobey Maguire. His Peter Parker was just too ineffectual for me. Mary Jane or Gwen would never find anything remotely attractive about that guy.

It's also too bad that you never read Ultimate Spider-man, as it was really good.

[kgrogers1979]

Fuck today's youth market. They're stupid and ignorant and have bad taste.

Ah the good old "the generation following my generation is the worst ever" blinded by rose-colored nostalgia glasses.


AND as was proven by the superior box office numbers of the first 3 Spider-Man movies going with the more traditional Peter Parker got better results. There's no need to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Because of course a lower box office is a direct result of not going with a more traditional Peter Parker. It couldn't perhaps have anything to do with being released in a worse economy than when the Raimi trilogy was released or anything. It couldn't perhaps have anything to do with the fact that there was a lot of bad word-of-mouth following the initial trailers and footage so many people may have chosen to ignore it initially but maybe might change their mind later upon hearing the good reviews. Movies never have a better return on DVD sales or anything. Nope, none of that may apply. Its all directly related to not being a more traditional Spider-Man.


I haven't bought a comic book in 15 or so years, and I don't give a rat's ass about the Ultimate universe. It's not Marvel canon, so it doesn't matter. It's an alternate universe, so to make a movie more based on that than the, "Real," Marvel universe is stupid.

Like someone else said, the Avengers movie universe is a mish-mash of Ultimate and main Marvel. Does that bother you? Does it bother you Sam Jackson is playing Nick Fury?

LOL @ not reading a comic in nearly two decades and then deciding automatically that the Ultimate universe must suck. How can you know it sucks if you never even tried it? Ultimate Spider-Man has universally been regarded as a very good book. At times it has sold better than the Amazing Spider-Man title, and the ASM title has gone through a lot of really crappy crap since you stopped reading. Look up "Sins Past" and "One More Day." Those two stories were just plain horrible.

Also saying that the Ultimate universe isn't canon shows your ignorance of the current comics considering there is currently a crossover going on called Spider-Men in which the two universe Spider-Men meet each other.


Come on - Peter Parker a skateboarding, hoodie wearing, bratty, rebel without a clue? Really?? By catering to the current trends the movie will seem MUCH more dated in 10 or 15 years than if they went with the classic Peter Parker (who has a timeless element about him).

I mentioned in another Spider-Man thread that Ben Reilly wore a hoodie. Ben is a clone of Peter, and therefore has the same exact personality of Peter. So Ben's hoodie-wearing personality comes directly from Peter, so even though Peter may not wear a hoodie he isn't adverse to the idea.

To say your "classic" Peter wasn't a brat is also ignorance. He did selfishly let the burglar escape. Sure he grew up fast afterward, but he wasn't the goody twoshoes you seem to recall him being before that happened. You also have to remember that back in the 1960s, people were still in dreamland wanting to pretend life was like an episode of Leave it to Beaver. Real society was never accurately portrayed, so kids were never portrayed as being nearly as bratty as they are in real life. Even Dennis The Menace wasn't really all that much of a brat.

LOL @ thinking if this movie used the "classic" Peter it would be less dated. Because you know Raimi's trilogy isn't dated whatsoever with Macy Gray or the Power Ranger Goblin or anything. No siree Bob, not dated at all. And have you even read "classic" Stan Lee comics recently? I love Stan Lee, don't get me wrong, but to say those comics have aged well is blind ignorance of someone who hasn't read them in quite some time.

[Dragon Tattoo]

Fuck today's youth market. They're stupid and ignorant and have bad taste.

Spoken like a true old fart.

[bluetoast]

The Amazing Spider-Man is not some sacred text. But the difference is, people who do follow/read sacred texts also change/update their own views as time goes on.

But if you update an element from this comic book from the 60s just a little bit, fuck no, that's not happening. Skateboarding? Didn't exist in the 60's! Hoodies? Nope, button down shirt and sweater vest only!

Hey, in this new movie Spider-Man didn't deliver three minutes worth of expository dialogue every time he is re-introduced on screen, where are the complaints about that?

And for those complaints about the Ultimate Universe: Let's not forget that Raimi's movies had organic web shooters, and this movie did not.

[Obi-Wan Jabroni]

And for those complaints about the Ultimate Universe: Let's not forget that Raimi's movies had organic web shooters, and this movie did not.

Even Ultimate Spider-Man has mechanical web-shooters.

[B5Erik]

Ah the good old "the generation following my generation is the worst ever" blinded by rose-colored nostalgia glasses.

The one thing my generation never did as teenagers was to cop the, "We've got it tougher than anyone ever has," thing. We knew we had it good. We had perspective - we were damned glad NOT to have grown up during the Depression or during World War II. We weren't a bunch of whiners constantly complaining about how bad things were and how much tougher life was for us than for any previous generation. I couldn't relate to the kids from the 90's because of that attitude that so many of them copped. And it persists to this day with many in the current generation.

I just don't want my movies catering to that crowd. Sorry.



Because of course a lower box office is a direct result of not going with a more traditional Peter Parker. It couldn't perhaps have anything to do with being released in a worse economy than when the Raimi trilogy was released or anything.

Actually, the economy now is about the same as it was in 2002. You seem to have forgotten the post 9/11 recession. It was pretty bad in 2002.



It couldn't perhaps have anything to do with the fact that there was a lot of bad word-of-mouth following the initial trailers and footage so many people may have chosen to ignore it initially but maybe might change their mind later upon hearing the good reviews. Movies never have a better return on DVD sales or anything. Nope, none of that may apply. Its all directly related to not being a more traditional Spider-Man.

If I were the only person complaining about the changes to Peter and the other multiple flaws in the movie I'd buy into your comments. But I'm not. Not even close - a lot of people are making the same types of comments.



Like someone else said, the Avengers movie universe is a mish-mash of Ultimate and main Marvel. Does that bother you? Does it bother you Sam Jackson is playing Nick Fury?

No, only because Nick Fury in real life can't be a World War II vet. And Samuel L. Jackson did a great job as Fury, so I've got no complaints. His personality isn't that different from the Fury of the comics.

And none of the other Avengers' personalities are all that different from the characters as originally conceived in the 60's.


LOL @ not reading a comic in nearly two decades and then deciding automatically that the Ultimate universe must suck. How can you know it sucks if you never even tried it? Ultimate Spider-Man has universally been regarded as a very good book.

It may be, and I never said the Ultimate universe sucks. I just said it's different, it's not canon, and I'm not interested in it. It was created for teenagers when I was already an adult.


At times it has sold better than the Amazing Spider-Man title, and the ASM title has gone through a lot of really crappy crap since you stopped reading. Look up "Sins Past" and "One More Day." Those two stories were just plain horrible.

That may be. I don't care about more recent stories - comics lost that, "Fun," factor for me years ago. I still enjoy reading through a classic 60's or 70's comic every now and then, but the stuff from the 90's forward got a little too serious at times and lost that fun factor.


Also saying that the Ultimate universe isn't canon shows your ignorance of the current comics considering there is currently a crossover going on called Spider-Men in which the two universe Spider-Men meet each other.

OK, it's canon for an alternate universe. Whoop-de-fucking-doo! And yet another crossover to boost sales? There's a shock. That was one of the things that got me to stop buying comics in the first place. Stories that crossed over to 4 different titles for the same character. It got expensive.



I mentioned in another Spider-Man thread that Ben Reilly wore a hoodie. Ben is a clone of Peter, and therefore has the same exact personality of Peter. So Ben's hoodie-wearing personality comes directly from Peter, so even though Peter may not wear a hoodie he isn't adverse to the idea.

Ben Reilly wasn't Peter. He was always trying to hide that he looked like Peter, which is where that hoodie came from. He wasn't wearing it because he liked the style or something. He was portrayed as being very different from Peter because of what happened to him.

And that clone saga and the way it played out was another reason why I stopped buying/reading comics. They basically said that everything that Peter learned about himself in ASM 150 was worthless and null & void. At that point I saw that there was nothing that they wouldn't undo, no matter how important to the character. It went from being about great storytelling to being about sales.


To say your "classic" Peter wasn't a brat is also ignorance. He did selfishly let the burglar escape. Sure he grew up fast afterward, but he wasn't the goody twoshoes you seem to recall him being before that happened. You also have to remember that back in the 1960s, people were still in dreamland wanting to pretend life was like an episode of Leave it to Beaver. Real society was never accurately portrayed, so kids were never portrayed as being nearly as bratty as they are in real life. Even Dennis The Menace wasn't really all that much of a brat.

Most people don't go to see a Spider-Man movie to see real life. It's supposed to be escapism. It's supposed to reflect a more innocent look at life.


LOL @ thinking if this movie used the "classic" Peter it would be less dated. Because you know Raimi's trilogy isn't dated whatsoever with Macy Gray or the Power Ranger Goblin or anything. No siree Bob, not dated at all. And have you even read "classic" Stan Lee comics recently? I love Stan Lee, don't get me wrong, but to say those comics have aged well is blind ignorance of someone who hasn't read them in quite some time.
Those original comics from the 60's may be dated becuse of the style of clothes and because of the simplicity of the characters & stories, but they're still classics and are more enjoyable/fun to read than many of the Spider-Man stories of the 90's and 00's.

Raimi's movies were more fun and captured that innocence, so they made for better escapist fare. And THAT is why they did better at the box office. Spider-Man is supposed to be fun. And Peter isn't some emo skateboarder, either. He's a near genius nerd. Or he's supposed to be, anyway.

[bluetoast]

Even Ultimate Spider-Man has mechanical web-shooters.

Oh yeah I forgot about that, he used his dad's research for part of it right? I must have confused it with the ASM universe adapting organic for a while.

[Hokeyboy]

So much vag-repellent in the last dozen posts... :lol:

[Tarantino]

So much vag-repellent in the last dozen posts... :lol:

AKA, just being on DVDTalk.

[clckworang]

Some of the things that people are complaining about, like Peter Parker wearing a hoodie and skateboarding, are beyond ridiculous. We have grown people trying to determine a comic book character's motivation for wearing a hoodie. Come on!

So much vag-repellent in the last dozen posts... :lol:

And yet meaningless fashion choices keep showing up in the debate. :lol:

[dhmac]

Even though I like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies (despite their flaws), I've never been much of a fan of Tobey Maguire in the lead role. Not sure why, but he didn't really strike me as Peter Parker.

I remember when Tobey Maguire held out for more money after the 1st film was a huge hit and so Sam Raimi threatened to replace him with Jake Gyllenhaal if he didn't return. I actually wish that recasting of the role had happened because I think Gyllenhaal would've been better than Maguire (at that time, that is, because now JG is too old for the part).

[B5Erik]

Spoken like a true old fart.
Get off my lawn!!!!

;)

[Dragon Tattoo]

Get off my lawn!!!!

;)

:lol:

Pleased to see the poll is really close. Combine this with the love interest poll where Emma destroyed Dunst and this series looks to have a bright future ahead of it.

Now they just need to work on a stellar sequel.

[IstvanTheHun]

I preferred Toby. He gave us the nerdy Peter Parker we all loved.

James Garfield gives us a douchebag Peter Parker who skateboards to Coldplay. no thank you.

[CaptainMarvel]

James Garfield gives us a douchebag Peter Parker who skateboards to Coldplay. no thank you.

To be fair, his presidential duties probably did detract from the role.

[Dragon Tattoo]

I preferred Toby. He gave us the nerdy Peter Parker we all loved.


Try not speaking for everyone and maybe your "opinion" will have some merit.

[IstvanTheHun]

To be fair, his presidential duties probably did detract from the role. touche. lol

Try not speaking for everyone and maybe your "opinion" will have some merit.

it was the rhetoric 3rd person "we". and I speak for those who cannot post...those disenfranchised from the internet...haha.