Poll: Who was the better Peter Parker/Spider-man
- Thread starter Madnack45
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Andrew Garfield. He's just more charismatic than Toby McGuire. While McGuire got the nerdy and dweeby side of Peter Parker down pretty well, that's just not interesting to watch as some sappy bastard whines and snivels his way through 3 films where he's supposed to be this great big hero. It felt like Toby McGuire's Peter Parker and his Spiderman were two different people, not the same person.
Andrew Garfield just carries the whole thing better. He's more interesting and entertaining, and more enjoyable with the brilliant snarky humour that Spiderman is kind of known for best.
Plus, he's way better to look at. Dude's easy on the eyes.
Andrew Garfield just carries the whole thing better. He's more interesting and entertaining, and more enjoyable with the brilliant snarky humour that Spiderman is kind of known for best.
Plus, he's way better to look at. Dude's easy on the eyes.
I only ever saw the Raimi movies, so I can't really compare them.
I never had a problem with Maguire as Spider-Man though. I actually kind of liked that they picked a somewhat schlubby looking guy for the part, instead of some sort of Leonardo DiCaprio (for all you youngsters, he was considered a heart throb back in the day). Sure, it was a bit Charlie Brown-ish, but I liked that
His Spider-Man felt like a liberation/escapism from his daily drab life. Whenever shit got him down, he could just dawn a uniform and be an awesome superhero, and I feel Maguire's performance got this across quite well.
I never had a problem with Maguire as Spider-Man though. I actually kind of liked that they picked a somewhat schlubby looking guy for the part, instead of some sort of Leonardo DiCaprio (for all you youngsters, he was considered a heart throb back in the day). Sure, it was a bit Charlie Brown-ish, but I liked that
His Spider-Man felt like a liberation/escapism from his daily drab life. Whenever shit got him down, he could just dawn a uniform and be an awesome superhero, and I feel Maguire's performance got this across quite well.
I didn't like the Raimi movies period. They fell into that early 2000's superhero movie trap of changing things for no reason other than because it was still embarassing to do a live action movie based on a comic book. It wasn't quite as awful as the costumes in the X-Men movies, but it still wasn't my cup of tea. McGuire's Peter Parker was both too mopey and not smart enough (the whole point of the web shooters is to show off how much a technical genius Parker is), and his Spiderman was too brooding/mopey, too. Garfield was a good Peter (He actually knows science! He pulls off small, weedy nerd without coming off like a potential school shooter!) and a great Spiderman.
I think Garfield was a good Spiderman but a bad Peter Parker while Tobey...
This is why him as both never really clicked for me, it didnt feel like the character at all. I know that the comic book characters change depending on where you see them the most (for me it was the cartoons, games and for some odd reason the 20 first issues that I actually read of the Ultimate series). He felt like even though he was the typical nerd/geek/looser he could still be a cool guy and be interesting, Tobey was the most boring person alive and Garfield was a punk-ish slacker.Casual Shinji said:
The Raimi movies haven't aged well, but if there's one thing I'll always praise them for it's getting rid of those dumb web shooters. Now I only ever saw the 80's a 90's cartoon series, so maybe in the comics they were swell, but they never made any sense to me.Owyn_Merrilin said:
If Peter was such a genuis as to be able to create small wrist bands that could discharge miles and miles worth of cable strength webbing from a cartridge the size of a large pill, why didn't he ever make it before getting his powers, how come he hasn't won the Nobel prize, and why hasn't he ever made more amazing inventions? Or is his genuis just limited to webbing?
It was just something silly ontop of the already silly premise of getting powers from a radioactive spider. The Raimi movies had the decency to just catagorize it under the initial silly premise of spider powers. To me it's like Superman having every power except the power of flight, for which he uses a jetpack that he just conveniently invented.
andrew was never much of a punish slacker as people make him out to be. the only reason they think this is because of the skateboarding but a) skateboarding is a loner sport b)geeks today ride skateboard c)he wrote some equations down LONGER before he found the breifcase
the clothes are what geeks look like today and his hair is exactly like peter's from the comics and people in general
the clothes are what geeks look like today and his hair is exactly like peter's from the comics and people in general
Part of the premise of Peter Parker is that he's a genius scientist, though. He even got his powers in a lab accident. It's less like your Superman example, more like Iron Man's suit or Batman's gadgets. He's actually had a dayjob as a scientist at various points in the comics, the photography gig was more of a high school job for him.Casual Shinji said:
Edit: Also, the web shooters, being limited and cartridge based, can run out of webbing or otherwise have their use denied to Peter (say he gets captured and they're taken or whatever), which gives the writers options that having the webbing be an inherent ability does not.
that's what they all said but tobey was not a good peter parker. the only reason they chose him was because peter is suppoer to be a "loser nerd" even though he was never treated like this. maguire was more of a caricature than a character. just eternally inept despite the power and responsibilityStory said:
Yeah, but being a scientist isn't the same as being an inventor. Tony Stark is established as a genius with a knack for crafting weapons and machinery which results in him becoming Iron Man, and Batman simply had others make his gadgets for him.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Peter Parker just makes this amazing device out of nowhere for the sake of complimenting his spider powers, yet he never made something similarly amazing before or since. You'd think someone who could make something like that would have a tremendous passion for inventing and would therefore not limit themselves to just web shooters.
And the other thing that always bugged me about it is the fact that his coolest spider power isn't of his own, but just a gizmo he straps on. As a kid this was always the fly in the ointment for me regarding the character.
As a character, I like Maguire's Spider-Man, at least for the first two movies (and in spite of Maguire, who I think isn't a very good actor). I think Garfield is infinitely more charismatic and a better actor overall, even if he essentially Labeoufs his way through the movies. The real deal-breaker for me was the writing.
So as to answer your question... I don't know. I'm partial towards Garfield.
So as to answer your question... I don't know. I'm partial towards Garfield.
You know, I think I agree with that. Which surprises me to no end. I never watched any of the Amazing Spider-man movies because when I saw Andrew playing Peter Parker, I just thought, No. He didn't look like Peter, he didn't act like Peter, he didn't behave like Peter. There was nothing Peter about him in my mind. He looked more like those wannabe loners I always saw in high school, who think they're cool because they keep to themselves. Honest Trailers does a good job of summing up just how wrong I felt Andrew was for the part. Meanwhile Toby did feel, act, and downright look like a Peter Parker to me.Story said:
But hearing Andrew's Spider-man smack talk? Even just from the previews? Yeah, I think he got that part right. I can't remember any one-liners from Toby, but I still remember that knife fight in the trailers with Andrew.
As much as I think the Raimi movies (2.5 of them at least) are better than the 'Amazing' reboots, Garfield was a better portrayal of the classic Spider-man.
Maguire played Peter too much of a caricature, which comic Peter hasn't been in decades, and his Spider-man really failed with the banter.
Garfield did both better, with the trade-off that his Peter was perhaps a bit too cool. His Spider-man was close to perfect on the other hand. It's a shame the movies he was in were so horrible though.
Maguire played Peter too much of a caricature, which comic Peter hasn't been in decades, and his Spider-man really failed with the banter.
Garfield did both better, with the trade-off that his Peter was perhaps a bit too cool. His Spider-man was close to perfect on the other hand. It's a shame the movies he was in were so horrible though.
Despite some of the answers on here, I find it hard to believe it's even a matter for debate. Toby Maguire (and certainly the movies he was in) were orders of magnitude more exciting and enjoyable than the Garfield farces (and that's even with an amazing Dennis Leary co-starring).
The cast was better (no offence to Sheen/Steenburgen and Gwen), the stories were better, the villains were better. JJJ was fantastic for comic relief, Kirsten Dunst was great, James Franco was also brilliant. Spiderman II is to this day, probably the best superhero movie we've ever had (I would argue alongside Superman II) and that's despite my love of all things X-Men.
Raimi's/Maguire's trilogy is the defining big-screen Spiderman, in a similar way to Donner's/Reeve's Superman, Burton/Keaton Batman and Singer/Stewart/McKellan/Jackman X-Men. Everything else is an imitation. I would probably add Downey Jr's Iron Man to that list too.
The cast was better (no offence to Sheen/Steenburgen and Gwen), the stories were better, the villains were better. JJJ was fantastic for comic relief, Kirsten Dunst was great, James Franco was also brilliant. Spiderman II is to this day, probably the best superhero movie we've ever had (I would argue alongside Superman II) and that's despite my love of all things X-Men.
Raimi's/Maguire's trilogy is the defining big-screen Spiderman, in a similar way to Donner's/Reeve's Superman, Burton/Keaton Batman and Singer/Stewart/McKellan/Jackman X-Men. Everything else is an imitation. I would probably add Downey Jr's Iron Man to that list too.
tobey, dunst and some of the rest were fantastic? really? dunst was better than stone? and an inept wooden actor like maguire better than Garfield? really? they were totally not in leagues with the x-men, superman and batman casts. they were just mediocre at best. not saying TASM's casts were any better but they were better than the raimi ones.
and may i remind you this is suppose to be the same peter who's like this:
and may i remind you this is suppose to be the same peter who's like this: