Poll: Who was the better Peter Parker/Spider-man
- Thread starter Madnack45
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I much preferred Tobey Maguire, perhaps because I really didn't like TASM or its sequel. TASM never endeared itself to me so I didn't get attached to anything in it. The Raimi films did and I love them, might have something to do with my age when watching them, I was a kid when the Raimi films came out and grown up for TASM, but I still love the Raimi films.
Maguire's Peter Parker got the nerdy loser thing down just right. He's not cool or charismatic, people walk over him because he's got quite a passive personality but he finds his own ways to shine. He can be nice and impress people (like Norman Osborn/Otto Octavius) but that's mostly down to his cleverness and endearing nature. I especially liked the bits where Peter and Otto get to talk in Spider-Man 2 before everything goes bad.
Garfield's Peter Parker is really quite awful in my opinion. He's FAR too cool to be Peter Parker, I know some versions of PP have him being more of a hip teenager and less of a high-school loser but I like PP to be a loser in his average life, contrasts better with being Spider-Man. He cracks wise (out of costume, it's fine when he's in costume), he's scooting around on that skateboard and everything about the way he looks screams hipster. Peter Parker is not a hipster.
Maguire's Spider-Man does cool stuff, looks the part, and was exactly what kid me thought Spider Man should be. More than that though, the way he differs from portraying PP and SM is huge. Maguire's Spider-Man is an escape to being somebody else for Peter Parker, Spider-Man is confident, cool, and generally awesome in the ways that Peter Parker never can be. Something I have also come to realise and appreciate is that apart from the voice (that he makes no effort to disguise), you'd not really suspect Peter Parker of being Spider-Man because of how they act differently. It reminds me of one of the many reasons I really liked Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, because you'd never suspect it was him under the mask if you didn't already know. The mask and face under it are two very different people.
Garfield's Spider-Man never burst out at me as a much more superior portrayal is it did to many others. He cracks wise as Spider-Man should, but he already did that anyway as Peter Parker, plus there's some meanness to him at the start when he's giving the cop crap. Didn't like that. There didn't seem to be much change between Peter Parker and Spider-Man, I saw Garfield's Parker and thought "Your're such an annoying hipster prat." Saw his Spider-Man and though exactly the same.
Maguire's Peter Parker got the nerdy loser thing down just right. He's not cool or charismatic, people walk over him because he's got quite a passive personality but he finds his own ways to shine. He can be nice and impress people (like Norman Osborn/Otto Octavius) but that's mostly down to his cleverness and endearing nature. I especially liked the bits where Peter and Otto get to talk in Spider-Man 2 before everything goes bad.
Garfield's Peter Parker is really quite awful in my opinion. He's FAR too cool to be Peter Parker, I know some versions of PP have him being more of a hip teenager and less of a high-school loser but I like PP to be a loser in his average life, contrasts better with being Spider-Man. He cracks wise (out of costume, it's fine when he's in costume), he's scooting around on that skateboard and everything about the way he looks screams hipster. Peter Parker is not a hipster.
Maguire's Spider-Man does cool stuff, looks the part, and was exactly what kid me thought Spider Man should be. More than that though, the way he differs from portraying PP and SM is huge. Maguire's Spider-Man is an escape to being somebody else for Peter Parker, Spider-Man is confident, cool, and generally awesome in the ways that Peter Parker never can be. Something I have also come to realise and appreciate is that apart from the voice (that he makes no effort to disguise), you'd not really suspect Peter Parker of being Spider-Man because of how they act differently. It reminds me of one of the many reasons I really liked Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, because you'd never suspect it was him under the mask if you didn't already know. The mask and face under it are two very different people.
Garfield's Spider-Man never burst out at me as a much more superior portrayal is it did to many others. He cracks wise as Spider-Man should, but he already did that anyway as Peter Parker, plus there's some meanness to him at the start when he's giving the cop crap. Didn't like that. There didn't seem to be much change between Peter Parker and Spider-Man, I saw Garfield's Parker and thought "Your're such an annoying hipster prat." Saw his Spider-Man and though exactly the same.
Garfield could be a great actor for all I know or care, the terrible script ruined any chance of me liking his character at all. He's broody and yet relies on wise-cracking as Spider-Man and he's too-cool-for-school as Peter Parker. He's an asshole even though the film is portraying him as somebody we're supposed to like.
I find Maguire to be good at portraying a socially awkward and emotionally weak person, but he never actually grows to be a bit more confident even with the Spider-Man stuff being all hardcore and intense. I still prefer Maguire on the whole, though, the script may make his character stagnant, but at least he has a character of his own.
I find Maguire to be good at portraying a socially awkward and emotionally weak person, but he never actually grows to be a bit more confident even with the Spider-Man stuff being all hardcore and intense. I still prefer Maguire on the whole, though, the script may make his character stagnant, but at least he has a character of his own.
The problem with maguire's take is that he is a caricature of what a nerd is. Ones yiu see on comedies and cartoons. Ones who act like George McCoy but worse. He never evolved much into a person.
Garfield in the first series never acts hip but more of what today's geeks are like. He was also awkward. He was never much if a jerk as people/haters make him out to be. He did some saving, was decent to his guardians and was helping may around the place.
2 is problematic but he does capture the romita version of the character.
Garfield in the first series never acts hip but more of what today's geeks are like. He was also awkward. He was never much if a jerk as people/haters make him out to be. He did some saving, was decent to his guardians and was helping may around the place.
2 is problematic but he does capture the romita version of the character.
It should go without saying that Maguire had the better movies (Spidey 3 excluded), but I think Garfield was the better Peter Parker. He was more of a hipster than the 50s-style "square" nerd we traditionally expect from Peter Parker that Tobey Maguire played so well, but he's funnier, more likeable and more engaging.
He does invent other things as well though, just not with a high frequency. A lot of it is to help with being Spiderman, different tools and gadgets to fight against his various enemies, and in fact in the current comic, he worked for a company that did invent new gadgets, and was even on a team that helped make a time machine that eventually blew up. His main set back is being Spiderman, so he doesn't have enough time to be able to make a great amount of things, just gadgets here and there between his school, jobs, girlfriends, Aunt May, and being Spider-man. The Superior Spider-man arc addresses this a bit, as Doc Oc manages to balance all this much more efficiently than Peter, but through shady and unethical means.Casual Shinji said:
I was going to vote, but in my opinion you cant ask who was the better Spider-man/Peter Parker, only Spider-man and Peter Parker. Tobey Maguire looks like such a wimpy nerd he is the ultimate Peter Parker, but Andrew Garfield as Spider-man was so much cooler.
Gotta agree with this one. Tobey gave me such an Amazing Fantasy #15 feeling.Bob_McMillan said:
it's Andrew Garfield. not even really an opinion if you consider the fact that his version is more loyal to the character in the comics. Tobey's version is nothing like the comics. zero charisma and humor, which is the biggest issue. judging from the poll results, it would seem that not enough people are aware that Spider-Man is supposed to be lighthearted and funny.
also, Peter Parker has never been dorky-looking, contrary to popular belief.
also, Peter Parker has never been dorky-looking, contrary to popular belief.
I think both are interesting interpretations of the character, but I have recently found that I actually might prefer Maguire's Spider-Man, despite me preferring Garfield for a brief period of time.
I honestly don't care how Parker is presented in the comics. Dorky, socially inept Spidey is simply a character who is much easier to root for. It took ASM 2 for me to realize that an endlessly quipping Spider-Man is fun at first, but gets really grating real fast. Also wasn't all that fond of how irresponsible Spidey was in ASM. I get that he's still a kid, but Raimi's Spider-Man actually learned from his mistakes and grew into adulthood. Reboot Parker just kept failing and sulking. Admittedly my problems with Garfield Spider-Man have less to do with the actor himself (he does a fine job) but more with how terrible the scripts are. I'd watch the Raimi trilogy over the Reboot schlock any day.
But I think my REAL choice would be Josh Keaton. To me, that guy IS Spider-Man.
I honestly don't care how Parker is presented in the comics. Dorky, socially inept Spidey is simply a character who is much easier to root for. It took ASM 2 for me to realize that an endlessly quipping Spider-Man is fun at first, but gets really grating real fast. Also wasn't all that fond of how irresponsible Spidey was in ASM. I get that he's still a kid, but Raimi's Spider-Man actually learned from his mistakes and grew into adulthood. Reboot Parker just kept failing and sulking. Admittedly my problems with Garfield Spider-Man have less to do with the actor himself (he does a fine job) but more with how terrible the scripts are. I'd watch the Raimi trilogy over the Reboot schlock any day.
But I think my REAL choice would be Josh Keaton. To me, that guy IS Spider-Man.
Holy wow. Why is this even a question?
Garfield did not pull off the nerd/pariah thing AT ALL. I have to admit he looked good in the suit (not gay). The rest of the time....Perhaps it was bad script or bad directing but I don't think so. Tobey Maguire can look geeky and unimpressive; Garfield cannot. In the real world, pretty-boy Twilight rejects with stupid hair simply do not go friendless or unnoticed. Seeing him pretend to be Peter Parker made me want to apply sandpaper to my eyeballs.
Garfield did not pull off the nerd/pariah thing AT ALL. I have to admit he looked good in the suit (not gay). The rest of the time....Perhaps it was bad script or bad directing but I don't think so. Tobey Maguire can look geeky and unimpressive; Garfield cannot. In the real world, pretty-boy Twilight rejects with stupid hair simply do not go friendless or unnoticed. Seeing him pretend to be Peter Parker made me want to apply sandpaper to my eyeballs.
Yeah, I've heard this too. The Nostalgia Critic discussed it in his Old vs New video about Spiderman. It does seem to hold up pretty well from the clips I've seen of Garfield's performance. He nails the smartassery of Spidey pretty well, but Maguire seems to do the "adorkable guy" routine much better.Story said: