Spider man 1 V/s Amazing Spider man

[jordanparekh]

Hey guys I feel toby has done better role than the one who acted in amazing spider man .... What u guys say

[Jman27]

If you are new the attitude around here is that Toby is a better Peter Parker Andrew is a better Spiderman and Tom is Iron Man jr

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Andrew Garfield is a very good actor but he just wasn't right for Spider-Man and Peter Parker, or rather not right for the direction and approach that Marc Webb (who I think was an even inferior fit for Spider-Man than Garfield was) took with the character.

This isn't to say that Tobey Maguire's Peter is "definitive, the best, most faithful" and never can be topped or so on. I like Maguire's performance and to me Spider-Man 1 is still the absolute best Spider-Man movie. I don't agree with the idea that "it can't be beat". I don't think Christopher Reeve is the only actor, and only approach, for Superman (much as I disagree with Zack Snyder on a lot of stuff, I do agree with him on that) and I don't think Maguire is the only actor who can make Peter work.

If you are new the attitude around here is that Toby is a better Peter Parker Andrew is a better Spiderman and Tom is Iron Man jr

Actually he's Iron Boy and Iron Robin, and caddy to Mr. Stark, rather than "Iron Man Jr." Tom Holland is a character actor who is incapable of becoming a lead (at least for now) so he's shackled in a position in the movies where he's framed entirely by his relationship and connection to authority figures, all played by established big-time actors (Downey Jr, Sam Jackson, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Keaton).

[kingaliencracker]

For me, the first two Spider-Man movies are still the definitive live-action Spider-Man adaptations. They're not perfect, but I thought Raimi & Company made the most epic Spider-Man movies ever all contained within Peter's world of characters, which for me is exactly what makes Spider-Man so great to begin with.

The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't terrible but while it's not completely the movie's fault I can say it's the only Spider-Man movie to which I fell asleep. I think overall TASM was the wrong direction in which to take the franchise.

[WebLurker]

I like Tobey Maguire, did not like Andrew Garfield. (Tom Holland was good, too, IMHO.)

[Snoop Dogg]

the most accurate live-action spider-man is paul rudd

[Frontier]

the most accurate live-action spider-man is paul rudd

This is legit. Who quipped the most during the airplane fight? Answer: it wasn't Spider-Man.

Though seriously I do think MCU Ant-Man's personality is more Spider-Man then the actual MCU Spider-Man's personality (or lack there of).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is legit. Who quipped the most during the airplane fight? Answer: it wasn't Spider-Man.

Though seriously I do think MCU Ant-Man's personality is more Spider-Man then the actual MCU Spider-Man's personality (or lack there of).

Paul Rudd is awesome.

But to be honest, I think the great Spider-Man that was never cast is Ryan Reynolds.

JRJR Peter.jpg

download.jpg

Reynolds looks a lot like Peter Parker especially in JRJR's pencils.

I actually think Paul Rudd should have been Deadpool, Reynolds should have been Peter, and Garfield should have been Ant-Man.

[Frontier]

Paul Rudd is awesome.

But to be honest, I think the great Spider-Man that was never cast is Ryan Reynolds.

JRJR Peter.jpg

download.jpg

Reynolds looks a lot like Peter Parker especially in JRJR's pencils.

I actually think Paul Rudd should have been Deadpool, Reynolds should have been Peter, and Garfield should have been Ant-Man.

I could see Reynolds as an adult adult Spider-Man.

Rudd to me feels like he would be a more cartoony and wacky version of Deadpool.

Garfield is too much of a pretty boy for Ant-Man unless it's, like, Hank Pym in his prime and at his most morose.

[NC_Yankee]

I like Tobey Maguire, did not like Andrew Garfield. (Tom Holland was good, too, IMHO.

Garfield talked about wanting to playa gay or bi Spider-Man. I was not shocked. Why? He struck me as gay when he played him.

[SuperiorIronman]

They're better at different things. Tobey had the better Peter Parker and be it due to his acting or Rami's direction is pretty memorable. Garfield while a better Spider-man isn't as memorable outside the costume, though I find him a better Spider-man. I definitely enjoyed The Amazing Spider-man even though I loath the sequel, but I find Tobey to be my favorite between the two.

Honestly I feel like Garfield got the raw end of the deal considering it seemed to be a role he wanted and was stuck in the rebound franchise. Honestly, I'd like to see him back and it's not like we're lacking in Spider-heroes for him to portray. Garfield is a decent actor it's just he got a bad gig.

[Spidey_62]

For me, the first two Spider-Man movies are still the definitive live-action Spider-Man adaptations. They're not perfect, but I thought Raimi & Company made the most epic Spider-Man movies ever all contained within Peter's world of characters, which for me is exactly what makes Spider-Man so great to begin with.

That's how I also feel. Spider-Man 2 in particular takes the core concepts behind the character and just tells a simple yet complex human drama story that I find very emotionally strong. Basically it's just a darn well made movie with a lot of personality and valuable themes. I think you can tell how much Raimi was a fan of classic Spidey because 1 and 2 feel like oldschool Spidey tonally.

Amazing wasn't bad but it felt more cynical, whereas Raimi's just presented things as they were without needing to "cool" things up. End of the day Amazing 1 and 2 are probably near the bottom of the list for Spidey movies for me, though.

[Lucyfer]

I am fairly sure that this is a rather common discussion among fans and I have made the experience that people's opinions on it are as diverse as the depictions of Spider-Man himself.

In my opinion Tom Holland has done one of the best impressions to date, being very clumsy and adorable. Only missing some of Spidey's witty humor, but I guess that's also how the character was written.
Regardless, every actor in the role has done a great job and I personally have reached a point where I don't care anymore. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their is no definite right or wrong answer.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Garfield talked about wanting to playa gay or bi Spider-Man. I was not shocked. Why? He struck me as gay when he played him.

Not a fan of the implied homophobia there. Garfield had a romance on set with Emma Stone and their chemistry carried into the film...much in the same Tobey and Kirsten's chemistry (inspired by a real-life romance between them during production of those movies, which was kept under wraps at the time). So it's certainly not true that Garfield played Peter as gay.

Honestly I feel like Garfield got the raw end of the deal considering it seemed to be a role he wanted and was stuck in the rebound franchise. Honestly, I'd like to see him back and it's not like we're lacking in Spider-heroes for him to portray. Garfield is a decent actor it's just he got a bad gig.

The ASM movies is a failure across the board. I think literally they made all the wrong choices. I don't think Garfield would have made a good Peter in the best circumstances but maybe he could have...if the production wasn't rushed, if they had a less confused script, if they had a film-maker capable of more than simply rehashing his twee indie breakthrough movie. Take ASM-1, the main story is Peter's relationship with the Stacy Family -- George and Gwen. The main story adapted in ASM-1 is "The Death of George Stacy", one legitimately great Spider-Man story. The tragedy of George's death was that he was a Uncle Ben figure who validated Peter at the worst and most useless moment possible, and rather than helping Peter it makes things worse for him and Gwen...what does the movie deal with that, make him a teen movie Dad. I mean the movie f--ked up George Stacy worse than that pile of rubble did. I know people complain about the stupidity of the Richard Parker thing and other nonsense, but the main muscle and bones in the movies are just as bad and unservice-able.

As for Emma Stone, I think she would have been better served playing a character rather than simply turn her natural charisma on/off for the sake of the camera. Because her Gwen Stacy is definitely not the character in the comics in any sense, and nobody who ever complained about MJ stealing focus has any ground to defend these movies because Emma Gwen takes stuff out of the movie more than MJ in any incarnation ever did.

That's how I also feel. Spider-Man 2 in particular takes the core concepts behind the character and just tells a simple yet complex human drama story that I find very emotionally strong. Basically it's just a darn well made movie with a lot of personality and valuable themes. I think you can tell how much Raimi was a fan of classic Spidey because 1 and 2 feel like oldschool Spidey tonally.

The title is discussing the first Spider-Man and first ASM movies. I personally have always been of the opinion that Spider-Man 1 is the best of the Raimi films and the best live-action Spider-Man movie over all. I think Spider-Man 2 is dramatically a lot weaker in many essential parts than the first film, albeit it's still a good movie. I think it's definitely a bug and not a feature that they main avenue they have for telling a human drama in a superhero story is remove Peter's powers for the entire first and early second acts so that the actor can have face-time.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I could see Reynolds as an adult adult Spider-Man.

Rudd to me feels like he would be a more cartoony and wacky version of Deadpool.

Garfield is too much of a pretty boy for Ant-Man unless it's, like, Hank Pym in his prime and at his most morose.

You know I saw this Amazon show, The Boys. I think the main lead, Jack Quaid, could also be a good adult Peter Parker. He's got the right personality and he looks a fair bit like the grown-up Peter.