The better Spider-man/Peter Parker? Andrew vs Tobey

[Jexx]

I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew did modify the lines a bit though... As far as I know, Garfield was more invested in Spidey than Maguire.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by Dragon

It isn't Andrew- it's that he was given a script that emphasized these aspects of Peter's character. Andrew didn't write the script and he didn't adlib Peter on the set. It's like the comparison between Bale and Keaton. Bale was given scripts that emphasized more about Bruce Wayne than Keaton was, which is why he's often seen as the better Bruce Wayne even though Keaton is often credited as being the better Batman.

Maguire could have given a strong performance with the Amazing script. It's that simple.

Your last statement is debatable, at best. But I don't like how you've boiled acting down to who gets the best script. The actors do have an impact on performance, y'know?

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by Dragon

It isn't Andrew- it's that he was given a script that emphasized these aspects of Peter's character. Andrew didn't write the script and he didn't adlib Peter on the set. It's like the comparison between Bale and Keaton. Bale was given scripts that emphasized more about Bruce Wayne than Keaton was, which is why he's often seen as the better Bruce Wayne even though Keaton is often credited as being the better Batman.

Maguire could have given a strong performance with the Amazing script. It's that simple.

It's not, though. Andrew embodied the character in a completely different, quirkier way that Maguire would never have replicated, even with the exact same script. The beauty of Andrew's performance was mostly in the non-verbal, probably non-scripted stuff - the tics, the awkward almost-smiles, the behind-the-beat line deliveries - that are notable in many of Garfield's performances, and just so happen to be perfect for the character of Peter Parker.

[Jexx]

My friend whose only experience with Spider-Man is the first three films and my ramblings said that Garfield IS Spider-Man.

[Tony Stark]

I'm not sure, I need to see this film a couple more times. I definitely thought Spider-man could use more bravado in the Raimi films, but at the same time, I wasn't totally sold on Garfield's ghetto spidey.

I thought Garfield was far more convincing in the emotional scenes. Sorry Tobey, you just don't do the crying scenes well. However Maguire was great at showing Peter's quiet compassion, and I thought the effect of Uncle Ben's death was more prevalent with Maguire, but part of that is the script writing.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

Your last statement is debatable, at best. But I don't like how you've boiled acting down to who gets the best script. The actors do have an impact on performance, y'know?

Oh, you mean because Maguire was always credited as being a talented actor? And the script is extremely important. Not that I'm saying the Amazing script is better- it's just that it emphasized things the Spidey 1 script didn't.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

It's not, though. Andrew embodied the character in a completely different, quirkier way that Maguire would never have replicated, even with the exact same script. The beauty of Andrew's performance was mostly in the non-verbal, probably non-scripted stuff - the tics, the awkward almost-smiles, the behind-the-beat line deliveries - that are notable in many of Garfield's performances, and just so happen to be perfect for the character of Peter Parker.

Maguire wouldn't have needed to "replicate" Garfield's performance. No actor should try to replicate someone else's performance. I'm saying that he could have emphasized the characteristics of Garfiled's Spider-Man if required to do so.

As for almost-smiles and behind the beat line delivery- Who says that's perfect for Peter Parker? Where is this in the comics?

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Maguire wouldn't have needed to "replicate" Garfield's performance. No actor should try to replicate someone else's performance. I'm saying that he could have emphasized the characteristics of Garfiled's Spider-Man if required to do so.

As for almost-smiles and behind the beat line delivery- Who says that's perfect for Peter Parker? Where is this in the comics?

The exact point I was making was that it was NOT on the page - it's something Andrew uniquely brought to the role that perfectly suited the character's attributes that were on the page, that is, the character of a brilliant, shy introvert who's got it bad for a girl.

[TheGuy]

LMAO. I'm the only one who voted for Andrew was a better PP, Tobey was a better SM. Tobey was more convincing in showing the "your friendly neighborhood" SM. And his fight scenes were better too. Like the train fight with Doc Ock, and getting pounded b Venom and Sandman.

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

If we want to say who resembles the PP/ SM as shown in comics thenGarfield comes closest.

Garfield looks like modern comic Peter Parker, very slim with raised hair

Tobey has the style of Romita's Peter, not his very early work still using Ditko's hair style, and same build

[Smegger56]

I voted for Andrew as both PP and SM. I was truly invested in this guy and REALLY liked the little touches he brought.

Now could Tobey have done a better job with the same script? I don't know. I don't think so but it's something that can never really be answered.

Andrew seemed so much more in to the character than Maguire was.

[FVD]

I like Tobey Maguire and I suppose he did the best he could with the character of Peter Parker/Spider-Man with what was given, but to me Andrew Garfield wins this contest. And I even like Tobey as an actor too. Thought he was brilliant in Brothers btw.

[Prison Mike]

Originally Posted by dru-zod2501

It's really really hard to vote one or the other for me.

To me Tobey felt like a more 1962 Amazing Fantasy 15 classic style Peter/Spider-Man

To me Andrew felt like a contemporary 21st century version of the character

How can I possibly choose one over the other in terms of characterization?

In terms of how well the movie was done? 2012 spider-man has a clear advantage though

Pretty much 100% agree with this. While I liked and enjoyed TASM, the original Spider-Man still holds a special place in my heart for me. I could still watch the original movie anytime it comes on TV.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

The exact point I was making was that it was NOT on the page - it's something Andrew uniquely brought to the role that perfectly suited the character's attributes that were on the page, that is, the character of a brilliant, shy introvert who's got it bad for a girl.

The characterisitics not being on the comic page is not the same as it not being in the script. And regardless, he had a director on the set guiding his performance. What it comes down to is that you may have simply liked Andrew as a person better. It doesn't mean he was better in the part of Peter Parker. And it definitely doesn't mean that Tobey couldn't have given a strong performance with a script that demanded a more expressive Peter.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Dragon

The characterisitics not being on the comic page is not the same as it not being in the script. And regardless, he had a director on the set guiding his performance. What it comes down to is that you may have simply liked Andrew as a person better. It doesn't mean he was better in the part of Peter Parker. And it definitely doesn't mean that Tobey couldn't have given a strong performance with a script that demanded a more expressive Peter.

A lot of actors actually try something out with the director. This is where the collaboration comes in. If Andrew did something the director likes, the director will keep it. It's seems that alot of improv with actions and some dialogue was used.

They will work on dialogue on the day, how they should move and how the lines should be spoken. The actor can have input and if the dircetor likes it, it stays.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Smegger56

A lot of actors actually try something out with the director. This is where the collaboration comes in. If Andrew did something the director likes, the director will keep it. It's seems that alot of improv with actions and some dialogue was used.

They will work on dialogue on the day, how they should move and how the lines should be spoken. The actor can have input and if the dircetor likes it, it stays.

Some actors do and some don't. It depends on both the actor and the director. And no one here knows what went on on the set. But it still begins with the script as blueprint for the character's performance. I don't think anyone here can suggest that Peter in TASM was written the way Peter was in Raimi's films and Andrew simply re-created the character on the set.

And to be clear- I'm not knocking Andrew. I think he's excellent in the part. I just think it's unfair for people to then spit on Tobey's performance. Fans tend to have a serious "out with the old" mentality and were already declaring Andrew the winner without having seen his performance. Again- two actors with two different directors working from two different scripts.

[Project862006]

^it happens all the time fans like to spit on the past movies even when they are good

nolan fans spit on burton batman just to bring up the nolan batman

[AbsractPo3tic]

Originally Posted by Dragon

It isn't Andrew- it's that he was given a script that emphasized these aspects of Peter's character. Andrew didn't write the script and he didn't adlib Peter on the set. It's like the comparison between Bale and Keaton. Bale was given scripts that emphasized more about Bruce Wayne than Keaton was, which is why he's often seen as the better Bruce Wayne even though Keaton is often credited as being the better Batman.

Maguire could have given a strong performance with the Amazing script. It's that simple.

But it's not just the script. As an actor it's what you do with what you're given and the extra you bring to it. Marc Webb said there were plenty of times Andrew would ad lib or ask could Peter or Spider man do specific things that weren't in the script because he felt he'd do it. Then there are mannerisms, looks, posture. I mean he ad libbed the whole scene with the car thief. To me, he's more of who I know Spidey to be. Just like with Bond, I love Pierce but Daniel Craig's Bond is more in line with my idea of who that character is. It's no diss

[Gianakin_]

To add my 2 cents, had Josh Jackson or Dave Boreanaz been cast as Wayne back in '05, you bet your ass we wouldn't have gotten the same or even similar results.

[Eggyman]

It's good to have something so different. I enjoy the new take a great deal, and from seeing it I now appreciate Tobey, and Raimi's films in general, much more.

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by Project862006

^it happens all the time fans like to spit on the past movies even when they are good

nolan fans spit on burton batman just to bring up the nolan batman

I don't, I love the Nolan movies more than the original series, but the first Batman movie is still my favorite movie of all time, and the sequels are still fun

Don't suppose Spider-Man movies will be any different, especially not with my situation of liking anything Spider-Man, even if it's bad and I initially loathe it

[FrostBite]

Crap, I'm in the minority. Oh well, I honestly think Tobey was a better Spider-man, but Andrew's Peter is just... phenomenal.

[TheScarecrow]

Definitely Garfield. I was expecting a lot of the actors to feel like "imposters", particularly Garfield but it was just seamless. He was so good.

[DarknessOfDeath]

Originally Posted by socool

I hope so, would make this summer quite successful for me. I honestly did not expect to give Spider-Man a 9. Honestly. I'm really surprised that I liked it as much as I did.

I give it a 9.

[LegendAssemble]

They are both great people are praising Andrew Garfield like he is some sort of messiah come to the franchise, but Maguire had some great moments as Spider-Man too. He was just portrayed very differently.

Tobey MaGuire- He's an old fashioned goofy lovable, awkward guy, who has to learn to make the hard choices in life. He's not as nerdy or awkward as he is goofy, and deep down he has a heart of gold. I still think the ending scene of the first Spider-Man film was one of the best ending to any movie I've ever seen, especially when Mary Jane realizes he's Spider-Man from the kiss.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Andrew Garfield- Andrew is a fantastic modernization of Peter Parkers character. He's brainy, but not super geeky and nerdy either, he's just an average kid, who is extremely shy/awkward/and low on self confidence. He reminded me a lot of the protagonist from kick ass. Anyway that being said, I think this was a much better attempt to bring Peter to tha 21st century than what ultimate gave us.

Both actors did a fantastic job with the characterization of Pete they were given, personally I preffer Garfield, but it would be very wrong to say Maguire did a bad job.