Ah changing argument tactics now since your original argument has just been factually disproven. Classic tactic to attempt to wriggle out of a corner you backed yourself into.
You were not talking quips. You were talking some false rubbish about him only having about three lines of dialogue in the whole movie. You were proven wrong. Now you're attempting to change the discussion into a quippage one. Ok I'll play along with that. Yeah Garfield's Spider-Man said more quips, no denying it, but the bulk of them were woefully bad and cringe worthy. That makes him sound like an idiot.
I would take any of that dialogue in SM-2 over the cringe worthy 'quips' like "Laundry Sheriff", "A god named sparkles", "You've been a baaaaaad Lizard" etc. You could find better one liners on the back of a cereal box.
Even the 60's Spider-Man cartoon had better quality quips than that kindergarten dialogue.
This is really funny coming from someone who has to change his argument stance because he was proven wrong to begin with. Defending the indefensible.....pot meet kettle - you're black.
Maguire's Peter and Spider-Man was much better and more likable than Garfield's. One of many reasons why his movies are more popular, successful, and well received. A sucky leading hero that the movies revolve around so much just doesn't reach the heights of success and acclaim Raimi's movies have. That would turn audiences and critics away. Whereas TASM is as good as it got for Garfield, and even that one didn't come close to Raimi's first two movies. I can't imagine why since Garfield's Peter had more quips, which is clearly the main line of 'defense' for him supposedly being better and closer to the comic book
