Discussion in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' started by iGiFF, Nov 24, 2012.
The big difference is that we saw Tobey going "WOO HOO" while swinging around. Andrew got into the costume while looking for his Uncle Ben's killer, so he wasn't there to enjoy it so much. But when he jumps off the roof top to test his webbing for the first time, he showed some excitement over that. Ultimately, I still say Andrew was superior as Spider-Man. But I do see what you mean about Tobey being more childlike.
Isn't Spider-Man childlike when he is making sarcastic comments and quips as he is fighting bad guys though?
I can see why one would prefer Tobey's Peter Parker over Andrew's, even though I don't. However, I really can't see what Tobey's Spider-Man has over Andrew's in any way.
They both have good qualities, but personally I think Andrew's is more lovable.
I don't even see what was so great about Tobey's Peter. Most of the time he was like a little puppy that you felt you had to take care off. Especially when he was in the same room with Jameson. Andrew's Peter had the balls to speak his mind. I always only ever enjoyed Spider-Man in the Raimi Movies, when it was an action scene. Everything that actually had Tobey and his entire portrayal of Peter Parker, was just subpar to me.
Yah, I've seen many say Bale was the better Bruce Wayne, but I like both really. They nailed both characters perfect, and yes, I am speaking on Bale's Batman as well, lol.
And we feel the opposite when it comes to who was the better Peter Parker and who was the better Spider-Man, lol.
Agreed. Because the Peter of the comics has never been late to anything. LOL He is partly known for always being late to all kinds of events and places. How many dates did he arrived late to and even miss completely?
As for the skateboard, some people like it while others don't. I'm personally in neither camp. What I mean by that is that I don't see why it's in the movie to begin with. What purpose does it serve? What is it means to show other than that one scene where we see him skateboarding like a pro while experimenting with his powers? It served no purpose whatsoever and was really just filler material IMO. It didn't take away from the film but at the same time, it added nothing to the film so it shouldn't have been in the movie at all.
I have yet to see anyone bring up solid reasons to why Raimi's Spider-Man is more like the comics than Webb's Spider-Man. I personally think that anyone who has read the comics is able to tell that. Also, arguments such as "the pacing is too fast" or "the parents subplot is just dropped", whether valid or not, are irrelevant to the film looking at it from an adaptation point of view (which is what we're discussing now). What exactly makes Raimi's take on Peter/Spider-Man more accurate to the source material than Webb's? I'm willing to listen.
I don't really have a big problem with about half the stuff I brought up in that paragraph. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. You can't say that Garfield's Peter is a *****e and that Maguire's Peter isn't when, going by the logic of the people that call Garfield's Peter a *****e, Maguire's Peter is also a *****e and an even bigger one (I'm not saying you specifically called him a *****e but you get the idea).
As a side note, for all the people comparing Tobey and Andrew's portrayals of Spider-Man and saying that Andrew's was superior because he quipped like Spidey does, I would like to say that that alone is not the only reason why I find Andrew's version to be superior. He also is more agile, seems stronger (ironic since Tobey's Peter was in his 20's), and overall moves a lot more like how Spider-Man moves and on top of that, he also uses his wits while in battle. Basically, there is a lot more to Andrew's performance being better than Tobey's performance than just "he quips more than Tobey".
I see it as...
Keaton was a great Batman but a horrible Bruce Wayne.
Bale was a great Bruce Wayne and a good Batman.
Keaton nailed it as Batman while Bale nailed it as Bruce Wayne. I find Keaton's Bruce Wayne to probably be the worst Bruce Wayne in live-action since he portrayed him the exact opposite way he is portrayed - stiff, awkward, a shut-in recluse, etc. But to be fair, that is also the script's fault.
Although I like Bale's Batman, the reason I say it's good and not great is because it's not the ideal Batman performance I imagine. When I look at roles like RDJ as Iron Man, Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man, and Christopher Reeves as Superman, I see those roles as perfect casting and can't even imagine better actors for those roles. This does not mean that these actors will never be topped in these roles but that my mind is simply not able to imagine better actors for these parts until I see another actor coming in and proving me wrong. I don't get that with Bale's Batman. Though I really liked him in the role, I can definitely imagine a better actor for the part even if it isn't too big of an improvement over Bale. He could start by having a better "Bat-voice" that sounds frightening but also natural.
Keaton and Bale were very different with their portrayals as Bruce and Batman, but I still definitely appreciate and like both of them as the iconic characters. Very different, but also very interesting.
Keaton had a more brooding Batman that spoke in a whisper, really and acted like a brooding Bruce Wayne as well.
Bale had a rage-filled Batman stalk the streets of Gotham City while playing as this fake playboy billionaire who was only brooding infront of his trusty Butler.
He has his flaws,which every teenager should have
Tobey's Peter and the one in the comics were almost flawless,maybe thats why you feel that way
Peter Parker always had his bad luck.
-Artificial Web Shooters
-Body Figure is more on par(imo)
-More agile than strong(Thats how it should be for Spidey)
-Better relationship with his Love-interest
-Works at Daily Bugle
-More of a nerd(imo)
-More of a Photographer
-Has a better relationship with his Uncle and Aunt
Some people might see some positives as negatives or viceversa
I myself prefer Webb's Spidey/Peter myself but I think the difference is not that much
I mean his behavior
He didnt reveal Goblin's identity just because he promised him,any other man(And I believe Andrew's Peter also) would go '**** you! buddy,your father was a homicidal maniac who murdered half a dozen people'
Oh? Pretty surprising that you prefer Andrew as either one though you aren't really a hater so constructive criticism wasn't that unexpectable
Well, he is, but (referring to the car jacker scene) it's more like mean taunting than kidding around, he comes off as bit of a bully actually. I'm sure that it was planned to be that way and he had to be like that since he was hunting his uncle's killer, but if you think about it, Spidey is not exactly like that. I'm sure that he will be evolved as a character and be more comfortable with being Spider-Man, and having a more pure trickster quality
I would say that the closest thing to classic trickster Spidey was in the basketball scene, and there he didn't even throw out any puns! Again, in the car jacker scene his behaviour was affected by the anger that he held inside, but that's a plot point so I'll give it a pass
I bet if Marvel Studios ever makes their own Spider-Man, some people are gonna still be not satisfied, and will ***** and compare all 3 Peter Parkers like right now.
If Marvel studios made a Spider-Man movie (and they couldn't cast Andrew) they should cast Reece Thompson. He has the "Peter quality" in his looks, he has the proper voice for Peter, and having seen a few of his newest films he can do drama really good
Ehh, maybe. I can't really say Andrew's Peter would do something such as this unless he had to reveal the Goblin's identity as Tobey's Peter had to do with Harry who wanted to kill Spider-Man.
Lol, yah, I actually preferred Andrew's Spider-Man much more, but Tobey's Peter Parker. It's weird, because there's always this major thing that I feel is missing with both cinematic versions.
I had a talk with my brother earlier and we were talking about the perfect Spider-Man film would still be to mesh Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man and Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker, and I feel that if Marvel Studios ever got the character back, they would make a fantastic version that would mix the better versions of Spidey and Peter.
I still don't think the MCU films are as "perfect" as people make them out to be, and not as accurate as fans claim them to be. Thor didn't have his human counter-part Donald Blake, Tony Stark got drunk ONCE when he is supposed to be an alcoholic, Jarvis is AI and not a human being, Pepper Pots and Happy Hogan are portrayed differently, Abomination looks very different from the comic books, the costumes are different for SHIELD, etc.
Honestly, other than Iron Man 1 and the Avengers, the rest were kind of "meh." The Amazing Spider-Man IMO was better than most of the solo films.
I do tend to stumble alot when when I'm nervous so I liked it, but at the same time Andrew's almost constant stumbling kinda wore me down a bit. Toby would stumble but not all the time. For the most part when he was talking with MJ in the first one he actually held conversations with her. I know I'm kinda exaterating but it really felt like 80 % of Andrew's dialog with Gwen was just him stubling and muttering.
In the beginning, he stumbled and muttered with her, but after he told her he was Spider-Man, he had actual conversations with her.
well, i stumble a lot when i talk to strangers but when i can talk to people i know normally
There's nothing wrong with adapting something and making it work such as Jarvis being an AI, or Thor not having a human counter-part with there being no reason(especially with the updated career for Jane Foster), Tony Stark only getting drunk once when it was said we'll never get a story of Iron Man being a real alcoholic, Abomination looking different in a 'real' setting of his creation, and blah, blah, blah.
If we are to talk about not being perfect like the comics, do you really want to bring the idea of perfection in a thread for The Amazing Spider-Man?
Plus, while Iron Man and The Avengers are really the only, imo, 9 out of 10 films in the MCU, Captain America and Thor are still 8 out of 10 with Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk being 7 out of 10.....still, and once again imo, better than my 6/10 rating for TAS-M.
^I think what he is trying to say is that people (including yourself apparently) give a pass to all the MCU films when they make updates and changes to the source material but if Peter Parker owns one skateboard, then everybody loses their minds
The problem is I don't. I've only given a pass to how MCU uses Tony Stark/Iron Man, Steve Rogers/Captain America and Thor because I love how those superheroes are being used, lol. Never said anything else about the films being perfect
Although, yes, seeing the montage of Peter practicing his powers with a skateboard was something I definitely wasn't a fan of.
It just seemed like you do, because you said, "If we are to talk about not being perfect like the comics, do you really want to bring the idea of perfection in a thread for The Amazing Spider-Man?"
Also, you said there is nothing wrong with adapting something when talking about MCU films, when certain people (not including you this time) talk about how unfaithful TASM is with this skating Peter.