World Tobey Maguire vs Andrew Garfield: Dawn of Who's Better

[Johnny-Oh]

I also wonder if Garfield fans fall, primarily within a certain age bracket.

Yes they do

Tbh, I think Andrew was the better Spider-Man, while Tobey was the better Peter Parker.

Why do you think Andrew was a better Spidey?

 

[harryoscop]

Yes they do



Why do you think Andrew was a better Spidey?

I guess it's because he was a wise-cracker. (Although his jokes could be annoying at times).

 

[Erzengel]

I like how you don't agree with Bronze Goblin.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Yep. I felt like Andrew's Peter was a little too cocky/uptight..I don't know, Tobey felt more like a real person.

Maybe the new reboot really does need a fine blend between the two versions.
Andrew's Peter is fine most of the time, imo.

 

[Human Torch]

I think age is probably a factor. I think that video from Sam said it best. A lot of Garfield fans wish they were Garfield's Peter Parker, when in reality they are more like Tobey's Peter. And it offends them to compare themselves to Tobey's Peter, so they have to dream up reasons why Tobey's Peter was so awful.

 

[spiderman2]

I also wonder if Garfield fans fall, primarily within a certain age bracket.

What makes you think that? Also if you want to go there dose certain aged group like asm movies more then the rami ones? Dose certain age group like the raimi sm movies more? Also I beat like 80-90% of people that like tobey better are people that loved the raimi movies and hated the asm movies? I beat that most people that liked the web movies and that also liked the raimi movies like garfiled way more like me. I beat that most people that don't really care much for either siears like Garfield more. The only reason people like tobey more is because he has the better movies that is it. Its hard for people to like a guy more when he is consider to be in much worse movies even though he was way way better then the guy who was in the better movies. There is a reason that Garfield got prased in like ever critis review not matter how bad the over all reviews where and that was because he was great. With the way people act on hear you would almost think Garfield was George clonney bad yet the critis reviews say another wise.

 

[Erzengel]

This site is primarily for late teens, early twenties in general. That's the medium age. So, yeah, you see a lot of newer posters who's joined between 2012-2014 who seem to be passionate about about Garfield, Webb and TASM franchise. It's not that far to surmise that they are in that age group. And most of the older posters here who were probably in the same age group in 2002, that's what they grew up. But before the whole "nostalgia" bias argument is brought up, at least the 1st 2 SM movies were well received both critically and financially.

I think it's sort like the whole kool-aid thing, that Garfield is more of this "hip" or "this generation's Spider-Man" that that age group finds appealing? Plus, he's a good looking cat and I think a lot of people are enamored with the "love story" and find him relatable or identifiable.

Meanwhile, the movies he are in especially the 2nd movie is pretty maligned by the geek community, something you don't really have with any of the top tier movies.

 

[Fincher]

I don't know how the demographics fall, but I'm in my mid-thirties, and I think Garfield is easily better than Maguire.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Some people didn't even need to watch TASM to love Andrew, I saw a lot of fanboys defending him before the film was even released, I seriously don't understand that.

 

[spiderman2]

This site is primarily for late teens, early twenties in general. That's the medium age. So, yeah, you see a lot of newer posters who's joined between 2012-2014 who seem to be passionate about about Garfield, Webb and TASM franchise. It's not that far to surmise that they are in that age group. And most of the older posters here who were probably in the same age group in 2002, that's what they grew up. But before the whole "nostalgia" bias argument is brought up, at least the 1st 2 SM movies were well received both critically and financially.

I think it's sort like the whole kool-aid thing, that Garfield is more of this "hip" or "this generation's Spider-Man" that that age group finds appealing? Plus, he's a good looking cat and I think a lot of people are enamored with the "love story" and find him relatable or identifiable.

Meanwhile, the movies he are in especially the 2nd movie is pretty maligned by the geek community, something you don't really have with any of the top tier movies.

I don't get how we can really now the % of people on hear that are say 18-20, 25-30 ect. Its not like we see there age when they post stuff so I don't really get how you can come to that.

I don't know how the demographics fall, but I'm in my mid-thirties, and I think Garfield is easily better than Maguire.

Same only I am not mid thirties mid 20's going to be 26 in a few months.

 

[spiderman2]

Some people didn't even need to watch TASM to love Andrew, I saw a lot of fanboys defending him before the film was even released, I seriously don't understand that.

Hum I don't know how you can come up with that a lot of people didn't even now who he was before asm.

 

[LizardMan07]

This site is primarily for late teens, early twenties in general. That's the medium age. So, yeah, you see a lot of newer posters who's joined between 2012-2014 who seem to be passionate about about Garfield, Webb and TASM franchise. It's not that far to surmise that they are in that age group. And most of the older posters here who were probably in the same age group in 2002, that's what they grew up. But before the whole "nostalgia" bias argument is brought up, at least the 1st 2 SM movies were well received both critically and financially.

I think it's sort like the whole kool-aid thing, that Garfield is more of this "hip" or "this generation's Spider-Man" that that age group finds appealing? Plus, he's a good looking cat and I think a lot of people are enamored with the "love story" and find him relatable or identifiable.

Meanwhile, the movies he are in especially the 2nd movie is pretty maligned by the geek community, something you don't really have with any of the top tier movies.

Spot on.

Most Garfield fans are 18-24 I'd say

 

[Spider-Fan]

Hum I don't know how you can come up with that a lot of people didn't even now who he was before asm.

Plenty here did. I remember those days. All I heard when he was cast was "Watch Social Network!" Watched it. Jesse Eisenberg = amazing. Garfield = He was okay. Same applied for me in the Spidey films. He was okay. Not a fan of the version of Parker overall, but my issues with it are not all on him.

 

[random_havoc]

I don't know how the demographics fall, but I'm in my mid-thirties, and I think Garfield is easily better than Maguire.

Ditto

 

[Erzengel]

I don't get how we can really now the % of people on hear that are say 18-20, 25-30 ect. Its not like we see there age when they post stuff so I don't really get how you can come to that.

It is a generalization. There's always exceptions.

It's a segue from the whole kool aid discussion.

 

[Victarion]

25 years old, and I have to say Garfield is my preference. I could relate to his high school Peter was more than Tobey's. So almost within that range.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Hum I don't know how you can come up with that a lot of people didn't even now who he was before asm.

I didn't "come up" with that, it actually happened! I had a bunch of arguments with people who were defending Andrew solely on the trailers and Sony's statements about TASM being more accurate to the comics, its pathetic but true.

 

[Victarion]

That's a terrible reason to defend anything.

 

[Keehar]

Late 20's and think Garfield's version sucked bad. There is like nothing I enjoyed about his version. It was all wrong for Spider-Man. I like Garfield as an actor but he was given some severe crud to work with in those two movies.

 

[harryoscop]

17 and I think Andrew was the better Spider-Man, while Tobey was the better Peter Parker.

 

[Thoix]

23 here and I think Tobey was the better Peter Parker and Spider-Man.

 

[Daltonio]

21 and I think Andrew was the better Spidey and especially Peter.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

21 and I think Tobey was the best Spidey/Peter while Garfield was the best Eduardo Saverin.

 

[W/ Great Power]

23 and I believe Tobey was better both as Peter and Spidey.

I understand the main complaint about Tobey was his version of Spider-Man. People can refer to Garfield's confidence as Spidey and his quips, but if you look at Tobey's Spidey overall, he was better. He still had the "woo-hoo's" and occasional jokes that were enough for me. You could still tell that Tobey's Peter had fun as Spider-Man and was able to embody a side that he didn't have without the mask. I was able to understand that there was another side that was being released when he was Spidey, but it wasn't to the point where it was expressed at the expense of the entire situation around him (refer to the Rhino chase in TASM2).

I've gone back multiple times to watch the OT and TASM films, and every time I come away with the same impression.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

28, I like 'em both equally.