Homecoming Tobey Maguire Vs. Andrew Garfield Vs. Tom Holland: who is the best Spidey?

[King23DC]

Spider-Man: Garfield
Peter Parker: McGuire

Holland > Both

 

[AnneFan]

Spider-Man: Garfield
Peter Parker: McGuire

Holland > Both

That's what we hope.

 

[scarlet-witch]

Tom. I never expected to like anyone better than Tobey. Andrew, while I love him as an actor was too old to be Spiderman. (I realize Tobey wasn't a teen either, but I was a kid when the first Spiderman was released so I bought it)

I can't wait to see how Tom does in his own film.

 

[jasontodd]

Tom Holland, hands down. And I disagree that it's too soon. All the evidence I need it's right there on every second he shows up on Captain America: Civil War. Even if his solos were completely crap - and they won't be - as long as the Russo Brothers get him to be that amazing with the Avengers films, I'll be in superhero movie heaven.

How can you possibly know that his solos won't be completely crap? They very well could be, considering they are changing more than any previous film incarnation has. It remains to be seen whether it will eventually work, let alone be any good. It's funny how the blind faith in this film covers all manner of sins. This movie has more major and minor characters than Spider-Man 3 and just as many villians, yet Spider-Man 3 was overstuffed and had too many villians. John Watts is an unknown and unproven director "known" for 1 feature film. Marc Webb was an unknown and unproven director that was "known" for one feature film. Yet again, there's this blind faith that an unproven director who has never made a Superhero film will undoubtedly deliver a classic? Yet many people were not just skeptical but also negative in regards to Webb's ability to even direct a film, let alone a Spider-Man film. Even after the Amazing Spider-Man, there were many that said see he didn't know what to do with a big budget or special effects. Which is partially accurate, and likely applies to Watts as well for his first outing.

With that said
1.Garfield
2. Maguire
3. Holland

 

[Avenging Angel]

1. Maguire
2. Garfield
3. Holland

I have special respect for the original films, Garfield is decent, came close. Holland isn't my cup of tea.

 

[zipzip]

1.Holland
2.Maguire
3.Garfield

 

[harryoscop]

I voted for Tom..

 

[DOBSON10]

1. Garfield






2. Holland


3. Cardboard cutout of Spiderman


4. MaGuire

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Decided to vote before the poll gets locked.

Andrew Garfield tops as both sides.

Tobey Maguire was a great Spidey.

Tom Holland is overrated.

 

[Ninjablade]

Garfield
Maguire
Holland

I just really loved Garfield in the role, I think he really brought the youth and enjoyment feeling to Spider-Man. The characterization of Peter wasn't great, but I don't put that on him. I think overall Garfield is probably the best actor of the bunch anyway. I wish we got to see more of him in the role.

Tobey has that nostalgia factor, and he really did embody Peter. His Spider-Man also had this very heroic feel to him. And I know that his screams are kind of looked at as a joke, but I really do think he some of them were genuinely great. Ones like when the Goblin throws him into the abandoned building or when his web-shooters stop working for the first time and he falls. They just screamed (no pun intended) genuine fear. I don't think anyone will be able to top that.

I think Tom needs more to really judge his portrayal. He wasn't bad, but it didn't wow me in theaters. I think some of his delivery doesn't have charm, and he does need to work a little on his American accent. I think he can bring a lot over time.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

1. Garfield






2. Holland


3. Cardboard cutout of Spiderman


4. MaGuire

Reasons or just more Raimi hate?

 

[PeterBenParker]

Voted, despite wanting to wait.

1. Garfield
2. Maguire
3. Holland

Garfield because I really connected with his Peter and Spidey. He was awkward, he was alone, he cared about his family and interacted with 'em naturally. He was smart but not in-your-face smart and I bought that this Peter could also pull on a mask and spit wise-cracks. Most importantly, he felt like a real hero out of all of 'em but not without flaws. Also, his Spider-Man felt like a real person. He interacted with his city more than Maguire ever did. Also, he had a good balance of Ultimate, 616 (in terms of looks) and a bit of his own flare.

Maguire felt like classic 616 Peter brought to life on the big screen, both in and out of the costume. He was boyish, awkward, weird and smart (though not nearly as smart as Garfield was). His interactions with Aunt May had to have been my favorite of the entire trilogy. His Spider-Man was heroic yet quiet. Not much for quipping as some other versions (both in live action, cartoons and comics) which I accept now because it wasn't much of a takeaway.

Also, I grew up watching his Spider-Man (and playing with the movie tie-in games) so nostalgia factor is added.

Holland is last because he's just unproven. There's nothing much to take away from his portrayal. What I can comment on his portrayal is that it clearly wasn't for me in Civil War. While I initially enjoyed it, I can't really like it as much upon rewatching it. His portrayal was very removed from what I know/knew of Peter Parker. Really naive as Peter Parker and really annoying as Spider-Man. People used that as a con for Garfield's portrayal but I felt like it was really evident here. Felt a lot like the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

Isn't a hallmark of Spidey how annoying he is/can be to others?

 

[PeterBenParker]

Isn't a hallmark of Spidey how annoying he is/can be to others?

Yeah, but it was borderline obnoxious to me. Hence why I compared it to USM, but at least he didn't break the fourth wall or make ridiculous faces.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I agree that Holland is still very much unproven however I can't even compare it to the USM cartoon. That show is damn unwatchable and has the worst Spider-Man to date, in any medium.

I was impressed with Tom's take and think it's a great start. His Spider-Man is simply inexperienced...NOT irresponsible, selfish, and outright annoying like the cartoon USM version.

To each their own, bud, hope things turn around for you with Homecoming.

 

[PeterBenParker]

To each their own, bud, hope things turn around for you with Homecoming.

Appreciate it, man.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

I agree that Holland is still very much unproven however I can't even compare it to the USM cartoon. That show is damn unwatchable and has the worst Spider-Man to date, in any medium.

I was impressed with Tom's take and think it's a great start. His Spider-Man is simply inexperienced...NOT irresponsible, selfish, and outright annoying like the cartoon USM version.

To each their own, bud, hope things turn around for you with Homecoming.

Pretty much all of this. I've never sat through a whole USM episode. To think we could have had multiple seasons and movies of SSM... sigh.

And yeah, hope you like the next installment of the Holland franchise better Petey ole boy.

I'm not ready to crown Holland yet (that's putting the cart miles ahead of the horse--I haven't voted yet) but I thought he was commendable in the role myself. Really enjoyed it, although I agree his accent needs some work.

 

[Chesterfield]

The Raimi movies really disappointed me, in fact I waa gutted after the first film and it only got worse with the sequels which is why my disposition towards comicbook movies now are far more flexible. I've had more than enough time to adjust and come to terms with certain changes. That being said, there's a lot to appreciate in the Raimi movies but there's a tonne of ******** too; and one of the issues I had was with Maguire. His character as Peter was executed in the most mediocre way possible and they characterised him as overbearing lyrics pathetic. I mean seriously, Harry Potter had more of a back bone than Peter Parker and I'm talking philosopher's stone era.

Garfield was too much of a *****e and was often unlikable. His humour was hit and miss for me but he was too bratty for my liking. He lacked the prerequisite of a certain degree of earnestness that Peter has.

Tom Holland is by far my favourite of the 3 interpretations. His screen time in CW managed to show him as both Peter and Spider-Man with an accuracy so close to the comics and cartoons that Maguire and Garfield came nowhere close to matching.

 

[Web-Head]

1. Garfield






2. Holland


3. Cardboard cutout of Spiderman


4. MaGuire

Garfield
Maguire
Holland

I just really loved Garfield in the role, I think he really brought the youth and enjoyment feeling to Spider-Man. The characterization of Peter wasn't great, but I don't put that on him. I think overall Garfield is probably the best actor of the bunch anyway. I wish we got to see more of him in the role.

Tobey has that nostalgia factor, and he really did embody Peter. His Spider-Man also had this very heroic feel to him. And I know that his screams are kind of looked at as a joke, but I really do think he some of them were genuinely great. Ones like when the Goblin throws him into the abandoned building or when his web-shooters stop working for the first time and he falls. They just screamed (no pun intended) genuine fear. I don't think anyone will be able to top that.

I think Tom needs more to really judge his portrayal. He wasn't bad, but it didn't wow me in theaters. I think some of his delivery doesn't have charm, and he does need to work a little on his American accent. I think he can bring a lot over time.

Voted, despite wanting to wait.

1. Garfield
2. Maguire
3. Holland

Garfield because I really connected with his Peter and Spidey. He was awkward, he was alone, he cared about his family and interacted with 'em naturally. He was smart but not in-your-face smart and I bought that this Peter could also pull on a mask and spit wise-cracks. Most importantly, he felt like a real hero out of all of 'em but not without flaws. Also, his Spider-Man felt like a real person. He interacted with his city more than Maguire ever did. Also, he had a good balance of Ultimate, 616 (in terms of looks) and a bit of his own flare.

Maguire felt like classic 616 Peter brought to life on the big screen, both in and out of the costume. He was boyish, awkward, weird and smart (though not nearly as smart as Garfield was). His interactions with Aunt May had to have been my favorite of the entire trilogy. His Spider-Man was heroic yet quiet. Not much for quipping as some other versions (both in live action, cartoons and comics) which I accept now because it wasn't much of a takeaway.

Also, I grew up watching his Spider-Man (and playing with the movie tie-in games) so nostalgia factor is added.

Holland is last because he's just unproven. There's nothing much to take away from his portrayal. What I can comment on his portrayal is that it clearly wasn't for me in Civil War. While I initially enjoyed it, I can't really like it as much upon rewatching it. His portrayal was very removed from what I know/knew of Peter Parker. Really naive as Peter Parker and really annoying as Spider-Man. People used that as a con for Garfield's portrayal but I felt like it was really evident here. Felt a lot like the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.

Pretty much agree with all of this. I think it says a lot about Garfield as an actor that he's in 2nd in this poll. Obviously Holland was going to win, but the fact that Andrew's movies weren't as critically acclaimed, but yet, imo, embodied the character so well. A lot of the criticism he receives can mostly be pointed at the script and some of the direction they wanted to take.

Holland is my #2 behind Andrew, but that could change after Homecoming, but I'd be surprised if it does.

 

[harryoscop]

The Raimi movies really disappointed me, in fact I waa gutted after the first film and it only got worse with the sequels which is why my disposition towards comicbook movies now are far more flexible. I've had more than enough time to adjust and come to terms with certain changes. That being said, there's a lot to appreciate in the Raimi movies but there's a tonne of ******** too; and one of the issues I had was with Maguire. His character as Peter was executed in the most mediocre way possible and they characterised him as overbearing lyrics pathetic. I mean seriously, Harry Potter had more of a back bone than Peter Parker and I'm talking philosopher's stone era.

Garfield was too much of a *****e and was often unlikable. His humour was hit and miss for me but he was too bratty for my liking. He lacked the prerequisite of a certain degree of earnestness that Peter has.

Tom Holland is by far my favourite of the 3 interpretations. His screen time in CW managed to show him as both Peter and Spider-Man with an accuracy so close to the comics and cartoons that Maguire and Garfield came nowhere close to matching.

Do you mind elaborating on this point? Because Holland wasn't anymore close to the comics than Garfield was. Maybe Maguire but definitely not Garfield. As a matter of fact, going by his Spidey in Civil War, i'd say he was less accurate to the comics than the previous Spider-Man.

 

[Chesterfield]

For me, Holland captured the spirit of the character from the comics and cartoons better than his predecessors and was far more enjoyable to watch. He had an awkwardness about him that wasn't overplayed and he had the playful charisma that never became obnoxious. His quips and delivery were on point and his overall mannerisms just appealed to me more.

 

[harryoscop]

For me, Holland captured the spirit of the character from the comics and cartoons better than his predecessors and was far more enjoyable to watch. He had an awkwardness about him that wasn't overplayed and he had the playful charisma that never became obnoxious. His quips and delivery were on point and his overall mannerisms just appealed to me more.

In that case, I agree. I love the energy, youth and mannerisms Tom brings to the role. I love his delivery of the quips and his Peter (by himself) i'd say is the most accurate we've seen. My one and only HUGE problem with this Spider-Man is how he's treated as Stark's puppet boy and I didn't want to see this after I saw the movie the first time, hence why I voted for Tom because his Spidey is the closest to how I always wanted to see him.

If Spidey is not Tony's errand boy; if they let him grow a backbone, and become independent of Stark in Homecoming, Tom's will easily become the definitive portrayal of Spider-Man for me. But I doubt that's happening-- with him telling Peter when when to suit up in Homecoming.. What actual ****? Sigh.

Essentially Stark is Spider-Man's pimp in this universe. It makes me soo mad that Marvel/Russos/RDJ did this to him.

 

[Chesterfield]

Yeah, I understand the whole Tony thing. I too would prefer if Peter wasn't so puppeteerd by Stark but so far I'm ok with it. I just hope things don't get carried away for Homecoming because Peter as a character is a force in his own right and with Spidey now included as part of the MCU, he needs to shine like the emblem he is for Marvel. That being said, I am looking forward to see more of the Tony/Peter relationship dynamic, particularly sharing intellectual anecdotes.

 

[CyclopsSummers]

Holland and Garfield are the most funny like comics Spidey, Tobey played a dramatic Spidey. I like all them

 

[lililatigresse]

1. Holland
2. Maguire
3. Garfield

I think Garfield is a really good actor but he lacked a really important quality to really be Peter Parker: I have to admit that he was not really likeable (and I think Asa Butterfield would have been another Garfield).
Maguire was likeable in a goofy way, Holland is charming. Holland is also a better actor than Maguire.

Holland easily for me.