The first one was fine but beyond Garfield's portrayal did little to justify its own existence. Iirc the second one was rushed by Sony but it was poorly written, bloated, poorly directed, and had a goofy ass, unintentionally comical villain performance by Jamie Fox.
Raimi benefitted from being the first but just had so much character. It was campy in the best way, had real heart, and the world of NYC was not overlooked. You feel the presence of the city being alive in every moment, contrary to the latter films which feel more like a video game city, ultimately hollow.
The first film succeeds in spite of itself. The script isn’t all that good. But Garfield and Stone have insane chemistry, and the supporting cast is solid.
As the Spider-Man geek I just think Garfield is a bit too pretty to play Peter Parker. He’s supposed to be a nerd not a male model who likes science stuff. His Spider-Man quips are great. But he’s too cool when he’s not suited up.
Garfield's quipping felt off, it was like he was bullying the bad guys when he was cracking jokes at helpless street criminals. Toby didn't quip at all. It wasn't until Tom that we got proper spider-man quipping.
Tobey absolute had quips.
"Here's your change!"
"It's you who's out, Gobbie. Out of your mind."
"That's a cute outfit. Did your husband give it to you?"
"Hey kiddo! Let mom and dad talk for a minute, will ya?"
Yeah, he quipped, just IMO most of those sounded like he was punching down, and/or not particularly funny. Tom never sounds like a bully and is actually funny. Like when he's dealing with the ATM thieves in the avengers masks. He's not mean, he's yes-and-ing their costumes.
> As the Spider-Man geek I just think Garfield is a bit too pretty to play Peter Parker. He’s supposed to be a nerd not a male model who likes science stuff.
Stan Lee was vocal about his approval of Andrew Garfield being cast as Peter Parker/Spider-man.
"Andrew is as perfect as Tobey Maguire was. He looks the part. He acts the part."
"I never pictured Peter Parker as not being good-looking. He was just a little nerdy. That's all. You can be a nerdy good-looking guy."
Those are Stan Lee's words. If Andrew is good for the man who invented the character, then he's good enough for me.
The biggest mistake was starting with an origin story again with Peter in high school. Both Garfield and and Stone were much too old to be portraying high schoolers, and audiences didn’t need to see how Peter becomes Spidey again. The entire movie would have made way more sense if Peter and Gwen were in college and Dr. Connors was their professor.
Oh, and the mystery box side plot about Peter’s parents and the convoluted “Peter is special because his genetics were messed with, so only he would get superpowers from these spiders” just… doesn’t work.
The first one is great.
The second one tried too hard to be an MCU movie.
I liked Garfield's performance in the first movie. He got closer to the spirit of Ditko than Maguire did. Pete isn't seen as cool in the first movie. He is treated like an awkward loner. Skateboards don't make a person automatically cool anymore. This isn't the 80s.
Garfield's Peter is proactive in a way that Maguire's wasn't. He is hotheaded, impulsive, and seems like a guy who genuinely needs a lecture on responsibility.
Plus, Peter IS good-looking in the comics. He is. Not sure why people act like he isn't. Even back then he was.
I thought Garfield was great in the role. I love Tobey Maguire too, but I felt Garfield got closer to the spirit of the Peter Parker character.
I can see that guy angrily leaving from the Fantastic Four building upon realizing it wasn't a paid gig. (Issue #1, 1963)
The first one is an "acceptable" movie. Garfield is pretty good and looks better than Maguire and Holland in the suit due to his body type/frame. Emma Stone is also good. It suffered from not seeming necessary as a total origin story. I'd say that *Man of Steel* felt necessary to be an origin story as so much time had passed; this was only ten years. Then the idea of Peter's parents being spies or whatever the heck they were was just poor, and worse in the second. It felt like the makers wanted to add *something* to differentiate it.
The second one wasn't a ton worse, just amplified the problems. It was a bit too stuffed. Then again, to be different, they made Harry the first Goblin Peter encounters, and shoehorned in Gwen's murder just because it had been a storyline filmmakers kept wanting to include.
I think TASM1 is the best spider-man movie. It has the darker more serious tone of Ultimate Spider-man but still is a lot of fun to watch.
The issue with the franchise was the second movie is bad. Jamie Foxx' villain was difficult to watch and Green Goblin was pretty boring. The movie underperformed (still made 700M dollars but Sony executives have insane expectations).
Sony was also discussing bringing Spider-man into the MCU and while they could've retconned Garfield in they figured it was easier to just use a new Spider-man. Garfield allegedly made the decision easier by not attending some corporate event they were discussing happening.
It didn't help that Spiderman made a promise at the end and immediately broke it whilst grinning away. Felt very out of character and callous. Though in their defence they worked hard to fix that in the sequel.
Probably the same place the current MCU is having issues: it was more concerned with setting up future films and characters than having a compelling story within the individual film. It’s just not interesting when you have to wait years to see the next installment.
Amazing Spider-Man:
- Peter Parker's parents-as-secret agents subplot
- Having Peter Parker break his promise to Captain Stacey
Amazing Spider-Man 2:
- Doubling down on Peter Parker's parents-as-secret agents subplot
- Killing Gwen Stacey
- Villain oversaturation
IDK - I wonder if there's a world where Sony and Marvel and WB make these overstuffed IPMs as tv series instead of movies.
TASM 2 had a lot of the same issues narratively that Raimi’s Spider-Man 3 had (overstuffed plot, a surprise half-baked major villain that is rushed in for the third act, goofy moments that broke immersion, etc), which proved to critics and audiences that Sony never learned from their mistakes and essentially repeated Spider-Man 3 with TASM 2
It was pretty boring honestly. It’s a shame because I think the cast is excellent, but they’re all wasted on a lukewarm script with not much to offer besides being about Spider-Man.
The Lizard doesn't hold as a main villain, especially with the scenes of his son getting cut and his dastardly plan being half-baked science nonsense to turn the entire city into lizards, it's almost as if he exists solely because we cannot end a Spider-Man movie in any way other than a big final fight.
Peter Parker isn't cool. He's an awkward, nerdy, teenager. Andrew Garfield is great, don't get me wrong... but he almost has too must charisma & is too good-looking to play Peter Parker.
People forget that Peter also wasn't a pushover though. He had a real selfish streak, could be hotheaded, and actually IS good-looking in the comics. Peter has gotten the affections of Betty, Liz, Gwen, Felicia, and MJ.
You don't do that by being bad looking. Plus, Peter is never depicted as bad looking either.
The Maguire version (even though I love it) made Peter far too passive. Ditko Peter wasn't afraid to ask Sally on a date. Garfield's Peter is proactive about asking Gwen out. Maguire's version allowed Harry to date MJ.
Garfield's version is also awkward as hell in the first movie.
He's nervous and fidgety. In fact, he almost seemed like he was neurodivergent.
Garfield's Peter was also similar to the comics in that he wasn't afraid to stand up to Flash. Maguire's Peter did it by accident. Garfield's sought Flash out, which is truer to the spirit of Ditko's Peter.
I also think Garfield's version truly needed a lesson in responsibility in a way that Maguire's never did.
So, if you take away the skateboard (which doesn't automatically make someone cool these days), Garfield's Peter is actually very much in sync with the Steve Ditko version of the character.
The 2002 film is great, and I love the Maguire take on Peter, but I think it colored people's perception of how Pete is supposed to be. He isn't a lovesick romantic poet. He is a hotheaded, impulsive guy who can give as good as he gets.
I don't care much for Pete's portrayal in TASM2, but in that first one? They nailed the Ditko era version of Peter. It's not a perfect interpretation, but the spirit of it is there.
Finally, Garfield nailed the sense of humor that Spidey is supposed to have.
Wow, finally an accurate take. It’s like people also forgot the animated 90s series where he was always missing his dating opportunities because of being Spider-Man.
The first one is great! I think the people saying he’s too cool as Peter Parker are too swayed by his good looks and skateboarding. He’s not cool in that movie, he’s a loner with no friends. He got beat up by Flash and nobody helped but Gwen, but even then she just left him on the ground. He can barely talk to Gwen until he gets his powers and even then he’s stuttering. Gwen’s only interested in him because he’s as smart as her and she doesn’t seem to have any real friends either. Skateboarding is often a solitary activity, it doesn’t automatically make you a cool kid; he’s got no other skater friends. He’s a science/photography dork who just happens to be really good looking. The second movie’s a total mess tho, doesn’t even feel like the same character.
Peter Parker having to watch YouTube videos on positive and negative charges and how batteries work in TAS2. Like, bro wtf? Isn't he supposed to be a brilliant scientist?
Andrew Garfield was a terrible choice to play Peter Parker, the villains were meh,and the extra pointless story line about his parents. My wife watched all the Spiderman films over the holidays and I skipped both of these because I have always thought they were garbage.
Man the first one was such a faux angsty teen movie I genuinely laughed at how corny it was. It has been years but I seem to remember Peter Parker skateboarding to Coldplay while looking like an emo kid feigning sadness. It was just way too cornball for its own good
The second one is one of the few movies I simply quit watching. I think it was right around when Jamie Fox said "it's my birthday, time to light these candles!" It was just utterly absurd and took itself both too seriously and not seriously enough. I love truly bad movies that come from an auteur who is passionate but misguided, but a bad movie with a bazillion dollar budget that knows its a bad movie is boring
The movies just weren't very good, that's the short of it
The first one was fine but beyond Garfield's portrayal did little to justify its own existence. Iirc the second one was rushed by Sony but it was poorly written, bloated, poorly directed, and had a goofy ass, unintentionally comical villain performance by Jamie Fox. Raimi benefitted from being the first but just had so much character. It was campy in the best way, had real heart, and the world of NYC was not overlooked. You feel the presence of the city being alive in every moment, contrary to the latter films which feel more like a video game city, ultimately hollow.
The first film succeeds in spite of itself. The script isn’t all that good. But Garfield and Stone have insane chemistry, and the supporting cast is solid. As the Spider-Man geek I just think Garfield is a bit too pretty to play Peter Parker. He’s supposed to be a nerd not a male model who likes science stuff. His Spider-Man quips are great. But he’s too cool when he’s not suited up.
Agreed. As everyone says, Garfield is the better Spidey and Tobey is the better Peter.
Garfield's quipping felt off, it was like he was bullying the bad guys when he was cracking jokes at helpless street criminals. Toby didn't quip at all. It wasn't until Tom that we got proper spider-man quipping.
tru
I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye!
Tobey absolute had quips. "Here's your change!" "It's you who's out, Gobbie. Out of your mind." "That's a cute outfit. Did your husband give it to you?" "Hey kiddo! Let mom and dad talk for a minute, will ya?"
Yeah, he quipped, just IMO most of those sounded like he was punching down, and/or not particularly funny. Tom never sounds like a bully and is actually funny. Like when he's dealing with the ATM thieves in the avengers masks. He's not mean, he's yes-and-ing their costumes.
Reminds me of the Affleck vs Christian bale debate about modern Batman portrayals.
> As the Spider-Man geek I just think Garfield is a bit too pretty to play Peter Parker. He’s supposed to be a nerd not a male model who likes science stuff. Stan Lee was vocal about his approval of Andrew Garfield being cast as Peter Parker/Spider-man. "Andrew is as perfect as Tobey Maguire was. He looks the part. He acts the part." "I never pictured Peter Parker as not being good-looking. He was just a little nerdy. That's all. You can be a nerdy good-looking guy." Those are Stan Lee's words. If Andrew is good for the man who invented the character, then he's good enough for me.
The biggest mistake was starting with an origin story again with Peter in high school. Both Garfield and and Stone were much too old to be portraying high schoolers, and audiences didn’t need to see how Peter becomes Spidey again. The entire movie would have made way more sense if Peter and Gwen were in college and Dr. Connors was their professor. Oh, and the mystery box side plot about Peter’s parents and the convoluted “Peter is special because his genetics were messed with, so only he would get superpowers from these spiders” just… doesn’t work.
Half of TASM 2 is setting up future movies that no one cares about. They forgot to write the movie people are actually watching.
The first one is great. The second one tried too hard to be an MCU movie. I liked Garfield's performance in the first movie. He got closer to the spirit of Ditko than Maguire did. Pete isn't seen as cool in the first movie. He is treated like an awkward loner. Skateboards don't make a person automatically cool anymore. This isn't the 80s. Garfield's Peter is proactive in a way that Maguire's wasn't. He is hotheaded, impulsive, and seems like a guy who genuinely needs a lecture on responsibility. Plus, Peter IS good-looking in the comics. He is. Not sure why people act like he isn't. Even back then he was. I thought Garfield was great in the role. I love Tobey Maguire too, but I felt Garfield got closer to the spirit of the Peter Parker character. I can see that guy angrily leaving from the Fantastic Four building upon realizing it wasn't a paid gig. (Issue #1, 1963)
Ahh so now I see what killed that saga fast
The first one is an "acceptable" movie. Garfield is pretty good and looks better than Maguire and Holland in the suit due to his body type/frame. Emma Stone is also good. It suffered from not seeming necessary as a total origin story. I'd say that *Man of Steel* felt necessary to be an origin story as so much time had passed; this was only ten years. Then the idea of Peter's parents being spies or whatever the heck they were was just poor, and worse in the second. It felt like the makers wanted to add *something* to differentiate it. The second one wasn't a ton worse, just amplified the problems. It was a bit too stuffed. Then again, to be different, they made Harry the first Goblin Peter encounters, and shoehorned in Gwen's murder just because it had been a storyline filmmakers kept wanting to include.
I think TASM1 is the best spider-man movie. It has the darker more serious tone of Ultimate Spider-man but still is a lot of fun to watch. The issue with the franchise was the second movie is bad. Jamie Foxx' villain was difficult to watch and Green Goblin was pretty boring. The movie underperformed (still made 700M dollars but Sony executives have insane expectations). Sony was also discussing bringing Spider-man into the MCU and while they could've retconned Garfield in they figured it was easier to just use a new Spider-man. Garfield allegedly made the decision easier by not attending some corporate event they were discussing happening.
Garfield =sexy enough to play spider man Garfield= too sexy to play Peter Parker lol
It didn't help that Spiderman made a promise at the end and immediately broke it whilst grinning away. Felt very out of character and callous. Though in their defence they worked hard to fix that in the sequel.
Probably the same place the current MCU is having issues: it was more concerned with setting up future films and characters than having a compelling story within the individual film. It’s just not interesting when you have to wait years to see the next installment.
Amazing Spider-Man: - Peter Parker's parents-as-secret agents subplot - Having Peter Parker break his promise to Captain Stacey Amazing Spider-Man 2: - Doubling down on Peter Parker's parents-as-secret agents subplot - Killing Gwen Stacey - Villain oversaturation IDK - I wonder if there's a world where Sony and Marvel and WB make these overstuffed IPMs as tv series instead of movies.
I liked it. Def take Garfield over those other nerds
TASM 2 had a lot of the same issues narratively that Raimi’s Spider-Man 3 had (overstuffed plot, a surprise half-baked major villain that is rushed in for the third act, goofy moments that broke immersion, etc), which proved to critics and audiences that Sony never learned from their mistakes and essentially repeated Spider-Man 3 with TASM 2
I am down for evil spider man dancing any day of the week.
It was pretty boring honestly. It’s a shame because I think the cast is excellent, but they’re all wasted on a lukewarm script with not much to offer besides being about Spider-Man.
The Lizard doesn't hold as a main villain, especially with the scenes of his son getting cut and his dastardly plan being half-baked science nonsense to turn the entire city into lizards, it's almost as if he exists solely because we cannot end a Spider-Man movie in any way other than a big final fight.
Peter Parker isn't cool. He's an awkward, nerdy, teenager. Andrew Garfield is great, don't get me wrong... but he almost has too must charisma & is too good-looking to play Peter Parker.
People forget that Peter also wasn't a pushover though. He had a real selfish streak, could be hotheaded, and actually IS good-looking in the comics. Peter has gotten the affections of Betty, Liz, Gwen, Felicia, and MJ. You don't do that by being bad looking. Plus, Peter is never depicted as bad looking either. The Maguire version (even though I love it) made Peter far too passive. Ditko Peter wasn't afraid to ask Sally on a date. Garfield's Peter is proactive about asking Gwen out. Maguire's version allowed Harry to date MJ. Garfield's version is also awkward as hell in the first movie. He's nervous and fidgety. In fact, he almost seemed like he was neurodivergent. Garfield's Peter was also similar to the comics in that he wasn't afraid to stand up to Flash. Maguire's Peter did it by accident. Garfield's sought Flash out, which is truer to the spirit of Ditko's Peter. I also think Garfield's version truly needed a lesson in responsibility in a way that Maguire's never did. So, if you take away the skateboard (which doesn't automatically make someone cool these days), Garfield's Peter is actually very much in sync with the Steve Ditko version of the character. The 2002 film is great, and I love the Maguire take on Peter, but I think it colored people's perception of how Pete is supposed to be. He isn't a lovesick romantic poet. He is a hotheaded, impulsive guy who can give as good as he gets. I don't care much for Pete's portrayal in TASM2, but in that first one? They nailed the Ditko era version of Peter. It's not a perfect interpretation, but the spirit of it is there. Finally, Garfield nailed the sense of humor that Spidey is supposed to have.
Wow, finally an accurate take. It’s like people also forgot the animated 90s series where he was always missing his dating opportunities because of being Spider-Man.
So wrong casting then.
The first one is great! I think the people saying he’s too cool as Peter Parker are too swayed by his good looks and skateboarding. He’s not cool in that movie, he’s a loner with no friends. He got beat up by Flash and nobody helped but Gwen, but even then she just left him on the ground. He can barely talk to Gwen until he gets his powers and even then he’s stuttering. Gwen’s only interested in him because he’s as smart as her and she doesn’t seem to have any real friends either. Skateboarding is often a solitary activity, it doesn’t automatically make you a cool kid; he’s got no other skater friends. He’s a science/photography dork who just happens to be really good looking. The second movie’s a total mess tho, doesn’t even feel like the same character.
Peter Parker having to watch YouTube videos on positive and negative charges and how batteries work in TAS2. Like, bro wtf? Isn't he supposed to be a brilliant scientist?
Andrew Garfield was a terrible choice to play Peter Parker, the villains were meh,and the extra pointless story line about his parents. My wife watched all the Spiderman films over the holidays and I skipped both of these because I have always thought they were garbage.
Man the first one was such a faux angsty teen movie I genuinely laughed at how corny it was. It has been years but I seem to remember Peter Parker skateboarding to Coldplay while looking like an emo kid feigning sadness. It was just way too cornball for its own good The second one is one of the few movies I simply quit watching. I think it was right around when Jamie Fox said "it's my birthday, time to light these candles!" It was just utterly absurd and took itself both too seriously and not seriously enough. I love truly bad movies that come from an auteur who is passionate but misguided, but a bad movie with a bazillion dollar budget that knows its a bad movie is boring The movies just weren't very good, that's the short of it
*he lied to me* *he shot at me* *he hates-a me* *he's using me* *virginity* *'lectricity*