Top 10 Reasons Why the Original Spider-Man is Better Than The Amazing Spider-Man
Tobey Maguire was undoubtedly the best Spider-Man there will ever be, hands down. Here's why.
He portrays the character more accurately. Now, all y'all who say "Oh, Garfield captured his attitude better," sorry, you're wrong. The original Spider-Man was a shy, geeky nerd who was a little awkward when talking to girls. He could also be sassy, make jokes, and smart comments. Maguire embodied this perfectly, while Garfield portrayed nothing but a smart-mouthed, narcissistic A-hole and didn't capture any of the character's actual personality.
Spider-Man's Peter was always helping people and saving more people than TASM. He also used many different ways to fight enemies, like throwing stuff with webs, making a web slingshot, and blinding them with webs. TASM's Peter only really uses speed as his technique.
Maguire used more emotion and filled the costume better. He was more muscular like Spider-Man, while Garfield was skinny and looked like he could have been knocked over by Maguire in a fight easily. Maguire used more emotion on screen, no doubt. He did many facial expressions, while Garfield kept the same hot-headed smile on his face the whole movie.
Maguire also shows emotion when listening to other people, while Garfield looks stiff and expressionless, maybe? Tobey's voice is better and more like a hero's when Spider-Man, and a good shy kid when Peter. Tobey looked better in glasses.
Also, this was a directing choice, but why the hell was Garfield playing his cell phone in the sewer while waiting for the Lizard?! I mean, what? I feel like they were trying to cram in too many relatable jerky teenage things into his character.
The villains in the new movies are just weird. Some of them act crazy, and some of them acted like dorks. The ones in the old films were awesome, especially Venom, Sandman, and Doctor Octopus. Norman Osborne was cool. When he was Green Goblin, he acted like a madman. James Franco was an incredible Harry Osborne, and he became the Goblin himself, which was cool.
Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Venom, and Sandman over Lizard and Electro any day of the week.
Green Goblin in Spider-Man 1 was epic, especially in the last fight. He was a really tough villain. The Green Goblin in ASM2 was such a wimp compared to him. Both Harry and Norman had well-developed reasons to go after Spider-Man. The new Green Goblin's motivations were really weak.
Sandman and Doctor Octopus were the greatest villains ever put in a Spider-Man movie. The scenes where Sandman is looking at his sick daughter, talking with her and his wife, and his final scene were so well written. Doctor Octopus had an amazing, well-focused story arc. Venom was great too. When he turned into Venom, everything he said sounded like a mad killer.
Harry was awesome. I loved the whole reasoning behind him going after Spider-Man because he thought he killed his father. That was fantastic. The villains in the new movies have almost no development, but the original villains in the original trilogy were epic.
Garfield's Peter is a textbook example of a Mary Sue. He's a "nerd" only in name. He is handsome, popular, and is only disliked by the jocks because the plot says so (all of which just screams Enoby). He's also born into his powers (TASM2 explains only he could have been bitten and not die), has an IQ of like 300, and tech skills on par with NASA.
Moreover, the plot is designed to make him a victim of the circumstances rather than burden him with responsibility. He couldn't have possibly helped Ben because he played no part in his death. When Gwen dies, the movie is very careful to show us that it is her fault for coming when he told her not to.
Finally, he never feels sad for more than five minutes. He's so hyper-idealized that he barely shows human emotions. Maguire's Peter may have "cried too much," but at least he conveyed the idea of a regular everyman having to put up with all this stuff. When he reacted to things, he didn't do so as if he'd read the script beforehand.
The Amazing Spider-Man failed on both of its costumes. The first one was too different from the de facto Spider-Man, and the second one was way too childish. The original Spider-Man movies saw an accurate comic tie-in with a movie adaptation. Plus, the black suit was awesome.
I do agree the ASM 1 costume looked like it came from a dumpster, but the ASM 2 costume was pretty awesome and my favorite so far.
This is major proof that the original movies are better. How can the TASM franchise be considered better if TASM 2 was criticized so heavily?
On the other hand, 2002's Spider-Man was well received, and most of the general audience really liked it. You have Spider-Man 2, which many people consider the greatest Spider-Man movie to date and one of the greatest superhero movies of all time.
I just don't understand how people think a franchise with just one well-received movie is better than a franchise with two well-received movies. I think people just like the TASM movies better because they're newer.
Seriously, you can't beat this guy. He's awesome in this role. He was one of my favorite parts of the entire trilogy. I'm sad that since it's rebooted we probably won't see JK Simmons in these movies, but in the original, he was perfect.
The new villains are terrible. The Lizard looks ugly and too human. Electro starts as a really corny nerd who loved Spider-Man. He loved him so much that he even thought Spider-Man baked him a cake. What?
Then he fell into a tub of electric eels, and he still likes Spider-Man. When Spider-Man cannot remember his name, he hates him just because he cannot remember his name. What? In the first place, he loved him so, so, so much, and now he hates him? Why?
Then there is Rhino, who is not Rhino. He is not even close to the Rhino in the comics. He is not injected with super-soldier serum. He is just a man who drives a giant two-legged robot with guns and missiles. They basically got rid of him and reimagined him, like they did with the 1940s Flash who got his powers by inhaling water vapor and wore a tin hat.
But the worst villain is the Green Goblin. He sucks. He is a teenager and looks terrible. There is barely any green on his suit, and he looks ridiculously ugly. He looks like he is on meth or even ice. When I look at his awful face, I just want to put a mask over it, and yes, he does not even wear a mask.
Here's how each franchise is going to be regarded by people:
Original: iconic, paved the way for other superhero movies.
Third Franchise: a faithful retelling of the Spider-Man movies and a faithful reboot.
Lastly, The Amazing Spider-Man movies: the failed attempt at a second Spider-Man franchise which will probably be forgotten by everyone as soon as the third franchise comes out.
The Amazing Spider-Man movies are just doomed to be buried beneath Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies and the Spider-Man movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Let's face it, after Spider-Man starts making movies in the MCU, the TASM franchise will be looked back on as the bizarre, half-assed, half-forgotten failure of a franchise. Let's be honest, that's pretty much what it is.
I think it's hilarious that TASM fans say Garfield is better because of not as many crying scenes. Can you people stop harping on that?! It's the only thing they know how to criticize about Tobey's performance. The crying is not that big of a deal.
I'd rather have a skateboarding Spider-Man than a dancing Spider-Man who cries over every little thing.
I know they had to update these movies because nerds today aren't what they used to be. However, they could have still made him a shy outcast instead of what they did in these movies by making him an arrogant show-off. He should be like that when he's Spider-Man, not Peter Parker. Peter in these movies could have at least been an outcast.
Yeah, remember the train fight from Spider-Man 2? Of course, because it was badass. They were just more creative with the action in the original trilogy. The cool action in Amazing Spider-Man was pretty much only with Electro.
Sorry, Doug Walker, but you're out of your mind to say that The Amazing Spider-Man movies have better action scenes than the ones in the original.
In the original comics, he starts out with no webs, so he creates web shooters. However, he eventually acquires the ability naturally and goes on and off with the fake web shooters. I agree that it's better without them, though.
The second movie accurately portrayed what happens to Spider-Man's abilities when he's sick or depressed, as his powers rely on his physical health because they are a part of him. This is one thing many movies forget about characters.
I feel that the lack of web shooters makes it a little bit more realistic because even though Peter Parker is smart, I doubt he would be able to make something like that. Also, Stan Lee (RIP) said that he liked the change.
Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Sandman, Harry... all four are incredible villains with character development and great motivations. I can't get enough of them. Even Venom was pretty cool, even if he was wasted.
With TASM... Lizard? His motivations make no sense. Harry? A spoiled brat. Rhino? So embarrassing. Electro was the best from the reboots, but even then, he could've been so much better.
They chose the most iconic and well-known Spider-Man villains for these movies. The new ones, aside from Electro, are just the villains they can make more realistic, especially Rhino. Based on how he was in the movie, Rhino-Tron, Sony, when you choose which villains you use, choose the ones who would be really cool to see, not just ones that are easy to make more realistic.
Tell me something from TASM that is more iconic than the upside-down kiss.
The original Spider-Man was lighthearted and fun. But thanks to The Dark Knight, comic book movies are starting to have a darker tone, which is stupid. Why would people want to watch a drama-filled superhero movie?
The death of Uncle Ben was fine because that needs to happen, but after that, you don't need to have a dark tone. The only way you would NEED to have a dark tone is if they use Carnage, which would be awesome.
The whole idea of "superheroes" is kind of dumb. I mean, imagine if people did this in the real world?
This is why Marvel movies make jokes, whereas TASM wants to take something silly and make it serious.
It's funny how when Marvel created their cinematic universe, all the other studios instantly tried to put together a universe of their own.
DC's just looks like if Batman vs. Superman sucks, then it's gonna fall to pieces. I don't care if they claim to have "official" release dates for their other movies. If Batman vs. Superman sucks, then those movies are gonna get canned.
Fox's looks pretty promising, especially since they're doing such a great job with X-Men now. Sony's just looks incredibly desperate. They only have Spider-Man, so they're gonna try to build a universe with a bunch of villains? That's a creative idea, but the way they're setting it up just makes it look like such a desperate attempt to make money.
Mary Jane may have been just a helpless tool, but at least she didn't throw caution to the wind and try to take on the big villains.
This really made me mad. Uncle Ben is a crucial part of Peter's story, yet he barely got any development and was completely sidelined all for the purpose of making room for Peter's father.
Remember that crappy luck-of-the-circumstances scene in TASM2?
Peter gets frustrated with the fact that he isn't getting any closer to finding out what happened to his parents, and he breaks his calculator, which COINCIDENTALLY had the subway tokens that Peter's father used in it. He goes down into the subway and COINCIDENTALLY decides to bang on the brick wall, which COINCIDENTALLY causes a subway train to rise out of the ground, which COINCIDENTALLY had all of Peter's father's work in it and also had a video explaining the entire goddamn thing to us.