Andrew Garfield, Spiderman

...two people have said to me recently that they think the Andrew Garfield Spiderman is basically too cool, too streetwise...would you agree?

Too cool I agree with, but not a street man. If you compare him to Tobey, Tobey overall has the remarkable personality to portray Spider man.

Nerd in the 60s is different than nerd in the 2000s.
People REFUSE to put their freaking mind to work,and realise that.

2012's "nerd" is basically an outcast who doesn't flow with the rest of the crowd.The vest-thickglassed-formalshoes nerd is gone from our society.

So this "cool" that people say,is basically an outcast,with a nice haircut.
People are just jealous of Andrew's hair. ;)

Comic Spider-Man has been cool since the late 60s, when he was riding around on a motorbike with the two hottest girls in town, going through college hanging out at the local coffee shop, and sharing a flat with his super-rich best friend.

The guy went on the marry a model and the school bully became very close friends with him.

These people are just comparing Garfield to Tobey Maguire's portrayal of the character, which was way, way off.

ASM1 mucked up the pre-Spider-bite Peter Parker somewhat, I'll agree, but that's it, after the Spider-bite it was OK-ish. ASM2 on the other hand is very, very accurate to the comicbook Spider-Man in portrayal, that is how Spider-Man acts.

Garfield was completely spot on in ASM2. I couldn't have ask for anything better. He covered everything from levity to smarts to heart.

And yeah...Spider-Man is cool as shit. ^

@fallschirmjager: I'm willing to bet that if Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire were to be given a second chance again to remake Spider-man films following the comics more accurately, they would kill it and no Spider-man reboots will be able to touch the work.

If that's what you need to tell yourself, feel free.

@fallschirmjager: It's not completely an opinion bro. It's an opinion that is almost a fact. If Tobey can already make it to the top with Spider man movies even without having the trilogies resemble the comic book accurately, just imagine what would happen if it was more accurate with the comic book.

Prove me wrong if you can.

Everything you just stated was an opinion.

Feel free to live in the past if you want, it sucks there anyway.

And this conversation is only going to get worse from here (pretty sure you wanted to start a fight based on your initial reply anyway) so I'll stop posting. Have fun.

How does this have anything to do with "living in the past"? You have your opinion on who's the bettter Spider-man and I have mine too. I just think Tobey was the better actor than Andrew. Most people on comic vine will even agree that Tobey IS the better actor, but Andrew's trilogy resembles more with the comic book series.

TASM1 didn't even rival with Spider-man 1 after it was sold out. The movie didn't make back as much budget as the first Spider-man movie did.

If you really think Tobey Maquire who is irrelevant today is a better actor than Andrew you don't know much about acting.

Far more credible people than the esteemed users of comicvine will tell you Andrew was snubbed of an oscar nomination for his performance in The Social Network. And even without that he was insanely critically praised.

Garfield's performance in Never Let Me Go was also highly critically praised.

If anyone thinks Tobey is better, they are sorely mistaken. There is zero foundation for the claim. Andrew is a better Spider-Man and his roles outside of Spider-Man are not only relevant, but terrific. You wouldn't even know who Maguire was today if he hadn't have gotten lucky enough to play (and I use that term loosely) Spider-Man. Garfield will have a long, successful career whenever he decides to stop playing Peter.

And that is something you can actually bet on with a great chance of making your money

(end rant, end posts)

And you're saying that Tobey can't do anything that Andrew did?

The guy was nominated for the best male actor in Spider-man movies by MTV Movie Awards in 2003 and for the best actor of Spider-man 2 in 2005 by Empire Awards. And in 2010, Tobey was also nominated by the Golden Globe as one of the best performers in the movie Brothers by being able to bring climatic drama to his role.

While he never won an Oscars, it cannot be denied that the Spider man movies with Sam Raimi was his most successful trilogy that topped all of his other movies according to the Box Office. That is not for me to say that Andrew is a bad Spider-man, but I'm pretty sure Andrew has his own movies that he was good at too, but I just don't think Spider-man is a fit for him. I have nothing against the guy though.

The Amazing Spider-man was ok, in my opinion, but was not as great as Spider-man 1. Like I said, the budget that Tobey's movie made back was higher than the expense that it costed to be made. The Box Office has Spider man 1's domestic gross listed higher than the Amazing Spider-man's. To quote, "The films are among the top of the domestic rankings of films based on Marvel comics, with Spider-Man ranking second, Spider-Man 2 ranking third, and Spider-Man 3 ranking fourth."

@ascended: Did you just try to use MTV Movie Awards as an argument for good performance? And the Golden Globes?

Yeah you know nothing about acting.

He was certainly better at pulling funny faces than Andrew, I'll give him that

@fallschirmjager: Listen, I don't want to argue with you. I know you like Andrew more as Spider-man and I like someone else more as Spider-man than him. Sure, Tobey isn't a great actor for other movies like The Great Gatsby or whatever, but you can't hide from the fact that Spider-man was the best franchise he projected so far. I don't need to lie about it. Statistics even say it all.

I think Andrew is a good man and cool actor for other movies, but I have a different view about his acting when it comes to portraying a character like Spider-man. Are you willing to respect my thoughts?

hey dudes, stop arguing about who was the better actor, the title of my op was "is Andrew Garfield spiderman too cool", not, "Andrew Garfield was better actor than Tobey Maguire".

all these things are so subjective its pointless trying to "prove" which actor is the best.

Anyway, I am glad too hear Peter Parker was cool back in the old comics, I like his take on the character...I thought both he and Tobey brought something different to the role.

That's just not true. I graduated from highschool in 2009 so it hasn't been THAT long. The geeks were still pretty stereotypical. Everyone knows the guys and girls who don't play sports, don't go out to the parties, and put there grades above everything else. Sometimes their clothes are cheap and they wear glasses. Some are egg heads and some aren't particularly bright. Some are socially inept and off putting and some just try to be nice to everyone.

However, it all falls into a fairly stereotypical category where other people (usually not the nicest people) can go "yeah, those are the geeks."

Garfield was just an average guy in TASM. He wasn't so much a geek or an outcast as much as he was just another face in the crowd, like most highschool kids.

I felt that Pre-Spider-Bite ASM Pete came across as more of a non-conformist indie-kid than a nerd, but he was still kind of an outcast.

Pre-Spider-Bite Maguire Pete was pretty much a caricature though.

I'd give the edge to Maguire for Pre-Spider-Bite portrayal, but that is the only edge I'd give him.

@silent_bomber:

interesting, Tobey does seem to polarise opinion, bit of a marmite actor it seems like Nic Cage, who someone has compared him to in another thread!

@bezza: Nah, Nicholas Cage was nowhere as polarizing as Tobey was. I don't think people liked Nick as Ghost Rider from the start of the first movie.

I liked him in Pleasantville.

Sorry. Wasn't starting anything but my initial comments, but I also have a bad habit of people tagging me intended to start a debate and then not responding.

My only point was with my initial comments was he was wonderful in ASM2.

Spider-man was actually my favorite superhero when I was a little kid. As I grew older, the feeling of me being fond of him kind of faded away and then I was attracted to another superhero: Gambit.

By the way, does anybody here plan on seeing the Deadpool movie when it's out?

@ascended:

Er no, Deadpool doesn't do it for me at all! I am sticking with Spidey, you are never too old to be a spidey fan.

@fallschirmjager

Agree that Garfield was wonderful in ASM2. I just love the humour in both films, particularly one bit in ASM1, where bad guy pulls knife on him and he crouches down head in hands "Oh no, please don't hurt me, I have a real weakness for small knives..." it was just classic, exactly what the comic spidey would have said!

@bezza: I didn't say I wasn't. I still like Spider-man, but not as much as I used to.

I thought that joke was a little lame. Andrew sounded like he had to make one.

@ascended:

Sounded like Gambit had replaced Spiderman in your affections, but good to hear you still like the character.

..also sounds like basically you don't like Andrew Garfield, fair enough we get it...well I found that line funny anyway...!

First of "geek" is the person who is very pationate about his interests.Sports geek,comicbook geek,whatever.
You are refering to the "nerd" category.

And yes,i agree with how you put it.That he was an average-shy-loner guy.
I totally agree with that portrayal of Peter Parker.

too cool? no. im not one to think that you have to stay true to the original entirely. as long as youre not taking away what makes that character who they are. being uncool isnt what makes peter spiderman.

@bezza: well I don't hate Andrew Garfield. He may be ok/good as spider man, but I don't like his portrayal that much when I think of him in comparison with Tobey. All I meant was that Tobey is the better one in my opinion, that's all. Sorry if I criticized Andrew too much in here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

The term "Geek" is pejorative. Only recently have people started to own the term and use it with pride. People do the same thing with the word nerd. I used geek instead of nerd because when I think of a nerd I think of someone who's smart while the people I was referring to aren't necessarily intelligent.

Exacly what i'm saying.

Peter is a science nerd.
I am a Spider-Man geek.

I concider this as the difference.

Yes, I agree.

But it's not just Garfield, it's the whole concept of the reboot. They did not want a new, "amazing" Spider Man, but a franchise that is tailored to a young target group. The old Spider-Man films have become classics, because they included everything classics need. The new two films have renounced all that. Garfield is miscast.

@zardu:

Nah, Garfield is great as Spiderman.

The original Spiderman films have become classics a) because like the Reeve Superman films they were the first to feature the character and b) because people are nostalgic. Watching Spiderman 3 yesterday made me all nostalgic because I remembered what was going on at the time I watched it...

Given time the ASM films will be fondly remembered, maybe 5-10 years from now.

Nope. He's perfectly dorky. Just not the stereotypical book worm nerd we haven't seen since 1980.

Naw.

a) This has nothing to do with it. There are a lot of movies, whose remakes are better. And there are also remakes that are worse than the originals.

b) Nostalgia is the yearning devotion to things from the past that sometimes were better than today. Why would anyone prefer a movie that is much worse, just because it was the first one?

I like Spider Man 2 the most, but not for nostalgic reasons, but for cinematic.

The statistics of the old Spider-Man movies still surpass the first part of The amazing Spider Man. And they will also surpass the second part. So given time will not save the reboot.

@zardu:

Opinions on films are very subjective. Your opinion is that the originals are better, others on here prefer the re-boots. I am not sure how statistically you can prove one set of films is better than the other. You make it sound like the re-boots have failed, but ASM1 grossed 752 million, which is damned good for a re-boot of a film most of us remembered from 10 years earlier. The user ratings/critical ratings on the likes of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes were decent too....

...anyway I am not arguing with your preference for the originals, check out my "favourite films" top 10 list on my profile and you will Spiderman 1 is near the top!

@bezza: The reboot is good, I'm pretty sure, but box office doesn't lie when it comes down to which Spider-man movie made back more budget (even though I'm pretty sure TASM will still be on the top, but not as much as the original Spider-man).

I would like to let everybody here know that the problem doesn't have to be with how well it follows the origins, but the acting and who takes the role.

@ascended:

the original Spiderman film made more than ASM but then it would do. It was the first Spiderman film, the first Marvel film with to feature a single character and the main blockbuster of 2002. Basically people were itching to see it and it was a great film. ASM was also a great film, but the re-boot happened too soon. It also came out in the same year as The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises. All these things mean it didn't do as well at the box office, nothing more.

@bezza I agree. It was definitely a great film and it felt like it put the Spider-man trilogy into my heart. It's actually the only thing that highlights Tobey's successful career as an actor so far even though his other movies weren't that good (except Brothers, but it still came nowhere as successful as Spider-man). And if you go back and re-watch even just the first one, Tobey's natural instinct to be Peter Parker + his love for Spider-man from the comic book was of course going to bring him an outstanding performance and make it unforgettable. If anything, Oscars should be giving him an award for doing such a great job in one of Marvel's franchise (and I am aware that Tobey hasn't won an Oscars award yet on his resume).

The only problem was that he and Sam Raimi slipped off in Spider-man 3, which was the only part they could have rebooted. We can also re-tell the Spider-man stories again with having him in Andrew's shoes right now, but he's 38 and too old to recast the role.

We'll see how TASM 2 does compared to Spider-man 2 when it's out on DVD. So this thread will most likely to stay active for a while.

Misunderstanding: With the statistics I was referring to the box office:

Spider Man: $821.7 million

Spider Man 2: $783 million

Spider Man 3: $891 million

The Amazing Spider Man: $752 million

I doubt that the reboot will surpass these numbers.

Sure, movies are a matter of taste. But one thing is certain: The reboot will not make it to leave the same impression as the old Spider-Man movies (even the soundtrack of the first ones has become a hallmark). I do not know how Mr. Webb wants to achieve that.

But we will see ...

@zardu: Omg, I love Raimi's soundtracks, they're amazing. I listen to them almost every day. Kudos to Danny Elfman and Christopher Young.

@zardu:

Yep, I agree, also that the reboot won't surpass the box office success of the Raimi films..I think that's partly due to there being so many more superhero films now than there were in the last decade, so something has to be really outstanding for the public to flock to see it. Even MOS "only" took 687 million last year, despite being the first superman film for 7 years....I'm quite happy because I like both Raimi and Webb franchises...