Tobey Maguire vs Andrew Garfield vs Tom Holland

Tom Holland

Tom has had maybe 15 minutes in a Captain America movie. It's not a fair comparison yet.

Tom Holland all the way. He nailed both aspects of the character flawlessly despite only having fifteen to twenty minutes of screen time.

Garfield

Personally at this stage I'm worried Holland will be the worst live-action Spider-Man yet, hopefully they dial him down a bit in the next film. I didn't go into Civil War with much enthusiasm for the new Spidey, but I didn't think he'd make me miss Tobey frikkin' Maguire.

Holland will be the definitive Spidey when all is said and done.

Marvel could take a dump on a plate and call it gourmet cousine and people would eat it

Granted 10 votes isn't enough to substantiate anything but Holland winning 70% on 10m of screen time is a joke.

He's literally done nothing with the character yet we haven't seen before.

In fact he's done almost nothing period. Nailed the character? Please

Tom Holland.

My thoughts exactly.

Holland>Maguire>>>>>>>>>>Peter Benjamin Cullen

Toby Maguire was in 3 films as the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man

Andrew Garfield did his preformance of Peter Parker/ Spider-Man for 2 films

Tom Holland was Peter Parker/Spider-Man for about 30 minutes in a single film where Spider-Man was a side character...and he was the best Spider-Man I have seen as of yet! He literally stole the show.

Tom played Peter so well, a young awkward teenager attempting to learn how to use powers he had just recently acquired. He had some funny spidey quips that fit perfectly for a first starting out Spider-Man, the starstruck and shocked moments when meeting individual avengers, and his embarrasment when talking to Tony was so fantastic. It's also a plus that he does all his own stunts. That kid literally does SpiderMan backflips in his backyard!

Maguire is the best by a significant amount.

It seems to me like people don't like Tobey's Spider-Man because he wasn't cool hipster skateboarder guy, or because he didn't make constant quips while fighting.

Tobey's Peter Parker nailed that shy, insecure, awkwardness of the character. He was dweeby and he was a loser. He was grounded, he was relatable, and a far more layered character than people want to give him credit for. And he only got better and gained more charisma as he was developed in other movies. This was a character you could root for to get the girl and get behind when he saves the day. The subtle humor was sprinkled here and there, but it never became excessive to the point where it robbed the scenes of any levity. When it was time to get serious, the joking stopped.

That being said, I liked Holland a lot as Spider-Man, but it's way too soon to give him "Best Spider-Man" crown. Maybe after Homecoming.

None of them do the character justice humor wise.

For his 30 minutes on screen, Tom Holland nailed it as Peter Parker & Spider-Man. His humor was just right if a little annoying. But I guess you would expect that from a fresh inexperienced 15 year old super hero.

Looking forward to "Homecoming".

And I guess the OOC "Ultimate Spider-Man" kiddies cartoon does?

Spider-Man uses clever wit and sarcasm, not toilet humor and silly pop culture references when battling his adversaries.

@fallschirmjager:

Granted 10 votes isn't enough to substantiate anything but Holland winning 70% on 10m of screen time is a joke.

Holland encompassed the characteristics of Peter Parker AND Spider-Man better then the other two Spider-Man in less then 20 minutes. That should be viewed as an achievement, not something to shun. It is absurd to say that extra screen-time equates to a better depiction.

Tobey Maguire was in three movies as Spider-Man and I hated his Peter Parker (perhaps Spider-Man 2 is the only incarnation of Tobey I can stand, but that boils down to the movie being great, not the performer): he pulled awkward faces and although inhibited the values of Spider-Man, did not encompass his personality.

Andrew Garfield, in the span of roughly 2 minutes, killed Electro and displayed no emotional reaction to it. Holland was Spider-Man for 10 minutes and to no fault. Performed like a teenager, spoke and acted like Spider-Man in the suit, and encompassed the "with great power, great responsibility" quota. Imagine how he will perform for the entirety of homecoming.

My thoughts exactly. I enjoyed him but he's got nothing on Garfield so far, or even Meguire.

Garfield and Maguire were too old to realistically play teenagers in their respective first films. They were digestable, but Holland is by far the most feasible. He is a teenager, after all. That is enough to debunk that he holds nothing against them.

Maguire told far quips far and few in between, Garfield told quips here in there. But in the first The Amazing Spider-Man film, he quips in the first "car thief" scene to shut up the haters of the Maguire depiction of the character, they don't reach that level of quipping for the rest of the film. Holland's Spider-Man is the most accurate and consistent version of the Spider-Man personality, and at 47 lines, he holds the same amount of lines as Bucky, and he did it in less then 20 minutes of being the character: that is faithful.

Holland was consistently distracted in the middle of the airport battle: taken away by the novelty of fighting side-by side and against these heroes. That's relatable. Spider-Man is a teenager. An element this depiction nailed.

Prefer Garfield or Maguire if you'd like, but to say that Holland holds nothing above the two is absurd.

Portraying a character for 20 minutes isn't the same as carrying a movie. Garfield was perfectly quippy with both electro and the lizard throughout, there were just times where he had to become serious, which is also perfectly in agreement with spider-mans character.

He was also a fine peter parker as well, and being a teenager doesn't make you better at any rate. I was actually against Marvel making spider-man a younger again because Spider-man hasn't been a teenager for ages in the comic book universe. even in the Cartoons, like Spectacular spider-man, which is probably one of the best spider-man portrayals I've ever seen, spidey knew a fine line between being quippy, goofy and serious. His quips were all funny, because they were smart. With Holland, while I did like his spider-man very much (I'm looking forward to Homecoming very much so), he came off more as a fanboy, which granted was understandable given his position, but still, they made have overdone it. The jokes exist to distract OTHERS and hide his nervousness, a fact many forget about Peter. Holland wasn't supposed to be distracted. Six months is quite a lot of time to know how to be in a fight. I get that he is inexperienced, but they showed that perfectly well when he went up against a pro like cap and got his ass handed to him, no need to make him kinda...you know, dumb.

I'm not attributing these things to Holland specifically, it's more directed to the writing. As a 15 year old spider-man, Holland was fantastic, I just don't think he holds a candle to either Tobey or Garfield because he really hasn't had a chance to really fly off the screen due to his limited appearances.

Tobey Maguire was in three movies as Spider-Man and I hated his Peter Parker (perhaps Spider-Man 2 is the only incarnation of Tobey I can stand, but that boils down to the movie being great, not the performer): he pulled awkward faces and although inhibited the values of Spider-Man, did not encompass his personality.

Tobey was a great Peter Parker....Just not a good spider-man.

Andrew Garfield, in the span of roughly 2 minutes, killed Electro and displayed no emotional reaction to it. Holland was Spider-Man for 10 minutes and to no fault. Performed like a teenager, spoke and acted like Spider-Man in the suit, and encompassed the "with great power, great responsibility" quota. Imagine how he will perform for the entirety of homecoming.

These are all criticisms of the writing, not the Performer.

@theacidskull:

Portraying a character for 20 minutes isn't the same as carrying a movie. Garfield was perfectly quippy with both electro and the lizard throughout, there were just times where he had to become serious, which is also perfectly in agreement with spider-mans character.

Garfield's Spider-Man is inconsistent in his quippage. Spider-Man constantly quips. It's like writing Deadpool to be talky and non-stop mouthing for 5 minutes, then he shuts up for 10 minutes. Spider-Man has been shown to quip regardless of the intensity of the situation.

He was also a fine peter parker as well, and being a teenager doesn't make you better at any rate.

Neither did I say that. I said that Garfield, Maguire and Holland all depicted teenage Peter Parker at one point, and Holland played it the most convincingly. Therefore, you cannot say that Holland holds virtually nothing against the two other depictions of the character (which you did say). I was originally against Peter being a teenager too, so I concede your being opposed to it, but it opens an opportunity to explore new territories in the MCU.

With Holland, while I did like his spider-man very much (I'm looking forward to Homecoming very much so), he came off more as a fanboy, which granted was understandable given his position, but still, they made have overdone it. The jokes exist to distract OTHERS and hide his nervousness, a fact many forget about Peter. Holland wasn't supposed to be distracted. Six months is quite a lot of time to know how to be in a fight.

Imagine you're this 15 year old from Queens and you're fighting against legends like Captain America, and along w/ heroes such as Iron Man. You're bound to freak out. That grounds Peter Parker. He is supposed to inhibit relatable traits.

Peter Parker is nervous regardless of his experience of being Spider-Man. He is in his twenties in the comics, and is still quipping. MCU Peter Parker is 15.

@thefemalebat:

Garfield's Spider-Man is inconsistent in his quippage. Spider-Man constantly quips. It's like writing Deadpool to be talky and non-stop mouthing for 5 minutes, then he shuts up for 10 minutes. Spider-Man has been shown to quip regardless of the intensity of the situation.

Not really, in fact as spider-man he consistently blurted out jokes despite having the living daylight beaten out of him by electro. Same deal with the Lizard. The only time he shuts up is when he was being held in Lizards tail choke hold and when Gwen was in peril, which given the fact that the movie went for a more realistic tone to it, made sense. It would demean the situation if Gwen was dangling from a web, about to die and all that, while spider-man is joking around with Gobbie.

Neither did I say that. I said that Garfield, Maguire and Holland all depicted teenage Peter Parker at one point, and Holland played it the most convincingly. Therefore, you cannot say that Holland holds virtually nothing against the two other depictions of the character (which you did say). I was originally against Peter being a teenager too, so I concede your being opposed to it, but it opens an opportunity to explore new territories in the MCU.

Fair enough, but you're taking my word too thoroughly. What I meant was that people claiming Holland was the BEST depiction is ridiculous given that he needs more time with the character to BE the best.

As for Holland being the best at playing a teenager. That's debatable. Not all teenagers are fanboys, it's just a quality they've incorporated for Tom Holland, and while it worked well, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the kind of teen Garfield and Tobey were supposed to be.

Imagine you're this 15 year old from Queens and you're fighting against legends like Captain America, and along w/ heroes such as Iron Man. You're bound to freak out. That grounds Peter Parker. He is supposed to inhibit relatable traits.

Like I said, him freaking out wasn't the problem. The issue I had was that they overdid it IMO. Spider-man can nerd-out but his main trait that he fights smart, not stupid. I found his freak outs funny, especially the ant-man one, but again, that shouldn't stop him from using his big brained head.

Peter Parker is nervous regardless of his experience of being Spider-Man. He is in his twenties in the comics, and is still quipping. MCU Peter Parker is 15.

You're missing the point. Him quipping isn't the problem, the fact that it serves no purpose is what I don't like. Spider-man cracks jokes to hide the fact that he's nervous and to throw off his enemies, here he was just babbling like Deadpool. Again, Tom Holland was great, and I loved the bits with spider-man, but 20-30 minutes as a side character isn't enough to flesh out all these qualities fully, which circles back to the point I'm making that he has yet to grow into the spider-boots, and I'm confident he will in Homecoming.

I'm gonna wait for more on Holland. But so far I'm really liking him.

@theacidskull: Haven't seen you in awhile

@theacidskull:

Not really, in fact as spider-man he consistently blurted out jokes despite having the living daylight beaten out of him by electro. Same deal with the Lizard. The only time he shuts up is when he was being held in Lizards tail choke hold and when Gwen was in peril, which given the fact that the movie went for a more realistic tone to it, made sense. It would demean the situation if Gwen was dangling from a web, about to die and all that, while spider-man is joking around with Gobbie.

The amount of quips that he dropped in the "car thief" scene amounts to as much quips as, if not more then, what he dropped in the rest of the movie. If they really wanted a realistic tone, they could've no pun intended, toned down the ridiculousness of Lizard's character. That bordered on caricature.

As for Holland being the best at playing a teenager. That's debatable. Not all teenagers are fanboys, it's just a quality they've incorporated for Tom Holland, and while it worked well, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the kind of teen Garfield and Tobey were supposed to be.

You're missing my point. Tom Holland, the performer, captured the demeanour, look, shape, size and mannerisms of a teenager to a more convincing degree then Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire. Especially Maguire.

Like I said, him freaking out wasn't the problem. The issue I had was that they overdid it IMO. Spider-man can nerd-out but his main trait that he fights smart, not stupid. I found his freak outs funny, especially the ant-man one, but again, that shouldn't stop him from using his big brained head.

IIRC, Spider-Man fought smart in the movie. Their method of beating Giant-Man was Peter's idea.

You're missing the point. Him quipping isn't the problem, the fact that it serves no purpose is what I don't like. Spider-man cracks jokes to hide the fact that he's nervous and to throw off his enemies, here he was just babbling like Deadpool. Again, Tom Holland was great, and I loved the bits with spider-man, but 20-30 minutes as a side character isn't enough to flesh out all these qualities fully, which circles back to the point I'm making that he has yet to grow into the spider-boots, and I'm confident he will in Homecoming.

Why do you assume Spider-Man cracked jokes because he was babbling like Deadpool? Why don't you think it was nervousness?

Still prefer Maguire by far, even without the nostalgia. Great Peter Parker, I feel his struggle. People hate on him because he didn't tell lame jokes during life and death situations that would have been bad timing anyway? At least this Spider-Man actually threw punches.

Andrew acted great his Spider-Man was good mostly, but his Peter Parker was almost unlikable at some points, for example when he snatched his diploma during his graduation, incredibly minor, but going against Capt Staceys dying wishes, c'mon.

Tom's faired the best simply because he's had the best writing and delivered it really great. He did fanboy a bit to much for me which is kinda lame, but years from now the younger heroes in the MCU will be doing the same to him. I can't wait to see his solo film.

Maguire and Garfield had something great the other lacked whereas Holland brings the best of both while making it his own.

And the reason for this all comes down to writing.

Yeah I've been pretty much offline for the last 8-7 months of so due to college.

Now watch me quip

Watch me nae nae

After watching Captain America Civil War, I think that Tom Holland is the best Spider-Man.

Not really fair for Tom Holland considering he only had about 20 minutes of screen time veruses Andrew and Tobey who atleast 5 hours of screen time each...I prefer neither of the two really..As both were more or less equal imho at the peak of their performances as Spidey..Andrew excelled in The first Amazing Spider-man and Vice verse Tobey Spider-man 2..But i will say this about Tom Holland in the 20 minutes he was onscreen, He was by-far the most charming.

This, this and this times infinity.

I think Garfield was decent, but I didn't care much for the shoehorned subplots in the Amazing Spider-Man movies.

For his 30 minutes on screen, Tom Holland nailed it as Peter Parker & Spider-Man. His humor was just right if a little annoying. But I guess you would expect that from a fresh inexperienced 15 year old super hero.

Looking forward to "Homecoming".

^^^^^^^^^ This with only 20 minutes of screen time Holland made both Maguire and Garfiled's protrails Parker/Spidey look lackluster and underwhelming.

If we're going by most accurate to comic Peter? Holland.

Who I prefer out of the bunch? Garfield, but that can change once Holland gets more screen time.

Garfield for now, but that could easily change with Homecoming.

Are you talking about Optimus Prime?

Tobey.

Holland.

Garfield

Tobey because I haven't seen enough of Tom

1- Andrew Garfield

2- Tom Holland

3-

4-

5-

...

...

...

...

99- Tobey Maguire

Tobey (Great moves the third was ok)

Tom

Andrew (I really didn't like him)

LOL
I agree with this. :p

My only problem with Tom is that he's in the MCU. As much as that's a great thing for us fans to see him side by side with other heroes, it makes me fear that even in his solo movie that he's gonna be overshadowed by having tony there as well as being in an established hero society and that it won't have as solid a plot as some of the other movies have had.

He's impressed me with his Role in civil war but not enough for me to think that he's any more than a side character. I like him don't get me wrong but I haven't seen enough of him to think he beats Garfield yet. Looking back Toby wasn't the greatest depiction of Spider-Man, but he did good still.

But out of the three actors, Garfield takes it for me, as Peter he was awkward but modern and even had good displays of his science ability. Albeit maybe he looked pretty emo but that's something I could look past. As Spider-Man he was super agile, strong, made a lot of jokes and was set on helping people. The plot was also in his favour too. Although not great they were still pretty interesting.

Garfield wins it for me

1. Tobey Maguire

2. Andrew Garfield

3. Rick Astley

4. Tom Holland.

Conclusion: F*ck you Marvel and Sony for the reboots.

Maguire by a landslide

he nailed the awkwardness, geekiness, interactions, and humnanity and as Spidey nailed the jokes . he was easily better than Maguire but not better than Garfield .

Maguire also nailed all those things, saved the Jokes. Also, for me Maguire encapsulated the nerdiness of Peter Parker far more than Holland did. He actually felt like a nerd.

Outside of jokes (which Garfield had), there's literally NOTHING special about what Holland did.

Maguire never nailed the awkwardness nor even the nerdiness. the guy was just a caricature of what a geek/ nerd is. Both Garfield and Holland nailed the geekiness and nerdiness even awkwardness of Peter Parker .