So, the Spiderman franchise is being rebooted. For the second time in six years (2018 is the proposed year the new film shall be released)! Tom Holland will play the Web-slinger, and the film will be set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But how will Holland measure up against the two actors who have played the character on film? Lets take a look at Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, and determine who, for now, is the better Peter Parker/Spiderman.
First, Peter Parker. This is where analysing who is better in the role is really tough, as they have to be both convincing as nerdy high-schooler Peter Parker, and then be convincing as a superhero. With the Maguire trilogy of films (2002-2007), there is definitely more focus on Peter's outsider status, with him being picked on throughout the first film's opening 15 minutes, and then later getting into a fight with school bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello). He is shown to be clumsy by nature in the second film, even after he gains his superpowers. He fails at his job as a pizza delivery boy and fails to stand up for himself when confronted by the manager. Personality wise, Maguire's Peter Parker is kind hearted, but very shy, and so he's an easy target for the bullies. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that even though he lives right next door to his love interest, Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he is unable to bring himself to asking her out. In the first film, I was totally convinced with the portrayal of the character, and Maguire brings out the weaknesses of the character very well. With Andrew Garfield in the newest incarnation, there is one fundamental problem with how Peter is presented: he's too cool. This kid would not be bullied at school, despite the fact the film tries its best to display intelligence as a nerdy trait (Einstein posters on his bedroom wall etc.). When Peter confronts Flash in The Amazing Spiderman (2012), he stands up to him before he gets his superpowers. Granted he confronts him again later in the film as he is learning about his new powers, but for me, Peter Parker shouldn't be the one standing up to bullies. Its his lack of courage to begin with that makes his transformation into Spiderman more awe-inspiring.
Garfield's Peter Parker is also very cocky, with him obtaining a pass to a science demonstration without his name on the list, just by simply taking an ID badge and smiling confidently at the receptionist. To make up for his obviously un-nerdy persona, Peter acts even more awkwardly around his love interest (Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone), but it still isn't enough to convince me that this guy would get picked on. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Garfield's performance, but when compared to Maguire, its the latter that fits the criteria for the character of Peter Parker more. Of course, one of the biggest parts of Peter's story in both films is his relationship with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen in each respective series). In both films, Peter unintentionally plays a big part in the character's death, with him refusing to be a good samaritan and letting a criminal get away, which leads to Uncle Ben being shot. This is the big emotional moment of both series, and for me, the writing behind Peter in the Maguire series is what gives him a big advantage in this comparison. After gaining his powers, Maguire's Peter enters a wrestling tournament and wins a large cash prize, which he hopes to buy a car with to impress Mary-Jane. However, the crooked manager of the tournament refuses to pay, and so Peter doesn't intervene when he is robbed at gun-point. When this results in Uncle Ben's murder, it is a lot more powerful because Peter has acted selfishly towards Uncle Ben in a prior scene by refusing to listen to his advice. Combining that with his pride of not interfering with the manager being robbed, makes for a greater tragic moment as Peter realises what his selfishness has caused. In The Amazing Spiderman, Garfield's Peter refuses to listen to Uncle Ben in a similar manner. However, his confrontation with an employee at a shop that leads to Uncle Ben being shot is very unconvincing. In the first series, Peter refuses to act due to not being paid money to impress a girl. In the newest series, Uncle Ben is killed simply because Peter didn't have enough money to buy a chocolate milk. It just isn't as dramatic and feels forced, whereas in the Maguire series the confrontation is more intense and we get a clearer depiction of what can happen if Peter uses his powers for his own ends.
As Spiderman, both portrayals have their particular strengths and weaknesses. One could argue that because Maguire is so convincing as the unpopular kid, he isn't as convincing as a superhero, whereas Garfield's established cockiness makes for a more obvious character that would go around fighting crime. What works best about Maguire's Spiderman is that he never comes across as overpowered, making for more suspenseful encounters between Spiderman and his enemies. Take the fight in the first film for example, the final encounter between Spiderman and the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). Green Goblin beats him to within an inch of his life, which makes for Spiderman's resurgence more spectacular, and so means that we root for him more. Unfortunately, in the first film especially, Maguire is handed some painfully corny dialogue to deliver as Spiderman. Although Spiderman has always said one-lines throughout his history, some of the dialogue here is painfully bad, but also hilariously bad. My particular favourite is this exchange between Spiderman and the Green Goblin from the first film:
Green Goblin: "What about my generous proposal? Are you in, or are you out?
Spiderman: "It's you who's out, Gobby... out of your mind!
Having this kind of dialogue really downplays any seriousness that should be felt when Spiderman has to save the day. Granted, there is a limit to how seriously one can portray a superhero, especially something as un-realistic as Spiderman. However, when comparing the two franchise's portrayal, Garfield seems to have the better writing behind him and more presence. In both films in The Amazing Spiderman series, Garfield's Spiderman displays the same intense attitude as his alter-ego, and so is a more of a threat to criminals when given his superpowers. He is far more intimidating, but also more humorous without ever coming across as corny. This is all displayed in a scene from the first film, when Spiderman confronts a criminal who bears close resemblance to Uncle Ben's killer. He jokingly webs him to the wall, dancing around and laughing. However, he quickly changes his mood and squares up to him. Upon realising he isn't the killer, rather than simply letting him go, he warns him that things could have "gotten a lot worse". Garfield's Spiderman isn't flawless though, with the removal of his mask being done so often in the first film, that it becomes almost comical. I'm willing to overlook the removal of the mask by the villains and the police, but Spiderman deliberately reveals his identity TWICE within mere minutes! In the second incident, it is to help a calm a young boy who is trapped in a car suspended from a bridge. Despite the silliness of him removing his mask, the scene is another example of why, for me, Garfield is the superior Spiderman. Throughout most of the sequence, Spiderman never loses his cool, constantly encouraging the boy when helping him escape. Maguire's Spiderman seemed to always shout and sound fearful. Although I cite the more human element of Maguire's Spiderman as a strength, in the moments of him rescuing someone, he seems less reliable when compared to the more level-headed Andrew Garfield Spiderman.
To conclude. though I enjoy both actor's portrayal of each persona, I believe Andrew Garfield just about edges out Maguire in this comparison. Despite Maguire being the more convincing Peter Parker, Garfield's Spiderman comes across as the more heroic. When things got tough, you never doubted that he wouldn't pull through and be victorious, whereas Maguire's Spiderman gave up being Spiderman in the second film simply down to the stress of trying to balance his lifestyle. Garfield's Peter Parker also has his flaws that help to aid his transformation into Spiderman in the same way that Maguire's did, meaning that he too can be relateable and gain the audience's favour. I look forward to seeing how Tom Holland will portray both the personalities of Peter Parker and Spiderman , and am excited to see what possibilities await for the character, as he joins the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Garfield's Peter Parker is also very cocky, with him obtaining a pass to a science demonstration without his name on the list, just by simply taking an ID badge and smiling confidently at the receptionist. To make up for his obviously un-nerdy persona, Peter acts even more awkwardly around his love interest (Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone), but it still isn't enough to convince me that this guy would get picked on. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Garfield's performance, but when compared to Maguire, its the latter that fits the criteria for the character of Peter Parker more. Of course, one of the biggest parts of Peter's story in both films is his relationship with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen in each respective series). In both films, Peter unintentionally plays a big part in the character's death, with him refusing to be a good samaritan and letting a criminal get away, which leads to Uncle Ben being shot. This is the big emotional moment of both series, and for me, the writing behind Peter in the Maguire series is what gives him a big advantage in this comparison. After gaining his powers, Maguire's Peter enters a wrestling tournament and wins a large cash prize, which he hopes to buy a car with to impress Mary-Jane. However, the crooked manager of the tournament refuses to pay, and so Peter doesn't intervene when he is robbed at gun-point. When this results in Uncle Ben's murder, it is a lot more powerful because Peter has acted selfishly towards Uncle Ben in a prior scene by refusing to listen to his advice. Combining that with his pride of not interfering with the manager being robbed, makes for a greater tragic moment as Peter realises what his selfishness has caused. In The Amazing Spiderman, Garfield's Peter refuses to listen to Uncle Ben in a similar manner. However, his confrontation with an employee at a shop that leads to Uncle Ben being shot is very unconvincing. In the first series, Peter refuses to act due to not being paid money to impress a girl. In the newest series, Uncle Ben is killed simply because Peter didn't have enough money to buy a chocolate milk. It just isn't as dramatic and feels forced, whereas in the Maguire series the confrontation is more intense and we get a clearer depiction of what can happen if Peter uses his powers for his own ends.
As Spiderman, both portrayals have their particular strengths and weaknesses. One could argue that because Maguire is so convincing as the unpopular kid, he isn't as convincing as a superhero, whereas Garfield's established cockiness makes for a more obvious character that would go around fighting crime. What works best about Maguire's Spiderman is that he never comes across as overpowered, making for more suspenseful encounters between Spiderman and his enemies. Take the fight in the first film for example, the final encounter between Spiderman and the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). Green Goblin beats him to within an inch of his life, which makes for Spiderman's resurgence more spectacular, and so means that we root for him more. Unfortunately, in the first film especially, Maguire is handed some painfully corny dialogue to deliver as Spiderman. Although Spiderman has always said one-lines throughout his history, some of the dialogue here is painfully bad, but also hilariously bad. My particular favourite is this exchange between Spiderman and the Green Goblin from the first film:
Green Goblin: "What about my generous proposal? Are you in, or are you out?
Spiderman: "It's you who's out, Gobby... out of your mind!
Having this kind of dialogue really downplays any seriousness that should be felt when Spiderman has to save the day. Granted, there is a limit to how seriously one can portray a superhero, especially something as un-realistic as Spiderman. However, when comparing the two franchise's portrayal, Garfield seems to have the better writing behind him and more presence. In both films in The Amazing Spiderman series, Garfield's Spiderman displays the same intense attitude as his alter-ego, and so is a more of a threat to criminals when given his superpowers. He is far more intimidating, but also more humorous without ever coming across as corny. This is all displayed in a scene from the first film, when Spiderman confronts a criminal who bears close resemblance to Uncle Ben's killer. He jokingly webs him to the wall, dancing around and laughing. However, he quickly changes his mood and squares up to him. Upon realising he isn't the killer, rather than simply letting him go, he warns him that things could have "gotten a lot worse". Garfield's Spiderman isn't flawless though, with the removal of his mask being done so often in the first film, that it becomes almost comical. I'm willing to overlook the removal of the mask by the villains and the police, but Spiderman deliberately reveals his identity TWICE within mere minutes! In the second incident, it is to help a calm a young boy who is trapped in a car suspended from a bridge. Despite the silliness of him removing his mask, the scene is another example of why, for me, Garfield is the superior Spiderman. Throughout most of the sequence, Spiderman never loses his cool, constantly encouraging the boy when helping him escape. Maguire's Spiderman seemed to always shout and sound fearful. Although I cite the more human element of Maguire's Spiderman as a strength, in the moments of him rescuing someone, he seems less reliable when compared to the more level-headed Andrew Garfield Spiderman.
To conclude. though I enjoy both actor's portrayal of each persona, I believe Andrew Garfield just about edges out Maguire in this comparison. Despite Maguire being the more convincing Peter Parker, Garfield's Spiderman comes across as the more heroic. When things got tough, you never doubted that he wouldn't pull through and be victorious, whereas Maguire's Spiderman gave up being Spiderman in the second film simply down to the stress of trying to balance his lifestyle. Garfield's Peter Parker also has his flaws that help to aid his transformation into Spiderman in the same way that Maguire's did, meaning that he too can be relateable and gain the audience's favour. I look forward to seeing how Tom Holland will portray both the personalities of Peter Parker and Spiderman , and am excited to see what possibilities await for the character, as he joins the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Andrew is the best Spiderman
ReplyDelete