• 50 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by TheCannon (18807 posts) - - Show Bio


#2 Edited by TheCannon (18807 posts) - - Show Bio

Who did worse in the role?

In my opinion, Garfield did MUCH worse. At least Clooney was decent as Bruce Wayne. Garfield wasn't even acting. He just showed up, collected his check, and said his lines.

#3 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

George Clooney ain't Batman and neither are the others...they all stunk except for Christian Bale of course.

Andrew Garfield is Spider-Man.

#4 Posted by TheCannon (18807 posts) - - Show Bio

So you vote Clooney?

#5 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

LOL, you voted for Andrew Garfield. Since you didn't put who did worse it is assumed better....HA HA! This is definitely a good laugh...you might want to lock this and put it in proper format.

#6 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

Just in case you missed you title it is Andrew Garfield Spider-Man vs George Clooney Batman. Since this is a vs match you vote for the winner not the loser.

#7 Edited by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

Neither of them were bad.

Clooney wasn't the problem of the catastrophe that was Batman and Robin. It was the writing and direction. The worst actor of that particular film was whoever played Batgirl/Barbara Gordon, and I doubt it was even her fault. Everyone involved in that film did it for the paycheck. Hell, the only reason it was even made was for the merchandise sales. The only people at fault were WB and the monkeys that hired the writers and Joel Shumaker. Clooney, Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman have all shown to be better actors than that (two of those won Academy Awards), so they clearly showed up for the money. And who can blame them, honestly? If a director came up to me and asked me if I wanted to play a superhero/villain for $xxx,xxx,xxx, (I have no idea how much they were payed, but I bet it was a lot) hell yeah, I'd do it.

I'll be the first one to tell you that The Amazing Spider-Man was made to keep the rights to your friendly neighborhood wall-crawler. Hell, my biggest problem with that movie (among other things) was how Sony marketed it. There was no "untold" story. The only "untold" part of that entire film was the sudden disappearance of that mean Indian doctor (whose name escapes me right now), and how Peter conveniently forgot about catching Ben's killer. I digress, however. The acting was perhaps the best thing about it. Garfield specifically impressed me. The guy is a talented physical actor. You noticed the change in his confidence from the beginning to the end of the film with his use of body language (which is a rare find in today's young actors). His chemistry worked well with everyone on set, specifically Emma Stone and Martin Sheen. The only problems I had with this movie had nothing to do with the acting, so... yeah.

Neither of them were bad.

#8 Posted by Joygirl (20004 posts) - - Show Bio

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

#9 Edited by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

#10 Posted by Joygirl (20004 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

#11 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

#12 Posted by Joygirl (20004 posts) - - Show Bio

@Xanni15 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, cry you little bastard. *tastes his tears* Oh, mmmn, they taste like butter and regret and green sprinkles, so delicious.

#13 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

#14 Posted by Joygirl (20004 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

#15 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

#16 Posted by Joygirl (20004 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

#17 Posted by danhimself (22564 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

I completely 100% agree with both of you....Garfield did an amazing job as Peter Parker

I personally never much cared for any of the Raimi movies....the only characters in those movies who were portrayed correctly were JJJ and Aunt May...everyone else was completely out of character

Online
#18 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

#19 Posted by Joygirl (20004 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself: Doc Ock, however, was cooler than he has ever been/ever will be.

#20 Posted by danhimself (22564 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl: I can get on board with that....however technically you could give that credit to his arms lol

Online
#21 Edited by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself said:

I personally never much cared for any of the Raimi movies....the only characters in those movies who were portrayed correctly were JJJ and Aunt May...everyone else was completely out of character

See, I loved the Raimi movies. Both of them. They have a special place in my heart, and, long story short, they're the reason I'm the guy I am today. But they certainly have their flaws, and, the cheesiness aside, you've hit the nail on the head. Tobey, Dunst, and Franco's portrayal of their characters were downright uncharacteristic. The minor characters, JJJ, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, etc, were all great, but those main three are a little painful to watch if I were to pop in my DVD right now. Dunst especially bombed it. I hated her. While I'll admit that it wasn't completely their fault (as I've said before, that writing was tough in some spots), they were the least likable things about those films.

#22 Posted by Moonchilde (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

I accidentally voted for Andrew Garfield, cause I was thinking we were suppose to vote for who was better not who was worse, and didn't realize my mistake til after I voted. To clarify, Clooney as Batman was MUCH worse. The difference in the quality of the performances (and the respective movies) are actually so great that they really shouldn't even be mentioned in the same topic together.

But seriously, Amazing Spider-Man was actually pretty good. Considerably better then I was expecting it to be. I'd say that Spider-Man 2 is still the best Spider-Man movie, but I liked Amazing Spider-Man better then Spider-Man 1, and much more then 3 (which I hated).

Batman and Robin, however, truly is a cinematic abomination of epic proportions. I can honestly say that it is the worst big budget movie I've ever seen, and the second worse comic book film I've ever seen (Punisher: War Zone was actually worse).

#23 Posted by Battle_Forum_Junkie (8014 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

Online
#24 Posted by danhimself (22564 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@danhimself said:

I personally never much cared for any of the Raimi movies....the only characters in those movies who were portrayed correctly were JJJ and Aunt May...everyone else was completely out of character

See, I loved the Raimi movies. Both of them. They have a special place in my heart, and, long story short, they're the reason I'm the guy I am today. But they certainly have their flaws, and, the cheesiness aside, you've hit the nail on the head. Tobey, Dunst, and Franco's portrayal of their characters were downright uncharacteristic. The minor characters, JJJ, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, etc, were all great, but those main three are a little painful to watch if I were to pop in my DVD right now. Dunst especially bombed it. I hated her. While I'll admit that it wasn't completely their fault (as I've said before, that writing was tough in some spots), they were the least likable things about those films.

I think one of my biggest problems was the amount of cheesiness....I love the Evil Dead stuff...LOVE IT...but I just don't feel that Raimi was a good choice for Spider-man

my brother and I actually had a conversation about Kilmer and Clooney as Batman the other day and we both agreed that you really can't blame them for those movies...they've both proven that they are two great actors....you can however blame those movies on the writers, producers, editors, directors, WB and DC for letting WB basically butcher one of their biggest characters and ruining the franchise for years

Online
#25 Posted by Guardiandevil83 (5621 posts) - - Show Bio

Agreed. Also for what it was. Kilmer's potrayal was competent enough for how crappy the script was. He was tall enough, handsome enough, and if he would have worked on his build a hell of a lot more imposing. He was shown to be extremly good at solving puzzles and thinking on his, feet. Like when he used the night guards hearing aid to listen to the tumblers in the safe they were trapped in. I liked his Batman.

#26 Edited by stumpy49er (609 posts) - - Show Bio

I knew I had to wait to read The Cannons 2nd post before I voted. Very clever. Almost had me.

#27 Posted by The Stegman (24483 posts) - - Show Bio

 Garfield>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tobey as Spider-Man and Peter Parker

#28 Posted by AllStarSuperman (21880 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCannon: im glad at least some one realizes that Amazing Spiderman was the poop fest I do.

#29 Posted by JimTheSurfer (560 posts) - - Show Bio

You might name your thread "I HATE ANDREW GARFIELD" aswell... We all get what this is about...

#30 Posted by impossibilly (886 posts) - - Show Bio

@Moonchilde said:

I accidentally voted for Andrew Garfield, cause I was thinking we were suppose to vote for who was better not who was worse, and didn't realize my mistake til after I voted.

Yeah, this poll is poorly written.

There's no comparison between Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man and George Clooney as Batman. Andrew Garfield did an (forgive the pun) amazing job as Spider-Man. He made Peter Parker seem like a real teenager. I thought Tobey Maguire was great as Peter Parker, but I think Andrew Garfield outshone him in the role.

George Clooney, on the other hand, starred in the worst Batman movie ever.

#31 Posted by Shark_Repellent_Bat_Spray (745 posts) - - Show Bio

@BlueLantern1995 said:

George Clooney ain't Batman and neither are the others...they all stunk except for Christian Bale of course.

Adam West is Batman! Michael Keaton was also pretty good.

#33 Posted by NICK31898 (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

He honestly didn't do THAT bad.

He is a great actor, maybe spider-man wasn't his role. He still a better job thanme or you could'v done haha, and I'm an actor.

#34 Posted by Delcar (104 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

Precisely. We are in 100% agreement.

And before the hattas come hattin', yes I have read Spider-Man comics and even read a Spider-Man novel. I know the character and I know all you hattas just hattin'.

#35 Posted by tupiaz (2185 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

The best compliment you can ever give an actor is to tell them that they weren't even in it. That being said, I wasn't watching Andrew Garfield, I was watching a young Peter Parker in this day and age. I'll give Tobey a pass in the cocky/playful/funny department, because there weren't ever any moments (that I can recall, anyway) that called for the character to be any of those things in the script. Personally, I just never bought him as Peter Parker; he was just some whiny loser in a Spider-Man costume.

LOL that IS Peter Parker. PP is a cry baby an aunts boy he has never been and should never be a popular, hip character he was in TASM there for Toby is far better. True be sad Andrew didn't have the best PP script so it isn't real his fault. That Toby as PP didn't have any smart moment is a failure in the script not in the acting.

#36 Posted by deaditegonzo (3686 posts) - - Show Bio

Garfield is one of the best casting decisions Marvel has made to date.

#37 Edited by Wolfrazer (6775 posts) - - Show Bio

So did I miss something? Why all the sudden hate for the older Spider-Man movies? Aside from the obvious scenes in 3. Did a switch flip or something and now all of a sudden people don't like them?

#38 Posted by Black_Arrow (3162 posts) - - Show Bio

My only problem with Garfield Spiderman (not his problem, it is because of the script) was that he walked around all the time without his mask.

#39 Posted by deaditegonzo (3686 posts) - - Show Bio

So did I miss something? Why all the sudden hate for the older Spider-Man movies? Aside from the obvious scenes in 3. Did a flip switch or something and now all of a sudden people don't like them?

This is only my opinion, but I believe they look a lot worse looking back, because the CBM bar has been raised SUBSTANTIALLY between Man of Steel, the Dark Knight Trilogy, and Iron Man. Back then, I was just happy to see one of my favourite characters IN a movie, but then I saw that the movies themselves could be great in and of themselves.

Now, Spider-Man 2 still holds up really well, when I look past its campiness, but movies like X-Men 1 and 2 that I actually enjoyed at the time, looks ridiculous, IMO.

#40 Posted by Wolfrazer (6775 posts) - - Show Bio

@deaditegonzo: I guess that's true about the bar being raised. /Shrugs, I dunno I guess it's just kinda one of those things I tilted my head towards.

#41 Edited by MannEffest (1280 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man but NOT as Peter Parker, he felt waaaay to cool to be Peter. I did not buy him a second as a nerdy guy who was picked on. I can say the exact opposite was true for Tobey, he played the role of Peter Parker perfectly, but his Spider-Man was lacking greatly. Come to think of it I'm still waiting for the perfect Spider-Man.

#42 Posted by Gambit474 (1468 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Joygirl said:

Andrew Garfield did a pretty good job. If you're gonna hate on him then you have to literally hunt down Tobey McGuire and crucify him because Garfield did 10x better.

Yeah, Tobey sucked. But then again, I think that might've been a writing issue. I know for a fact that it wasn't Raimi's fault, so there's that.

Yeah, it couldn't have been Raimi because Raimi is good, and a few scenes even popped. But the movies just sucked, and Tobey never did anything Spideyish. He never did anything smart besides being called smart by other people. Andrew actually looked like he had gadgets and gizmos and was competent in science without being an utter dweeb about everything. He was also cocky/playful/funny which Spidey should be, and Tobey NEVER WAS.

Raimi good..Lolz no

#43 Edited by Captain13 (3332 posts) - - Show Bio

Garfield's Peter Parker is an ***hole. I hated him. I have never even hated a movie villain as much. I really can't wait until they find a new Spider-Man actor. it should have been Jake Gyllenhaal the first time around. And there was no need for a reboot.

Also Raimi made 2 of the best Spider-Man films. Webb made the very worst one.

Online
#44 Edited by leonkarlen123 (4467 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambit474: Ultimate Spiderman storyline is alot better than Amazing therefore it was better

#45 Posted by Black_Claw (2989 posts) - - Show Bio

Clooney stomps with the Bat Credit Card.

#46 Edited by oOSupermanThatHoeOo (647 posts) - - Show Bio

Clooney cuz...dem titties.

EDIT- @captain13 I kinda agree.

#47 Edited by JulieDC (958 posts) - - Show Bio

I've only seen the first film but I didn't think Andrew Garfield was that bad. Though I must make a confession, I've never seen the Toby Maguire versions, unless seeing half of Spiderman 3 counts. Besides, even when I knew nothing about movies or bad acting, and saw Batman and Robin for the first time I knew I hated Clooney as Batman because at the time, I preferred Val Kilmer and so Clooney was a let down for me.

#48 Posted by RogueShadow (10786 posts) - - Show Bio

George Clooney was not the worst thing about Batman & Robin, Andrew Garfield was okay in two okay movies.

#49 Edited by Wolverine08 (42512 posts) - - Show Bio

Clooney wrecks.

Online
#50 Posted by I3IO_HAZARD (403 posts) - - Show Bio

Garfield Spider-man is a punk ass jerk

Tobey spider-man is a whiny little loser

but they are both leagues better than clooney batman