#1 Edited by novi_homines (1342 posts) - - Show Bio

I would like to know what you guys think. As far as the first spiderman film is concerned, it seems clear as day, TASM is a much better origin film in my opinion. For 3 simple reasons:

1. Andrew Garfield brought the Spiderman character to the big screen, something that Tobey didn't do. Tobey simply didn't have that spiderman charisma. Andrew did in my opinion.

2. It went more in depth with his childhood. Instead of starting with Aunt May and Uncle ben, we start with his real parents. And we get a richer story on who they were, and what they did.

3. Spiderman is shown to be a genius in TASM, as he naturally is. Something that Spiderman 1 didn't show. Although it was showed to a small extent in Spiderman 2, by proposing to Octavius that his calculations might be wrong. In TASM, he's shown to write complex formulas, as well as solving problems Dr. Curtis Connors himself couldn't solve. Also, he's shown to build his own web shooters. Which can also be a display of his engineering skills as well, something spiderman 1 doesn't show.

I personally think TASM was a better film, and garners alot of unwarranted hate. But I want to do what you think. Do you agree? Disagree? Share your opinions!

#2 Posted by frogdog (3721 posts) - - Show Bio

#3 Edited by Perethorn (4164 posts) - - Show Bio

This is for me an all life dilemma, i mean, i liked both films but its really hard to make a veredict of wich one is better based on the comic book, that is because both films exclude or have things that the other does not have.

Like example, TASM showed us a better Peter Parker, that was able to capture all of his charisma. It also introduced the artificial web shooters, Gwen Stacy as the first girlfriend etc. I will say that this film is mixing Amazing and Ultimate story lines. It excluded some important things, like Peter working for the Bugle, the wrestling and the Uncle Ben signature quote or characters like Harry Osborn. Also it changed a few things, Captain Stacy was killed by Doc Ock in Amazing and by Chamaleon in Ultimate, Lizard never killed him and Pete doing skateboarding never happened.

SM 1 was more dark and mature. IMO this film has a better villain and characters. Willem Dafoe Green Goblin was amazing, James Franco managed to make Harry the fragile and complex character he is, JK Simmons J Jonah Jameson couldnt be better, Aunt May and Uncle Ben are also better. This film recreates better the power and responsibility issue within the web head, wich is the main focus of the 60s and 70s stories. It also changed things, Spidey only had organic webbing with the symbiote and excluded some pretty interesting things, like Harry Osborn been a drug addict.

#4 Posted by PunyParker (13837 posts) - - Show Bio

I would say neither,but we have to choose one,so i'll go with the most original and "comic-cut-out" and that's the Raimi one.Field trip,spider bite,wrestling,Uncle Ben's death,Spider-Man.....simple as that.....i liked ASM more,but as for origin,it's the 2002 film that did it,not better,but more original.

#5 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (37001 posts) - - Show Bio

Amazing Spider-Man is by far a better film than any of the Raimi ones.

#6 Edited by batmannflash (6227 posts) - - Show Bio

Amazing Spider-Man was better than Spider-Man 1 for all of the OP's reasons. however, it is not better than Spider-Man 2. Despite all the hate, it is close, IMO.

#7 Posted by Wolverine08 (46489 posts) - - Show Bio

TASM for me.

#8 Posted by novi_homines (1342 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog: Lol!

we can act civil and have a discussion without the need for drama.

#9 Edited by Techwarrior (30 posts) - - Show Bio

The Amazing Spider-Man was better hands down, it was true to the origins and it included Peter's original love interest.

#10 Posted by Mild_Karl (131 posts) - - Show Bio

Amazing Spider Man, in my mind, Andrew Garfield IS Peter Parker & I refuse to accept any substitutes.

#11 Edited by w0nd (4345 posts) - - Show Bio

oh i seen one of these threads, it went on hundreds of pages worth lol

Anyways how he got his powers I like the original spider-man movie better, i don't like the idea of a bunch of radio active spiders in a room creating mass produced web fluid.

when people say it's true to the origins it really isn't that much. Some things are the same in the comics, others were change, just like the rami ones. I don't recall him entering a shrine of radio active spiders in the comics, or his parents working on it....and now there are talks of his spider powers being something more than just the result of an accident, due to his parents involvement. Hope that's a rumor though.

Over all I like tasm better

#12 Posted by Extremis (3375 posts) - - Show Bio


And no poll? ._.

#13 Edited by novi_homines (1342 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis said:


And no poll? ._.

Lol I wanted to simply have a discussion. I figured if there was a poll, people would simply vote and not make their claims as to why they like one over another. Lol I apologize if you wanted raw numbers. But based on the replies, TASM seems to be in the lead handily. 7 to 2.

#14 Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (6695 posts) - - Show Bio

Raimi's Spider Man, his origin story was a lot better and I think a better story overall. ASM felt too much like a forced love story.

I'm not entirely sold on Garfield as Spider Man yet, he seemed like a weird hipster skater rebel or something which I didn't like. I prefer the awkwardness of Tobey. What I really want from a Spiderman is one who makes consistent Jokes, each movie had the one moment where Spider Man got to be funny and completely left it out. Spider Man needs to make more jokes!

I really don't care about Peter's real parents because Uncle Ben had a huge presence and impact on Peter like a real father would, basically I see aunt may and uncle ben as his real parents minus their title but to each his own.

#15 Edited by The Stegman (27268 posts) - - Show Bio


#16 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Spiderman 1. TASM sucked.

#17 Posted by Superguy0009e (2265 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines:The original Spiderman movie is my favorite movie EVER (and I'm not just saying that). While I respect your views, I would have to disagree that TASM is better. To build on your points

1.While is Spiderman was great, the writers messed up Peter Parker. Peter is a shy nerd that becomes an A-hole and later a hero. Here, they turned him into more of a high school archetype that we see nowadays. He really didn't feel uniquely Peter Parker-esque. Again, not Garfield's fault, more of the writers.

2. While it was nice to see Peter's parents, they never really went any where with it. Sure, it helped him meet Conners, but there was supposedly way more that was meant to be in the movie. I think it could have been cool to see, but they are waiting for the next movie to answer questions that I think need answers.

3. I half agree on this. Both Peters were never really shown to be INCREDIBLY smart. In SM 1 (lets just keep it to the first one to be fair), Peter is compliment by Osborn for understanding his scientific research. TASM Peter was more of a tinkerer. Give him something, and he'll tinker with it. While I don't think it is fair to use the webshooter example (since SM1 had organic webs), the idea with the book was alright, again, the movie was apparently changed a bit.

I think the next movie can be good, I just really want them to go back to the character we all know and love. This video basically sums up how I feel (though not as extreme in the views)

#18 Posted by Veshark (9080 posts) - - Show Bio

Spider-Man will always be the better movie to me, TASM was just meh.

#19 Posted by Extremis (3375 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by jumpstart55 (2253 posts) - - Show Bio

When i was a little kid Spider-man 1.

When i got older The Amazing Spider-man.

#21 Posted by lilben42 (2614 posts) - - Show Bio


#22 Posted by flashpass (18 posts) - - Show Bio

The romance was much better in tasm, but i still think Spiderman was better. Garfield seems too much like a regular cocky high schooler and not nerdy enough to pull off Parker. And I think I've had nightmares about the skateboard scene...

#23 Posted by Wolverine08 (46489 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Garfield's performance as Peter Parker better than Maguire's. Maguire's Parker was too melodramatic and emotional for my taste. And it felt like he was forcing the "I'm a loser" vibe. I preferred the loner aspect of Garfield's Peter Parker and I also liked that he cracked jokes.

#24 Edited by novi_homines (1342 posts) - - Show Bio

@superguy0009e: Thanks for replying in such a civil manner. lol

1. I do agree that tobey was a better pete in terms of being more shy. I don't know if he was a better pete in terms of being a nerd. Though the term "nerd" can be a very subjective thing. I consider myself a nerd, and i'm more similar to TASM's pete. I feel like in most ways the tinkerer aspects, evident by both the web shooters and remote door lock, is a better showing of him being a nerd than in Spiderman, in which it was only shown by him wearing glasses and getting bullied. But as I said, defining a nerd is very subjective. One thing i'm sure we can agree on though is that whole skateboarding aspect. Simply unnecessary.

2. Peter's parents weren't only nice for the simple fact that they were there, and its something that hadn't been touched on before. But the significance of pete's parents, more so his father, was evident throughout alot of the movie. You could sense that when pete would go through his father's journal (either in his bedroom or on the roof), it was in a sense a way of connecting with his father, through science. Intelligence is something they both shared, and the journal acted as a bridge that connected pete to his dad long after death. It then brought him closer to a friend of his father. Which revealed even more things about his parent's past.

My point is, even though his parents were gone physically after the first few minutes, their presence was their throughout the film. This entire concept and significance was completely absent in Spiderman 1.

3. I would consider peter actually comprehending his father's complex scientific formulas in his journal, as well as creating a successful formula, one that eluded Connors for years, a display of pete being incredibly smart.

I like your points, but I think we may simply have interpreted things differently. And/or value the pro's in our respective movies over the ones in the other. Though there's nothing wrong with that. After all, that's what makes everyone different.

#25 Posted by SOG7dc (8823 posts) - - Show Bio
#26 Posted by novi_homines (1342 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc said:


i agree with you 110%

Thanks! I loved spiderman 1, and it's still one of my favorite origin stories. I initially thought TASM was good, but would always be inferior to Spiderman one. But once I had watched TASM again after my nostalgia levels had subsided, and objectively judged the two films, TASM was clearly the better of the two. At least in my opinion.

#27 Posted by RedLantern23 (890 posts) - - Show Bio

Uncle Ben and Peter Parker's chemistry in TASM was terrible imo. I dont know if it was Martin Sheen or the script, but it was very robotic and cold. To the point where Ben's death didnt do anything for me emotionally. It kind of ruined the movie for me. I enjoyed the rest of the film however. I have high hopes for the sequel.

#28 Posted by SOG7dc (8823 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines: I think TASM was the better film. I liked how they brought spider into 2012 and made him a real teenager. Flawed, a few self esteem issues, unsure of himself, looking for himself (which I think TASM did very well in a subtle manner) and being a bit irresponsible. It's been a while but the only irresponsible thing I remember Pete doing in Spiderman 1 was not catching the guy that killed uncle Ben. And I don't have problems with slight changes in the Mythos because I like movies to establish their own rendition of the characters to a certain extent. The skateboarding thing didn't feel out of place to me because teenagers do stuff like that today. The movie felt very current to me. I loved alot about Sam Raimi's films but I just personally enjoyed TASM alot more. And as fr as the complaints about Peter being self absorbed etc. Go find me a teenager who isn't lol. Now granted there are things that made me go "WTF?" in TASM, him getting caught by a array bullet, WTF was the lizards plan??? Was he gonna turn everyone into lizards for a few hours? Lol but other then that I loved it. Especially Emma Stone!

#29 Posted by Ninjablade09 (3226 posts) - - Show Bio

I for one personally liked ASM's origin because it was different. I also like that they stretched out what Peter is like before he gets the powers. I also liked how he didn't really want to use the powers at first, but the guy who killed Uncle Ben forced his hand.

I thought the part in the convenience store was more down to Earth. It gave Peter more of a reason to not want to help the guy, he wouldn't let him get his milk even though it was only $0.02. I would have been pissed about that. I do wish though that they kept the original version of the scene, because I didn't care for the idea that Uncle Ben tried to stop the guy. This seemed more random and it could have happened to any one...

I also liked how they used Peter's spider-sense to alert Peter something wrong happened to Uncle Ben.

#30 Posted by Sky_Pirate2 (72 posts) - - Show Bio

I think both versions have their good sides and bad sides.

To tell you the truth, I didn't like the spider bite scene in either. The 2002 movie had the spider sit in a web for a long time, before sliding down a webline to Peter (like it had decided to bite him) and biting him. While TASM had Peter walk into a secure room, that he had seen two people leave wearing hazmat suits. If you've ever seen the 1977 TV movie, the spider bite scene in that was much better (and didn't feel as forced).

I like the fact, that we got to see Tobey's Peter experiment, with different costume designs. And I like the fact, that Andrew's Peter wore a prototype costume, instead of the traditional on, in the first movie. If we get back to the 1977 movie, for a moment. We don't get to see Hammond's Peter consider other possiblities or wear something else at first. Instead he just shows up, in the traditional costume (giving off the impression, that it was the first idea, that crossed his mind).

When it comes to love interest, I prefer TASM. Gwen was more vital to the plot and became Peter's sort-off side-kick. Whereas Raimi's MJ serves no purpose. She was simply there, to act as the damsel in distress. And what exactly did Tobey's Peter see in her? I have no idea.

#31 Posted by DH1986 (22 posts) - - Show Bio

My major problem with ASM is petty, I know, but I thought he was to weak. He has trouble with a few thugs, and spidersense seemed absent. I really like both films, I probably prefer ASM as an adult, but I can't escape the influence of Raimi's first, particularly the closing I'm Spiderman monologue. Epic!

#32 Posted by Superguy0009e (2265 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines: No, I'm right. It's ok though. (Lol)

1. Fair enough. Not all definitions are easy to find.

2.Alright, I'll give you that. It seems to give more of an Ultimate Spiderman origin.

3. But wasn't the completed formula already in there? I thought Peter read it and just found it there. (I'm not too sure)

And I agree, it is great to have a civil conversation..... you cow.(Lol)

#33 Posted by PaperDemon (632 posts) - - Show Bio

Spiderman (original) In LOTS of ways.

#34 Edited by spider11211 (1161 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked both but I will give the edge to Spider-man, it had Bruce in it.

#35 Posted by GeekBait (785 posts) - - Show Bio


#36 Posted by Experio (17734 posts) - - Show Bio

I like TASM more,people who might not like it now might enjoy the second one featuring The Rhino and Electro.And TASM 3 and 4 have also been set release dates,my guess is that they are planning the Sinister six

#37 Edited by muhabba (301 posts) - - Show Bio

I hated TASM on the same level of "Twilight". The girl Peter has a crush on just happens to be mentored by Peter's Father's lab partner who just happens to still be working of the same formula 15 years later at the same place they just happened to work at when Peter's father disappeared and then Peter just happens to be bit in that work building which just happens to have the worst security system in the world. (seriously, a pad-lock from any hardware store would have stopped the entire film) Rami's movie had more depth than TASM in my opinion.

#38 Edited by RedRoomWriter (29 posts) - - Show Bio

Both had strong and weak points:


  • Close to the original origin with the crook that kills Uncle Ben that he let get away.
  • Tobey does a good job of capturing Peters ackwardness around Women
  • Aunt May initally hates Spider-Man, exactly like the comics.
  • Defoe's Green Goblin was Perfect


  • Peters Genius is shown a lot more, Mechanical web shooters taken directly out of the origin
  • Wisecracks aplenty, Tobey's Spidey cracks always felt cardboard, Andrews feel spot on.
  • Closer to the original origin with Gwen Stacey being the original Parker Girl.
  • Curt Connors as the Lizard as it should be.
#39 Posted by Bezza (4028 posts) - - Show Bio

Spiderman 1 is still my favourite Marvel movie involving a single character, but I watched TASM on Saturday and its a close second. They both have their virtues and flaws. For me the main issue with TASM is that he isn't strong enough. I thought the Maguire Spidey was spot on it that regard. I mean when Garfield had to run away from that mob towards the beginning of the film and the bad guys kept getting back up. Just plain stupid. If a normal human got kicked or punched by a guy who can lift 10 tons he'd be instantly hospitalised or dead. In fact, the "earth versus the Spider" was more realistic than any spiderman film in how it dealt with that subject as basically one hit from the spiderman and the bad guy was dead!!

#40 Edited by Reignmaker (2236 posts) - - Show Bio

Andrew Garfield was more like Ultimate Spider-Man (Bendis creation). Tobey Maguire was more like Amazing Spider-Man (Stan Lee, Steve Ditko creation). Kind of ironic given the title of the second film.

Personally I prefer the earlier interpretation. I really don't care for hipster Peter. Maybe watching him skateboard to Coldplay was awesome for a lot of people, but that's not who Peter Parker was when he was originally conceived.

Still, I'm ok with the film itself. It's just a different take on the character. They were certainly able to pick up some of the Twilight crowd so I guess it was a good business decision.

#41 Posted by TheDarkKnife (3 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe it's just because I was 14 when Spiderman 1 came out, but I think it trumps TASM. I expect great things for TASM 2, but for me, Spiderman 1 wins easily.

Honestly, I prefer Garfield to Maguire as an actor. By Spiderman 3, Maguire looked old and out of place while Garfield will likely look "young enough" to portray Parker for years to come. That said, I think Maguire made a better Parker and Garfield a better Spiderman. It's hard to believe that Garfield could be or an outcast or have any sort of self-esteem issues, with is perfect hair and nerd-chic fashion choices, while you can feel Peter's awkwardness oozing out of Maguire. I do agree that the wise-cracks were lacking in the Raimi film, which helps Garfield's Spiderman out.

I'm a big fan of origin stories; subsequently, I'm a harsh critic of origin stories. Man of Steel for example (I know this is a whole different can of worms) was a good movie overall, but the film was so caught up in itself, it didn't take the time for Clark Kent to really step into his role as Superman. He found the Fortress, found the suit and became Superman. In Raimi's Spiderman, we see Parker designing his costume, learning to use his skills, easing into his newfound identity. I really appreciate the time spent here. I don't think TASM let me appreciate the origin as much as I would have liked. And Peter's parents? Forget about it. Ben and May are all the parents we should even care about.

My teenage fan-boy self gives me what may be an unfair bias towards this debate (although I may be a bigger nerd today than I was then). I really do believe that TASM series will become the prominent Spiderman story in film. As long as TASM 3 doesn't feature Eric Foreman and a silly, gothic version of Peter Parker, I'll be happy.

#42 Edited by 8008S (519 posts) - - Show Bio

Spiderman 1 despite its flaws. My main issues with ASM were a) I couldn't buy Garfield in the Peter Parker side of Spidey, and b) the ending made him look like a total jerk and not responsible at all. Then again, this might make sense in the context of the saga if the next films follow up on this and provide consequences to his decisions, but in terms of a stand-alone movie it was a poor ending note.

#43 Posted by spidermonkey2099 (615 posts) - - Show Bio

I much prefer TASM. Though it is not without its faults. I mainly wasn't completely happy with how the Lizard was portrayed... I don't know exactly what it was about the performance I didn't like... it just seemed a little bit off to me, but apart from that I thought TASM was brilliant, and far superior to the Raimi trilogy.

I think Andrew Garfield is simply a better Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire was a likeable enough Peter Parker, but he wasn't the brilliant, quippy, charismatic Parker/Spidey that I see the character as. Garfield is all of these things in the newest film.

Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy SO much better than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane, in my opinion. Kirsten Dunst is a terrific actress in other films, but I did not like her at all as Mary Jane. She just wasn't convincing to me.

While Willem Defoe was a decent Norman Osborn, his Green Goblin persona was too over-the-top campy to me. And his suit did not look good either. That being said, I feel similarly about the portrayal of Curt Connors/Lizard by Rhys Ifans (he was good as Connors, but Lizard was just a little off... maybe a little too over-the-top as well... I don't know).

I also felt that the inclusion of the backstory involving Peter's parents allowed for more emotional depth. The "emotional" scenes in the first Spider-Man (minus the death of Uncle Ben, which I thought was actually pretty well done in that film) just didn't feel all that convincing to me. And I just didn't much care for the more campy tone of Raimi's Spider-Man films. Yes, Spidey is more lighthearted than Batman, but that doesn't mean you have to make him seem so corny.

Those are just my two cents anyway.