@superguy0009e:

Why do you think Toby is good as Parker and Garfield as Spiderman? Because the Nostalgia Critic told you that? Because Toby was horrible as Spiderman and Peter Parker.

Toby is like Hayden Christensen playing Anakin in the Prequels.

@xenology: But was that Hayden's fault or Lucas writing and directing fault. I mean Portman was horrible as Padme and Sam Jackson was bland as Mace. Even Ewan Mcgregor was pretty bad in TPM (though better in the other 2 films)

It's the same for McGuire was it his fault or what he was given to work with ?

i cant wait to see if tom holland was gonna be better than both of them

Tobey is love. Tobey is life.

Misguide made a better Peter then Garfield, but Garfield was a better spiderman.

Andrew Garfield was the better one, Tobey's Spider-Man was a crybaby and an all around looser.

God... Some of the arguments on both sides are absolutely awful, especially with the generic and predictable logic that I have seen so many times in this debate really gives me a headache. That's why I retired from being a Maguire supporter and moved on from this debate. Well at least the cancerous side of this debate has diminished since Spider-Man was rebooted AGAIN, and this debate has gotten really old and shouldn't be brought up so much because fans of either Maguire and Garfield will be living in the past.

Tobey made a great Peter Parker, Andrew made an amazing Spider-Man (no pun intended).

Jokes on you guys, Tom Holland nails both sections! Both Peter and Spider-Man, he has it down!!!!

Tobey Maguire all the way !!! spider man 1 is the best . You can feel and relate to the story so well . Should have been written differently 2&3 and maybe more action in 1 but hey , you can't have it all, youngins these dayz . World isn't perfecto. The movie industry has really gone downhill

Tobey is an ideal loser Spider-Man.

The other guy comes off as a douche

I did not like either of them, but Tobey if I had to choose.

Andrew is the better Spider Man

Tobey is the better Peter Parker

Overall, I choose Tobey because his first two Spider Man movies were superior in every way to the Amazing movies

Yeah, No. Peter Is A Geek/Nerd And Has Been Considered A Loser To Some Of His Peers/People Who Picked And Harassed Him. But, Peter Wasn't Really THAT Much Of A Loser. He Was Pretty Normal. Garfield Never Came Off As A "Douche" But More Of A Regular Person With Struggles And Flaws. Peter Was Like That And Still Is Pretty Much Like That Depending If You Handled His Character And Humanity Correctly.

Tobey seemed more like a nerd, but he had little to back this claim besides good grades and saying smart stuff. The comic world requires more than this to prove yourself.

Garfield didn't seem very smart at all, but he managed to make the web shooters and help Conner's make the lizard formula. He seemed like a weird jock in a way that didnt play sports but did crazy stuff kinda vibe.

Their peter's were both not perfect and had flaws that should not have been. I enjoyed Tobey's Peter portrayal much more than Garfield's one though.

Garfield's spiderman was the better out of the two. His spider sense was done better and used more/shown more. He was closer to the comics in terms of abilities and look. His spiderman was stronger and much more quick thinking. He also joked more than Tobey's spiderman. Spiderman makes tons of jokes.

Overall: Garfield was the better version, but the written stories of his movies were horrible. What made Tobey's franchise was the villains. They were very well done for the most part. Venom being the worst. The original spiderman movies also focused a lot on Peter which was their best part of the hero. The amazing spiderman franchise didnt do Peter as well and tried things that just didnt work out.