Spider-Man (2002) Vs The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

I enjpyed The Amazing Spider-Man and the new series has a whole lot of potential but the original Spider-Man had something that just can't be out matched.

As for the characterisations in spider-man 1 people always say peter's a nerd but not once did i get the feeling that this guy is incredibly smart we are only told this by the other characters in the movie, yes he was socially awkward but he never came off as smart which is what spider-man is. And as for spider-man, he felt the exact same as Peter Parker when he did deliver the few odd jokes they came off as forced and out of character. In Tasm I got the feeling that peter was an intelligent guy, you don't have to look any further then the web shooters for that. And when he was cracking jokes because he was doing it throughout the movie it didn't come off as out of character.

I've said this once and I'll say it again...Tobey Maguire sucks!!! Good riddance

I liked Raimis trilogy a lot better but AMS is good too.

The more I watch the Amazing Spider-Man the more I enjoy it. With Avengers, the more I watch it, the more I dislike it and grow bored with it.

too many speeches in spider-man 1. that' s not how people talk at all.

Really liked TASM until Uncle Ben died. The death scene and rest of movie were terrible. Now I am not a Raimi fanboy, I actually hated SM3 but I still don't get all the love for this movie. It's like people want to LOVE this film just for the sake of SM3's disappointment.

Spider-Man got to be a fun, blockbuster of a movie.

TASM had to prove itself to be a movie. And in retrospect, it failed. It wasn't necessary. I like Emma Stone, but she was Emma Stone. Can't say anything bad about Garfield, but the rest of the cast, save Leary, were entirely expendable. Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson are vets that put the great Michael Sheen and the stupendous Sally Field to shame. And Dafoe vs. Ifans? No contest.

The action's better, the character arcs are ENORMOUSLY better (and don't serve sequels), and it was a Spider-Man that stayed true to its source material (save web-shooters). When Spider-Man came out in 2002, there was nary a complaint.

IMO Garfield nailed it ,and looks more like parker than Tobey,

To be honest i think Raimi's Spiderman was flat out a better film.


While Tobey's peter parker wasn't as wisecracking as he should have been, Garfield's was a bit too CALM COOL and quirky, it wasn't that great. I Don't think either nailed the character of peter parker but i still found tobey's version more likeable.

Amazing had a couple cool combat sequences but as a whole it wasn't anything special. Raimi's was.

But I will give TASM this. It had some spectacular special effects, and shots plus Dram Lee's cameo In that libary with spidey battling the lizard was just classic Spider-man.

Combine the best things about these films and you have great Spider-Man movie.

Andy was better Parker and Spider-Man but Toby´s Spidey costume was better than Andy´s. Just change the webbing on the costume black and its perfect.
Also web shooters has to be there. Its great way to show Parker´s ingeniousness.

I think people forget exactly what they felt after having first seen Raimi's Spiderman. It was considered by most walking out of the theater as one of the best if not THE best comic book film to date.

I just cant stand Hollywood any more with all the reboots these days, and rebooting a franchise after ten short years is friggin retarded among all other stupid reboots. There was plenty more to tell and the actors were (and still are) young enough to continue to play those roles. Reboots should be at most once a generation, not once per decade.


Or hey! Here's an idea. Stop with all the rebooting and rehashing the same stories over and over, and instead come up with something original for a change.

TAS has a better Peter/Spiderman, pure and simple. GArfield and Stacey are magic together and while I wish the guy who originally was going to be the Lizard from the Raimi trilogy was in this one, I really like this guy who ended up with the role.

And this one definetly understood that Peter is heavy into science like in the books, something that was missing from the Raimi flicks.

raimi's was better. tobey's peter was an awkward, shy outcast and that made me root for him. garfield was more of a cool rebel and i didn't like it at all.

Thanks for making me feel old. I like both versions really. I probably prefer Raimi slightly but only very slighty, I'd really prefer some blending of the two. I thought Raimi had more charm and felt more epic, and ASM was a little more real and had the more sarcastic Spider-man. But please for ASM 2 please hire a comedian if you have to so that Spider-man has good, actually funny lines and better action. And the biggest problem I've had with all 4 is please stop making the villains so sympathetic. Can't Peter fight someone who is just evil for a change? You can make a character with depth who is essentially evil.

"I am here to compare the 2 films as unbiased as possible"

Nice Garfield avatar.

ASM is awful, just awful.

And can we please stop using web-shooters to show how "Uber smart" Peter is suppose to be in that movie? He didn't even make them really, he took oscorp tech and made it smaller, big friggin whoop.

Honestly the fans of ASM are kidding themselves.

I will say this and make some people mad, but TASM was better than Spiderman 1 and 3 now Spiderman 2 is clearly superior to TASM, but TASM has 1 and 3 beat in my opinion.

Because Webb's is the current film Fanboys are easily herded into jumping on the new thing.

Just as Fanboys at one time heralded Rob (hahaha!) Zombie's Halloween (hahaha!), Nightmare On Elm Street remake, Ed Norton's Hulk reboot (that sucked as bad as Ang Lee's) as better than the previous versions.

Those type of Fanboys are simply incapable of perspective. Theyre like a Deer blinded by headlights. Theyre in awe of the "new thing" and they start singing the praise without knowing theyre praising inferior garbage. Their praise has the same merit of a virgin's review of sex. Or a blind mans review of a painting. A deaf mans review of music.

The Fanboys who say Webb's film is better than Raimi's do have the right to their opinion but they do not have the ability to judge the merits of a film and therefore their opinions are like misfires and to be disregarded.
These guys simply cant see or properly judge a film for what it is.

Raimi's film came out to critical acclaim at the time, yes it was cheesy but that's what it set out to be.

On the other hand TASM has a serious tone but throws in some serious WTF moments. It's on origin that doesn't tell much.

Yes TASM had webshooters and more realistic web slinging but you'd expect that 10 years later technical know how etc would have improved. The performances were good but characters were lacking.

It really bothers me that Connors turns into the Lizard and rather than focus on trying to reverse the adverse effects of the serum he decides everyone must be a Lizard. Meanwhile there's a perfect specimen in Peter Parker that has permanent abilities but no mutation and it doesn't pique his interest at all. He should have shown interest like Prof X did when meeting other mutants in First Class.

Then you have the prospective interns who have never heard of cross species genetics - way to prep for a job. On top of that Connors is impressed that someone knows about his area of expertise when Peter answers his queston

I agree Flash Thompson was better but what causes the 360 in him, has he lost a parent or someone close?

The Spider-bite also felt less organic in TASM, he just happens to bump into Ratha, see the folder, follows him to the bio-cable development room, which Ratha doesnt even enter because of the guys coming out. The weakest security system ever gives him access to Spiders that were created by his dad - talk about convenient.


All in I don't like to compare the two but I'd give Raimi the win because he didn't have that many CBM's to draw inspiration from.

TASM had the benefit of the Raimi Trilogy but more importantly the MCU, BB & TDK, Kick-Ass and First-Class. It feels like they just tried to make a better movie than Raimi as opposed to being better than the current gen of CBM's

In no universe should Iron Man be more fun than Spider-Man

at 04:59 LOL this guy is freaking funny

I just saw The Amazing Spider-man for the first time on Friday night. At first, I had a difficult time paying attention, but it got very interesting towards the middle. It was a very good movie, and I liked it better than Spider-man 1-3.

Mostly, I never believed Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker or Kirsten Dunst as MJ. The best way I'll describe the rest of the cast of the SM trilogy is that I felt like the characters felt like comic book characters. Not particularly well-developed, but almost like caricatures that weren't quite human. They fit the style of the film, because it was meant to be a live action comic book, not a comic book movie. As such. because Peter and MJ were not quite right for their parts, it threw everything off for me.

That isn't to say I didn't enjoy those films, and I'll admit that (at the time), Spider-man was the best CBM ever. However, that just goes to show how far things have come in ten years.

The weakest superhero movie out of the 3 that came out this summer. The sequel should be kick ass. Still hoping that Kraven will be the villain in the next one!

At least The Lizard had a half decent goal: goblin- kill Spider-Man, Doc Ock- build reactor, then what?, Sandman: steal money for daughters health, but the mother won't take it anyway