The character of Spider-Man has reached millions worldwide. One of the main ways our favorite web spinner has though is his highly popular and money making film franchise that helped Spidey hit the big screen in 2002. Since then, everyone not only knows who Spider-Man is, but his origin and most famous villains.
Now, Spider-Man (2002) introduced me to Spider-Man. I wasn’t a big comic reader until I saw him on the big screen. I became incredibly fascinated by his origin, which I admit is one of my favorite stories in all of fiction. I can never get enough of it.
Perhaps this is why on January 11, 2010 when the Sam Raimi Spider-Man franchise was announced to be rebooted, I didn’t mind that much. We got three Spider-Man films that told their tale and wrapped up their story, so now could be the time to take Spider-Man in a modern and serious approach.
I was never sure what Spider-Man (2002) wanted to be: a straight up comic adaptation forced into the real world, or a modern take on Spider-Man for the 20th century. For the sake of comparing, I will say the latter, though I am honestly not sure.
For the comparing, there will be the following categories:
Acting: How well was each actor/actress, and were there any weak links?
Villain: Which movie had the more compelling villain?
The origin: Did each film handle the origin well, and provide the correct alterations to make it fit on screen?
Love story: Which film had the superior romantic plot?
Character: Which had the Peter Parker that resembled the comics?
First off: The acting. The acting in Spider-Man (2002) isn’t bad at all, as it’s actually very good for what it needs to be: a light hearted superhero film. But acting is more than giving a performance, it’s about delivery. When Tobey Maguire delivers Spidey’s well-known banter, it just doesn’t work for me. But that can be forgiven, because he doesn’t hardly quip.
For The Amazing Spider-Man, the acting I thought was also really good. I stand by my statement that the death scene of Uncle Ben, with Peter trying to bring his father figure back to life is one of the most well-acted scene of the Spider-Man franchise. Andrew Garfield puts his all into this performance and it shows. My only complaint is Irrfan Khan. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t understand him half the time.
So which one had better acting? For me, I would say The Amazing Spider-Man, but I can appreciate the fact that the only reason the acting in Spider-Man (2002) was cheesy was because of Sam Raimi’s poor directing: He fell in love with the 60’s Spider-Man that that is what we got, right down to the cheese factor. That being said, both get a point in the category.
Now, we discuss the villain. I’m not going to sugarcoat this: The Lizard wins. Why? Because Norman Osborn’s motive as the Green Goblin is completely unclear once he kills the board of directors. What does he want to do? Take over New York? Destroy Spider-Man? (Which, we never know if his offers are sincere, seeing how his second attempt he held a pumpkin bomb behind his back.) The Lizard, while a very bland villain, actually, (and literally), gave us a motive: He wanted to evolve New York and turn everyone into Lizards because he saw the human race as weak, and wanted to create a world without weakness. Point goes to The Amazing Spider-Man, although Willem Dafoe gave an amazing performance.
Every superhero has an origin story. Spider-Man’s just so happens to be my favorite. I love the idea of a scrawny outcast getting superpowers and becoming a hero. So which film did this better than the other? That is very tough. While I love aspects of The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man (2002) was more memorable for me, and therefore resonated with me more. Spider-Man (2002) tells the origin and nothing but for the first part of the film, and doesn’t worry about setting up sequels. For that, the point goes to Spider-Man (2002), while I admit The Amazing Spider-Man has some of my favorite scenes, (including the ‘Till Kingdom Come montage and Uncle Ben’s death).
What would a superhero movie be without its love interest subplot? Apparently nothing, because EVERY single superhero adaption has one, if not a love triangle. I always disliked Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship. This goes back my the one question: What does Peter Parker see in Mary Jane, so much that he needs to buy a car to impress her? We are TOLD he is in love, rather than shown. She’s described as the “girl of his dreams”.
On the other hand, Peter and Gwen grow together, and you actually know why they like each other: Both are interested in science. While you could say “that’s it”, IT is simply not. After Peter reveals his secret, they grow together, and share Peter’s life as a superhero together. There’s no hiding his identity, and I like that. It’s what a teenager this day and age would do. Point goes to The Amazing Spider-Man. (And also, I’m not the one to notice on-screen chemistry, seeing how I’m a guy, but you really feel the bond between Peter and Gwen in this new movie. And that’s what makes the relationship work the most.)
So now it’s 2 to 3. What else could we possibly get into to discuss these films? Simple: The character these films were based on: Who portrayed the better Peter Parker for their time?
In my opinion, it’s a tie. How? Simple. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (2002) portrays the Spider-Man of the 60’s minus the humor. That was Raimi’s intention. While it doesn’t work in modern times, the character is spot on. Tobey plays the down on his luck, gee-golly Parker we got from the Lee/Ditko run.
From an interview for The Amazing Spider-Man, Marc Webb says this: "When you walk out of the theater, I want the world you see to resemble what you saw on the screen. Part of the joy of cinema [is that] you make the impossible look real. I wanted it to be more grounded and more realistic and that went for the emotion of the scenes, the physical action and wardrobe. It's less based in Steve Ditko world and probably closer visually and more influenced by "Ultimate Spider-Man" but it is also very much a world of our own devising."
Keeping in mind that The Amazing Spider-Man was heavily influenced by “Ultimate Spider-Man”, the Peter Parker is very true to this. Andrew Garfield plays a modern Peter that is smart enough to not dress as a stereotype and yet portrays a 100% relatable teen. And for that, it works perfectly.
In the end, The Amazing Spider-Man, (for me), was the superior Spider-Man film by just a little bit. But that won’t stop me from watching Spider-Man (2002) and Spider-Man 2 (2004) back to back every other holiday! I hope you catch my next Compare and Contrast article! And remember, no matter how many times Uncle Ben kicks the bucket, we should all be there for our Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man!