Hello to all, today I'm here to set the record straight on the Raimi Spider-Man vs the Webb Spider-Man. Now, since we obviously can't compare one film to an entire trilogy I'm going to use arguably the best one of the three. I will compare Action, Soundtrack, Casting, Performances, The Villains, and Peter Parker's character development. Here goes:
Oh, and by the way. I'm actually going to do more than post a few random photos and say "AMAZING SPIDER-MAN WINS!!"
Action
Let's start off by comparing the action between the two films, TASM had a few cool scenes including Spider-Man vs Lizard in the sewers, Spider-Man vs Lizard in the school and Spider-Man vs Lizard atop Oscorp Tower. Now, I actually enjoyed all three of these scenes but I think it's obvious that Spider-Man vs Lizard in the school was in fact, the best of the action sequences in The Amazing Spider-Man. Now, let's have a look at the action sequences in Spider-Man 2, first off there's Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus near the beginning when Ock makes the miniature sun. Then Spider-Man vs Doc Ock in the bank, Spider-Man vs Ock on the train. In all honesty and fairness, the action and effects in Amazing Spider-Man were not bad by any means. But, the train scene in Spider-Man 2 is one of the best action sequences in any superhero movie. Period. I mean, just compare any of the action in Amazing Spider-Man to the the train scene and you'll see what I mean. Spidey vs Lizard in the sewers or Spidey vs Ock on the train?? Spidey vs Lizard in the school or Spidey vs Ock on the train? Spidey vs Lizard on Oscorp Tower or Spidey vsOck on the train?? See what I'm getting at??
As far as action goes, the winner: Spider-Man 2
Score
Next, let's compare the score and the soundtrack. Danny Elfman's theme for Spider-Man 2 is also one of the best soundtracks on a superhero movie of all time. Standing right there next to John William's Superman score, Danny Elfman Batman score, and soundtrack from the Avengers. Just watch the scene when Dr. Octopus is about to rob the bank, or when he's about to throw the car through the window at Peter and Mary Jane. The music from those scenes still rings loud and clear in my head. As for The Amazing Spider-Man, well the soundtrack was not bad by any means. But, it was forgettable is what I'm trying to say the theme from Spider-Man 2 still rings loud and clear in my head, while I barely remembered the theme from Amazing Spider-Man. I had to go watch it again just to hear the score. The score for Amazing Spider-Man was utterly forgettable and at times didn't make any sense. I think it's actually quite clear that Spider-Man 2 had the better soundtrack.
As far as the soundtrack goes, the winner: Spider-Man 2
Casting
Next up, I will compare the casting choices from both films. Starting with Amazing Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield was a near perfect choice for Peter Parker, Emma Stone was great for Gwen, and all of the other casting choices were near perfect in my opinion. As far as Spider-Man 2g goes, well Alfred Molina IS Doc Ock. That's one of the best casting choices in a superhero film ever, right next to Heath Ledger as Joker and Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man. However, I thought that where Spider-Man 2 and where the Raimi films failed overall was casting. I'm sorry but, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst were horrible choices for Peter and Mary Jane. I thought that they both did very well under the circumstances, and Molina is the perfect Doc Ock. But, in all fairness Amazing Spider-Man for sure had the better casting choices.
As far as casting is concerned, the winner: The Amazing Spider-Man
Performances
This one will be short because it goes hand in hand with the previous one. I'm going to compare the performances from both films. Spider-Man 2 suffered from bad casting yes, but not bad performances. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst were both bad choices but they did the very best that they could've under the circumstances and I commend them for that. Alfred Molina is the real star of Spider-Man 2. As for Amazing Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone also gave great performances to match up. Honestly, I'm inclined to say it's a draw in this area.
As far as performances go, the winner: Tie
Villains
Next, I'm going to compare how the villains were handled in each film. In Amazing Spider-Man, Lizard was based off of the older comic book version with no snout as opposed to the far cooler McFarlane one with a gator-like snout. This wasn't the big problem though, the CGI for Lizard was not bad but it wasn't great. Also, Lizard's character development was a bit odd. At the start, Conners was a man who simply was trying to develop a serum to regrow his arm. When he succeeds, he hears that Oscorp is going to test it on people so he rushes after them to stop them. After he had transformed into a Lizard, there was the scene on the bridge when he tried to stop the Indian guy working for Oscorp. After that scene, he retreated to the sewers and at some point decided he wanted to cure everyone and turn them into Lizards. I think what the film was trying to say was that Conners had tasted physical perfection and now wanted to share it with the world. But, it didn't really convey this very well on screen. I understood, because I knew the character but no where in the film did it really convey Lizard's motive for wanting to turn everyone into Lizards. If you don't think about the character you know in the comics, it seems as if he just randomly decides that he wants to turn everyone into Lizards. It's a bit odd...
Now, let's take a look at Dr. Octopus from Spider-Man 2. The CGI for Doc Ock was nothing special as with Lizard, but it was good. Alfred Molina's portrayal of him pretty much blows Lizard outta the water though. Also, Ock's development as a character made a bit more sense. At the start, he was a very kind man who was building a miniature sun to create clean energy. After the first experiment failed, the arms had fused permanently to him which would play a part later on in the film. But, not only that, his wife died. Inside him that day, something just snapped. Later, as the arms had caused him to become increasingly more violent, he turned to villainy in order to complete his experiment, the arms were slowly changing who he was. At the start of the film Ock had explained how he was dominant over the arms, but after his wife died and the arms fused to him they slowly made him more aggressive and dark. Until the very end, when Ock fought with himself to gain control over them one last time to save the city. It was truly epic! I am 1000% more of a Lizard fan than a Doc Ock fan, but let's face facts. The villain in Spider-Man 2 was handled far better than in Amazing Spider-Man.
As far the villains go, the winner: Spider-Man 2
Character development of Peter Parker
Last, but most definitely not least. Pete Parker's development as a character is wildly different in these two films. In Amazing Spider-Man, Pete starts as an irresponsible jerk teenager (which I was okay with, because that's how he's supposed to start) but you see that's my biggest problem with Amazing Spider-Man. Pete doesn't really learn anything, learning from mistakes and making the better of things is what Spider-Man is all about, and is what makes him such a great character to begin with. Amazing Spider-Man failed to showcase this. At the start Pete was irresponsible, he pays for this when Uncle Ben is killed. He should have learned then, but he goes after his Uncle's killer instead of using his abilities for the greater good. Captain Stacy calls him out on this during their conversation at dinner, that he wasn't helping people that he was on a personal vendetta. Pete should have learned then, I was still waiting for it, then Lizard killed Captain Stacy atop Oscorp Tower and Stacy made Pete promise to stay away from her, he had to accept the responsibility of staying away in order to keep her safe. Pete agree, at which I was happy I finally thought that he had learned. At this point it would have been fine, but then he had to just go and ruin it all by saying “Those are the best kind” Breaking his promise, and still hasn't learned responsibility. He didn't learn anything throughout the entire film.
Now, let's look at Spider-Man 2. At this point in Pete Parker's life he had been at the superhero act for a while. Naturally, he had grown bored and thought that the world really didn't need him anymore, he longed for the things he had before and the luxuries, social life, relationships, etc. so, he gives up the mask and costume. Spider-Man no more, but over time he grew as a character and through experiences realized that what Ock said was true that when you have a gift to share with the world, you have the obligation to share it as long as it makes the world a better place. Peter realized that wasn't about his selfish desires and wants and that in order for good to prevail he would have to sacrifice many luxuries. He sacrificed his relationship with Mary Jane for the greater good. (The POLAR OPPOSITE of what Pete did concerning Gwen in TASM) and that was truly epic! Overall, at the end of Spider-Man 2, Pete had gone through a transformation and was different. While at the start of TASM, Pete was irresponsible and at the end, well he was the EXACT SAME WAY. Spider-Man 2 far better showcased what makes Spider-Man great in the first place, learning from mistakes and using them to better yourself.
As for the character development of Pete Parker, the winner: Spider-Man 2
Overall, TASM had better casting for sure. The performances, I ould say were equal. While SM2 had better action, score and development of the characters. Overall the winner is..
Spider-Man 2
Seriously, TASM lovers give me one good reason how TASM is better than SM2 other than Garfield looks cooler than Maguire. Seriously, I know I'll probably get hounded, and attacked. I know I'm in the minority, but I stand by my case. SM2 is better than TASM.
But, go ahead and counter argue if you think TASM is better. By the way thanks for reading and please express your opinion in the comments.