Spider-Man: Raimi Vs Webb

This week I did something I haven't done before, I watched both the original Spider-Man franchise and the Amazing Spider-Man movies (including the new one).  So today I am going to tear them apart to determine which of the two franchises is the definitive Spider-Man.  Because the movies are so different I'm going to compare the similar elements first, starting with the characters.

The Family

Everyone knows Spider-Man was raised by his aunt and uncle, and in the movies they are portrayed very differently.  In Raimi's original trilogy May and Ben Parker are much older, personally I preferred the younger version that Webb chose.  Sure the late Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris were a more accurate portrayal, and far better used than Martin Sheen and Sally Fields are in Webb's series.  This is a difficult decision for me because I am such a fan of Sheen's other work.  However if I had to choose based solely on their performances in the films...I'm gonna have to give it to the original.  Despite their age they are just given a lot more to work with, which results in a far better set of characters.

The Thief

This one is a far easier choice to make.  In Sam Raimi's Spider-Man the thief is seen robbing the wrestling promoter, presumably taking thousands, after the promoter refused to pay Peter $3000, Peter lets him go.  This results in the death of his Uncle in a carjacking gone wrong, and a fairly emotional confrontation a few minutes later.  In Webb's Amazing Spider-Man however, Peter lets the thief get away after being denied chocolate milk from a convenience store, and uncle Ben is then killed trying to stop him.  This leads to Peter searching for the man, who apparently looks like every other criminal in New York, and confronting the look alikes one by one all while being a smart-ass, cheapening the whole ordeal.  So for this I obviously have to go with the original.

The Love Interest

For this one I can't directly compare Gwen Stacys, because that would be unfair to Bryce Dallas Howard who only got a few minutes of screen time.  So instead I'll compare Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy.  In Raimi's movies Peter and MJ have a...complicated relationship.  Personally I feel Raimi's handles the idea of a civilian vs superhero identities a lot better.  Peter knows that he can't be with MJ and still keep his secret in tact, this works for the first two movies.  However the third movie doesn't have this barrier and their being apart is just for the sake of keeping the character consistent.  In The Amazing Spider-Man however, Gwen learns almost immediately that Peter is Spider-Man.  This leads to an entirely different relationship, one that is far more supportive and actually makes the characters better.  Of course both actresses are really just playing the same roles they always play, and Emma Stone is just more charming.  So I give this one to Gwen Stacy.

Flash Thompson

Honestly, both franchises horribly misuse this guy.  Flash is Peter's high school bully as well as Spider-Man's #1 fan, and in the comics he goes on to become his friend, joins the army, loses his legs, becomes an alcoholic, sobers up, and becomes Venom.  In the Raimi films we get maybe two scenes where Flash picks on Peter, and the incredible hallway fight scene where Peter fights back.  In Webb's movies we get a scene where he picks on someone else and gets angry when Peter calls him on it, a scene where he loses at basketball to Peter, a scene where he tries to offer support to Peter after Ben dies, and one last scene where he is shown in a Spider-Man shirt.  In essence Webb's version is the jock we all knew in high school, not a jerk, just full of himself.  It's this more humanized take that Webb does that ends up being the better interpretation, and therefore the winner in my opinion.

Green Goblin

Comparing all the villains would be like  comparing apples to broccoli, they're just all so different.  So instead I'll do the common enemy; The Green Goblin.  Raimi's Goblin is portrayed by Willem Dafoe, and my God what perfect casting.  Dafoe is terrifying, going from calm to crazy banana-pants at the drop of a hat.  Raimi's version also has a Jekyll and Hyde feel as the Osborn and the Goblin are separate entities.  The only problem with this version is the suit, it just looks ridiculous, especially when compared to this anamatronic mask they were testing for the film.

As for The Amazing Spider-Man franchise (MAJOR spoiler warning for those who haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet), Norman is not the Green Goblin, instead it is his son Harry.  In the film Harry is Peter's childhood friend who has been away at boarding school for years, only returning to the city because his father is dying of a degenerative disease that turns his skin green, and by the way it's genetic.  So throughout the movie Harry is trying to find a cure for his Green Goblinitis that involves Spider-Man's blood.  But when he finally gets it the blood not only cures him, but turns him into the Green Goblin for a whole 5 minutes.  Honestly this was probably one of the bigger slaps in the face Webb's films gives us.  It's clear the Goblin is only in this movie to set up the Sinister Six film that's in the works, although Rhino is handled even worse.  Though to the movie's credit Dane Dahaan does really well with what little he is given.  As for the suit, personally I feel it's really dumb, but arguments have been made for it being better than Dafoe's.  This comparison ends up being a bit unfair in the end simply because of how high the bar was set with Dafoe, and how lazy Webb's attempt came off as being, the better Goblin is Dafoe.

Spider-Man

And now for the topic you all came to see, which Spider-Man do I feel is better.  First a bit of background.  When the original Spider-Man movie was being cast over 10 years ago, even the studio thought Tobey Maguire was a bad choice because he wasn't the action star they wanted.  However Raimi wasn't looking for an action star, he wanted Peter Parker...and he got him.  When it comes to Superheroes and villains I feel movies need to stick with a simple rule, cast the secret identity, not the hero.  Think about it; the costume is going to be worn by a stunt man most of the film anyway, so whats it matter if the actor can bench a truck.  Maguire however did end up bulking up considerably for the movie, and thanks to baggy clothing he managed to maintain the illusion that they were very different people.  This version of Peter is more emotional than Garfield's and the way they are both played are very different.  Andrew Garfield plays Spider-Man as a smart-ass hipster.  He does the quips we all wanted from Maguire but never really got, and his body type is more what we expected as well, the lanky, more spider-like look.  However where Maguire was the perfect Peter Parker, Garfield is a more more accurate Spider-Man.  Garfield's Peter is an entirely different story, he's obnoxious, he seems cooler than he should be, and despite appearing smarter than Maguire's version, he ends up being all show with his gadgets whereas Maguire was actually intelligent.  If you look at the fights in these movies Garfield is constantly being told how to win by Gwen, but Maguire improvises,  examples being removing his mask to appeal to Octavious, or creating an acoustic enclosure to bring down Venom.  As for the suit, both The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Raimi's suits are equally impressive, seriously well done costume people, these are fantastic.  So the ultimate decision ends up being one of personal preference here, and personally I just prefer Tobey Maguire's take on the character.

As a last minute bonus, check out these images I found on the internet of the unused Black suit and Venom.

Seriously, between these, the Spider suit, and the unused Goblin Mask Raimi proved that it is possible to have comic accurate costumes that don't look stupid on film.