Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
Guess I'll get the ball rolling for no particular reason. The whole thing about "The Untold Story"... was that intentionally ironic? Probably not. Anyway, did the Webhead need a remake? No. Does that mean the remake should automatically concede defeat or lose critical brownie points points. Fuck no. There's not a lot between them actually and, as you'd expect, they're not exactly disimilar. Let's see, Green Goblin is vastly superior to The Lizard (character and actor). Emma Stone (love her) is ever more vastly superior to Kirsten Dunst (actress, not necessarily favouring Gwen to MJ). Andrew Garfield is more a broken Parker than Tobey M, whose cleary more nerdness peronified. I tend to prefer the despairing soul to the over-geeks, but Tobey lends the film quite a bit of humour. There's no Harry in the new one and, for that matter, there's no JJJ or Bugle either. The action is marginally better in Amazing thanks to a decades worth of polish in a technological can, but not strictly more imaginative. Both films are quite melodramatic and platitudinous, but, hey, that's just Spidey. The 2002 version might be a tad to colourful at times and certainly lacks the dark skylines of the 2012 version (which has some badass snapshots). Fuck, this really is tight. I don't want to see Emma Stone lose out to that Dunst creature, but I think I have to let it happen. Gotta blow on that bugle...
Fucking typos and grammatical brain freezes. Fuck you.
The Amazing Spider-man 100%. Amazing script, amazing actors, amazing depth, amazing emotion.
The original is FAR better. Amazing is not a bad film but it's very average with TERRIBLE writing and no action sequences that stand out at all. Raimi's version has more heart and is far smarter.
Close, but I'll give the slight edge to Amazing, mostly due to dialogue. There's a reason why David Koepp shouldn't write dialogue.
I hate Spider-Man, but the Amazing Spider-Man actually gave me a version of him I enjoyed. The movie was, for a lack of a better word, amazing. The original movie (in fact the whole original trilogy) did NOTHING to make me like Spider-Man. They are all horribly dated and campy and Tobey MacGuire is seriously a sorry excuse for anything, especially an actor. The Amazing Spider-Man wins because it made me like Spider-Man, where the original films only fueled by disdain for him.
All three Raimi/Maguire Spider-Man films are superior to TASM in every way but that doesn't make TASM a terrible movie. The reboot was cursed to try and follow a beloved trilogy. It's just too bad it didn't do it with more style or flash.
As a kid, Raimi would have won. But I was never amazed by the Raimi films even though I enjoyed them. In fact, whilst Spider-Man was my favourite hero as a kid, I always felt awkward watching the Raimi films, probably largely due to the cast and script. I agree with silenttom and pedrojsm89; while Jurassic Park may be one of my favourite films, David Koepp is terrible at dialogue, and this is most obvious in the Raimi movies. Plus most of the actors I found awkward and annoying at the time, now that I'm grown up I find many of them either infuriating (Maguire and Dunst) or just far too over-the-top and hammy (Defoe). That said, Raimi's Spiderman isn't bad, but I do think it's overrated. I think TASM improved on everything that was lacking in the Raimi films (acting, script, story) as well as everything which made them good (effects, action) and had a decent time watching it. Garfield and Stone were very satisfying to watch, and Ifans was an intriguing (if underplayed) villain. While Spider-Man left me in a mixed bag of appreciation and awkwardness, TASM left me feeling much more satisfied.
I agree with smatticus, except that I was very much amazed by Spider-Man 2. I thought Raimi perfectly balanced his quirky humor, the over-the-top characters, and the weight and depth of the Spider-Man saga in that installment. Concerning this match-up, The Amazing Spider-Man is by far the superior film. I think that it was a brave and smart choice to let the origin story of Peter Parker take its time. There is also a lot more invested in the characters and the script and some of the dialogue between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone seems to be somewhat improvised in some of the scenes. I was thoroughly entertained and I did not feel that the movie lacked anything. The original Spider-Man is a solid movie, but there is definitely room for improvement. I always felt that Raimi's films were perfectly cast, but the script doesn't breath when it should. More dialogue should have been devoted to Peter and Mary Jane's relationship as well as his mourning of Uncle Ben and devotion to Aunt May.
I think the strong performances in The Amazing Spider-Man make it the better film. Although Spider-Man has some really good things going for it, It's hard to overlook the serious difference in level of performances.
@JRyneChattanooga, I agree that Spider-Man 2 is the best of the three, and I think it would be a much closer match-up between TASM and 2, but as it is, TASM is much better than the first film IMO.
Now we get why Sam Raimi jumped off the boat on "The Amazing Spider-Man" : this flick was another dispensable hollywood Re-has/re-make/re-take on Superheroes,playing out more like a bad TV Show "Pilot" than a actually origin story,that actually would care about constructing a whole,solid arc. "The Amazing Spider-Man" is not AT ALL on the same league as Spider-Man legacy @ comics or movies..that's just undeniable. I guess Marc Webb did a average job with the concept he was given to by the producers,especially when it comes to Spiderman visuals: Andrew Garfield,with our without the mask,is a really good Peter Parker,and the way Spidey swings and moves all over the city is just what a fan would wish for. But that's about it.
And i say that just one more time,folks: A superhero movie ONLY works when creative liberty is give to a director that actually CARES about the universe he has to sketch on. "The Dark Knight", "Son Of Demon" & "Knightfall" were mixed and mashed up with Nolan amazing cinematography and realistic takes on Batman's universe. Joss Whedon is a HUGE comic book fan,that knew every single aspect he had to emphasize on each and every one of the "Avengers". On this Spider-Man take,just like on the Melancholic final take on Reimi's franchise, producers craped ALL OVER the place...just one more time. It's sad.
I have to go with the 2002 Spider-Man. The 2002 version may have truly terrible CGI by todays standards and may be a lot more cheesier than the 2012 version, but I simply enjoyed it more. The 2012 version is average at best. I didn't like the villain and his plans, I didn't like (inconsistent feeling) Peter Parker, and the movie is just very forgetable. The 2002 version had the Power Rangers-esque villain, but meh, I enjoyed watching him.
For the many elements "Spider-Man" executes well, "The Amazing Spider-Man" takes those elements and manages to make them a weakness, and vice versa.
2002's "Spider-Man" feels more complete in that it ends in a similar way as "Batman Begins": there could be a sequel, but the story in the first film is mostly solved. Apart from the funeral scene at the end where Harry Osborn vows to avenge his father, "Spider-Man" ends without the need for a sequel in my opinion. "The Amazing Spider-Man" leaves out Richard Parker's past for Peter to discover in later installments. This worries me because it might include too little to be a legitamate part of the universe, and the first film should have included as much about Peter's father as possible, in order to establish Peter's connection with his father. Richard Parker could still be Peter's father figure, despite not physically showing up, allowing Peter to help Dr.Connors try get rid of the Lizard instead of regarding him as a father figure. The trouble with "The Amazing Spider-Man" now is its being a story unfinished, we don't know where its going because important facts about Peter's father have yet to be revealed. Because information about Richard Parker's experiments have yet to be revealed, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a film that does not create enough of a fully formed world, making this film's weakest element, someting 2002's "Spider-Man" does not suffer from.
The visual effects in both versions are not drastically different from each other. I prefer the "final swing" sequence in "Spider-Man" over the one in "The Amazing Spider-Man" because it is set in daylight and the focus is on Spider-Man. The clothes hanging on clothes lines in the latter film I feel distract the viewer from Spider-Man. The visuals in "Amazing" feel more fluid, but there is not a classic moment in terms of web-slinging. For example, in "Spider-Man" my favorite moment is the bit where the camera is toward the ground looking up as Spider-Man swings from one building to another, having just saved Mary Jane from falling to her death at the World Unity Day Festival. The crane scene in "Amazing" tries to do this, but it is not the same in that it tries to hard, the James Horner theme trying to be too super-heroic. The effects for the spiders in the lab feel and look the same in both films. The detail on the Lizard is fantastic, despite the filmmakers opting not to have it look more repitilian in the face.
In terms of acting, the 2002 original is not as genuine as is the 2012 reboot. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy felt much for effortless than Kirsten Dunst did as Mary Jane. The scene at the end of "Amazing" where Gwen asks Peter why he was not at her father's funeral is absolutely heart-wrenching, and it is the best scene overall in the entire film. The funeral scene at the end of "Spider-Man" does not work in that I did not believe Mary Jane truly did wish to see Peter Parker once more. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a chemistry to was palpable in that the acting felt balanced and seemed to mesh, and Dunst and Maguire felt separate overall. Thus, the "love relationship" in "Amazing" felt more real and genuine that in "Spider-Man."
Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin is a much more threatening villian than Rhys Ifans' Lizard. It's true the Green Goblin suit looks nothing like armor and the helmet conceals his acting, but the "mirror scene" more than makes up for those shortcomings. At first, Norman himself is terrified of the Goblin, showing the initial disconnect between the characters. Dr. Connors talks to the Lizard voice inside his head as if it were following him around, waiting to say something. There is no distinction between the voices overall, but worst of all, Connors is not scared of his Lizard alter ego. In fact, Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy felt much more threatening, especially in the "dinner table" scene.
Personally, I left the Lizard should have been a truly terrifying horror villian similiar to the xenomorph in "Alien," hiding in shadows, and not having the ability to talk. There should have been a clear separation between the personalities of Dr. Connors and the Lizard (the scene in which Connors is "talking" to the Lizard right before the school fight feels like an add-on, and a much less convincing version of the "mirror scene" in "Spider-Man" 2002). Also, the goal to turn all of New York's citizens into lizard people felt forced, and I was not sure if it was what Connors wanted or the Lizard wanted. Instead of a city-wide agenda, I felt the Lizard could have been more terrifying if it sought to kill Connors' wife and son out of hatred for Connors. The Lizard is the second weakest element in "The Amazing Spider-Man," because to me, his goals were not personal or knowingly evil.
For some reason, I felt Aunt May in "Amazing" was under-utilizied, something I don't think when watching "Spider-Man." I understand Garfield's take on Peter is more rebellious, but Sally Field simply did not possess that ability to comfort Peter like she did in "Spider-Man," nor did I feel as sorry for her in "Amazing" when Uncle Ben was shot. Speaking of Uncle Ben, both Cliff Robertson and Michael Sheen portray the character in a fantastic way. Unlike Field's Aunt May, I felt Sheen's Uncle Ben in "Amazing" knew how to talk to the Garfield's rebellious Peter. Because of this, the scene where Peter and Uncle Ben exchange "how dare you's" (the second best scene in "Amazing") lands on the audience much more because in that moment they truly do not see eye-to-eye. However, Uncle Ben's death scene was handled much better emotionally in "Spider-Man" because when Robertson utters "Peter...," you feel Uncle Ben's wish to tell Peter to become a good person. With the exception of Dr. Ratha, who is written and acted blandly, the acting in "The Amazing Spider-Man" is better overall, but not by a huge margin.
The margin is much wider, however, in terms of the musical score in both films. I prefer Danny Elfman's score for "Spider-Man" much more to James Horner's music for the 2012 reboot. Whereas Elfman's confidently and accurately conveyed the inner heroic spirit and the need to help others found in Maguire's Peter Parker/Spider-Man, the orchestral feel of Horner's score blares out the character's identity in a super-heroic way in the crane scene, diregarding the fact that the story views Peter as still growing into his Spider-Man persona. Also, though I truly enjoy the use of the piano in the score, did does not help that I hear "Titanic" music in a Spider-Man film.
In my opinion, both films suffer from not only having Peter Parker reveal his identity too many times in front of too many people, but also from their depiction of New York City as supporting Spider-Man. The climactic "bridge scene" and the "crane scene" take away much of the heat off of Spider-Man. Why can't the people believe The Daily Bugle for a change? Are the filmmakers afraid that the audience will forget or won't want to cheer for Spider-Man? Stan Lee and Steve Ditko gave the wall-crawler as many problems as they could when they were first writing for the character. In "The Amazing Spider-Man," for example, it should be enough that Captain Stacy sees Spider-Man as a force for good before he dies becuase the audience will have experienced his change away from his initial opinion of Spider-Man as an "outlaw."
Both films feature fantastic looking Spider-Man costumes. The vertical lines pressed into the suit featured in "The Amazing Spider-Man" compliment to much less muscular, more flexible-looking build of the character, while the raised webbing streched across the red-colored parts of the suit and the big white eyepieces on the mask in Sam Raimi's film actually make the character feel more bigger-than-life.
The Stan Lee cameos are also more than welcome.
Though I find both films to be great fun watching, (particularly "Spider-Man" for the sense of nostalgia) I guess neither is the definitive Spider-Man film because both films focus on a different version of the character. "Spider-Man" clearly loves the bright look and fantastic feel of the Stan Lee/Steve Ditko run in the 1960's, while Marc Webb looked to translate the "Ultimate Spider-Man" comics to the screen. Though "Spider-Man" gets much of its vitality from the fact that it knows and treats its story as an "event film," "The Amazing Spider-Man" strives to take us on a similar journey more slowly, focusing aspects not yet cinematically explored (web shooters THWIP! THWIP!) and hopefully making the characters feel even more true to life than they did in the Sam Raimi trilogy. I try to think of all comic book movies based on decades of stories as comic book stories that just so happens to make it too the screen instead of the page.
The Amazing Spider Man is better by quite a wide margin.
The vote will always be split was to which Spider-Man film is better. Raimi's Spider-Man has more depth, better acting, more emotion, and has more intelligence. The Amazing Spider-Man is considerably more fun, has better special effects, and it's more entertaining overall. Kudos to both films for not actually being good entertainment (unlike a vast majority of super hero films), but I have to give the win to The Amazing Spider-Man. (As a side note, I prefer to Tobey M spidey to the Andrew G spidey)
The Amazing Spiderman felt rushed, incomplete and was wholly unsatisfying for me. The development of not only the story but the characters left something to be desired. It also lacked the raw emotion of Raimi's 2002 masterpiece. I have to give this round to the original Spidey.
Spider-Man feels like a movie made by a die-hard fan who proved that you can make both a faithful adaptation as well as a great film. The Amazing Spider-Man feels like a studio product made by people that love money.
^That^ is exactly right. Spider-Man 2002 is a great film all on its own. ASM felt like a "rights retaining" movie and had very little true emotion and a poor story structure to be honest.
And it's in your top 30. What.
The amazing spider man : one word : pointless
on Mar 4
I hated that the rebooted it, but then again (with me not being much of a Sam Raimi fan) thought that it could be done better. Spiderman: I personally hated Tobey as spidey, and I Garfield plays him exactly like I pictured him being, worse haircut though. Love interest: I think Mary Jane is the stronger person, but Emma is the better actress by a large margin. Villain: Both in actor and villain, Defoe as Green Goblin is vastly superior. Story: Flip a coin... they're basically the same story with a few elements swapped. Tone: Moody vs. cartoon, cartoon rarely wins for me The Amazing wins for me.
I can't say I hated the reboot but the original did it so much better. The emotion and story destroys the reboot and when you're talking Spider-Man, that's more than half the battle.
I forgot: The reboot is missing Bonesaw. That almost instantly makes it lose. "Bone-Saw-Is-Read-y!"
The reboot was totally unwarrented...but frankly...I liked it better than all of Raimi's....
on Mar 5
I enjoyed the reboot much more, I liked Garfield in the role more than Maguire as well.
on May 4
Seeing so much support of the new spider-man film is actually making me depressed. Peter Parker is such a horrible person in the new movie that it ruins the whole thing.