Spider Man ('02) vs. The Amazing Spider-Man ('12): VOTE

Okay, BBSers, it's time for the moment of truth: which first Spider-Man movie do you prefer? I'm talking strictly on their own merits as inidividual films, so no giving points to SM1 for SM2's greatness or knocking ASM1 for covering similar ground as the previous movies. (Or, if you do, at least be honest about it. ) Another matter for honesty: when you last saw either movie. The first one came out twelve years ago, after all.

Begin!

 

Film: The first one
Lead actor: Andrew
Leading lady: Kirsten
Villain: Dafoe
Supporting cast: TAS
Direction: Raimi.

Last saw TAS in the cinema when it came out, probably last watched the Raimi version in its entirety on DVD some years ago.

 

Across the board, I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man more.

 

The 2002 film was better in every way except the romance (Stone was, although not as attractive, more appealing than Dunst and Garfield and Stone had more chemistry; also Martin Sheen was about equal to Cliff Robertson) but both were were pretty flawed; the original was too OTT corny (overstressing the nerdiness and the extent of Peter's love for MJ) while the 2012 film was too OTT "kewl," the Lizard and shadowy figure were way underwhelming and it really didn't feel complete without Jameson.
Saw the 02 film last year and TASM in 2012.

 

I tend to prefer Spider-Man, but I enjoy them both. I think Garfield is a better Spider-Man and it has a darker tone, but I enjoy the corniness of the '02 movie, and even though I think Garfield and Stone have better chemistry I think the development of the romance was handled better in the '02. I'm just glad that we have so many Spider-Man films to compare.

 

The new film was better in every way, save one: Willem Dafoe. His turn as the Green Goblin (and as Harry's delusion in the later films) was amazing.

 

I honestly tried to approach this as objectively as possible, and only after making my choices did I realize that I had given the Raimi original the edge in every category. I do think it's slightly unfair, since Raimi/Maguire had three movies and Webb/Garfield have only had one so far. ASM '12 was overall very good, but it undeniably suffered from covering almost all of the same ground as SM '02 did. Hopefully the sequel will blow us away.

 

It's a party-line vote for me, too. Both movies have script hiccoughs, but to me, SM1 is considerably messier overall - why does a super-wealthy kid go to a public school, and why is he best friends with a dorky total bookworm? How are we supposed to take MJ at all seriously when she sees Peter and Spidey five minutes apart in roughly the same spot, hear both of them say they were "in the neighborhood", and not catch on? Etc.

In retrospect, after seeing how modern and fresh Webb made his movie, it seems clear that Raimi's movie should have been set in the 1960s, to match the overall tone and direct lifts from the early comics. As it is, the movie just feels awkwardly out of time, something that a great script could overcome and even turn into an advantage, but the script was just mediocre. Full disclosure: I don't think I've watched the movie since '04 or so.

 

Spider-Man is just better overall.

It's a more fun movie, Willem Dafoe is great and the origin story is tight and focused. The Amazing Spider-Man suffers from following the same story structure as Spider-Man but changing the beats a little bit but not enough to validate its existence. For example, the scene Uncle Ben has with Peter in The Amazing Spider-Man seems so close to the one Uncle Ben has with Peter in 2002's Spider-Man. You can tell the writers really wanted to use the line "With great power comes great responsibility", but obviously felt like they couldn't, and so they dance around that moment.

It's been a while since I've seen it, and while The Amazing Spider-Man is more fresh in my mind, Spider-Man is a better package. Although Andrew Garfield is a much better Spider-Man/Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire. On top of that, I thought Garfield's chemistry with Emma Stone was a lot more believable and authentic than Maguire's chemistry with Kirsten Dunst. Furthermore, I thought Emma Stone was far more likable and charismatic than Dunst in general. I think that's one thing that The Amazing Spider-Man actually improves upon and does better.

I should probably watch 2002's Spider-Man again. Something tells me it maybe hasn't aged remarkably well. It is definitely a product of its time. I've actually warmed up a bit to The Amazing Spider-Man since I initially saw it, but I still can't get past the first hour - on top of that, The Lizard is a fairly dull and uninteresting villain. I am cautiously optimistic for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, though. I am curious if the sequel can overcome the pitfalls of the original now that the origin story is out of the way.

 

I voted for Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man and Emma Stone, but other than that I gave the edge to the first Spider-Man film. As my esteemed colleague JacksonArcher points out, it's a much more fun movie.

Amazing Spider-Man is just all over the place, the editing is horrible, large chunks of story is missing, and if it weren't for Garfield and Stone, I may not have enjoyed it at all.

 

These two statements, not in complete and total agreement, they are.

Well, that's just about the most subjective standard possible by which to rate a movie. I myself don't think the Transformers concept merits the existence any movies at all, but who's asking me? (Note to all: don't answer that. ) I enjoy ASM1 a hell of a lot more than SM1, so for me, that's enough existence-validation in of itself.

There's also an interesting philosophical question there, namely: is it really fair to judge one movie against a prior adaptation? Isn't it equally fair to judge movies as if they were the only ones of their kind? Marc Webb's commentary for ASM1 convinced me that he genuinely cares for the characters and franchise. Raimi didn't invent Spider-Man - I'm not sure he really invented anything significant to do with SM1 - but because he happened to have been born first, and got the opportunity to make his movie first, some people act as though Webb is less necessarily less creative for having gone second.

 

^I think this is a hugely unfair statement. Raimi got to make his film because he had a proven track record of making really good movies and because he understood and respected the source material. Frankly, I never heard of Marc Webb before he was announced as the director of ASM. I think Webb did an excellent job of remaking a movie that had already been made, but (with all due respect to the OP) I am at a loss as to what Webb did of any signifigance that Raimi hadn't already done. What, exactly, makes ASM more "modern" than SM? Aside from slightly better CGI, that is.

Also, to respond to the OP: I watch the original SM two or three times a year (I last watched it a couple of months ago). I've seen ASM once, and have felt no particular desire to see it a second time. I do have high hopes for the sequel, though.

 

The fact that his Spider-Man actually made quips and had fun in combat makes him the winner over Raimi's. Tobey Macquire was a horrible Peter Parker.

 

I'v read this before about "Amazing', but I always think, "but they were corny ass quips that were badly written, badly delivered, and not funny".

Man, people loved Willem Defoe? I thought he was terrible. Way, way over the top and just plain ridiculous. But with the exception of Defoe and Dunst, I preferred Spidy '02.

Emma Stone is a can't miss over Dunst, who wasn't bad, but just didn't have a megaton of charisma and charm working for her as Stone did. Tobey Maguire, who can actually do comedic acting, is way better than Garfiled.

But Garfield "looked" more like the original Spidey drawings in the comics than Maguire.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying Webb was more inventive/creative than Raimi; they were both adapting a story that had already been told many times over in visual and animated form. And I'm not trying to diss Raimi, but even after the executive meddling, I think Webb was working with the better script. Who exactly should credit for that, I've no idea, but there it is.

The modern bits of ASM are mostly subtle and incidental, as they probably should be, but they're there: the cell phone gags, Peter talking about photoshopping, the video of Spidey that goes viral, the Stark-like futuristic holograms.

With the Raimi movies, on the other hand, you can imagine them set in the 60s, with the clothes and cars being decades older, and pretty much nothing else changing. (The genetically engineered spider, maybe, but that's about it.) In SM2, for instance, MJ almost gets married at, what, 20? And then Peter proposes to her before he even finishes college? Very old-fashioned for contemporary New York white kids. Does he even own a computer in any of the Raimi movies? Sure, laptops were a bit pricier a decade ago, but not by that much.

I'm not certain, but I suspect Raimi would happily have made his movies as period pieces if he could have, whereas Webb is clearly more interested in the now.

 

But at least they existed. Considering it's a core aspect of the character, that's kind of important.

 

^Well, SM had Peter making a couple of quips in the wrestling match. I think if you compared the two films side-by-side you wouldn't find a huge difference. The only really memorable joke from ASM was "tiny knives".

Also, I've read many MANY Spider-Man comics where he doesn't crack a single joke. The wisecracking thing is fun, but I wouldn't call it a deal breaker.

Raimi was clearly going for a movie where you couldn't quite pin down the timeframe. Like Richard Donner (Superman) and Tim Burton (Batman), he was shooting for ambiguity as to when the movie takes place. It's a pretty common approach when a filmmaker is interpreting a character that's been popular for decades. If you ask me, it gives the movie a timeless quality. I think ASM's references to contemporary things are going to make it seem dated in just a few years.

 

What, you don't think we'll have viral videos and mobile phones in a few years? You don't think sci-fi flavored movies will feature holograms anymore? I cannot agree...

If you like. To me, no movie can escape its own time - Star Wars still looks pretty fresh, except Mark Hamill's hair screams "1970s! We got yer 1970s here!" in pretty much any frame he's in. The big exception is movies set in the past, a la, say, Raiders or Zodiac. If a director sets a movie in a timeless present, he'd better have an awesome movie on his hands, as in Seven, or the vagueness just makes everything blander, as in Superman Returns. ("When are we? And do I even care?") Besides, an art deco imaginary Gotham is one thing; an early 2000s New York City is something else entirely.

Ebert once said something to the effect of "the more a movie knows its own time, the more timeless it is, as the more rooted in a real human experience it is." To me, part of the appeal of a movie like Casablanca is the fact that the same story wouldn't work a decade in either direction; its specificity makes it more timeless, not less. Ditto Back to the Future - as we've discussed on the board before.

To me, the vague time-ness of Raimi's SM movies is a mild handicap, whereas setting them in the 60s might have been a significant improvement.

Just my $.02.

 

I just voted, and I had to go with the original from 2002. I last saw both on Blu-Ray just after Christmas 2012 (that was the first time I had seen TAS) and really, I found the story just did not hook me like the 2002 movie had, and I really had no interest in it. Of course, I guess I'm one of those one's where I find Sam Raimi had left the door open enough in "Spider-man 3" for a "Spider-Man 4", that even to this day I have to question the logic behind rebooting the series after only 10 years, instead of continuing the story of the original theatrical trilogy.

 

I like just about everything in the Raimi film more, but I'm biased because Raimi went out of his way to recreate panels from 60s and 70s Spider-Man comics that I loved growing up.