The Amazing Spider-man because Spidey just face Lizard,not a Power Ranger Monster/Snowboard,or other villains.
My personal favorite is The Amazing Spider-man. It hit all the right notes for me and I preferred Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker much more. The love interest was also handled much better in this movie thanks to the great chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone. Spider-man 2 is my second favorite because I loved the way they portrayed Doc Ock and it had a lot of great scenes. The first Raimi Spider-man movie is also great and I thought his origin was done really well in that movie too. My least favorite is obviously Spider-man 3, but I don't hate it like a lot of people do. It is a very flawed movie, but it's also pretty fun too.
If we're judging on a whole, then the Amazing Spider-Man. The trilogy, while very enjoyable, just had way too many missteps. On a case by case basis though, I still preferred Spider-Man 2 to Amazing.
Considering the first 20 minutes alone of The Amazing Spider-Man absolutely obliterated all three of Raimi's awkward cheese laden movies put together, it's not even a contest imo. The actors, the acting, the dialogue, the pacing, the tone, the action, the characters... they nailed every base a Spider-Man fan could ever want or hope for with this new one, and by extension re-highlighted just how awful Raimi's attempts were by distant comparison. Andrew Garfield, on top of being an amazing actor, was exactly what Peter Parker was: a lanky kid with a bit of a snarky attitude, brilliant capabilities, and socially awkward. Compared with Tobey Macguire who looked 32 years old, is short & stalky and is just horrendously boring to watch on screen, THIS was finally the Spider-Man we've all been waiting for. The only issue I have with this reboot is that I hope they don't try to contain it to just a trilogy. To do Spider-Man right, you can easily project at least 5 movies since there's SO many vital bases to cover: Norman Osborne aka Green Goblin #1, Harry Osborne aka Green Goblin #2, Gwen Stacy, Mary-Jane Watson, Eddie Brock aka Venom, the Sinister Six, Dr. Octopus, the Jameson's, etc. You can get one hell of an epic pentalogy out of this franchise with next to no filler required.
Okay, I'm probably in the minority here, but I prefer Maguire to Garfield. But Maguire and Garfield were two different animals, or more accurately half of the same animal. Maguire played the classical, heartfelt part of Spider-Man right, with him being socially awkward (geeky and over-nice), and being torn between his civilian/hero responsibilities, especially when they become intertwined (MJ in danger, the Osborns, his acquaintances Octavious, Brock, Connors going off the deep end). Garfield made Spider-Man more contemporary and realisitc (more rebellious rather than awkward) and verbally tough; despite complaints that his Spidey was way too dickish (a complaint I somewhat share - "promises you cant keep are the best kind" MY AFT), the fact is his ASM has just begun his hero career, and it's going to take a lot to make him accept his job seriously - knowing the comics, we can guess who's next to be taken out... In any case, the best Spider-Man would be a combo of Maguire and Garfield - Garfield as the hero, Maguire as the civilian. If you're dissatisfied with either, there's always Dan Gilvezan as Spidey in the 1994 series or even THE ELECTRIC COMPANY LOL.
I need to see TASM before I can make an accurate judgement, but I'm certain it's better than that abomination of a movie known as Spider-Man 3.
i liked the first spiderman, and the second. both are great films. just don't like tobey maguire. he never fit the part. but i liked that jj simmons, he was clearly the highlight of all three movies. Willem Dafoe, was amazing, and i want him back as oswald in amazing spiderman 2. i like Kirsten Dunst, but her character really didn't exist for anything more then to be rescued. and then there is Bruce Campbell in all three movies. but other then that, everything was done so much better in the amazing spiderman. however, i am not saying Raimi's movies are bad, they're just okay. and i do give Raimi a lot of credit for bringing spiderman to the big screen. and the first time something like spiderman, batman, or superman, go to the screen from the comic books, there tends to be a lot of changes. and screw ups. and it is because of the Raimi films that the writers and director of the Amazing spiderman, was able to learn from it, and learn what made it good, and what made it campy. I think if the amazing spiderman was made first, it would of ended up exactly like the Raimi versions. probably the same actors as well. over all i like both sets of films, but i liked the amazing spiderman better.
I liked Rami's trilogy but I loved ASM. It just felt more like a Spider-Man movie if that makes sense. Still hope they tweek the costume a little closer to the comic version for ASM2 though. Also I like pie.
I liked both series. I like them for different reasons. Spider-Man 1 was the first successful blockbuster after 9-11 and got superheroes back into public media (I know X-Men but still this was bigger). Spider-Man 2 is a great sequel and Alfred Molina was amazing as Doc Ock. Spider-man 3......yeah you got me there. Amazing Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield's acting that's why.
Honestly, The Amazing Spider-Man COMPLETELY blows the previous three out of the water...as far as I'm concerned (the 2012 one that is, ). It wasn't an absolutely perfect movie, but it worked soooooo much better. They also got someone competent to play Peter, a really hot and also competent actress to play the love-interest, Gwen, and actually made me rather interested in Spider-Man. Enough so, that I'm actually contemplating getting into the comics, even if I have no idea where to begin... That said, I am a little worried about the sequel due to the change in writers. Not exactly because who it is, Orci & Kurtzman, but more the fact that they changed the writing staff. However, I'm still excited for it, will definitely see it in theaters, and part of me is having a hard time seeing it not also being a huge improvement from the Raimi films.
I think Raimi's first Spider-Man movie was an overall better movie than Amazing (though Amazing definitely had some pros over it; first and foremost being the quality of the performances) but I don't think the same of its 2 sequels. There isn't really an option for that in the poll. Why can I only like the entire Raimi trilogy or dislike the entire Raimi trilogy? It's 3 movies and I have a different opinion on each one.
I recently watched the Spider-Man 1 and 2 and seen amazing Spider-Man twice. For how amazing the original movies were back then now feel cheesy compared to the superhero movies today and didn't age well. Batman begins changed the superhero movie. I also think that the xmen movies are better and aged better than Spider-Man. Amazing Spider-Man improves and brings out more emotion. I can't compare this right now but the old series was too repetitive it always had the same act placement. It goes my, peter's life ok but could be better, new villain comes in, peter's life improves, Mary Jane problems, villain problems, down on luck, final battle must save Mary Jane and loses mask, villain dies, Mary Jane loves Peter the end.
nobleboivin, this is probably the best poll I've ever seen on TFW. If only more polls were like this...
