This is an issue because the source material informs too much of his character and motivations for this aspect of the character to be out of sync. With Garfield, I have a bigger problem with his take on Peter Parker not feeling even remotely true to the source material. While I don’t dislike this, I have a hard time loving it as much as I used to. His dialogue is incredibly one-note and campy, which is exactly Sam Raimi’s intention. ![]() I never had a problem with Maguire’s take on Spider-Man, until I watched the trilogy again years later. Tobey Maguire is vastly more believable as the unsettling science nerd he portrays in SM trilogy, while Andrew Garfield is much more fun to watch with the costume on, especially in TASM2. Strangely enough, both franchises excel at one side of this character. The character of Spider-Man has always had a dual personality, with the mask allowing the dorky Peter Parker to get out of his shell with quips and daring antics. This is a harder question to answer than usual because it’s almost a tie for me. Do not read if you haven’t watched these movies yet. SPOILER WARNING: there are some major spoilers below, especially for The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I don’t agree with all of his points, but this is a pretty good analysis that can be paired with my own if you want a more comprehensive insight. Note: When doing my research for this piece, I came across a similar breakdown done by the Nostalgia Critic on YouTube. So in the end, we should have a pretty clear answer. In order to reach a verdict, I’ll have to break these movies down by their core elements: characters, story, action, and more. But comparing two entire franchises is a big undertaking, since both have significant flaws that have to be considered. Sure, it’s easy to compare singular movies to each other ( Spider-Man 2 is my personal favorite overall). We can’t really fault the TASM franchise, then, for essentially being incomplete.īut which is better? It’s a question that’s confounded fans of Spider-Man for years, myself included. In other words, Sony bit off more than it could chew, and they eventually recognized that there was more money to be made if they could play nicely with Marvel and Disney. They still made a ton of money each, but not the billion Sony was banking on. This is probably because both TASM films made less than the previous trilogy, even before adjusting for inflation. TASM2 was also a moneymaker, but that didn’t stop Sony and Marvel from striking a deal to once again nix the franchise and start fresh, virtually erasing all of their plans for a Sinister Six film and even (I’m not joking) a spinoff for Aunt May. ![]() So in 2012, The Amazing Spider-Man hit theaters with Andrew Garfield now playing a younger version of the webhead. The film was a modest hit, prompting its sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to lay even more groundwork for future spinoffs and adaptations. Sony wasn’t about to let one of its most profitable franchises ever disappear after one misstep.īut instead of continuing the saga they established with Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker, Sony decided it was soon enough to reboot the series with a new director, lead actor, and (taking a page from Marvel and Disney) overall focus on franchise continuity. While these movies certainly weren’t perfect, they made a huge impact on moviegoers like me who’d grown tired the “dark” and “cool” movie heroes who had to wear leather jackets in order to be taken seriously.Īfter the poorly-received Spider-Man 3 was released in 2007, a fourth sequel was in the planning stages for years. In 2002, Sony Entertainment kicked off the Spider-Man trilogy, which helped shape the landscape of superhero movies we enjoy today. ![]() I’m starting to realize this intro isn’t necessary anymore. “ Which is Better” is a sort-of new editorial series, where I break down two similar pieces of entertainment and evaluate which one is, well better.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |