Raimi's 'Spider-Man' vs Webb's 'The Amazing Spider-Man'

Pretty self-explanatory where this is coming from, no?

Direction: Sam Raimi vs Marc Webb

It seemed like a match made in heaven. Mark Webb and a series about the world's most famous webslinger. The director of 500 Days of Summer bringing the same sort of vibrancy and knowing humour to one of the most humorous superheroes. And he certainly brought quite a bit of that to his The Amazing Spider-Man films, particularly in the elements of the Peter Parker-Gwen Stacy romance I'll get to in a bit. Unfortunately, outside of those elements, Webb's work on the cancelled series was a mixed bag veering greatly towards the negative. He never seems completely assured in the action scenes, the establishing of a superhero universe, the establishing of villains, there's glimmers of potential here and there but mostly, though his style suits the romantic/comedic scenes, it's ill-at-ease in pretty much everything else.

Raimi's work is almost the opposite. His handling of the central romance and the comedy is a mixed bag, there's some touching moments in the relationship side of things and a few great black comedy sequences in Spider-Man 2 that hearken back to Raimi's The Evil Dead films, the Daily Bugle scenes, and of course his Bruce Campbell cameos, but a lot of Spider-Man 3 is brought down by his misplayed approach to the lighter material and 'dark comedy' of Peter Parker's emo dancing. Not all of it is his fault, but his approach is sometimes tonally inconsistent; otherwise though, his work on the Spider-Man trilogy was mostly very, very solid in terms of his handling of the dramatic and action blend that the webslinger requires, he managed to fuse his personal style with the style of the comics, and managed to make the films both very entertaining to audiences worldwide, while also very respectful of the source material outside of a few exceptions.

Winner: Sam Raimi

Spider-Man: Tobey Maguire vs Andrew Garfield

I actually like Maguire's Spider-Man more than most people. He might seem a bit uncofortable at times zinging out some of the more snarky one-liners, but he handles himself well in general with the action scenes, and is quite endearingly funny whenever Spidey needs to be a bit more mischeveous and lighten things up.Really, Spider-Man in costume isn't really an acting challenge so to speak, more than anything it's a director's job to make the character stand out in the surroundings. Raimi's direction allows Maguire to thrive in the action scenes and makes each Spidey set-piece in the first two films quite compelling, and even has some inspired moments in the lacklustre third film with the whole 'evil' Spider-Man complex.

I think I'll give the slight edge to Garfield here though. Maguire makes for a fine Spidey with good direction, but Garfield makes for a fine Spidey with sometimes very questionable direction. He hits the same notes as Maguire does in terms of just being an endearing and convincing action hero, but in addition there's a bit more spark to some of the more wisecracking deliveries, in particular the car burgular scene above, and his voice and lankier physique works much better to his advantage. He plays into the motormouth Spidey more often and it makes a slightly bigger impression than Maguire's and the Raimi trilogy's slightly more serious, stoic approach to the role. Though Webb makes some questionable choices with the character (i.e. making him start off as a vigilante hunting down Uncle Ben's killer exudes more of a Batman vibe than anything else), Garfield mostly manages to brush past these to make for a very good Spider-Man.

Winner: Andrew Garfield

Peter Parker: Tobey Maguire vs Andrew Garfield

Here's the bigger gap between the two. Now I'm a fan of Andrew Garfield in general. He's leading two of my most anticipated films this December, Hacksaw Ridge and Silence, and I've found him a thoroughly engaging presence in the likes of Never Let Me Go, 99 Homes and especially his great performance as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network. However, I can't say love all of his performance as Peter Parker. Garfield's approach to Peter Parker pre-Spider-Man is a bit of a misstep as he tries to play him as this loner skateboarding hipster more than the traditional awkward nerd. Yet the script also tries to bring in some of these more traditional elements, by combining this with the early comic's presentation of Peter as a cold, reserved kid with a chip on his shoulder. It may have worked in the comics, but it doesn't really work onscreen, making Peter Parker from the outset more distant. Garfield does his best and it kind of works in the first film, not so much in the second. In addition Garfield doesn't really look the part of Peter Parker all that much; he's almost far too good-loking and physically quite imposing actually from the outset, not the sort of person Flash Thompson really want to bully, more just ignore than anything else.

Whereas Maguire is pretty much perfect for Peter Parker. Maybe it's just easier to accept him as Peter Parker because he looks the part and acts the part within his usual 'type' of the time (he's since branched out into different sorts of roles like his solid turn as a PTSD war veteran in Brothers and a paranoid chess player in Pawn Sacrifice), but Maguire is wholly convincing as ol' Pete. He may not have the bitterness and chip on his shoulder that the comics had initially portrayed him as, and may be more of a doormat than anything else for his friends like Harry Osborne and J. Jonah Jameson, but one of the most excellent qualities of Maguire's performance is that he slowly finds his way out of his shell as a pushover while still maintaining a certain 'facade' of it with certain people. Anyway, before his transformation into Spidey, Maguire is just so likable and awkwardly sweet as Peter Parker that you immediately want to root for him, even if the film does show that he's like many teenagers, selfish and flawed in his own ways.

Maguire also manages the transition into Spider-Man better, Garfield sorts of just turns Peter into Spider-Man immediately as if he'd been born to be a hero and has no difficulties finding himself in such a position. Maguire keeps it far more realistic by showing the gradual learning curve of Peter Parker growing into his role as New York's protector; it's very subjective of course, but I personally like how he never quite loses that initial edge of meekness and awkwardness to his Peter Parker. It makes sense, people don't change completely overnight, and why would you want Peter any other way anyway? He makes it understandable why people continue to like him as Peter Parker, perhaps even more so since even J. Jonah Jameson seems to have a slight sense of affection (very slight, mind you) for Peter, while Garfield's Peter just becomes increasingly obnoxious over the course of the two films, except for interactions with one very specific character.

You continue to root for Spider-Man over the three films of Raimi's trilogy because Maguire's Peter remains a uniquely charismatic, identifiable and lovable hero, that you even forgive some of the more obnoxious elements of the character the films throw at him.in the second film where he grows indifferent to everyone around him after losing his superpowers, because he's been otherwise such a swell guy. You know it's only time before he does a turnaround which he does in that rousing scene where he rescues a girl from a burning building, you'll love it so much you won't even mind it's essentially a re-tread of the first film. You even forgive the 'dark' phase of Peter as a complete weirdo in the third film because it's just a phase, you know he'll turn it around.
Spider-Man is the symbol to the city in the same way the Dark Knight is a symbol to Gotham; but it's the man underneath the mask that compels me above all. That's why I still consider Christian Bale to give the best performance as Bruce Wayne, a perfect casting choice, even if his Batman has a few shaky moments, and why for all the nonsense of Spider-Man 3 and the few iffy moments he has as Spidey, Tobey Maguire was the best choice for the role.

Note: After writing all that and watching some clips again...I feel I'm being overly harsh on Garfield. It's more the way the character is conceived from the outset that makes his portrayal a bit of a mixed bag for me. I actually really like some of his establishing scenes of Peter coping with his powers, and of course his chemistry with Emma Stone. In short, I feel in praising Maguire I may have inadvertently criticized Garfield. He's a decent Peter and a good Spidey, it's just that perhaps Maguire will always be ingrained in my mind as the definitive version of the character.

Winner: Tobey Maguire

Primary Love Interest: Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson vs Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy

An easy pick, since Dunst, though never really actively bad as MJ, is just not given to do much in the films besides being a damsel in distress and a bland romantic partner. The role as written does not allow for any of the more interesting elements of the character in the comics to come into play, and so as it stands Dunst and the film make Mary Jane Watson a likable enough love interest to Peter Parker and Spider-Man, but it's always the direction of the film that makes it more memorable than the performances of the actors in their scenes together (see: upside down kiss).

I'm not going to say that Emma Stone is a greater actress than Kirsten Dunst, in fact based on Fargo, Interview with the Vampire, Midnight Special, etc and presumable Melancholia which I've had yet to see, Dunst might actually have the considerable edge in terms of dramatic characters. Stone, however, is definitely a much more engaging presence when pigeonholed into the 'stock love interest' role, and makes a lot out of an actually quite limited role in itself. She's also kind of the damsel in distress, but Stone transcends the restraints of that by giving a very nice and sweet, and very funny at times, performance as popular girl Gwen Stacy. She has some great chemistry with Andrew Garfield, whose performance as Peter Parker she always somewhat enlivens in their scenes together. I really like every moment onscreen she had in Webb's Spider-Man films, and it's a shame what they did with the character in the second film. I know it's canonical with the comics, but just seemed in ill-taste considering that she was probably the best element of that film.

Winner: Emma Stone 

The Osbornes/Green Goblins: Willem Dafoe/James Franco vs Chris Cooper/Dane DeHaan

The two Norman Osbornes are not equal in terms of overall screentime, but based on the wholly uninspired way with which Chris Cooper played the dying Norman in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, as if he couldn't wait to get away from the set, then he's easily the worse of the two. With more screentime I'd imagine he'd just be phoning it in even more, and based on what little we see of him it looks like he couldn't wait to get off set. Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin isn't flawless. The Green Goblin suit in the first film is kind of cheesy looking, and it doesn't help that a few times his performance goes into overly hammy, 'look at me I'm eeevvvvilll' territory.

When he's more subdued with his menace, however, Dafoe is great - I mean, look at him in The Grand Budapest Hotel, it's practically second nature for the fella. Not enough time is spent on his development into the villain from the egotistic but not altogether unsympathetic scientist, but he manages to make it fairly affecting and realistic, and also has a nice juicy one-scene wonder in the second film to cap it off.

As for Harry Osborne, James Franco also has more time than Dane DeHaan to develop his character. Franco was an interesting choice for Harry in that the comic book version of the character is usually described as quite snobbish looking and unappealing overall, whereas Franco's Harry is quite handsome, a bit awkward in his own way with his wealth and prosperous family background, and friendly if a bit smug at times. His performance isn't great initially, I'm not a huge fan of Franco in general, and it's still not particularly impressive once he starts going darker, but he has okay chemistry with Maguire, and a few pretty good moments in the third film in portraying the conflicted state of Harry Osborne between avenging his father and loving Peter as a friend, even if his costume is not great. Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborne is a complete ass, which is probably the intention, but the fact that that's all there is to the character is problematic, You never get a sense of a history between him and Peter which makes the relationship between the two characters completely fail, his motivations for being a villain come out of nowhere, and when he does become the Green Goblin he's grotesque, but really not that menacing. DeHaan was probably doing this for the paycheck, I can't blame him for that, but there have been better performances for money's sake, and this is one of the worst villain turns ever.

Winner: The Raimi films (Dafoe/Franco)

The Other Villains

Both film series have had terrible villains, so let's compare those first. Spider-Man 3 is not a good film, and one of its villains is a big reason why. Eddie Brock/Venom is one of the greatest comic book villains in Marvel history, a fascinating examination of a sort of alternative Spidey. In Topher Grace's hands he becomes a complete joke of a character. I'll grant that I'm always up for actors playing against type, but only if they can pull it off. Eric Foreman does not pull it off, his Eddie Brock is smarmy and unlikable for sure, but there's not a hint of villain portrayal in these early stages as the way the script completely negates the interesting original backstory to the character is just PAINFUL. Then when he becomes infected with the alien symbiote the performance goes from bad to very, ver bad. As Venom there's not a hint of venom or menace to his portrayal, and adding to that the special effects involved aren't particularly great. I normally like Grace, but this was just a bad inclusion to a film already overflowing with villains.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is similar to Spider-Man 3 in that it's overflowing with villains. The difference is that Spider-Man 3 has one bad villain; James Franco's Harry Osborne/Green Goblin 2 isn't terrible and does his job decently enough, and though I'm not a huge fan of the 'Joker killed Batman's parents' gambit they pull with Flint Marko/Sandman, I actually really like the visual effects and casting of Thomas Haden Church, who looks EXACTLY like his comic book counterpart. His heartfelt portrayal of a reluctant criminal is flawed in writing but performed as perfectly as could be.

In The Amazing Spider-Man 2 every villain is dreadful. Every villain. Paul Giamatti as the Rhino sounds good on paper, but not once you've seen how they've mutilated the whole concept of his character onscreen, and have a talented actor give a painfully, offensive, over-the-top and hammy portrayal of a 'Russian' supervillain, all stereotypes intact. He's only in the film for a few minutes but still makes a bad impact.

Then there's Jamie Foxx in the 'main' villain role of Electro. Foxx is not terrible initial scenes in establishing Max Dillon, the geeky unstable guy who admires Spider-Man to the pint of insanity. He's not great though, and soon turns bad when he transforms into Electro. The visual presentation of the character doesn't help he's laughable as Electro himself, complete with self-declaration of 'I AM ELECTRO' and corny one-liners worthy of Batman and Robin. I generally like Foxx, but this was a huge misstep for him. I've mentioned DeHaan as well who's bad, but then Martin Csokas as Dr Kafka, whose performance...eh...I'll just leave it at there.

Csokas's awful 'mad scientist' routine actually goes to show how a performance like Alfred Molina's as Dr Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2 is so effective.

Doc Ock isn't a subtle villain by any stretch of the imagination, his name itself spells what he's all about quite overtly, but one of the excellent things about Spider-Man 2 is how it gives nuance to its villain. Otto Octavius is presented at the start as just this charming, low-key and affable guy who completely takes to Peter Parker as a protegee, and I really love the warm chemistry he shows with his onscreen wife. He's just a nice guy which makes it terrible when you see his science experiment go wrong, inadvertently killing his wife and causing him to become fused, phyiscally and mentally, to four extended mechanical arms attached to his spine. Doc Ock is the villain I'm guessing Sam Raimi most wanted to film, since he has a lot of fun with the arms and battle techniques of Doc Ock, implementing him into some tremendously entertaining action sequences, and Molina is very fun through all of these scenes by playing up the maniacal villain to the extreme. However there's also glimpses within of a more compassionate and sensitive soul lurking within which makes the character's eventual redemption all the more affecting.

Rhys Ifans' Curt Conners/Lizard in The Amazing Spider-Man is actually interesting enough in the initial stages as a downtrodden scientist who's desperate to make a scientific breakthrough, but is ultimately let down by a very negative element of the character once he undergoes his transformation into the Lizard, the film wasting a very intriguing character.

Winner: The Raimi Films 

Aunt May and Uncle Ben: Rosemary Harris/Cliff Robertson vs Sally Field/Martin Sheen

There's nothing wrong with Martin Sheen's Uncle Ben portrayal. It's a nicely warm, tough love portrayal of a good uncle whose death we mourn. The problem is something I'll get onto in a bit but he's good enough in the role, as is Sally Field as a particularly vibrant and energetic Aunt May.

However, Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben just seems like absolute pitch-perfect casting. I really love his portrayal of Ben and you really feel the power of his departure from the film. Rosemary Harris as Aunt May is perfectly fine, I particularly like her in the second film, so in this round I'll definitely have to hand it over to the Sony films.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Uncle Ben's Death/'With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility'

I did a seperate category for this because the problems I have with Uncle Ben in the The Amazing Spider-Man films has nothing to do with Mr Sheen. The way that Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker comes around to accepting that with great power comes great responsibility is really problematic in the sequel; the store robbery scene is one I understand they're trying to convey that Peter is becoming an ass over small matters, but frankly it doesn't quite pack the punch of Peter lying to his Uncle Ben about going to the library, and exiting it to find his uncle dead. I can't explain it, it feels a bit forced. Also the way the 'with great power, comes great responsibility' speech is relayed to him at the end is a bit too much. I guess it shouldn't be blamed for trying to do something different, but this is probably why it's wise not to do the same origin story twice in the row.

Winner: Spider-Man

The Spider-Man Costume/Design/Powers

I like the original Spidey suit designed by Peter, but the Andrew Garfield one does recreate the look of the comic-book version better, which I quite like. Although I have to say, my favourite one thus far is Tom Holland's one for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Winner: The Webb Films

Costume Design (outside of Spider-Man)

I've mentioned before that the old Green Goblin costume is somewhat ridiculous, but so is the newer one, so both those cancel out. In terms of the other villains, the Raimi films are more minimalist but work better that way, particularly with Doc Ock's sunglasses and trench coat and Flint Marko's iconic black and green t-shirt. The Marc Webb films have some atrocious costumes in the form of whatever the hell they decided to put the Rhino in, and Electro's whole design is just so ill-conceived.

Winner: The Raimi Films

'Precocious Children/Infants' scenes

Both have their fair share of these sorts of cheesy scenes, seemingly a staple of superhero films that not even the great Christopher Nolan can avoid. Raimi's films do these better because they're actually mostly integral to the plot, in particular Peter Parker saving a girl from a burning building without his powers in Spider-Man 2, which makes me forgive some of the cornier moments of kids admiring Spider-Man and being told to eat their vegetables.

The Amazing Spider-Man has a very forced scene where Spider-Man has a kid put on his mask while climbing out of a burning car, and a terrible one at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which is an example of both bad parenting, and badscreenwriting. I cringed, hard, both times.

Winner: The Raimi Films

High-School Life

The Raimi films didn't dwell on the high-school life of Peter Parker too much, seemingly in a bit of a rush to get to the Daily Bugle segment of Peter's life. However, it does well within these limits. I particularly love the scene where Peter tries his powers out against the school bully. I do think The Amazing Spider-Man does give quite an interesting look at how Peter Parker adapts to his powers within the campus environment, although the basketball scene suspends disbelief (so when a superhero with amazing leaping powers comes around later on, no one's going to think it's Parker?), and more time is dedicated to Peter at high school, so I'll give the edge in that regard.

Winner: The Webb Films

Screenplay

Cinemasins helps here, but there's plenty of other flaws I could get into for those films - the romantic flirty dialogue aside (which isn't even that great, Garfield and Stone just deliver it well), a lot of the dialogue is corny, and not in a fun way like the Raimi films. Even worse is the plotting. The motivations behind the villains of both the first and second film are terrible, especially Norman Osborne, whereas in the Raimi films no matter how terrible the villain was you still kind of knew where he was coming from. Then there's the whole overblown issues about Peter Parker's missing parents and the attempts at universe building a la Marvel Cinematic Universe, in the Webb films, neither of which amounts to anything more than bland distractions. The scripts for the Raimi films aren't perfect, but they're at best perfectly solid and at worst not great. The Webb scripts are at best serviceable and at worst terrible.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Editing

The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are great examples of how NOT to cut a superhero film. The latter in particular seems to just throw scenes at you in random. There was apparently a lot on the cutting-room floor, whole characters like Mary Jane Watson got cut, and it shows in the final product. You'll have one scene focused on Peter and Harry, another on Peter and Gwen, an action setpiece, Electro doing something weird, Peter and Gwen, action, Harry, Harry's assistant played by Felicity Jones, something about Peter's parents, Gwen and Peter, nothing ever seems to cohere together properly. With blockbusters nowadays, I find something like Mad Max: Fury Road is the ultimate example of how to edit a film together. Make everything tie in with each other; keep it deceptively simple and straightforward, and work on intriguing your audience with the plotline you have rather than piling on too many of them.

Raimi's Spider-Man films were always solidly edited, even the third one with its mediocre screenplay and muddled direction flowed along smoothly enough, and Spider-Man 2 is a pretty good example of a good three-act structure action film in terms of how all the scenes are spliced together. Also all the action scenes are edited well, while The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have some truly incoherent action sequences, fitting to the nature of the film I guess.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Cinematography

The Webb films are perfectly fine in terms of cinematography I guess, on a similar level to the Raimi films in many regards, but the Raimi films have some brilliant inspired moments like the scene where Doctor Octopus' arms come to life on their own, and of course the great train sequence.

Winner: The Raimi Films


Visual Effects

The Lizard alone gives the Webb films the loss in this regard. Everything is just wrong about the creation of the character. Add to that the terrible effects for the Rhino, and Green Goblin, and especially Electro (people are giving the new Flash shit about how his lightining effects look, well take a look at what they did with Jamie Foxx here and be grateful), and I certainly much prefer the more understated work by Raimi's films. Venom's design isn't great but isn't overly bad either, and the effects used to convey the powers of Doc Ock and Sandman, in particular, are pretty good for the time, and not all that dated.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Soundtrack

I couldn't even remember the score to The Amazing Spider-Man films till I listened to them again on Youtube. They're perfectly fine but far from James Horner's best work. The Spider-Man films feature some of Danny Elfman's best work. He nails the tone in the same way he nailed the tone for the Tim Burton Batman films, and I'll give him the win here.

Winner: Danny Elfman and the Raimi Films

Action Choreography/Set-pieces

I'll just compare the best fight scenes in the respective series. In The Amazing Spider-Man the high school fight scene is pretty darned entertaining, and one of the best setpieces in either series. It was more difficult to pick one for Raimi's Spidey films though, since I could pick from any of the World Unity festival sequence in the first film, the climactic showdown in Spider-Man 2, even any of the Spider-Man/Sandman fights in Spider-Man 3.

Instead I chose the instantly iconic train fight scene in Spider-Man 2 which hasn't aged a day for me since I was first wowed by it in cinemas. It's a great scene and easily my favourite one in the series, not just for how excellently it's choreographed and directed, but also for its...

Winner: The Raimi Films

Emotional Investment

This is something the new Spider-Man films lacked. There were moments where I felt like I was meant to be emotionally involved; Uncle Ben's death of course, Peter's parents having gone missing, Captain Stacy's death, the plight of Curt Conners, the plight of Electro, feeling sorry for Harry Osborne, and of course Gwen Stacy's death, which many consider to be one of the ultimate tragedies of all comic book lore. Instead, they all left me a bit cold; even Gwen Stacy's death wasn't built up to well enough to make it affecting, instead I just felt angry and annoyed that they killed off the best part of the film. Everything that was set up before these emotional moments just felt too contrived; there was never the needed 'punch' to any of them. The Raimi Spider-Man films are far from perfect but one thing they always nailed was heart. The ending of all three films have a certain lasting emotional impact that is dealt with very well. Each death of each character, and even more contrived emotional scenes like Sandman's confession scene, feel affecting because they feel sincere.

One of the most iconic scenes in all the original Spider-Man films, immediately in the aftermath of Spider-Man saving a whole train of people from imminent death just by his strength and determination, is of him being lifted above the heads of New Yorkers, and them staring into his maskless face, realizing the guardian of their city's just a boy. It may not work for everyone, but it certainly made more of an impact for me than anything in the Webb films.

Winner: The Raimi Films

J. Jonah Jameson

Okay, I'm being a bit of a dick now. But the reason the remakes didn't cast a J. Jonah Jameson, let's be honest, is because no one, no one could play JJ apart from J.K. Simmons. The man was born to play the editor of the Daily Bugle, and that alone warrants a noteworthy mention from me.

Winner: J.K. Simmons

Winner: Raimi Films 16, Webb Films 4