Spider-Man (2002) vs. The
Amazing Spider-Man (2012): which is the better origins film?
Spider-Man is one of Marvel’s most popular superheroes, and
has been featured in numerous successful comics, television shows, and motion
pictures. For a long time, a Spider-Man
movie had been in development hell, unable to get a writer and/or director, but
that all changed with 2002’s Spider-Man,
written by David Keopp (who has many screenwriting credits, including Jurassic Park and Mission: Impossible) and directed by Sam Raimi, famous for
directing the horror-comedy Evil Dead
trilogy. The film was a critical and financial success, leading to two sequels.
After Raimi departed as director due to conflicting ideas about where to take Spider-Man 4, Sony abandoned the sequel
and rebooted the series in 2012 with The
Amazing Spider-Man, directed by Marc Webb (my spidey senses detect some
irony there). Though both films were successful and impressed critics, fans
have become divided as to which is the superior depiction of the character, and
which film is ultimately better. Though they tell a similar origins story, they
both feature a different cast, primary villain, and numerous other details vary.
I’m going to identify the main differences between the two films to begin with,
then at the end explain which movie I like better and why. I’ll try to avoid
spoilers for both films as best as I can, but there will be some plot
differences that I will identify, so you have been warned.
First of all, there’s the title. The Amazing Spider-Man was the name of the original comic book
featuring the character, so this was utilized for the 2012 film to set it apart
from the first. In the 2002 film, Peter Parker/Spider-Man is played by Tobey
Maguire, who had been in some good films prior to this such as Pleasantville and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but Spider-Man was what brought him to worldwide fame. Andrew Garfield
took on the role for the 2012 film, having previously been in the 2010 award
winning Facebook movie The Social Network.
In Spider-Man, Peter Parker goes on a
field trip to a genetics lab, where he gets bit by a radioactive super spider hybrid
which gives him his powers, including increased strength, the ability to climb
on walls and shoot web from his wrists, and a sixth sense that helps him detect
danger (as if he wasn’t smart enough already). In The Amazing Spider-Man, Parker gets his powers from the same
source, but under different circumstances. Unlike Spider-Man, The Amazing
Spider-Man explores Peter’s childhood, who his parents were, and why they
left him with his aunt and uncle in the first place. On a personal mission to
figure out who they were and what happened to them, Peter ends up in a
restricted part of the genetics lab at Oscorp, where research on cross species
genetics is being conducted. This is where he’s bit by the radioactive spider
and gains his powers, but shooting webbing from his wrist is not one of his
natural abilities this time around. Using his technologically inclined mind, he
constructs mechanical web slingers that shoot web-like adhesive out, which is
what he did in the comics as well.
Peter Parker’s love interest in Spider-Man is Mary-Jane Watson, played by Kirsten Dunst. In The Amazing Spider-Man, it’s Gwen Stacey,
played by Emma Stone. Gwen Stacey appeared in Spider-Man 3 (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) and acted as a
secondary love interest for Peter. M.J. is slated to appear in a small role in
this year’s sequel The Amazing Spider-Man
2, portrayed by Shailene Woodley. Harry Osbourne is Pete’s best buddy in
the comics, but he doesn’t meet him until after high school and remains a loner
throughout his senior years. In Spider-Man,
Harry (played by James Franco) and Peter are already friends before they
graduate, but The Amazing Spider-Man
changed this aspect, so Harry never appeared in The Amazing Spider-Man, but will be a bigger part of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, now played by
Dane DeHaan.
Two of the biggest differences between the two films are the
villains and the impact these baddies have on the established worlds in the
film. Spider-Man gains his abilities in the 2002 film right around the same
time Norman Osborne gains his. Osborne develops violent tendencies, bigger
muscles, and an alter ego, before constructing a costume and weapons to go with
Oscorp’s glider and becoming the new greatest threat to New York. Dubbed ‘The
Green Goblin’ by Daily Bugle Chief Editor J. Jonah Jameson, Osborne first takes
out the board members that didn’t support his research before challenging
Spider-Man, and even offering him an alliance. When Spidey declines, Gobey
gives him a difficult choice, and then battles him one-on-one in a fight to the
death. The Amazing Spider-Man’s first
super villain arrives in the form of ‘The Lizard’. Dr. Curtis Conners, in an
attempt to re-grow his arm using reptile DNA, turns himself into a powerful,
vicious human-lizard hybrid. Over time through the comics and TV shows, The
Lizard has undergone slight changes in appearance, but this version remains
true to the original in giving him a round human-like head and long, muscular
tail. Goblin, on the other hand, was revamped with a high-tech new look,
replacing his purple clothing and Halloween mask of the comics with an
exoskeletal green bodysuit and helmet. Though the helmet/mask retains his long
goblin ears and sinister grin, these details aren’t as accentuated as previous
incarnations. However, his glider and weapons are all present and recognizable.
Dr. Conners played a small role in Raimi’s Spider-Man
trilogy, but his reptilian alter ego never came to light. Norman Osborne in The Amazing Spider-Man is never shown,
but his presence is identified, and the reason Curt Conners is pressured to
finish his regeneration formula is to cure Osborne, who is on his death bed
with an illness.
So what are my thoughts? When a Spider-Man reboot was announced, a lot of people were outraged,
including myself. The reboot has happened, it’s done, and it’s time to get over
it and move on (though I’m still in a slight state of disbelief that Sony would
be greedy enough to do this just to retain the rights to the character). In my
humble opinion, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man
is the superior film, but that isn’t to say The
Amazing Spider-Man isn’t good in its own right. After looking at all
aspects, the 2002 film is still better in my eyes for one irrefutable reason:
because it came first and I saw it
first, and it’s hard (but not impossible) to beat the original when you’ve
grown up with it. I saw Spider-Man
when I was just a kid, so it will always hold a special place in my mind as the
first truly great Marvel superhero film I ever saw, but even having said that,
I still feel it’s a better made film as a whole. The Amazing Spider-Man may be more faithful to the original comics,
explore the back story of Peter’s childhood, and present a somewhat grittier,
more contemporary take on the character, but Sam Raimi’s film is, much like his
Evil Dead films, both funny and scary
and exciting all at once, and the ways it diverges from the source material
made for a better film. I thought it was cool that Spidey could shoot web
directly from his wrist; the biological mutation trumped his technological
invention in my eyes, so when they reverted back to him developing a web
slinging device, it actually felt like a step backwards, despite being closer
to the original comics and still cool in its own way. There are many other
small details I also prefer in Spider-Man,
from his suit design and the music, to Uncle Ben’s speech, how Uncle Ben is
killed, and how that event affects Peter.
Even though I always loved The Lizard as a villain, his
depiction in The Amazing Spider-Man
disappointed me. I would have liked to have seen him with a more
reptilian-looking head and thicker scales, but these are minor discrepancies. The thing that really bugged me was how his
mouth was in a permanent grin. It took almost all of the menace out of his
face. To be fair though, I didn’t agree with all the decisions made in regards
to Green Goblin’s depiction. His green bodysuit, armour, and helmet made him
look more like the creature from Alien
than a goblin. Because Spider-Man had
already featured The Green Goblin—who is more of an arch nemesis of Spider-Man’s
than The Lizard, and one of the first major villains he faced—I’m sure the
filmmakers felt they shouldn’t bring him in for the reboot, even though if they
wanted to stay true to the comics they should have. The Lizard paled in
comparison to The Green Goblin, and Willem Dafoe’s performance was, although
over the top at times, much better than Rhys Ifans. The final battle with
Goblin was also much more intense than the final showdown with The Lizard on
Oscorp Tower.
Not to sound too much like I worship Spider-Man over The Amazing
Spider-Man, but I thought Tobey Maguire was the better Peter Parker/Spider-Man.
In Spider-Man he was awkward,
intelligent, and a character you could easily sympathize with. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man
behaved like a cocky jerk more than a super hero, and Peter Parker is a sulky
hipster more than a recluse nerd (and he kept taking his mask off too often),
but the biggest issue I had was with the actor portraying him. Andrew Garfield
simply didn’t look, act, or seem nerdy enough, and I know that was a problem
for many fans as well as casual viewers, but when comparing him to Tobey
Maguire’s Peter Parker, I found it much more believable that Maguire was
playing Peter Parker: a nerd who woke up the morning after being bit by a
radioactive spider and was suddenly stronger, and eventually came into his own
and became a hero. With Garfield’s depiction, I didn’t get a great enough sense
of change as he became Spider-Man. I understand that the scenes with him
freaking out on the subway and breaking everything in the bathroom were
supposed to be comedic as he learnt how to master his powers, but the attempts
at humour failed for me. Having said all that, I don’t think Garfield is a bad
actor or was bad in the role by any means. He more than holds his own against
Maguire’s performance. I thought the acting and character depictions throughout
the rest of The Amazing Spider-Man were
as good if not better than the original. Emma Stone was great as Gwen Stacey,
and her chemistry with Garfield was often better than what Kirsten Dust and
Tobey Maguire had.
Before I wrap this up, I have to mention something that I’m
sure you want addressed, especially if you are on The Amazing Spider-Man’s side in this comparison, and that is the
third Spider-Man movie. I’m not even
going to get into how Spider-Man 3
was bad. I’m simply comparing one movie to another here. Maybe when The Amazing Spider-Man 3 comes out, I’ll
compare both trilogies as two whole, separate things and weigh the strengths
and weaknesses of each film. I’m getting ahead of myself.
So there you have it, two similar and yet different
cinematic takes on the origins of an iconic superhero. Spider-Man and The Amazing
Spider-Man have their fair share of pluses and minuses, and each film will
probably prove to be the defining origins story for two very different
generations. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 swings
into theaters May 2nd (again, the spidey senses detect irony, or a
coincidence perhaps!)
Spider-Man image from http://nekneeraj.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/i-am-spiderman-the-beginning/
Amazing Spider-Man image from http://christianentertainmentreviews.com/2013/11/08/spider-man-should-be-in-an-avengers-movie/
No comments:
Post a Comment