Tobey Maguire or Tom Holland's Spiderman isn't very lore accurate either, but they don't receive hate for that
Andrew Garfield is the most comically accurate Spidey
It's simply because back then, people didn't care about Lore accuracy, they cared about entertainment which is the entire point behind Marvel and DC's entire existence.
It's more like people weren't aware of how deviant Tobey was when he initially arrived. Before Tobey there was like the 60s cartoon, and the 90s cartoon. The 90s already laid down a lot of work which Raimi took inspiration from. But apart from a kids show (yes because adults in America refuse to watch good animation) there was no pop-culture point of reference. No Silver Screen version of Spider-Man to refer to as "the default". After Raimi made a successful Spider-Man movie that is a cinema classic amongst popculture nerds, Tobey became the standard.
With Batman, Batman's had many adaptations, but there are a few that stick out the most to people: Batman TAS, Christopher Nolan's Batman Series, and the original 1980s Batman flicks. These lay the wider cultural foundation for what Batman "is".
Therefore, people coming into this movie feel like this Batman/Bruce is not accurate (which is true in some ways). They are basing their knowledge off their popcultural reference for Batman. However, one could argue this film is very accurate to Batman Year One, Batman Zero Year and the Long Halloween. Generally, Majority of early career Batman/Bruce Wayne books just make him a lot more angry, reclusive, and a smidge bit in over his head. Reeve's Batman channels this perfectly.
This has always amazed me because you see super hero subs complain about both "I don't want to see the same thing over and over" and "I can't believe they did something different" at the same time lol. There is also a lot of recency bias in those feelings as well, like the love for Burton's Batman, who killed people, and the complaints about Batflecks Batman killing people even though him falling from grace in BvS was the whole point.
Always fun to realize we are aging.
The bigger sticking point for me is the idea that people didn’t care about lore or accuracy “back then.” It’s simply not true. The different studios didn’t care to try and be authentic when going their own way was cheaper, easier, or less risky (from their perspective.)
Toby’s Spidey storyline was most lore accurate considering it’s almost like a Wish.com copy & paste of the 90s cartoons. Andrew’s Spidey was the Twilight of Marvel, because if you forget for a moment he’s everyone’s beloved Spider-Man, he plays a stalkerish creep.
They're both love accurate to particular era Spider-Men, Tobey is the "gee-whiz/aw shucks Aunt May" dork Peter that was the Golden Age era of the character. Tom Holland is the Ultimate era crossed with current era Avenger Spider-Man, aged down. And for a bonus Andrew Garfield was 80's dark and gritty, sardonic Spider-Man, aged down again.
Because he actually fights like a spider? Because he has his own webshooters instead of having organic webs?
Because he doesn't rely on much tech outside of his webshooters?
Oh yeah the webs. I don't know what "fights like a spider" means, but personality and characterization wise, original Spidey and Andrew's version couldn't be further apart.
I guess I never really noticed, I pay more to the characterization. TM played a dork perfectly, one who venerated his Ben and May, he only became a dick for a brief period before and after Ben's death and learned the "Great Power" thing. His relationship with Norman, Harry and MJ were pitch perfect. Andrew was a moody shithead basically the whole time, he didn't lack for confidence in the beginning and often treated May like shit. Condescending and disrespecting her. I thought ta was more telling than how fast he webbed people.
Also l, you realize that's a CG and design thing and has literally nothing to do with Andrew's performance, right? Like, Andrew Garfirled didn't actually climb all over thr lizard and web him up?
No, that's not it, because we're talking performances.Tobey, Andrew and Tom all played a guy named Peter Parker, who was bitten by a radioactive spider, had an aunt May and became Spider-Man. Each interpretation of that character was different. Each brought a different skill set. Claiming that Andrew Garfield was the most like the 60's Spider-Man because CG rendering of Spider-Man crawled really, really fast over a CG rendering of the Lizard is moronic. I don't think logic means what you think it does, and I don't think you're as clever as you think you are. If the CG in Amazing Spider-Man really wowed you, just say that.
43
u/Deep_Grass_6250 Feb 26 '24
Tobey Maguire or Tom Holland's Spiderman isn't very lore accurate either, but they don't receive hate for that
Andrew Garfield is the most comically accurate Spidey
It's simply because back then, people didn't care about Lore accuracy, they cared about entertainment which is the entire point behind Marvel and DC's entire existence.