The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Tobey Maguire is a better Spider-Man than Andrew Garfield

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
JackHex has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 148 times Debate No: 95877
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Tobey Maguire is the definitive live-action incarnation of Spider-Man. When it comes acting, writing, etc. Maguire beats Garfield.


While I do agree Toby Maguire is a good spiderman he is no where near as good as Andrew Garfield. He just doesn't fit the roll, while he may have the looks. Only Garfield seemed really intelligent in the movies. We can also argue that Andrew's version is much more like the comics than Toby's in many ways.

1. Andrew's version did create his web shooter, something Toby's didn't and instead went for the odd choice of the organic web. Drifting away from the comic source.
2. Andrew's version actually seems smart: Going back to the web shooter argument we see him create a rather sophisticated piece of equipment, and he proves quite resourceful during the second movie when he looks for clues about his parents whereabouts.
3.The way they act: Staying true to spiderman lore Andrew does crack quiet a lot of jokes during the movies. Something that Toby rarely does, instead going for a more melodramatic version weeping about many things.

And lets not forget this happened
Debate Round No. 1


First off I shall debunk your argument about Garfield being closer to the comics.

1. Webshooters:

Tobey Maguires version of the character used organic webbing. The filmmakers figured that since he was a poor high schooler he wouldn't have the resources to create them, and that it would make sense if he shot webs organically because he had all the other abilities except for that anyway. Plus, Garfields version completely missed the only point to having Peter making his own webbing...............HIM ACTUALLY MAKING IT. Garfields version of the character does not come up with the idea to use webs, or how to make them. He finds the web cartridges at Oscorp next to the super spiders. You might as well give him organic webs if hes not going to come up with the idea or make them himself. He just steals the cartridges. Which leads me to my next point...

2. Garfields Peter Parker is not smart:

There are two scientific things Peter does in the amazing Spider-Man that make people think hes smart. He creates his own webbing (which he steals from oscorp) and he creates the human enhancement algorithm (which he stole from his father). Other than stealing other scientists ideas and passing them off as his own, this Peter Parker isnt shown to be smart at all. In the "amazing" Spider-Man 2 there are multiple scenes that show off the incompetence of Garfields Peter Parker. One scene shows that he has no idea how batteries work, and in another scene he struggles with the foreign concept of magnetism. All of the smart things Peter Parker is supposed to do/know, he doesn't. That's where Gwen "Mary Sue" Stacy comes in. She does all the science stuff Peter is supposed to do. She is the one who creates the serum to beat the lizard. She is the one who fixes Peters web shooters. She is the one who overloads Electro.

3. The fact that Garfields version joked is completely irrelevant:

Tobey Maguires version of Spider-Man was also very upbeat and joked around as well. The difference is, Maguires version joked around only when the situation was suitable to add humour. Garfields version joked around while innocent people were being killed left and right. And as for the humour itself, Maguire captured Spider-mans humour much better than Garfield. Maguires version had the cheesy heroic attitude, the corny one-liners, and left behind those cheeky "friendly neighborhood" courtesy cards. He was very much the classic iteration of Spider-Man. Garfields humour was poorly timed, incredibly forced, and was more inline with Deadpools annoying ramble type of humour (In the first Amazing Spider-Man he even breaks the fourth wall).

Now I shall present my argument as to why Tobey is better.

1. He captured the classic nerd archetype of which Peter Parker was originally based on:

Maguire was believable as a shy, awkward dweeb who looked and acted like a cornball. Garfields version of early Peter Parker consists of a cocky, hipster skater boy with a rebellious attitude and twilight hair. As a character he doesn't change at all over the course of the film because there is no transition from timid nerd to badass hero. The Maguire version understood that the only reason Spider-Man is cool is because Peter Parker is not.

2. Orign:

The Maguire version stuck very close to the original comics version. The Garfield version tarnished the best Superhero Origin of all time. Garfields version didn't cause the death of uncle ben. In the "amazing" Spider-Man uncle ben kills himself by attacking an armed criminal. The death of Uncle Ben should result from Peters irresponsibility, not Uncle Bens stupidity. Also because uncle bens death wasn't peters fault in the "amazing" Spider-Man that's means peter doesn't have the guilt. They completely missed spider-mans motivation for being a hero. In the Garfield version we never find out why hes doing what hes doing because he never learned that with great power comes great responsibility. And the most blatant disrespect to the origin comes from the spider-bite. Maguires version more or less captured the origin very faithfully in this regard. However in Garfields version he willingly wanders into a room full of freaky looking spiders and starts screwing with them. Its as if he is proactively TRYING to become Spider-Man. This is made even worse when in the second "amazing" Spider-Man film we are told that peter has magic blood which is tied to the genetic spiders that bit him. Meaning that ONLY HE COULD HAVE BECOME SPIDER-MAN. They tried to make it so he was "pre-destined" to become Spider-Man. The Garfield version missed the entire point of Spider-Man. The whole point of the original concept of the character is that the spider could have bit anybody, and it bit a nobody. Maguires version captured the accidental everyman aspect that is key to the character.

3. Maguires version looked the part:

Not only did Maguire visually resemble Peter Parker more than Garfield, but he was also better visually as Spider-Man. Garfields Spider-Man suit looked like a basketball. Maguires suit was very faithful to Spider-Mans iconic costume. The effects behind Maguires Spider-Man were also groundbreaking. In fact Spider-Man 2 is the only Marvel movie ever to win an Oscar, and it was for visual effects. Maguires version not only acted the part, but he also looked the part much more than Garfield.

4. Maguire gives a better performance:

Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield are both good actors. But Tobey Maguire gave a much better performance as the character. Maguire is just a much better casting choice and the character he was playing was actually well written. Garfield was a poor casting choice for a character that was horribly written. Due to the poor casting, poor directing, and poor script his performance is very lacking despite the fact that its not entirely his fault. But whats up on screen is up on screen. Garfields horrible attempts at improvisational dialogue, and his laughable over the top stuttering while he attempts to play a "nerd" are just awful. Maguires version of the character was much more complex which made the performace much more interesting. Whether it was happiness, sadness, anger, guilt, or doubt, Maguire managed to give a convincing performance that people were invested in.

5. Tobey Maguires Spider-Man was a Hero:

Even if Garfield gave a better performance (which he didn't), and even if Garfields version was more comic accurate (which it wasn't), all of that wouldn't matter once the "Rhino Rampage" scene takes place. A scene in which Rhino is murdering countless people rampaging through new York in a truck, and Spider-Man shows up just in time to..............make awful attempts at comedy while people are getting demolished. Rhino also attempts to shoot Spider-Man and Spider-man reacts by moving out of the way while the bullets fly towards innocent people on the sidewalk. After shooting, Rhino jams his gun. This presents another one of the 1000 times Spider-Man could have stopped him but once again he chooses to be an idiot. Spider-Man takes the wheel of the truck, makes a sharp turn into a busy intersection full of people in their cars and then we are forced to witness the deaths of multiple people while spideeman swings way.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by velociraptor92 2 weeks ago
Both Maguire and Garfield have good parts for the role of spider man. Maguire played a good peter parker with him being the stereotypical dork while Garfield was good as spider man cracking one liners and just being all around cocky like he was portraying in the comics after his change.Though more of them portraying the role is the perspective of the same story they try to tell.In both movies peter ends up giving up being spidey but Maguire's version it the stress of the job while Garfield's version, its because his Girlfriend was killed (partly because of him).(though in the new one there is no dancing emo peter and well...MARY JANE.)While Maguire played a good geek he never chaged from that.(Crybaby)Garfield ,while granit when I think of spider man I think of Maguire,played a great entertaining cocky spidey role he also played a okay geeky role too. Plus the original spider man fighting looked like a stage play
Posted by Salladwolf 2 weeks ago
Tobey Maquire was the best spiderman because first better movie plot. I know that's not Garfield's fault but he could have easily said something and I didn't see anything about him being co-producer anywhere unlike Tobey Maquire who did (for three movies wink wink.) Second Tobey actually played spiderman better because of his great acting. Yes, Tobey's retorts to the villains seemed a little forced but overall he made me feel sad about Uncle Ben dying and his best friend Harry. Garfield however he may have been better in the retorts, but he had nothing in his two movies that made him even seem like spiderman. And finally the portral of Peter Parker. Maquire, never had any friends other than Harry could never hold on to his girlfriend, and he was actually seen working his crappy job at the Daily Bugle and could barely live where he was. Garfield, wasn't protrayed as a nerd, disobeyed authority, his girlfriend fell in love with him fifteen minutes into the movie never had any money problems of any sort and did you see the stuff that he had it was pretty nice stuff. But anyway who am i to judge I'm just a comic book worm and I like the closest thing to the comics.
Posted by Politics2016 2 weeks ago
Maguire is the best Spider-Man. I like Garfield, just not as much. This Holland guy.... idk.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.