My dad introduced me to comic books when I was about 8, I think. Spider-Man was the guy for him, so he became the guy for me. I think it was the somewhat snarky attitude that worked for both of us. (My dad also liked Dr. Strange, but somehow he slipped by me.) I also kinda wanted to be the Black Cat when I grew up. (I think it was mostly her hair.)

Despite being a writer, my kid is not primarily of the print mindset; so his big connection to the character was through film. And every time the topic comes up (which is more often than you’d think), my husband runs from the room because it ends in violent debate about which Spider-Man movie series is the best, and which actor is best.

Just for this blog post, all three of us watched the first from each of the three: Tobey Maguire; Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland. We also watched one of the early 60s cartoons that yielded that great theme song still used today. (The song? Fabulous. The show? Not nearly as good as you might remember it being. Spider-Man sounds about 40, and we as a culture have gotten wayyyyy spoiled in our cartoony expectations, so this feels like a high school project.)

None of us were particularly swayed in our conclusions. And because there are three of us, there were of course, three conclusions.

My husband, who declined to pen his thoughts for this, prefers Tom Holland in Spider-Man: Homecoming. He’s OK with the over-Marveled aspects, and liked the cast and the story. I like the story I heard from Holland in an interview that during filming, Michael Keaton kept whispering ”I’m Batman!” to Holland during fight scenes to make him break.

Holland is fine—a worthy choice and a fine representative. He’s certainly the most age-appropriate, and I do appreciate that his movie story doesn’t kill poor ol’ Uncle Ben for a third time. It also has plenty of banter and action, which are definitely my top requirements for a good superhero movie. He’s my second favorite.

Personally, I’m a Garfield girl. That actor best depicts the Spider-Man who lives in my head. Others will disagree, but to me Garfield ranks a 7 or so on the scale of hotness, which is where I think Peter Parker belongs. And Garfield does a great job of being the sort of awkward and socially inept nerd whose biggest problem is a crippling lack of self-confidence, and his transition from that guy to “hey, I can pound bullies” is brilliant to watch. I concede that the story is not as strong as the other two first outings, but it holds together pretty well. I’ll also concede the overall ambience is a little gritty and gray, but I count this as a plus, since that is the New York that lives in my head.

And then there’s Maguire. When the first Spider-Man movie came out with him in it, I thought it was nice there was a movie finally—and since I had nothing to compare it to, it was good enough. But even at that time, I was disappointed they chose a one-note actor who looked about 30 and who was playing the same damn character he’d played in Pleasantville and the Cider House Rules. And much as I love Kirsten Dunst, she could have been given more to do than flash smiles and scream a lot.

But this is where the kid disagrees—passionately. He wrote his own defense:

My first exposure to Spider-Man as far as my memory is concerned was indeed a DVD copy of the 2002 film. As such, I will fully admit nostalgia is a factor in my decision to rank the live action portrayals of the character. But having witnessed each iteration over the years in addition to reading at least some of the core comics, this revisiting we did confirms that, for me, that the films by Sam Raimi starring Tobey Maguire are the closest any filmmaker has gotten to capturing the idea of what Spider-Man is. 

Yes, everyone in those films suffers from WB-Casting, where 17 year old Peter Parker is played by a then 27 Maguire. Yes, the third film is overstuffed and has godawful tone issues. But what those films have that every other attempt has fallen short of is spirit. The high melodrama of comic books is on full display with soap-opera-esque shenanigans for the trio of Parker, Mary Jane Watson, and Harry Obsborn. The pacing (at least in the first two) is tight but not rushed. And most importantly, the stories are fun but not at the expense of their emotional core. 

Raimi’s Spider-Man films aren’t afraid to be earnest, rather than undercutting any given moment with irony or quips. That sincerity is part of what makes Spider-Man endure as a character, and it’s something Raimi clearly understood. Tobey Maguire’s performance, while critiqued for its awkwardness, works because Parker is awkward. He’s not meant to be suave or effortlessly cool, he’s a painfully sincere, nerdy kid who gradually grows into responsibility, not confidence. Later portrayals have their strengths (Holland’s youthful charisma, Garfield’s physicality and sense of humor) but none have quite yet nailed the optimism that defines Raimi’s version. 

I guess the kid’s got a point. Maybe it has to do with what the consumer needs from the comic. I’ve got plenty of optimism; I want snark and banter. The kid tends to go the other way. And I guess my husband wants … youth and energy? He’ll have to write his own post!