Who is the best live-action Spider-Man actor? We decide!

Spider-Man is a character that has earned himself a place as one of the most popular and recognizable fictional characters in the world - and for good reason. The Marvel superhero has captivated audiences for decades in comics from which he was first created, before that legacy spun out into television, video games, and films. He has also headlined multiple animated TV shows and movies, which have earned him legions of fans of all ages.

But let's talk about the live-action movies. There have been many films starring Spider-Man, but three actors have toplined Spidey's theatrical releases over the past two and a half decades, and those names are Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland. All three actors were a Peter Parker for a specific generation, and all had their own unique qualities that made them stand out in their respective movies.

But the question persists: Which one is the best and most faithful to the source material? The answers can be found here, so come all you Web Heads, it's time to launch our web shooters and swing away!

Tobey Maguire captured the perfect Peter Parker

Tobey Maguire's webslinger made his first appearance in the 2002 film Spider-Man, which was then followed by two sequels in the form of Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 (the former of which is considered one of the greatest comic book movies of all time). He then returned to the role 14 years later in the Marvel Cinematic Universe film Spider-Man: No Way Home.

The first film in the original trilogy was an overall fun outing, if flawed in certain aspects. The special effects can sometimes be very, shall we say, wonky, the dialogue can be very corny in a bad way, and the Green Goblin villain design was too much in the vain of Power Rangers, just to name a few things. However, the film does depict a very faithful adaption to the core of the Spider-Man comics mythos, that Peter Parker's life as Spider-Man would cause him great pain and sacrifice, and he must use the gifts granted to him responsibly for the greater good. The rest of the films in the trilogy did maintain this core value throughout, but the third film was notoriously bogged down by a lot of bad ideas, performances, and an overall overstuffed and messy story. Despite some of the shortcomings of these films, the overall trilogy is still well regarded in the eyes of movie and comic fans alike, but the question remains: How does Maguire's performance hold up?

Maguire captured the geeky and awkward aspects of the Peter Parker character very well, especially in the first film where the audience was introduced to his character and his world. You could totally buy into Maguire's Peter being a social outcast among his peers, and this worked well to have the audience root for him and to feel sorry for him as well. This representation of Peter was very solid, however, the problem with Maguire's performance throughout the rest of the trilogy after gaining his powers and becoming Spider-Man is that he never evolved past his awkward nature.

Peter in the comics, while still being geeky after gaining his powers, was a very different person compared to his pre-Spider-Man days, not only in terms of his superhero life, but in terms of his personality. Spider-Man is known as being one to crack jokes and quips at the opponents he faces, and while Maguire's Spidey did that, it wasn't consistent enough. He was very good at what he was doing, but the script could have afforded him more of a chance to do it.

His well-cast interpretation as a pre-Spider-Man Peter was spot on and still holds up, unfortunately, Maguire never broke away from that pre Spider-Man shtick even after becoming the webslinger, and this problem persisted throughout the rest of the trilogy.

Andrew Garfield gave us a comic-accurate Spider-Man

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker first appeared in 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man and its 2014 sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2. He then returned alongside Maguire's Spidey in Spider-Man: No Way Home, where they crossed paths with Tom Holland's Peter Parker.

From the moment Garfield's Peter got his powers in the first film, he captured the quippy and fun side of the Spider-Man character, with some jokes that were legitimately funny and very Spider-Man like. However, the problem with Garfield's overall performance is that he had the exact opposite problem to Maguire's Spider-Man. While Maguire captured the geeky and awkward side of Peter but failed to capture the essence of the Spider-Man persona, Garfield didn't quite capture the essence of Peter Parker but did very well as a quippy Spider-Man. When audiences are introduced to him, he wasn't portrayed as the typical nerdy Peter from the comics, rather, he rides a skateboard through his school, gets in trouble with his teachers, and even his most consistent bully in the source material, Flash Thompson, wasn't bullying him from the offset.

The main problem that this writer has with Garfield's overall performance is that his version of Peter never changed. In most Spider-Man stories, especially in his origin, Peter's life changed when he was bitten by the spider and eventually became Spider-Man, and that he as a person and character changed too. He had been given great powers, which he must use responsibly for the greater good. Garfield's portrayal had his pre Spider-Man Peter be very arrogant in the way he interacted with other characters without learning anything, and after he was bitten, nothing much about his character changed besides him gaining powers. There was never any character growth for Garfield's Spider-Man, because he never strayed from that Peter persona.

Now, Peter Parker can be a little cocky from time-to-time. In the comics, he did become very arrogant and selfish when becoming Spider-Man, but over the years and through various stories he learned time and time again that his attitude and perspective toward people and situations wasn't the right way to look at them, and he learned the hard way what his arrogance would cost him.

The Amazng Spider-Man films themselves aren't that great, with the second film being the target for a lot of criticism about Sony's overall plan for their franchise. However, Garfield's performance had value and was definitely one of the best-received aspects of both films.

Tom Holland delivered the best of both worlds

Tom Holland has had more appearances as Spider-Man than any other actor playing the role. He's the MCU's Spidey, and it all began for him in 2016's Captain America: Civil War, before we went on to headline his first solo movie in 2017's Spider-Man: Homecoming. He then returned in both Avengers Infinity War, and Avengers: Endgame, before headlining two more solo movies in Spider-Man: Far From Home, and Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Holland's Spider-Man and Peter Parker both adapted the source material very well. As Peter, he was awkward, yet endearing, and as Spider-Man he was both fun and funny, with some real badass moments in there too. He was also the youngest actor to play Spider-Man, making him age appropriate for the role, so that was a plus. The way the filmmakers planned his origin was an intriguing and exciting change (spoilers ahead); in Spider-Man: No Way Home Peter would get the great power comes with great responsibility line from Aunt May instead of Uncle Ben after she was fatally wounded by the Green Goblin, and he was already Spider-Man by the time that he received that lesson, thus having Holland's Spider-Man come to the realization of the tragic Spider-Man character; that even with his great power, he can't save everyone, even the ones he cherished most.

Holland's Spider-Man was a great adaption of the character, but there's one major flaw that keeps his version from being as perfect as the Spider-Man comics, and that flaw is his reliance on Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man. This critique isn't anything that fans haven't heard before, but it bears repeating due to how much it affects Holland's Spider-Man in the eary days of his MCU tenure.

Peter was too dependent on Iron Man, to the detriment of the Spider-Man character overall, and this limited what Holland could do with the role in the early films. Holland's Spider-Man had his suits made by Iron Man and his villains were often enemies of Tony Stark, not Spider-Man. Iron Man overshadowed Spider-Man in his own movies, especially in Spider-Man: Far From Home where Peter felt that he had to live up to Tony Stark's standards after the character's death in Avengers: Endgame rather than to live up to his own standards. No Way Home did try to alleviate the Iron Man problem by making the world forget Peter's existence, leaving him with nothing but his powers and his renewed sense of responsibility to the world. We'll see how Sony and Marvel deal with the ramifications of No Way Home and having Spider-Man potentially be more of a street level hero with no billionaires backing him up, or they might go in a different direction altogether.

Verdict: Tom Holland is the best, most comic-accurate Spider-Man

Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland all captured some aspects of the Spider-Man character well, while also bringing their own unique aspects to the role. But which one stands out between the three when they are compared? In this writer's mind, despite his attachment to Iron Man, Tom Holland's Spider-Man was the closest movie fans have come to getting the Spider-Man character from the comics right, as the MCU star delivers a pretty comic-accurate performance.

This writer's hierarchy of Spider-Man from best to worst would be as follows: Holland, Maguire, and then Garfield.

What do you think? Is my assessment and overall opinion valid? Who's your favorite Spider-Man?