This not "Why the Amazing Spider-Man will suck thread." I am looking at it from a time line perspective. My apologies if a similar thread has alread been made.

The last one came out in 2007, which was the same year I graduated from high school. Yes I know it wasn't that good, but it was a very memorable experience. I remember so many scenes from that extremely cheesy movie that I feel like I'm still in the theater. This was the first full comic trilogy I actually watched in the theaters. I had grown to love these characters: The girl-next-door Mary Jane Watson. The tough as nails editor Jonah Jamison. And of course, the affable web-slinging Peter Parker. It filled me with a kind of hope that I needed at a time when I was freaking out about my future. Spider-Man was the first comic-based movie that made me think these floppy picture books might have compelling story lines.

I'm not sure if I'm ready to watch Spider-Man portrayed in a different light. There is no denying that more comic movies have developed darker tones to match the economically uncertain times. The Avengers was good fun for everyone but none of the heroes could be defined as relatable. This version of Peter Parker seems focused and in control. The movie looks spectacular visually but I'm not sure if it will resonate emotionally with the audience. The actors are top-notch, but do we really need another brooding super-hero right now? If anything I would have preferred seeing an ultimate Spider-Man featuring Miles Morales (I know how complicated that would be, but I really love the kid and the concept.)

I will watch The Amazing Spider-Man in theaters, but I get the feeling I won't be able to stop comparing it to the first movie that made me believe in the terrific story-telling based off comics.

No, it's been about 5 years since the last one, and I don't want to wait a long amount time such as 10 years just for another Spider-Man movie. Plus, this one will still be different from the previous ones, it's not like their remaking the exact same story.

They really needed to wait awhile. I would have waited until 2014 if it was up to me.

I.A.T.

I agree the reboot possibly won't resonate emotionally with the audience. Anyway I don't think they're rebooting too early. It's still going to be a lot different to the previous movies.

I went to see SM:3 when I was 8 forced by my parents, I was scared of Spidey back then but after that I became scared of Venom -_-' , that's the only good thing that happened because I re-watched it a few months ago and Dude it sucked .....again

@ivolution2k1 said:

toby sucked, reboot ftw

Man he smelled like "Parker Luck" instead "Parker Optimism", I can't enjoy seeing a movie where the main character is beyond miserable (Maybe Batman but he's billionaire and badass, Peter in last trilogy was not)

I have another point to argue with regards to relaunching the trilogy: The competition is too high this summer. This movie will do well in the box office without a doubt, but people will comparing against The Avengers and Batman in terms of quality. There was no way Whedon could have really screwed up a movie with Robert Downey Jr. to deliver one-liners along with having comic book writing experience. And I'm trying very hard to figure out how Nolan could screw up the end of his Batman trilogy. But that isn't as important as he doesn't need to build up hype for the next sequel.

Marvel couldn't have done this, but that is why partly Paramount moved back the release dates of a couple of their big-budget films. The bar has been set extremely high this summer for superhero movies. Viewers often lump movies together so when leave the theater many will be saying "it wasn't as good as The Avengers" even though it is an unfair comparison in many ways in terms of plot and characters featured.

The Amazing Spider-Man might have stood a chance at standing out in the crowd if it was released later in the year.

I think its too early.

Yeah it's too soon I know my family was pretty confused about how it wasn't Spider-man 4 but was actually an entirely different series.

@KenTheProfile said:

@OracleX: actually their are two answers. For the fans i think it early. But from the business point of view they had to. Movie rights now contractly revert to the parent compamy if they are not used in a certainn amount of time. so if sony did not make this moive Marvel would get the movie rights back. also I just thought of something is this movie really a reboot i mean if takes place before the other movies maybe it more of a retaconing the a reboot. you know like patch some holes and then do a movie after the time of the thrid spiderman.

We all secretly want the X-men, Spidey, FF, and Ghost Rider rights to revert back to Marvel so we can have them in the Cinematic Universe.

I think they did reboot it too soon. It's been ten years since the first Spider-Man movie came out. That's not a very long time to start the story over.

Too soon for a reboot. This should've been done like how Marvel rebooted the Hulk. Acknowledge the previous movies even though it's clear that it's going in a new direction. This should be Spider-Man 4. (And Sony should have let Raimi do his thing instead of forcing him out and like they forced him to put Venom in the 3rd movie.) Now instead of the core value & motivation of Peter Parker being with great power comes great responsibility, it's his anguish over disappearance (death?) of his parents.

That's not Peter Parker, that's some suit over at Sony pictures saying Spider-Man needs to be younger, sexier, darker and more like Batman.

@MSSAT247: but the film rights for spiderman still belongs to sony and they are the ones who made the new film... not disney

Are there any Doctor Who fans hanging around here? Stay with me for a minute. I have been watching marathons of the show constantly. It is a British Sci-fi show about a humanoid alien simply called the Doctor and travels through time and space in a blue police box that is famously "bigger on the inside" with "companions" who are usually human from modern times. It has been around for nearly fifty years and one of its keys to success is the fact that the doctor can "regenerate." This means that when actor playing the Doctor decides to quit he is mortally wounded. But he is able to recover in the form of a new body and personality while still remaining the same character. Eleven actors have played the character and if you ask any longtime fans of the show one doctor will always be "their Doctor." This really does fit it with comic movies as one portrayal of a super-hero or villain will always be their deep-down favorite. Christopher Reeve as Superman is the best one I can think of at this hour.

Having seen the movie, here are my thoughts: Toby Maguire will always be my Spider-man. I missed him, I missed his dorky personality. I did read the first Spider-Man story and I'll concede the fact that Garfield's portrayal seems more accurate. He is more aloof and moody to the point where other nerds aren't interested in associating with him. And I like the fact that Gwen Stacy seems to be whip-smart and her innocence seems sweet and completely different compared to Mary-Jane.

So my main belief that Spider-man was rebooted too early has to do with the main story arc. I know at least three writers worked through multiple drafts of the script and it shows. The number of holes in the plot drove me crazy. This is not a complete film review, I just feel like the writers were trying so hard to make it look and feel different from the original trilogy that they forgot some very basic elements such explaining how Curt Connors created a lab in the sewer system as a non-spoiler example.

I would say it was too early if Spider-Man was somewhere on a similar level of quality to the first two Raimi films - otherwise, I'm all for a reboot. BUT, I do feel that they should have either made the release date Christmas 2011, Christmas 2012, or Summer 2013 - so as not to clash with Batman or The Avengers