Who do you think did a better film? Personally Im on raimi's side because he produced the great spiderman 2. TAS has no heart and no care for fans and decides to cast a hipster who wants spidey to be bi-sexual, and who cant state a single line with any emotion or without stuttering, At least raimi cared to try to handle all of those villains for us for Spiderman 3 even though it failed. and Tobey IS Peter parker and spidey. Garfield on the other hand arguably didnt produce a satisfying job of being either. In the first film I cared about the characters and even brought myself to tears when peter told aunt may the honest truth of uncle ben's death. ASM on the other hands.... I dont feel for any of the characters.. for all i care spidey could jump off a bridge and die and i'd clap. Jeez. I don't want to come off so heartless but think about the heart that raimi developed and marc purposely ignored. Its not all about the story and plot being "great" with no gaps at all and a super- super serious story. The films raimi produced had what people should expect.- Great acting, Humor controlled to a certain level, Threatening villains, and morals that could teach a child the right thing to do. Now. dont get me wrong but children aren't dumb- but they also don't need a mind explosion of story and plot thrown into their faces. My point is. Spiderman 1, 2 and sort of 3 were very enjoyable and provided a good time and a nicely summed up character of the spidey we know and all came to love. No complaints. ASM- Wasn't enjoyable and altered what we all came to love. Why people prefer this poor excuse of a movie and portrayal of spider-man to a great trilogy and legendary 2nd movie.. Ill always cease to understand.

Spiderman is supposed to be cheesy. Thats his character. He works better when he's stuck in the sixties. Spiderman is about a lovable geeky nerd, not a hipster pretty boy, with a skate board, that the girl falls for the first time they talk. Spiderman is 1 character that I would rather have cheesy in a movie. Modern day Spiderman SUCKS!

Me exactly. Sorry my nostalgia told me to repost this.

It's too early to compare the two franchises. We need to see the identity the ASM series creates for itself. Personally I'd love a movie about the 20-30 year-old Peter Parker who's somewhat got his things in order, and is beginning to make big decisions in his life. Stuff like graduating college, marrying, teaching at the high school and later becoming a scientist. I like a Spider-Man who's evolving, not one who falls into stagnation.

IMO, SM3=ASM

TASM. The original trilogy is just too gratuitously cheesy sometimes.

TASM

Comparing a single movie to a trilogy doesn't really make sense imo

@peppeyhare: This.

TASM should not even be compared to the first Spider-Man movie because despite telling the character's origin story they were completely different. It's time to move on from Raimi's series.

i like the original (2) Rami films, but tasm is new and so far i love it

I liked the amazing spider-man but i do admit it was missing that certain magic. I truly did hate the lizard and his plot though, it was good for a cartoon, but turning ny into a lizard den for what purpose? because he was insane?

Well sadly it's not the 60's anymore and if you want him interacting with people in this day and age you have to update him. Making him just a nerd in this day and age doesn't mean anything because that's not something to outcast anyone for in this day and age. Was he socially awkward. yes yes he was. works for me. Toby was cheesy but they took away his humor, the only jokes made were about him or at him, but nothing funny came out of his mouth.

Spider-Man 2 was the best film when it came to plot, pacing etc, and was the most polished, but it wasn't a very good adaptation of Spider-Man IMO because it didn't have the character, or tone down very well.

Tobey Maguire was terrible at playing Peter Parker, he had a constant, creepy 1000-yard stare and weak smile going on for most of those three movies, and had none of the confidence, or decisiveness of the original character, it felt very much like Tobey Maguire was acting like a slightly creepier version of the character from the very first issue, before he actually got any powers and grew in confidence to become the character we all know and love.

Pete and Mary Jane's relationship never had any chemistry in those films either, unlike Pete/Gwen in Amazing.

I also felt that the humour was out of control in those films, and I found it often distracting (and very rarely funny).

The Raimi trilogy will always have a special place in my heart. I still consider Spider-Man 2 to be one of the best superhero films to date as well as one of my favourite films in general.

With that said though, I do think that The Amazing Spider-Man works well with the new tone the film takes and it introduces elements into the franchise that the Raimi trilogy may have left out. Overall, I think the general cast makes stronger performances.

TASM > All 3 Raimi movies.

also this ^

I'm going with Rami. This new Spider-Man seems to be the Twilight of superhero movies.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

This! ^

And this!

Better overall films, Raimi's trilogy has proven itself superior. Garfield is the better Spider-Man though.

What blasphemy did you just wrote?

@gor724: thank you!

As of this moment i rather enjoyed TASM, better than SM1 and 3, Garfield is a better peter/spidey than tobey, and emma stone as gwen stacy is definetly a better female lead in TASM than freaking kirsten dunst as MJ in any of the 3 movies, and like some have said, lets compare when both are at least on equal footing instead of comparing 1 movie to a trilogy.

finally to the op, garfield doesnt want spider-man to be bi-sexual and he only said that as a joke, it was all in good fun and if you saw the video where he says that you would see that.

Comparing a whole trilogy to one movie isn't really fair, so I'll just compare the first one to TASM.

For me, Raimi's Spider-Man is much better. Webb's Spider-Man just didn't seem to get it. Raimi's captured the spirit of Spidey, and every time I watch it, it feels like the comics come to life, even if it's not entirely faithful to its source material, but I was okay with most of the liberties it took.

One thing that bugs me about TASM is that people always say, "Well, it's better 'cuz it's closer to the comics." I have to ask, how the crap is it closer to the comics? I understand it borrows a little bit from Ultimate Spider-Man, but it's still pretty unfaithful. Here are some notable infidelities: Gwen knew Peter was Spider-Man, Captain Stacy didn't support Spider-Man, Captain Stacy died at the hands of Lizard, Curt Connors didn't have a family (yes, I know he had one in the deleted scenes, but if it ain't in the movie, it ain't in the movie!), Harry Osborn was nowhere to be found (in the comics, Gwen and Harry are introduced at the same time), Spider-Man's origin was reduced to a revenge plot, Peter acted like a douche on a regular basis ("But those are the best kind"), the idea of "responsibility" was completely brushed over, and so on.

I'm fine with taking liberties, but stop defending this movie because it's "closer to the comics," because it's really not!

Also, the movie had a really dull, lifeless, and heartless atmosphere. It didn't have any energy behind it. The action sequences were dull, the Lizard's plot was laughably bad, and this movie didn't really do anything differently from the original. Sony really shouldn't have done the origin story again. Them doing that just makes it pretty dang obvious that this piece of wasted potential was just a quick cash-grab. I really hope the sequel's better.

Which one? I blasphemed Twilight and The Amazing Spider-Man at the same time. I do think Garfield is a better Spider-Man (although kinda d***ish to the police) but I think Miguire was a better Peter Parker. Also, I don't think Dunst did a bad job, I just think Mary Jane was underutilized in Rami's movies.

1. It actually had Spider-Man in it, instead of some blundering half wit comedy relief character with a perpetual inane smile on his face and creepy 1000 yard stare who fell through his movies doing prat falls and acting clumsy and stupid.

2. Peter Parker didn't have some weird Cronenberg-esque body-horror webbing firing from his wrists.

3. Spider-Man actually taunted the bad guys properly.

4. Gwen Stacy actually bore some resemblance to the character.

5. You talk about the Lizards family being missing, well Dr Octopus was a completely different "sympathetic" character in S2.

6. Anything in Spider-Man 3 is atrocious

The worst thing I found about the new movie was his haircut and skateboard, that really felt like a boardroom decision .

Believe it or not, having the skateboard was Andrew Garfield's idea. Apparently, he skateboards and did all the skateboarding stunts himself. As for your point in #5, I never said I was against deviating from the source material. I just said that people defend it for being "closer to the comics," when really, it's not closer to the comics, so that's a poor argument. Also, I already mentioned I was fine with most of the liberties Raimi took. I would've been fine with the liberties taken in TASM had they actually been good liberties.

Yes!!!! So much truth!!!

I view Rami's Spider-Man movies thusly: 1 was the Ditko, Lee Spider-Man that laid the ground work, 2 was the Romata Sr. and Lee Spider-Man that was very operatic, 3 was the nineties comics in which care it was very pretty, came wrapped in eye candy and made little sense. I'm still gonna view ASM as the Twilight of Comic book movies, 'tho.

Yep, pretty much. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. If people want to know what was so wrong with the '90s, they should watch Spider-Man 3 and/or read Maximum Carnage. I never thought of it that way, but Spider-Man 3 really does capture everything that was wrong with the '90s--an excess of style over substance. As for TASM... heh, well... It tried to make Peter Parker "cool" and "sexy." If Peter Parker looks like a lot of the popular kids I went to high school with, you know there's a problem. I had a really hard time buying him as an outcast. And let's not forget that his character didn't have any proper depth. His character is so inconsistent. He's neglectful, kind, douchey, geeky, and cool all at once. I think Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was the movie's only saving grace. I just wish her character got to be explored more. I especially liked the scene where she showed some vulnerability and told Peter her fears of how she may not get to see her father ever again when he leaves each morning.

It really bothers me how badly this movie botched the "Death of Captain Stacy" storyline. That's one of the most impacting stories from the comics, but this movie really managed to screw it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Raimi films were based on the awful 90s cartoon series (note that the Alien costume makes Peter Parker go evil, just like it did in the cartoon series, unlike the comic where it had no effect on his personality).

The new film was based on the original comic, but they made an unfortunate attempt to update the character

So he acts like a teenager then.

@silent_bomber: Ha! Touché! Even so, Peter's character in the comics was more consistent--even Ultimate Peter Parker (may he and 616 Peter rest in peace).

What was the point of it anyway?

That's a good question. People criticize the Green Goblin for having no motivations, but the Lizard didn't really have any motivations either. He planned to turn everyone into lizards because...he thought that would eliminate weakness, even though the lizard serum wore off after a little while... Yep, it's as stupid as it sounds. The more I think about this movie, the worse it is. Also, why would the Lizard put the video of his plan on constant loop? That's a pretty stupid plot device.

Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3 = Amazing Spider-Man.

In other words, Raimi's was waaaaaay better. For starters, Lizard had zero motives for being villainous. In the film he turns into Lizard goes after Dr. Ratha (a weird abandoned plot line) he runs off and then randomly decides he wants to turn NY into Lizards. No reason behind it, he was just bored. (hehe) Also, the story and action in all 3 of Raimi's movies tops TASM indefinitely. I hated the hipster, skateboarding, pretty boy Spider-Man what ever happened to nerd and outcast??

That's not to say I hate TASM overall, in fact I found myself enjoying it more than disliking it, but compared to the Raimi trilogy: NOT. EVEN. CLOSE...

Anything with Bruce wins

@darehulk: Did you not watch the film? You have Curt Connors a guy who's been a disadvantage his entire life because he is missing a limb. His sole motivation in life is to fix himself and create a world without weakness. Without disease, without handicaps and better the world for everyone.

And then the serum comes, and he's not only blessed with his limb back (everything he's every worked for) but he is also imbued with vast power at the same time. And that is intoxicating. Why wouldn't he want everyone to be like that? He wants the entire world to be just as strong as he is.

-On a side note the amount of people still crying that the kid rides a skateboard to school is hilarious. I wonder if they would be just as mad if he rode a bike to school? Or how about roller blades? Maybe its only acceptable if he walks to school?

It was still a stupid plan because the effects of the lizard serum didn't last very long. Remember how Curt Connors had to keep injecting himself with the serum for the effects to last?

@ryagan: The final time he injected himself, he only turned back after getting exposed to the cure. He had been the Lizard for quite some time at that point. Its fairly easily to deduce that he had fixed the problem or altered the serum.

It was just a general comic book Lizard plot, originally he was always trying to do stuff like this, turn everyone into lizards, evolve reptiles into a super-race to take over the world etc.

When I first saw it I was surprised that they full-on went with classic 60s Lizard (sans family), but I guess a film with contemporary Lizard would have made for a more coherent plot (maybe they were worried about age ratings, or scaring children?).

He was bitten by a radioactive Spider and became strong, athletic, and confident.

Yep... because webbing people in th balls is SOOOO much funnier than raimi's humor. (rolls eyes)

Yah and people say tobey's humor was cheesey... well too bad. So were comic spidey's.

TASM

...Raimi's Spiderman had humor? I must have missed it.

LOL! THIS!!!

There was no humor in Raimi's Spiderman.

And to add, Tobey was a HORRENDOUS Peter Parker. Personal opinion though.

It had cheesey lines like the comics did. Spider-Man isnt supposed to be hilarious.

@paperdemon: I think he is.

And Raimi Spiderman is still bad.

original trilogy was horrible if your a spidey fan - but the general public will like spidey 1 and 2 ni matetr what cuz they are in general good movies. The ASM is by far 100x superior and so much closer to spiderman comics. however it was still mediocre. it was dark(works for batman -but not spidey) lizard was a lame villian (the only villian i liked out of all the movies was dock ock) i feel ASM they could have done so much more with but overall i like it better than the originals. i hope ASM 2 is alot better and less dark. but so far there has not been that perfect spider-man movie ive been looking for

Amazing Spider-Man was just a soulless cash grab. Uncle Ben's death and Parker's development as a character are SHAMEFULLY bad, the villain doesn't have much motivation and they completely changed Spider-Man's personality.

Spiderman 1