Was the 2012 film reboot pointless?

[Songbird/Diamondback]

i know but people think having Norman be the main antagonist for the marvel live action universe and people suggesting him to be a phase 4 villain and looking over marvel i think dark reign would be a possibility even though i believe like civil war and secret invasion it works better for television. infact comic book adaptations work better on tv and netflix.

No, don't make an entire phase devoted to one villain. What Marvel has been doing works fine. Don't turn self contain movies into one movie broken up over years. It's why the second Hobbit film sucked so badly. You waste an entire hour on a fight against a dragon where nobody dies and it just ends on a cliffhanger. That's BEYOND tedious and enters into horrible.

fire hulk *pfft* as if they'll go with that.

They market the fire hulk version a lot these days.

[Kuwagaton]

Pointless? I enjoyed both so no.

[marvelguy25]

No, don't make an entire phase devoted to one villain. What Marvel has been doing works fine. Don't turn self contain movies into one movie broken up over years. It's why the second Hobbit film sucked so badly. You waste an entire hour on a fight against a dragon where nobody dies and it just ends on a cliffhanger. That's BEYOND tedious and enters into horrible.

god that does sound cruddy. i hope this won't revolve around Norman Osborn and Shield for phase 4. like i said i've been very annoyed with SHIELD and the Avengers eversince the movies and with Age of Ultron it'll be completely oversaturated to the point where i'll fall down a building.

They market the fire hulk version a lot these days.

really? i thought it was for 616 goblin. is it the ultimate cartoon or do you really think they'll go there?

[Kevinroc]

1) nah, his plan is pretty simple. he wants to turn everyone into lizard because thanks to the effects of the serum he thinks he's helping people and want to start a new evolution when clearly he wants to start a city full of ferocious reptiles.

2) i'm saying the stuff the comic version did was no better but she did have some balance and she was being some nice and understanding person with her actions when MJ in the films just doesn't. she just really puts everyone to shit.

3) richard and blood i'll give you but a train is not that bothersome considering we had some basic sci fantasy mumbo jumbo over the yeats.

4) nah i'm pretty surte he died in an alleyway

5) nope, TASM 1 was not considered terrible. it was proven to be good. TASM 2 was problematic but better than 3. the only superhero movies after IM that sucked are Thor 2, MoS, Jonah Hex, IM 2, IM 3, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider 2, Wolverine Origins, First Class(IMO), and i believe the Wolverine.

6) now you're just screwing with me because that's obviously not what i meant.

7) the richard parker stuff was only in 2. you can fault that for editing and writing. i also never said Raimi was terrible. i said he wasn't the right choice based on how he written spiderman and peter parker, mary jane, the romance, the cheesiness and campiness, sandman uncle ben retcon, power rangers goblin, how peter is depicted as an even bigger loser than he was in the comics, and a few other stuff. i don't hate him and i never did. i just don't like some of the stuff he put in those films.

8) TASM 1 was not a terrible movie. 2 was problematic but there were good stuff there that were better than 3. of course i blame sony for their interference. much like how i think tobey is a decent actor but he was in a terrible spiderman 3 and despite SM 1 and 2 he was pretty bad in those.

1: It's a goofy plan. It honestly is. And there's nothing wrong with admitting its goofy. You're holding a double standard here because you hate the Raimi films for being "campy" when the ASM films did this goofy stuff.

2: See, it's hard to make note of that when you say MJ was "a bitch" (and really, why are you referring to a woman as "a bitch"?), and saying stuff like the comic version was "no better." You need to understand that words mean things.

3: Where did he get the money for that train lab? The Parkers are not rich. Richard wasn't very smart if he invested all his money in his secret train lab. (The train lab was a terrible idea.)

4: The clip is right there.

5: These movies cost more, and made less money, than the Raimi films that came out a decade ago. And Sony made a deal with Marvel after ASM 2 to reboot the franchise and integrate the character into the MCU. These things would not have happened if more people liked the movies as much as you do. (Fox's handling of the X-Men is proof.)

6: You're complaining about how Peter Parker was "George McFly" in the Raimi films. Complaining about MJ being "a bitch." Complaining about Jonah taking up too much screentime (as opposed to the NO JONAH ON SCREEN AT ALL that ASM gave us). Complaining that the Raimi films were too campy.

Did you like anything about the Raimi films? Because you're trying to deny that you're saying Raimi "didn't understand Spider-Man" when you're clearly saying something along those lines. Let's just drop the pretense.

7: The Richard Parker stuff was all over TASM 1. Or did you forget that Peter and Curt Conners discussed how Richard used to work with Conners? The magic blood and the secret train station were in TASM 2. But the Richard Parker stuff was in TASM 1. And did nothing but undermine Uncle Ben's role in the narrative. (Why did they even do the Uncle Ben stuff again?)

8: I think at this point it's pretty obvious that you like TASM more than the Raimi films. And you're in the minority on that. Because, as I said, those movies cost more, and made less, than the Raimi films. The questions you should be asking are "Why did the Raimi films do better?" And "Why did ASM do worse?"

[Songbird/Diamondback]

god that does sound cruddy. i hope this won't revolve around Norman Osborn and Shield for phase 4. like i said i've been very annoyed with SHIELD and the Avengers eversince the movies and with Age of Ultron it'll be completely oversaturated to the point where i'll fall down a building.


Really? i thought it was for 616 goblin. is it the ultimate cartoon or do you really think they'll go there?

I'm pretty sure Phases don't revolve around one story. Sure, they're leading towards Infinity Wars, but they are self contained.

And I say that cause even the Infinity Game uses Ult Goblin.

[marvelguy25]

1: It's a goofy plan. It honestly is. And there's nothing wrong with admitting its goofy. You're holding a double standard here because you hate the Raimi films for being "campy" when the ASM films did this goofy stuff.

2: See, it's hard to make note of that when you say MJ was "a bitch" (and really, why are you referring to a woman as "a bitch"?), and saying stuff like the comic version was "no better." You need to understand that words mean things.

3: Where did he get the money for that train lab? The Parkers are not rich. Richard wasn't very smart if he invested all his money in his secret train lab. (The train lab was a terrible idea.)

4: The clip is right there.

5: These movies cost more, and made less money, than the Raimi films that came out a decade ago. And Sony made a deal with Marvel after ASM 2 to reboot the franchise and integrate the character into the MCU. These things would not have happened if more people liked the movies as much as you do. (Fox's handling of the X-Men is proof.)

6: You're complaining about how Peter Parker was "George McFly" in the Raimi films. Complaining about MJ being "a bitch." Complaining about Jonah taking up too much screentime (as opposed to the NO JONAH ON SCREEN AT ALL that ASM gave us). Complaining that the Raimi films were too campy.

Did you like anything about the Raimi films? Because you're trying to deny that you're saying Raimi "didn't understand Spider-Man" when you're clearly saying something along those lines. Let's just drop the pretense.

7: The Richard Parker stuff was all over TASM 1. Or did you forget that Peter and Curt Conners discussed how Richard used to work with Conners? The magic blood and the secret train station were in TASM 2. But the Richard Parker stuff was in TASM 1. And did nothing but undermine Uncle Ben's role in the narrative. (Why did they even do the Uncle Ben stuff again?)

8: I think at this point it's pretty obvious that you like TASM more than the Raimi films. And you're in the minority on that. Because, as I said, those movies cost more, and made less, than the Raimi films. The questions you should be asking are "Why did the Raimi films do better?" And "Why did ASM do worse?"

1. more of a plan in fiction. nothing goofy of turning people into man eating reptiles.

2. what?

3. eh i didn't really question it. i've dealt with alot of fantasy sci fi stuff and maybe richard was working with someone probably before the guy died or went into hiding.

4. nah, he got killed in an allyway.

5.you didn't read what i just said did you? and no, box office quality does not make a good movie. for example, Cabin in the woods was a great movie but it made less at the box office. Interstellar was Great as well but i found out it made less. even Godzilla made less. SM 3 was crap and made more money. i don't get what you are trying to give me with the list of films i put out. i put out receptions and you give me box office.

6. that doesn't really mean i hate the raimi films as a whole. i hate some of the aspects of the raimi films. Jameson wasn't one of them but spiderman should've shared some funny moments as Jameson. infact if you want me to prove to you that i do not hate the raimi films i'll give you what i liked about them:

-willam defoe as Norman Osborn

-the score

-the fight scenes excluding thanksgiving fight

-JK simmons and j jonah jameson

-Alfred Molina as Doc Ock

-Rosemarry Harris and Cliff Robertson as Aunt May and Uncle Ben

-Some Stuff in Spider-man 2

-the burglar fight

-the fire escape

you see. i don't hate them. i never did. i'm saying that i don't like some of the aspects of the raimi films and hated tobey maguire

7. of course they talked about Richard in TASM 1. Curt was his lab partner and thought he trusted him. Peter bonded with Connors. the secret cost his uncle's life, and a few other stuff. not much on richard. Ben was in TASM 2. Sony just cut some of the stuff like you said.

8. i'm not really in the minority here. there are people here and other sites that like and love TASM series more, as much and less than the raimi films but don't neccessarily hate them.

the made less because of overmarketing and interferences. plus good box office doesn't mean good movies. Cabin in the Woods was a great movie but it made less. tranformers existed and it made more. and if you think i'm stating the raimi films sucking please pay attention to what i said.

[marvelguy25]

I'm pretty sure Phases don't revolve around one story. Sure, they're leading towards Infinity Wars, but they are self contained.

And I say that cause even the Infinity Game uses Ult Goblin.

yeah, i very much prefer self contained stories. who cares if things get referenced. i really don't care that the battle of new york happened and have to try to establish when and where stuff like this happens. it's pretty much why i judge people who question where spiderman was during the chitari invasion even though a) heroes faced much worse than this and you should be asking where the other heroes were when each heroes faced so much difficult situations. b) why spiderman? i mean i don't judge his strength, agility, etc. but you seem to put him at the center of attention. there are other heroes out there. the F4 could exist if the new film doesn't do well. what about luke cage? Jessica Jones is older so how long did she get her powers? what about iron fist or misty knight? also just say spiderman was under crowd control. he's not an avenger and was poorly written there.

really? are you serious? you can't be serious right? no 616 goblin? no jester with the pumpkin bomb? no freak with high tech weapons? oh God. i hope this doesn't happen. why couldn't they make him a freak for once? a 6.1ft freak. is it reall that hard to ask. why does his mask even move and people says that's a costume while chameleon gets away with it?

[Kevinroc]

1. more of a plan in fiction. nothing goofy of turning people into man eating reptiles.

2. what?

3. eh i didn't really question it. i've dealt with alot of fantasy sci fi stuff and maybe richard was working with someone probably before the guy died or went into hiding.

4. nah, he got killed in an allyway.

5.you didn't read what i just said did you? and no, box office quality does not make a good movie. for example, Cabin in the woods was a great movie but it made less at the box office. Interstellar was Great as well but i found out it made less. even Godzilla made less. SM 3 was crap and made more money. i don't get what you are trying to give me with the list of films i put out. i put out receptions and you give me box office.

6. that doesn't really mean i hate the raimi films as a whole. i hate some of the aspects of the raimi films. Jameson wasn't one of them but spiderman should've shared some funny moments as Jameson. infact if you want me to prove to you that i do not hate the raimi films i'll give you what i liked about them:

-willam defoe as Norman Osborn

-the score

-the fight scenes excluding thanksgiving fight

-JK simmons and j jonah jameson

-Alfred Molina as Doc Ock

-Rosemarry Harris and Cliff Robertson as Aunt May and Uncle Ben

-Some Stuff in Spider-man 2

-the burglar fight

-the fire escape

you see. i don't hate them. i never did. i'm saying that i don't like some of the aspects of the raimi films and hated tobey maguire

7. of course they talked about Richard in TASM 1. Curt was his lab partner and thought he trusted him. Peter bonded with Connors. the secret cost his uncle's life, and a few other stuff. not much on richard. Ben was in TASM 2. Sony just cut some of the stuff like you said.

8. i'm not really in the minority here. there are people here and other sites that like and love TASM series more, as much and less than the raimi films but don't neccessarily hate them.

the made less because of overmarketing and interferences. plus good box office doesn't mean good movies. Cabin in the Woods was a great movie but it made less. tranformers existed and it made more. and if you think i'm stating the raimi films sucking please pay attention to what i said.

1: Trying to turn people into reptiles is a goofy plan. Transformations are common in fiction. That doesn't mean they aren't goofy.

2: You engaged in casual misogyny. Explain to me why you referred to MJ as "a bitch"?

3: That sounds like a double standard between movies.

4: He got killed on the sidewalk after getting into a fight with the thief. This absolves Peter of the guilt that comes from Uncle Ben's fault. They did the same damn thing when Gwen insisted she should be there during the Electro fight. It absolves Peter of the guilt because these two chose to act and got killed because they acted.

5: First, you need to understand that this is a business. Secondly, something like Cabin in the Woods (which I liked quite a bit) was never going to make as much as Spider-Man. Thirdly, if these movies were as popular as you make them out to be, Sony would never have made that deal with Disney/Marvel.

6: I don't know. I never wanted to see Maguire's Peter punched in the face like I did Garfield's Peter.

7: They focused more on Richard Parker than they did on Aunt May. Those are HORRIBLE Spider-Man priorities.

8: Please see what I said at #5.

We're just going in circles at this point. I don't care if you like these movies. I thought they were horrible and am glad that pretty much everyone involved will no longer be making Spider-Man.

[DCordo74]

First I want to say, no movie is "proven" to be good, not even The Godfather. Movie quality is completely subjective. Personally, I believe Captain America: Winter Soldier is a superior film to Guardians of the Galaxy (even though I love GOTG). However, I can't say that CAWS is "proven" to be better just because I can get a group of people to agree with me. Art is subjective, Film is art, therefore film is subjective. I can't say Amazing Spider-man 2 is "proven" to be bad because Rotten Tomatoes says so. Those numbers are based around the people's opinions that contribute to that specific website. I know people who love the Amazing Spider-man series. But their opinions don't affect mine. They can like or dislike whatever they want. All we have are our reasons for our preferences.

But first, I wanna address Raimi's Mary Jane. I liked Kirsten Dunst's MJ, but I didn't love her (mostly due to her Gwen aspects), but she was flawed and three-dimensional female character (thanks to MJ). She was abused by her father: It's shown that he verbally degrades her, and it has affected her self image. It has also made her co-dependent, relying to find her self worth with the men around her (the co-dependent part is very Gwen like). She's shown to have low self-esteem because of her relationship with Flash (who is a bully to everyone around him), her relationship with Harry (how she felt about him knowing she works at a diner), and her insecurities over her acting capabilities (which Peter supports). However, even with low self-worth she still goes after her dream. Anyway, she gets a crush on a heroic figure who saves her life TWICE. She, Peter, and Harry just graduated, so it's safe to assume she's 18 years old. She develops a crush on Spider-man after he protects her from death and...rape. Dude, if Spider-man saved me, I'd probably swoon too. (Also their kiss is still one of the greatest kisses in cinematic history). Over the course of the movie, she realizes that being with someone who treats her like shit, makes her feel like shit. Harry doesn't defend her when his father calls her a gold digging whore. And Spider-man is the only one who seems to care about her, of course she doesn't know yet that Peter is the one who cares about her. Then Peter finally shows her who he is in a moment of vulnerability, and she falls in love with him. He respects her, he's affectionate, kind, has a mysterious aura of heroism, and genuinely loves her. When she tells him how she feels, he tells her no. And she has no idea why, she suspects something is familiar about his kiss but doesn't realize what it is yet.

After she's rejected, she tries to move on with her life. But Peter is still vying for her affections. He quotes poetry to her, that pretty much says that he's still in love with her. And she tells him to quit yo-yo-ing with her. What a bitch, amirite? She doesn't wait for our hero to figure it out, she tries to find happiness and security. Something a lot of us search for. He's a good man who also has some of the same qualities as Peter: he's heroic, kind, and respects her. But he isn't Peter Parker, she isn't in love with him. Happens. But Peter keeps trying to push her, she tells him she said yes to Jameson's proposal. Then she gets taken by a SUPERVILLAIN! This is the criticism I never understood. I can assure you that none of the MJ haters out there would be able to stand their own against a robotic tentacle freakazoid. I'm sure they would all scream too. But she's held to unrealistic standards because she's a female character. The only way she can be "strong" is if she's shoe-horned into the hero's victory (coughGWENSTACYcough). Also she tries to help Spider-man in his fight against Doc Ock but fails. BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE BLOODY POWERS OR ISN'T PERFECT! Anyway Peter saves her and she finds out that he's Spider-man. She tells him that she's always known, but never allowed herself to grasp it until that moment. They share an intimate discussion where Peter tell her, he can't be with her because it's too dangerous. She's heartbroken and tries to settle for Jameson. But she can't in the end, which is in line with her determined character. She runs to Peter (abandoning her fiance, which is a terrible thing to do to someone. But it would have been worse if she kept lying to him and herself.) and tells him that she doesn't care about the danger. Because she loves him and will always choose him. "Go get 'em Tiger." THAT RIGHT THERE IS MARY JANE WATSON! She is Peter's confidant, support, and best friend. As it should be. Roll credits.

Now the third movie, is a movie I classify as so bad, that it's good. I still love Spider-man 3 but it is a huge disappointment. Especially since it meant it was the end of Sam Raimi's Spider-man movies. Every single character suffered because Sony pushed Venom too much. It's pretty obvious Eddie's character was a last minute inclusion. Anyway back to MJ. Her career is the biggest part of her story throughout the movies. Peter Parker and acting are the two things she loves the most. She gets a review after her last show that crucifies her in her first leading part. Peter tell her not to take it too seriously, he hears the Bugle shit on him all the time. This is a moment I liked, because again FLAWS. She takes all her frustrations and anxiety out on Peter. She hears her father every time someone talks down to her. She makes that clear when she says, "listen to this review, it's like my father wrote those words." She later finds out she's been fired and that her dreams have been stalled. At a celebration of Spider-man, Peter kisses another woman-a beautiful blond-(with their ICONIC kiss) in front of all of New York. He's on a high because for the first time New York is officially celebrating all of his sacrifices. He's with the girl of his dreams, he's gonna marry her, and he's a beloved hero. This is in direct contrast to what's happening to Mary Jane. At dinner (where Peter plans to propose) she tells him that it isn't ok for him to treat her like that. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT! She finds out that the girl he kissed, is his lab partner in science class. So he purposefully kissed a woman he knows, not a random model. But a girl he knows. She leaves. Now they're on a break. She tries to find comfort with her close friend Harry. He wants more, she doesn't. Peter gets taken by the symbiote and all hell breaks loose (with 80s pop music no less). Peter uses Gwen to get back at Mary Jane. By taking her on a date at a club she sings at. He has this whole big dance number, and looks at her to see if she's hurt. BTW, Gwen is pissed that she was used to get back at MJ. She apologizes to MJ and leaves. He hits MJ on accident and realizes that the symbiote is taking over his mind. He breaks it off with Venom, and it takes over Eddie. He goes after Mary Jane. Big battle ensues, MJ lugs a brick on Venom, prompting Peter to fight harder. LIKE MJ DO. yada yada yada, the end has Peter go to MJ and they hold each other. Roll credits.

I don't understand why she's the worst in Spider-man 3. Everyone is bad in Spider-man 3. Why does she get the most shit? Honestly I would take a million Raimi Mary Janes to Webb's perfect princess Gwemma any day of the week. But I am all about flawed characters. But I had to address that. You don't have to like her, that's totally fine. But she's a flawed, dynamic character. And thanks to the hate she get, we rarely if ever get a female love interest like that. They tried to make Gwen so bloody perfect that they made me dislike Emma Stone. EMMA STONE. Oy vey.

[Sardorim]

Yes they were pointless as they failed to capture what made Spider-Man great and it wasn't very kind to highly important characters like Uncle Ben and Mary Jane. The reboot wasn't a good idea either.

I remember as a kid how we all wanted a Spider-Man 4 with Carnage. So you can imagine our disappointment.

[DCordo74]

To me, The Amazing Spider-man 2 was a complete and utter waste of my time and money. I can't even rewatch that movie, because it infuriates me. Everything about it misunderstands Peter Parker, at least my perceptions of him. There was not one moment in the Amazing Spider-man sequel, where anyone on the creative team knew what the fuck they were doing. Excluding the mask, of course. Andrew Garfield had the best portrayal of Spider-man to date in that movie. But not Peter Parker, he never took off the mask. He didn't embody Peter Parker (the most important part of Spider-man) at all...to me. He was a cocky, love-struck, douche. He had some genuine moments, but I think that's credited to the characters around him. Like Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, Aunt May, and Curt Conners. He was fine in the first movie, I did love Uncle Ben and Peter. It's a shame that Uncle Ben had to be side lined for a convoluted romance. Because those were the moments I loved. Also the scene on the bridge with the kid. Everything else, eh? I could take it or leave it.

They undermined every supporting character in Spider-man's mythos that matters: Aunt May, Mary Jane Watson (most of all-they were gonna give Shaliene Woodley a Spider-man tattoo-praise the Lord she was cut), Harry Osborn, Norman Osborn, J. Jonah Jameson, and they fucked up Uncle Ben and Gwen's death.

-Aunt May -> Why the hell didn't she tell Peter about being a nurse? It's not like she was a bloody stripper! I didn't understand that contrived plot at all. It got her out of the way, so Peter could focus on obsessing over Gwen. (Like everything else about this franchise). The only part in ASM2 I liked was the scene where she told Peter to shut up about his father for once, and appreciate everything she's done for him. That was pretty satisfying, plus I love Sally Field.

-Mary Jane Watson -> IS THE ONLY WOMAN WHO SHOULD LOVE BOTH SIDES OF PETER PARKER. It's her story, it's her relationship with him, and it's what made her unique. Gwemma Stone straight up stole that part of a fantastic character to make Gwen Stacy "relevant". Gwen's death was as traumatic as it was because Gwen didn't know she was putting herself in danger. It was Peter's fault she died. She should've stayed ignorant. Also Emma Stone was born to play MJ. It's a shame she was wasted in order to do "The Death of Gwen Stacy". No one should ever cast Emma Stone as the one who dies. Plus the only way they thought Gwen would be accepted as the love interest was if they slandered Mary Jane during their promotional campaign. Because no one knew who Gwen was outside of comics., because she isn't Spider-man's girl. MJ is. Now I have to hear bullshit like, "Gwen loved Peter, Mary Jane loved Spider-man." I think they're confusing MJ with Felicia. Peter Parker is Mary Jane's man. Don't confuse yourselves: Webb, Emma, and Andrew.

-Gwen Stacy -> See Mary Jane Watson...and she was too perfect. Gwen Stacy was a shitty character, that was only functional because Emma Stone is so charismatic. Other than that she was a textbook "Mary Sue". And I don't use that phrase lightly. It's thrown around a lot like "fridging"...which is another phrase that should never be applied to Gwen Stacy. She was better than Peter, smarter than Peter, more heroic than Peter. What are her flaws? What makes her relatable? What makes her interesting (outside of Emma Stone)? I can tell you all about Peter's flaws in these movies, but not Gwemma. Not a lot people wanted Andrew Garfield as their hero, they wanted Emma Stone. Can you blame them? She was promoted as such. Look at the hype for Spider-Gwen. I doubt she would've made as much of an impact without Emma's influence. Even though she's nothing like Emma Stone and is a lot more like Andrew Garfield. But whatever. Anyway I thought the romance was tolerable up until the fair scene. Ugh...jeezus. "Stop with your wittle laugh." "No you stop." "No you first." "No you." "Oh I love that thing you do with your nose." "Oh I love your eyes." "Aren't we just pwecious?" "Yes, we're as cute as buttons." Gawd! Stop...pleeeeease, we get it. Ick.

Harry Osborn -> He was shoe horned in. They completely wasted a wonderful casting choice. It was painful to watch Dane Dehann try his damnedest to make that character work, but not achieving it. It was rushed so he could drop Gwen on her head. Raimi managed to do "The Death of Gwen Stacy" better than ASM 2 did..in 2001 without Gwen. Well MJ had aspects of Gwen. Which are now applied to MJ ALL THE TIME. i.e. everything about Raimi MJ that people complain about are Gwen aspects. Now Gwen gets credited for stuff that isn't even in her character. Sigh...

Norman Osborn -> They killed him in two minutes. How dumb was that? Why should Harry kill Gwen? Why do they think Norman is considered Peter's greatest foe? God. GOOGLE.

Uncle Ben -> His death was overshadowed by Captain Stacy and Richard Parker. Peter doesn't seem all that affected by Ben's death. His vendetta against "star-man" was dropped pretty quickly. It's not Peter's fault that Uncle Ben dies. Ben tried to stop the theif-like a hero-but was shot in the attempt. He did what Peter never did in the comics. And he died anyway. Peter didn't stop the thief, Ben tried, and paid the consequences. Peter is haunted by Captain Stacy-also not his fault. I understand this, I suppose, because ASM2 is aaaaaallll about Gwen. And how sad it's gonna be when her neck finally snaps. BTW it was supposed to be Uncle Be he was seeing at first. But it was changed to Captain Stacy. I guess Peter being haunted by him, made Gwen's death his fault? It doesn't. Gwen died because she "acted heroically". By that I mean she was "girl power bait", they needed a reason for her to be in the climax. So she developed another contrived still set. Apparently she's the only one who can push a button. Cause she knows...and stuff. (sidenote: Peter couldn't figure out SCIENCE! Peter Parker didn't understand how science works? He needed his girlfriend to hold his hand? Gawd, Peter is one of the most smartest characters in Marvel.)

J. Jonah Jameson -> They didn't think they could top J. K. Simmons. They were right, they can't. But Spider-man's relationship with New York suffers without it.

I love the Raimi trilogy. Tobey is a better Peter Parker in my book. But he was too much of a loser. When Peter isn't a loser. That is a misconception. He deals with hardships, but he isn't just a loser. He evolved past that a long time ago. Well now he's been reverted back to it thanks to OMD. Screw OMD. Tobey Maguire's Peter was a loser who could never catch a break. That's not why Peter is relatable...Spider-man fans aren't losers. That's rude Marvel.

The worst part about the Webb movies wasn't Richard Parker. Even though he's a close second. It was the fact that they tried to say that Peter Parker was destined to be Spider-man. That is sooooooooooo wrong. You could spend five minutes googling Spider-man and get a better grip on his character than the writers, director, and actors of these movies. Destiny and Legacy do not apply to Peter Parker. Don't. It's responsibility. "With great power, must also come great responsibility." Ring a bell? Having Peter be the only one to be able to become Spider-man is baaaaaad. That right there should disqualify it. Peter isn't Spider-man because his daddy mixed his blood with spiders. He's Spider-man because of a freak accident, and he chose to use his new abilities to help people. His daddy doesn't make Spider-man special. Peter Parker does.

Good riddance. May the MCU finally give us Peter Parker. I'm excited.

[marvelguy25]

Yes they were pointless as they failed to capture what made Spider-Man great and it wasn't very kind to highly important characters like Uncle Ben and Mary Jane. The reboot wasn't a good idea either.

I remember as a kid how we all wanted a Spider-Man 4 with Carnage. So you can imagine our disappointment.

yeah, the raimi trilogy was pretty problematic

[marvelguy25]

I love the Raimi trilogy. Tobey is a better Peter Parker in my book. But he was too much of a loser. When Peter isn't a loser. That is a misconception. He deals with hardships, but he isn't just a loser. He evolved past that a long time ago. Well now he's been reverted back to it thanks to OMD. Screw OMD. Tobey Maguire's Peter was a loser who could never catch a break. That's not why Peter is relatable...Spider-man fans aren't losers. That's rude Marvel.

so you thought tobey was great but agreed that he was too much of a loser? pretty much me and every other people complained about him in the raimi films. what?

[Aruran.]

The difference between the two series.

Raimi didn't know what to do in Spider-Man 3.
Webb didn't know what to do.

[DCordo74]

so you thought tobey was great but agreed that he was too much of a loser? pretty much me and every other people complained about him in the raimi films. what?

I liked pretty everything else about Tobey, but that Raimi made him into TOO MUCH of a loser. Just because everyone else complained about him, doesn't mean you're more right about him than I am. Our opinions are both valid. A lot of people can believe in a certain religion or philosophy, doesn't make them more right than people who don't. I liked that he was heroic, determined, kind, sweet, and genuine. But in the end, he was always reduced to loser status because it was cheap and easy storytelling. I don't deny the Raimi trilogy had problems. Peter being a straight up loser was one of them. I also didn't like that Raimi abandoned the fact that Peter is scientific. It was in the first movie, but only slightly. He should have invented web shooters, I disagree with him that the audience wouldn't have been able to believe that. I'm following a man who has the abilities of a spider, I don't care if he builds his web shooters. I think I'm engulfed in fantasy.