Throwdown: Amazing Spider-Man 2 VS Spider-Man 3

[Mister Mets]

When someone talks about that poorly reviewed Spider-Man film pitting Spider-Man against the Harry Osborn Goblin, with too many villains, campy directorial choices, and ridiculous coincidences, leaving the franchise in a poor state for any potential sequels necesitating a relaunch, it's not clear if they're talking about Spider-Man 3 or Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Both films also have their defenders.

So, which is better (or least bad)?

I still preferred ASM 2, if only because Garfield & Stone have strong chemistry.

[Aruran.]

I have re-watched Spider-Man 3 multiple times, and I still haven't re-watched Amazing Spider-Man 2.

ASM 2 had the better actors, but Spider-Man 3's plot made more sense.
(Not that it was good, but you could at least understand where they wanted to go)

[Hypestyle]

I'll give Spider-Man 3 the edge for the Sandman visuals. (my actual review at a later time).

Regarding ASM 2, For my purposes, I liked most of it, but I didn’t care for how things ended in the climax and denouement. The relationship between Gwen and Peter works, the actors seem to have an easy chemistry with one another. It was probably my favorite part of the film. Sally Field’s Aunt May, surprisingly, didn’t seem to get to do much, I figured she’d be more involved in the narrative.

I felt Gwen didn’t have to die. That annoyed me profoundly. It may be canonical in the comics, but especially considering the established positive audience response to the on-screen relationship, I didn’t see the need to tack on her death this “early” in the series (if at all)—especially if this is supposed to be an “ongoing saga” now instead of just another trilogy.

Harry getting fast-tracked as the Goblin didn’t quite work for me. I get that he’d “eventually” go there, but I’d have been okay with it if he had just went off into hiding after the ‘cure’ did its damage—then come back in part 3 or this Sinister Six spinoff.

Foxx delivered a solid performance, both as pre-accident Max and as Electro. Since he’s made out of energy now (I guess) there’s always a backdoor for him to come back. (side note: the stolen-designs angle in his origin reminded me of Hardware’s backstory at Milestone. Hmm.)

Regarding Rhino-- I guess when an actor like Paul Giamatti publicly says that he wants in, you find a way to accommodate him. But I just didn't buy into him as the (sigh) Rhino. Generic Russian hijacker? Fine. (I did enjoy the opening sequence). An epilogue where he gets to cause mayhem in a robotic suit of armor? Fine. But did it have to be some kind of ersatz "Rhino-mech"? A spare Mandroid wasn't available?

"Rhino", the Spidey/Hulk villain, to me, is a huge, muscular/stocky, built guy with a big horn on his cowl/helmet. I don't care. For whatever it's worth, I'd pick Giamatti to play Mysterio, Chameleon or something where he could act out a proper arc. For all this character contributed to the film, heck, they might as well have made him the Looter.

As I write this, I vaguely recall something written years ago about Avi Arad's notes on developing the short-lived Avengers: United they Stand cartoon (circa 2000), and nearly every main character had some kind of armored add-on. Apropos of nothing, I suppose.

[Kevinroc]

Spider-Man 3 is fell apart as a story. And its failure is interesting to discuss. What went wrong? Was the studio insistence on Venom just too much for the film? Was trying to make a personal connection between Sandman and Peter a haphazard retcon that the film didn't need? Was the rush job to have Mary Jane get kidnapped yet again too tiring after 2 films? Was the butler scene too much for the Harry story? Was there just too much going on?

Spider-Man 3 is interesting because of the conflict between Sony and Raimi, and Raimi's taking the blame for how it turned out.

But all of these problems feel lesser in comparison to the major cluster**** that is the Amazing Spider-Man 2. A lot of the problems of ASM 2 are because of problems with ASM 1.

Let us count the ways.

The parents subplot was still horrible and ultimately went nowhere. (And originally, Richard was supposed to be alive and appeared to comfort Peter at Gwen's grave.) And let's not forget to mention that Richard has a secret lab in an abandoned subway station.

Harry Osborn, never mentioned AT ALL in the first film, is suddenly Peter's long lost BFF. And he was dying so rapidly. Why did he look like he had "one foot in the grave already"? Norman lived a long time. Harry has plenty of money. This part didn't make any sense.

Characters are mentioned but never appear on screen. This includes J. Jonah Jameson, who only appears via an e-mail. If the Bugle is so important, where is it? But Jonah might interfere with that important Richard Parker plot.

Electro. Just... Electro...

The Rhino.

The film absolves Peter from the guilt of Gwen's death. She CHOSE to be there. She KNEW the risks.

Speaking of misunderstanding the emotional aspects of Gwen's death, MJ was removed from the films. MJ's role at the end of TNGSD is what gives that ending just a little bit of hope in what would otherwise be a rather grim tale. The idea that Peter isn't alone. That even the seemingly emotionally distant party girl is there for him. But her very existence was such a threat to "the story of Peter and Gwen" that she had to be cut. (But god forbid they do cut that all-important Richard Parker story and his magic blood and his secret underground subway lab.)

What a waste of Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. He's in it for less than five minutes before he dies.

The tacked on Harry as Goblin battle after the audience was already emotionally exhausted from the Electro fight. Harry literally swoops in out of nowhere so he can kill Gwen.

I'm going to mention Peter's obsession with Richard Parker again. Because the movie never let you forget it.

Why was Dr. Kafka changed to an evil male stereotypical mad German scientist? Did not do the research on that one as comic Dr. Kafka was based on a woman that was insulted by the film's "portrayal" of her. (Source: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...-life-dr-kafka )

What was the point of the Richard Parker stuff? (I'm not dropping this because the film's didn't drop it.)

What happened to Uncle Ben's killer? This plot was completely dropped after the first film.

Ugh... ASM 2 is terrible...

Edit: More Richard Parker stuff. At the graduation ceremony (real subtle foreshadowing on Gwen's death, movie), when Aunt May says Uncle Ben should be there, and Peter laments his bio parents should be there too. I wanted to slap Peter in that moment. I wanted somebody to slap him for that comment.

[SpiderNerd]

For various reasons The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is my absolute favorite Spidey film. I absolutely loved pretty much every second of it. I respect those who disagree with me, but it's my personal favorite.

[Anubhavkumarc]

I prefer the worst of Raimi Trilogy to the best of Webb films, so my answer was clear.

[Keeper of the Crows]

You know, it’s interesting. On the whole, I vastly prefer the Rami films to the TASM franchise, although TASM did have some high points (like the performances of Garfield and Stone). I’m admittedly one of the people who cheered when Marvel and Sony announced their new Spider-venture, thus driving the stake through the heart of the reboot.

But actually, it was the first TASM movie that I thought was truly poorly done. Retelling the origin, the design of the Lizard, and the parents subplot were just a few of the things that made it my least favorite Spider-Man film. For all its failings (many of which Kevinroc pointed out), I thought TASM2 was far and away superior to TASM1.

I’d give TASM 2 the edge over Spider-Man 3, if only because I felt Spider-Man 3 was a drop in quality from what came before, whereas TASM2 was an improvement over its predecessor. Neither are truly terrible films, and both have some very enjoyable moments, but I think that they don’t match the heights of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2.

[normanosborn]

I think the relationship between Harry and Peter worked really well in SM3. Yeah it was mostly a bad and forgettable story but at least it had something going on for it. ASM2 did not

[Doctor Know]

TASM2 by a wide mile.

Spider-Man 3 is like Batman and Robin for me. It happened and were all worse because of it.


I rewatched both TASM and TASM2 and I can't figure out why people disliked TASM2 as much as they did. Only conclusion I came up with is the downer ending of Gwen's death and people not wanting to see that multiple times or take their kids to see it again.

[oldschool]

TASM 2 is the lesser of the 2 evils for me only because of Garfield/Stone; all of the Electro story was ridiculous yet overall it was still better than the mess that was SM3.

[CrimsonEchidna]

TASM2. The handling of the symbiote in Spider-Man 3 was "Iron Man 3 Mandarin" bad. Not that TASM2 was much better, but Garfield and Stone had much better romantic chemistry.

[Who The Shock?]

It's not even close for me: ASM 2

[DebkoX]

Spider-Man 3.

[Spider-Tron]

i thought asm 2 was amazing. sitll don't understand the hate

[Tuck]

I still preferred ASM 2, if only because Garfield & Stone have strong chemistry.

Pretty much my opinion.