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

[TheDarman]

I don't quite thing the scene with MJ at the end of ASM 122 is as important as you do (It takes greater significance since we know they'll hook up later) but it does tie into several of the ways Sony screwed up the death of Gwen.

Without MJ, there really isn't anyone else to mourn Gwen. Peter wouldn't really have anyone to interact with in a hypothetical ASM 3 who would appreciate what he's going through.

But, at the same time, I think that made it unique in the context of the story. I mean, for the general audience, I'm sure it felt a whole lot like The Dark Knight in how that worked. However, there-in lies the difference. Bruce wasn't the only one who lost someone; Dent did too. It becomes a massive point of contention, particularly towards the end of the film. I think the idea was to strip Peter of everything by the end of the film. There have been times were Peter has been alone and I think it was to put Peter in a back-to-basics position in his character arc. Which, if you think about it, actually would've been the best place to insert the spin-off film.

The Amazing Spider-Man 3 could've essentially been a relaunch film. Peter's all alone and he pushes away anyone who gets close. May Parker tries to get him back out there and she tries to introduce him to MJ and he doesn't want to because he feels he can't be anyone but Spider-Man anymore. Of course, originally I'm guessing, they had planned on using that film to build up the rest of the Sinister Six so Doc Ock, Mysterio and Kraven probably would've been the villains. This is why I think that if they had gone through with it, it would've made sense, to me, to do a "Peter Parker no more" type story like what they did in the Ultimate Comics after Gwen died there (after he did initially give up being Spider-Man). It would've allowed for that shift in focus towards the villains that Sony had wanted to promote and allowed them to build them better here.

Of course, this all moot because we won't be getting a new one. However, I think The Amazing Spider-Man 2, for all its faults, was the best on-screen representation of Spider-Man when he's in the costume. Garfield nails both him and Peter Parker really well. The only problem is that Peter Parker doesn't get a whole lot of room in Webb's films to show who he is aside from the first hour of the first film. For all intents in purposes, particularly in the second film, Peter Parker and Spider-Man are the same character and act the exact same way. This is something, however, that Raimi suffered from too. Spider-Man wasn't funny nor did he act particularly different from Peter other than the obvious "I can't hit him even though I want to". The villains suck, sure. But that chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield made the whole film worthwhile. Of course, having killed her, that would be the last time we'd see it but, hey, I would argue Raimi didn't leave the franchise with very many avenues of growth either.

Tobey Maguire, in Spider-Man 3, captures neither Peter nor Spider-Man. Peter is cocky and a smartass while Spider-Man finally gets those character traits but without getting any funnier. Spider-Man just feels incomplete and devoid of any real emotion or connection aside from when the script seemed to deem it worthy to give him something to do in the suit. The villains suck. And the chemistry between Maguire and Dunst had never been worse (and it was bad to begin with). On the bright side, Harry Osborn's arc was cool aside from the amnesia thing and Franco nailed Harry Osborn. But that's it. And that film really did feel like an ending. All the good villains were dead. Peter and MJ were in a place that hinted they were getting back together but it seemed like an ending in which the audience could be left to their own imagination with it. It really was a dead-end and franchise killer and it felt like it was on purpose too.

[Punisher007]

TASM 2 easily. It had more stuff that I liked and less stuff that I hated.

-Garfield>Maguire imo.

-The Peter/Gwen relationship is sweet/believable, whereas Peter/MJ is toxic and face-palming.

-Emma Stone Gwen>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kristen Dunst's MJ.

-The problem with Harry in TASM 2 was that they rushed him into the Goblin role too quickly in one film. But that's still not as bad as SM3, where they ruined what had been a really effective TWO movie buildup to Harry becoming the Goblin.

-There was no face-palming decision like retconning Uncle Ben's death (and thus killing the whole point of Peter becoming Spider-Man in the first place) in TASM 2.

-Electro was a case of "interesting idea, not so great execution" for me. Which is still better than the travesty that was SM3 Venom.

-No emo/dancing Peter.

-Etc.

TASM 2 is merely deeply flawed to me. But I flat-out dislike SM3.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

TASM 2 easily. It had more stuff that I liked and less stuff that I hated.

-Garfield>Maguire imo.

-The Peter/Gwen relationship is sweet/believable, whereas Peter/MJ is toxic and face-palming.

-Emma Stone Gwen>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kristen Dunst's MJ.

-The problem with Harry in TASM 2 was that they rushed him into the Goblin role too quickly in one film. But that's still not as bad as SM3, where they ruined what had been a really effective TWO movie buildup to Harry becoming the Goblin.

-There was no face-palming decision like retconning Uncle Ben's death (and thus killing the whole point of Peter becoming Spider-Man in the first place) in TASM 2.

-Electro was a case of "interesting idea, not so great execution" for me. Which is still better than the travesty that was SM3 Venom.

-No emo/dancing Peter.

-Etc.

TASM 2 is merely deeply flawed to me. But I flat-out dislike SM3.

Couldn't agree more. Harry suffered the most in SM3 with all that fantastic build up like you I still feel like Harry got sufficient development for Green Goblin, which was pretty non-existent for Eddie. The whole Sandman subplot was horrendous and served no purpose at all, also to add to your point, the scene where Pete forgives him I did not like, everyone has a sob story, how does Pete know he was telling the truth, I don't think Pete once saw his daughter. Gwen was also much much better shown her than in SM3. Not to mention the horrible Harry has amnesia plot line and remembers just when it is convenient.

SM3 great music and Jonah was in SM3, that's all I think of from positives from SM3 oh and I preferred Harry's Goblin look too.

[RoboCop]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 3 sucked shit.

[mattbearpig]

While both aren't good films, I marginally prefer AS-M 2 because I thought Andrew, Emma and Dane did a great job with their performances and the action scenes are really fun to watch.

[The Ice-Guy]

The Amazing Spider-man 2 is my new favorite spidey film after sm2, i'm not easily dissapointed when it comes to spider-man and really enjoyed the adventure the movie gave, I also don't really mind peter's desire to know about his bio-parents, could've done without it, but props to them for going for a new angle.

-electro also didn't bother me as much as he should have i guess, i mean how much characterization did dillion really have when he was first introduced in the comics that people can complain this much? I could see if it was hob goblin or someone with more depth but electro has always sort of just been electro to me. (and even then his character made some fraction of sense, his later paranoia and was clearly a result of a side affect of his power as shown in the times square scene. even the song that played in that scene, amazingly composed by hans zimmer, was titled "paranoia") They honestly didnt have much to go on with a orgin of electro other than the eels so i guess they were going for paranoid introvert. fair atempt, ok execution.

-unlike in the rami films I think garfield captured parker way better. sure he may have come off as cool guy skater boy in the first one but there was always this prominent layer of arkwardness attached to him. As for his intelligence it felt as though pete was an aspiring scientist as in he showed lots of intrest and application which is exactly where peter should be around that age, as an artist I study from any source i can get ,books, other artist and yes even "youtube videos".

-Gwens death I thought was actually well done,and I never (through watching the movie) came to the conclusion that she died because she didnt listen to peter but rather because peter didn't listen to captain stacy(and the various ghost stacys). the time skip was neccisary so the movie didnt end on a bad note and peters character could accept gwens death as part of his development moving forward.

-for me the only real dissapointment in the film was the rhino who was wrongly advertised before hand as a major player in the film only to be a "cut to black" ending.

-besides that the music was great, spidey's characterization was there, the jokes were funny theres just too many positive things i liked about this film for me to dwell on the "bad" parts of it

[Vworp Vworp]

Rather annoyingly, i clicked on the wrong option when I voted. So just for the record, the 'official' score currently stands at SM3: 22 ASM2: 36.

Anyway, of course Spidey 3 is better. Here's the thing. Spider-Man 3 is a movie with many, many flaws. But, despite all the stuff that's wrong with it, it still manages to be entertaining. Would I buy it on DVD/Blu Ray? No. Would I make plans to watch it if I saw it was going to be on television later in the day/week. No. But, if I was just channel-hopping one day and there was nothing else of interest on, and I happened to come across it airing, would I leave it on and then watch it? Yes, I would. And have done.

ASM2 however doesn't even meet that last criteria. Because whilst Spidey 3 has it's individual flaws, ASM2 is simply a fundamentally flawed movie. Because it doesn't entertain. It doesn't really do anything. I remember watching it at the cinema, and I remember what happened in the movie. But I don't remember feeling anything during the movie... other than mostly boredom.

And I think, when push comes to shove, a lot of it also comes down to the douche factor. In Spidey 3, Maguire Parker becomes a bit of a douche because of the influence of the symbiote. In ASM2 (and, let's be honest, the first one as well), slightly douchey is Garfield Parker's actual personality. I don't know, maybe that's a reflection on post OMD Spidey in the books who's always seemed a little less friendly-neighbourhood and a lot more snarky in recent years. But whatever the reason, I'll always take SM3's prancing Parker dancing down the street like a numpty over ASM2's patronising Parker's first meeting with Max.

[BlitheringToot]

And I think, when push comes to shove, a lot of it also comes down to the douche factor. In Spidey 3, Maguire Parker becomes a bit of a douche because of the influence of the symbiote. In ASM2 (and, let's be honest, the first one as well), slightly douchey is Garfield Parker's actual personality. I don't know, maybe that's a reflection on post OMD Spidey in the books who's always seemed a little less friendly-neighbourhood and a lot more snarky in recent years. But whatever the reason, I'll always take SM3's prancing Parker dancing down the street like a numpty over ASM2's patronising Parker's first meeting with Max.

Yepppppperoni.

[Punisher007]

Well first of all, you have to buy that Garfield's Peter was "douche" which I don't. Subjective term and all that. Second, that makes SM3 look even WORSE since not only did we get "douche" Peter, but the butchered the symbiote in the process. So it's doubly bad.

[Scott Taylor]

A lot of the strong negative opinions about SM3 seem to have to do with the handling of Venom. Compared with the comics, the overall lack of screen time, and the way we kept getting Topher's face instead of Venom, and the way it affected Peter ... its pretty objectively bad.

Not sure if its as bad as the handling of Electro, though. He is really nothing at all like Max Dillon of any comic representation.

[CrimsonEchidna]

A lot of the strong negative opinions about SM3 seem to have to do with the handling of Venom. Compared with the comics, the overall lack of screen time, and the way we kept getting Topher's face instead of Venom, and the way it affected Peter ... its pretty objectively bad.

Not sure if its as bad as the handling of Electro, though. He is really nothing at all like Max Dillon of any comic representation.

I think it helps that, while a mainstay, Electro is hardly one of Spider-man's "iconic" Villains. Venom was one of the big three.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

Spider-Man 3 is my second favorite Spidey film. I confess the Sandman arc makes no sense or serves no real purpose other than to put the symbiote on Spidey and make great visual effects, but it's very watchable and enjoyable, even if removing it could have served the movie better.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 has amazing movements for Spidey, a gripping death scene, really nice moments thinking of the promise he made Captain Stacy, Gwen Stacy, and Aunt May.
But the greatness ends there, the rest leave a weak product, even the CGI is lesser than it was in the first film, which I think has amazing looking CGI.

I think Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the weakest of the Spider-Man films.

I don't understand people who say that Peter was more like comic-Peter in ASM 2. Peter needed to look up videos on youtube to understand how batteries worked.

That is not Peter Parker.

Not to mention searching "spiders" on BING on ASM xD

Because he's smart, does not mean he does not need a refresher, or is too smart to need to look things up, or reading a book is absolutely better than watching a Youtube video.

But if I think about it, at least as far as I can remember, on Raimi's trilogy Peter never does anything even remotely scientific. Yeah, he used sound to defeat Venom, but you didn't need to be a genius to interpret all the clues he got about the symbiote's vulnerability...

Talks about spiders, worked for Conners, helps Harry with his studies, read all of Norman's research papers, excellent at Connors class, was great debating Otto before the day of his grand show, talks nerdy to MJ after her play ended....

[Scott Taylor]

Peter Parker in ASM using Bing is a pretty good reason to write off that whole series!

[Kevinroc]

Because he's smart, does not mean he does not need a refresher, or is too smart to need to look things up, or reading a book is absolutely better than watching a Youtube video.

Movies use shorthand information all the time. Nature of the beast. But Peter doesn't come across as "smart" when it counts. That's Gwen's job. She was the one who came up with the cure for the Lizard's formula in the first film. She was the one who had the plan to defeat Electro in the second film. If Peter were shown brushing up on youtube videos about batteries, and later came up with the plan to defeat Electro, that would be an entirely different thing.

But it's not. Peter can't even stop his own bad guys on his own in his own movie.

[William300]

The two films suffer from similar problems, but Spidey 3 has those problems times 100. ASM 2 had two underdeveloped villains, Spidey 3 had three. ASM 2 had two underdeveloped plot lines, Spidey 3 had four. ASM 2 had a awesome relationship between the two leads, Spidey 3 made us once again go through the awful romance between Peter and Dunst (I refuse to call her MJ). Spidey 3 was also bogged down by so much unnecessary drama, it had THREE love triangles, the Peter-MJ-Harry triangle (should have been the only on in the film), the MJ-Peter-Gwen triangle, and the Peter-Gwen-Eddie triangle, none of them were properly done. And then there was the whole Sandman killing Uncle Ben thing, now changing something from the comics can work when it's good, but this was just a pointless in-continuity retcon that just makes to where the reason Peter became Spider-Man was one big misunderstanding. Yea ASM 2 had problems, but it was still enjoyable, and not nearly as bad as Spidey 3.