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.