What The Amazing Spider-Man could learn from Spider-Man 3

Feature Rob Leane 10 Dec 2013 - 06:46

Spider-Man 3 may have had its critics, but Rob argues that it could provide some lessons for the current Amazing Spider-Man franchise...

This article contains spoilers for Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man

After Spider-Man 2, Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire et al must have thought they were onto a gold mine – Spider-Man 2 is been remembered as one of the genre’s best films, simply because it had pretty much everything. There was the tragic introduction (end exit) of Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock, an epic train-top set piece any blockbuster would be proud of, an underlying romantic storyline beginning to flourish, and a three part revenge/redemption arc well underway for Harry Osborn.

Naturally, the inevitable sequel was planned to be bigger and better. Raimi’s team had ambition in abundance, and they set about trying to please everyone with an audacious plan to include three villains in the central plot of the sequel (not something Raimi himself was keen on, but Sony was pushing him quite hard on this).

Surely older Spidey fans would love the inclusion of Sandman, younger viewers would rejoice at seeing Venom who had become such a favourite in countless cartoons and videogames, and those who had dug the series so far would love to see James Franco finally Goblin suit up. But that was where it all went wrong – by overstretching. Nobody involved got enough screen time, and no group of fans was particularly impressed.

What came next was arguably worse though, as the dreaded R-word was used and the series was re-launched younger, prettier and moodier. Hence, The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that had its fans, but for many was a messy retelling of a very familiar story which scraped by on the strength of its two stars.

The Amazing Spider-Man raked in over $750 million in a superhero-hungry age and Sony has naturally announced plans for three sequels and possible spin-offs. However, in this writer’s opinion, Spider-Man 3 (which interestingly took more at the box office) was a better film, which The Amazing Spider-Man sequels could learn a lot from. Things like these...

Coherence: know the story you’re trying to tell

Despite the fact that The Amazing Spider-Man had only one villain to deal with compared to Spider-Man 3’s triumvirate of terrors, the latter still somehow told a better, more coherent story. Sandman, Venom and Harry’s previously foreshadowed Goblin persona were all introduced without confusion and their motivations were clear. For better or worse, when Venom and Sandman teamed up to make Spidey’s life hell, it was easy for viewers to understand, leaving them to sit back and enjoy a fairly epic (if a bit crowded) final battle.  Although Harry’s redemption was rushed (that's, er, a bit of an understatement) in the final act after years of build-up, the plot hung together. Well, except for the butler who never thought to mention anything about gliders before.

In Marc Webb’s reboot though, the Lizard’s character motivation is all wrong, his plan is unclear and everything is remarkably easy for webhead to solve. When you think about it, Rhys Ifans' Dr Curt Connors is an inspirational genius to Peter, he wouldn’t just become a homicidal bastard almost immediately if told his funding got cut. It seems oddly like the screenwriters just assumed that would be fine because that’s what happened to Norman Osborn in Raimi’s first Spidey picture – but Norman is a bad person, established by his poor parenting skills; Connors isn’t at all like him.

Having grown up with a PlayStation and various Spider-Man cartoons on TV, this writer has seen countless Lizard stories which play out like a Jekyll and Hyde scenario, where Connors isn’t at all aware of his actions in his uncontrollable moments as the Lizard, and remains Peter’s friend and mentor. The Lizard is a different persona that Connors can’t control, and it’s always thrilling to see. 

The Lizard’s arc doesn’t particularly improve from there, either. In the final act, where Raimi would have escalated towards an epic final battle, Webb reveals Connors’ plan, which is just outright weird. When Sandman and Venom kidnapped Mary-Jane and made the fight personal to Peter, the now-mental Connors’ master plan is to… turn everyone into lizards.

We watched in awe as the Lizard mildly inconvenienced a group of policemen by briefly turning them into lizards who wreaked literally no havoc across the city. Let’s not dwell too long on the easiest espionage scene ever either, when Connors happens to leave his computer unlocked with his evil plan video paused on the vital detail Peter needs. It’s one huge example of how rushed and incoherent The Amazing Spider-Man is.

Despite crowding too much into its runtime, Spider-Man 3 always knew the story it wanted to tell: as Peter’s life is looking incredibly lovely with his job, MJ and even a Spidey-loving parade all sorted, an alien symbiote arrives on earth, awkwardly timed to coincide with a freak sand-based accident, and everything goes to shit. On the promise of that idea, Raimi’s film pays off.

All the marketing for The Amazing Spider-Man pointed towards ‘the untold story’ of Peter’s parents and a moodier take on the character. Sony then produced a film which reveals next to nothing about Peter’s family, rushed through the origin story we already knew and then stumbled through the Lizard’s awful plan. We’re all for world building, and so was Raimi, but your debut franchise film shouldn’t suffer as a result of wanting to tease future plot points.

Ambition: aim to give the fans something they’ll love

Say what you like about it, but Raimi’s Spider-Man 3 had no shortage of ambition, as it looked to tie up the Mary-Jane romance arc, introduce the idea of alien symbiotes (then turn them against Peter), throw Sandman into the mix as well as completing Harry’s three film story, adding in Gwen Stacey as a fan-pleasing reference and including a supporting role for Curt Connors. Too much ambition, and too many elements? Without question. But it tried.

The 2012 film, however, had relatively little ambition, as though the filmmakers had been told to reel it in after Raimi overcrowded his threequel. Webb’s film is content to replay emotional beats from the 2002 Spider-Man, and retcon Gwen and Curt over MJ and Norman’s roles in the previous franchise launcher.

Raimi’s first Spidey film had much more going on than that just having a non-Lizard Connors and Harry Osborn in supporting roles. All the new film offered as fan teasers is a brief scene with Peter’s parents and a mention of Norman Osborn being sick.

This is why Spider-Man 3 trumps The Amazing Spider-Man: one thing fans love in the digital age is references, cameos and things to discuss on comment boards, and The Amazing Spider-Man was short on all three, whereas Spider-Man 3 was rich on all counts. This Spidey subscriber would rather see a coherent story chock-a-block with familiar characters and references than feel short-changed by a rushed retelling of old material with very few Easter eggs any day – and that’s why I prefer Spider-Man 3. 

Has Sony learned these lessons?

Only time will tell how coherent The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is, but early signs suggest that Sony is well aware of the lack of ambition in its origin story. Indeed, it looks as though Sony have spotted this fan desire for more Easter eggs as The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is gearing up to be completely stuffed with cool supporting characters.

The film includes Electro as the main villain, the Rhino as a supporting character as well as appearances from Norman and Harry Osborn. Rumours have even surfaced of a Vulture cameo. Raimi proved through his use of Connors and Gwen that fan-pleasing inclusions don’t need to take up big chunks of your movie, but can make it very enjoyable to watch. 

It’s no easy task topping the Raimi trilogy, where laughs, references and huge action sequences were all frequent occurrences as they ambitiously kept widening the world. The strongly rumoured Avengers-of-bad-guys Sinister Six movie would be a stroke of genius if pulled off by Webb, and aiming to achieve that can only help him build his own cinematic Spidey-verse to rival the first.

Many viewers will thoroughly enjoy seeing these teases of the wider Spidey world, and it certainly seems like a step in the right direction for Webb to try and build a fan-pleasing film series with wider scope.

As it stands, Spider-Man 3 has set the bar for multi-baddie bust-ups, and by learning some lessons from it, Webb could really be onto something with his fresh adaptation on the Spider-Man mythos. 

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I've always liked 'Spider-Man 3' and don't mind saying so... yeah it's flawed, yeah it's overstuffed, yeah there's too many villains and side characters, but it's a satisfyingly mature and worthy end to the Raimi trilogy and I actually prefer it over the first film!

They should never have included Sandman (the gratuitous Uncle Ben death retcon and THAT awful/laughable Sandman monster all fruit off the poisonous tree), but rather had a truly lethal and genuinely malevolent Venom be the primary villain (alongside the Harry Osborn story arc)... and if they were gonna include Gwen Stacy (which they shouldn't), they at least should have had the courtesy to mercilessly kill her... I mean, REALLY!

Yeah there is Ock arms too - exciting! There's 6 high security doors presumably at Oscorp which all openat the end, all but confirming Sinister 6 - awesome!

"The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that had its fans, but for many was a messy retelling of a very familiar story which scraped by on the strength of its two stars." Indeed Mr. Leane, indeed!

Great article. The Amazing Spider-Man really wasn't a great film at all. Garfield was great as Parker, but I didn't enjoy the Spidey scenes as much. And after the trailer the Spider scenes for the sequel aren't filling me with much hopes.

I read this article and thought "WHAT NO WAY THIS GUYS AN IDIOT" but you actually made some good points. It doesn't changed my perspective on Spiderman 3 OR The Amazing Spider-Man because I absolutely hate the former and I genuinely like the latter despite it's faults.

Spiderman 3 was actually a decent film, weaker than the others but still pretty enjoyable, if you over-analyse a film too much then they all fall apart, shame venom wasn't used to his potential though

OK, but will there finally be MCU eastereggs?

Weird article. The biggest problem with The Amazing Spider-man is it is ANOTHER origin story. I know Batman Begins was successful but we just don't need most of these origin stories. They end up being 2 hours of wasted time. Is there anyone that would consider paying money to see one of these films that doesn't know the basics about Batman, Superman or Spider-man? Everyone knows where these characters came from, lets spend some time seeing where they are going with some real conflict and emotion. Does James Bond get an origin story with every new actor? No. Because he's a big enough cultural icon that they assume (correctly) people know the score.
Spider-man 2 is an excellent comic book movie. Spider-man 3 is still one of the worst films I have ever seen. The Saturday night fever spoof, the emo haircut, Peter punching MJ, Sandman repeatedly mumbling "daughter" to justify everything he does, what they did to Venom, what they did to Gwen, Harry's amnesia turning him into a complete moron (can anyone actually watch that scene where he cooks in the kitchen).
I honestly can't understand why every few years someone tries to defend this movie. It's really, really, really bad. That's why they had to reboot. Yeah it made a lot of money. So did Titanic and Indy 4. But hey, everyone is different. Good luck to those that like Spidey 3. Rant over.

So glad to see people coming out in support fo Spider-Man 3. Yes, it had its flaws(there was no need for the Sandman retcon and the song and dance numbers were ridiculous) and it did have too many villains (but I remember agreeing with my brother at the time that we didn't think this was as badly handled as in the 80s/90s Batman franchise), but it had a good central story and some genuinely amazing moments (the first appearance/creation of Sandman was incredible). I deliberately missed Amazing Spider-Man at the cinema and watched it on DVD and I really didn't like it, for all the reasons raised here as well as others (a too-cool pre-spider Peter Parker, the central relationship between him and Gwen just happening all at once, his inability to understand that a secret identity is meant to be secret and the real sense that this is a burden - basically the absence of all the underlying character elements that made the first 30 or so years of the character and the first trilogy interesting) making it, for me at least, too obvious and superficial with none of the heart the Raimi films had.
Sadly, nothing I have seen about the sequel makes me believe this will change - Harry is so obviously evil it's hard to imagine him and Peter ever being friends and Norman/Oscorp has already been set up as an evil presence from the get-go (one of the few things I disagree with in the above article is that Willem Defoe's Norman was Norman was a bad person pre-self experimentation - sure, he wasn't dad of the year, but it was the risk of losing everything he'd worked for that drove him to take the strength enhancers and then that slowly worked on his sub-conscious/darker side making him worse as the film progressed - a far cry from "oh my funding's cut, better kill/mutate the whole city").
Admitedly, I haven't read the comics since the mid/late 90s and never read Ultimate Spider-Man, but the challenge with Spidey was always that the stories have been slow builders but a film doesn't have the time to do this service. Raimi at least gave this a go - Webb, not so much.
One word of caution, though, I hope that this article will not be followed by a re-evaluation of X-Men:Last Stand. That was 100% horrible (even if Beast was kind of well done).

Haha, coming next: Lessons Nolan Should've Learnt from Batman & Robin.

Great comment, thanks for the tips! I do think Norman is generally more of a bad person than Connors though, seemed like they just rewrote CC as an evil genius rather than the friend and mentor angle which I think would've made it more interesting.

I'm very much with you. Although Spidey 3 wasn't perfect, it wasnt as bad as most people make it out to be.

However I also think everybody needs to appreciate that doing the Venom story in one 2-hour film is difficult to do properly, because you need time to develop both the characters of both symbiote Spidey AND then Venom himself. You can't do the Venom story with one or the other. You need both and they both need to be done well! Squeezing all that into the time Sam Raimi had was difficult, and the result was not enough Venom.

I love Spider-Man. And I loved Spider-Man 1 & 2. That said, SM3 is where Sam lost me. While this article made many good points, I doubt it will go any way to change that. That said, I'm hella excited about what Webb and Co. are doing.

Hey wow, it's Rhino driving a truck.... From this different angle it's even more exciting!!!

People who bash on the Emo Peter scene should take a ride in the funvee more often instead of just sulking in the humdrumvee back there.

I have to agree, but the horrid crane swinging part of TAS takes the biscuit for worst scene.

IMO TAS was DRAGGED across the line by its Spidey sequences, it's stars were as awful as it's story (and that surprises me as I enjoy watching Garfield!)

Very good article as well! Put into words a lot of the criticism I often failed to put across coherently!

Glad to see that Spider-man 3 is getting some recognition for at least being a half-decent film for all of the reasons already mentioned in this article and elsewhere. I will say that it is a film that I can watch again, despite it having been a disappointment.

I'm not sure whether I prefer it to The Amazing Spider-man or not. I think its simply a matter of taste. For instance, I prefer Tobey Maguire's Spider-man to Andrew Garfield's version, but I can see why the opposite might be true for some.

There's a good movie lurking somewhere within Spider-Man 3, but it is NOT better than The Amazing Spider-Man. I know it's a matter of opinion, but I can't even watch Spider-Man 3 now without cringing most of the way through. The Sandman plot is good, yes, but suffers from needlessly linking it to Uncle Ben. Harry wanting his revenge was something they had been building since the end of the first movie, and that needed it's own half of the movie, or its own film entirely. Venom, as much as I love the character, was entirely unneeded. Give him his own film, or don't bother.

As far as "Webb’s film is content to replay emotional beats from the 2002 Spider-Man" is concerned, in my opinion TAS does it better. Well, aside from Uncle Ben, but that's just because I don't like Martin Sheen. The only good film out of Raimi's trilogy is Spider-Man 2, because it nailed the tone, Peter's relationships and character, and the villain. Spider-Man 3 is awful, and the 2002 Spider-Man veers wildly between good, gritty origin story, and a bunch of campy rubbish. I mean, "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!" Come on. That was terrible.

TAS, even with a flew flaws (lack of imagination during action sequences being the main one), is my second favourite behind Spider-Man 2. Though looking back at Maguire as Peter, I can't buy it anymore. Garfield, to me, is better in every way shape and form. Also, the first 3 movies each have the exact same plot involving a villain having a personal connection to Peter and Mary Jane being kidnapped at some point. At least TAS bucked that unoriginal, boring, cliched formula.

'Spider-Man 3' was probably my favourite of the Raimi trilogy. It's a mess in some respects - too many villains, a weak story - but it had a lightness of tone which completely won me over, after taking a strong dislike to 'Spider-Man 2' (which I appreciate is generally very well-regarded).

'The Amazing Spider-Man' just didn't work for me at all. It seemed pointless to reboot the franchise without taking a fresh approach to the material, and I didn't feel for one moment that I was seeing anything other than a re-hash of well-trodden ground from the previous films. I suppose the sub-plot about Peter's parents adds something we haven't seen before, but other than that, I thought it had very little to recommend it.

I couldn't agree more with this article. Well written and I agree. I loved Spider-Man 3 (yes, it had its cheesy moments) but it was a thrilling ride and I enjoyed how they handled Venom. The Amazing Spider-man, though, doesn't hold up to repeated viewings. It just lacks the spark of the Raimi films.

I'm not 100% on board with any Spidey film. IMO, the first trilogy lacked humour and TAS lacked gravitas. They have to find the balance between the two. Garfield does great with Spidey's easy-going, ironic side, and I think he can pull the serious side too if they give him a script.
Let's see what comes out of TAS 2-

What I loved about Spider-Man 3 is that each villain came to a very different end. Sandman was forgiven, Venom was damned and Harry found redemption.

Sarcastic, not ironic. And to my mind, the original trilogy didn't lack humour at all, really.

What does that even mean? Sure that scene is funny in a "I'm laughing at you not with you" kind of way. But does it make for good cinema? No. In terms of acting, directing, story telling and conveying the correct emotions it is terrible.

Spiderman 3 I think will be forever tainted by its Emo/Dance Scene bit. If not for that I think people wouldn't be that critical of it. However I remember thinking at the time that it was at least a decent way of portraying the effects of the black goo to a younger audience.

Does it make for good cinema? Well, yes, it makes for AWESOME comic-book cinema with its heightened (and still top-notch, it's Sam Raimi, remember? Not a still-wet-behind-the-ears, tone-challenged Marc Webb) acting, directing, framing and storytelling, just as those SUPERMAN III Evil Supes scenes were 30 years ago!

Oh, and mine was a quote from IRON MAN, if you're actually asking. Not Spidey, but another superhero movie that always had the time to be fun and light-hearted while still being great.

True, my bad, sarcasm it is ;)

Tobey Maguire didn't make the comic side for me. Maybe it's a matter of personal taste on acting matters...
I'm not saying that they are bad movies at all, I enjoy them all (even the third one, which I didn't like so much). But I enjoyed TAS too (although I haven't bought that one yet). It's just that none of them are 100% the tone I'd have settled.

Great article, but I a little confused about the "but Norman is a bad person, established by his poor parenting skills" comment regarding Norman Osborne in the first film -- I thought Norman was a pretty decent bloke, but the super-soldier goblin gas is what messed him up?

I don't think Spidey 3 was as bad as many paint it to be -- despite some awful plot devices and holes. But I was really disappointed by The Amazing Spider-Man, for many of the reasons stated above (and others). I really hope its sequel is a vast improvement.

Eh...I feel like the author is basically saying,

"Despite it being a woeful film, Spiderman 3 is better because it had the right IDEA, rather than right execution. It had ambition with all the characters, has more easter eggs/comic references, and knew the story it wanted to tell...Even-though the ambition was wasted on butchered characters. The easter eggs/comic connections were either ruined/ignored comic story lines, or were nothing more than empty tokens shoe-horned in to placate some fans. And the story it told included a second act that was comprised entirely of tobey maguire with greasy hair dancing and acting like a fool."

TAS definitley had its share of problems, especially with the villain...But c'mon..How can anyone watch that movie and say its better than SM3? And not just from a comics perspective, but from a filmmaking, writing, plot, storytelling, etc. perspective...Its no contest.

I think Spider-man 3 should be chided for its ambition, not applauded. Simply because of the reference material and comic story lines that were available with the characters they chose, and the previously established plots in the first two films, this film shouldve been a homerun. The potential was sooo good and they whiffed so extraordinarily.

Sure, I may have the ambition to become a brain surgeon, but if I don't study, drop out of school and start absorbing black tar heroin rectally and spiral into nothing, I don't see how anyone would applaud me for my ambition.

Think about the endless treasure trove of comics, cartoons, and video game storylines they could have adapted just for the venom/symbiote story ALONE. They tried to adapt the basic storyline of the suit being a drug that causes Peter to turn against his morals and freinds/family and nearly commit the unthinkable, he beats it and when the suit ends up with Eddie, he ends up going off the edge and loses himself and turns into a maniac....Only that Peter in the film didn't commit any truely horrid acts. He was just an annoying turd with weird hair, making weird faces, and doing weird dances. He belonged on the Jersey Shore, not as the protagonist struggling to toe the line with unimaginable power. Sure he almost kills harry, but Harry's character and story in that film were so silly and ridiculous that it was really hard to care at all, let alone feel bad. He was still evil at the time and had no redeeming qualities up to that point in the film. Then, instead of having Eddie Brock be an angry, menacing, hulking, roided up a-hole, with all those negative traits getting magnified x 100 in addition to superspider strength when the suit takes him over-- they have him be a whiny, entitled, skinny, annoying little twirp, with those traits staying roughly the same when he gets the suit after he asks baby jesus to murder Peter..(let that marinate). Not to mention that the majority of venom's scenes are with TOPHER GRACES FACE AND NOT THE ACTUAL VENOM FACEIMSOMADJUSTTHINKINGABOUTTHISRIGHTNOW!!!!

I actually think it would be really cool to see a redeemed Connors in the third movie where he breaks out of jail and comes to help his friend Spider-Man as he is beaten by the Sinister Six.

Couldn't agree more (I actually posted a short comment of my own before reading this, and raised a couple of the same points as you too). I hope TAS2 is better than the impression I got from its trailer (I've commented about this on already on the article showcasing the trailer)

Shouldn't people think this also applies to Batman vs Superman?! Hmm...

The one thing Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy could have used more of? Spider-Man. If you cut out all of Peter Parker's banter with his landlord and Mary-Jane Watson's acting career, the movies would have been much better paced and less self-indulgent.

I am so tired of the Raimi Spodeman love. The casting was terrible. The movies were bland. At best, meh. That third movie was an abomination. There is nothing to learn from it other than what NOT to do. The new movie was far superior to the Raimi films in tone, direction, and casting... Not to mention a good story with one villain that made sense.

Talk of Connor's suddenly becoming "mental" I assumed that the drugs that turned him into the Lizard are going to be the origins of the Green Goblins drugs which are known to induced insanity.

OK. Well we're never going to agree. I'm glad you can enjoy it as there are some good moments. But it is one of the few films I've seen at the cinema where I had to look away at times as looking at the screen was just unbearable.

Spider-Man 3 is an interesting failure, which makes it worthwhile. What was interesting about The Amazing Spider-Man? Nothing. At least Spider-Man 3 is a thumping ride and exciting. You don't know what's going to happen next. And then a stupid dance scene happens, but you didn't expect it! Then a sandman battle and the tone is all over the place, but at least it's interesting. I thought last year's review on here was spot-on, in TAS, Peter Parker just goes from scene to scene where the solution and the plot drags him to and its entirely predictable.
So pleased to see that people still consider it worthwhile.

I've always had a problem with people saying Spider-man 3 is a worse film than The Amazing Spider-Man. I don't think it stands up to the first two Raimi films but it doesn't mean that it's worse than TASM. It's like people assume that since TASM has only one villain compared to the three in 3, then it's the better film.

3 had an overly ambitious story, yes, but had character development where the characters made decisions that make sense. Character motivations didn't make sense in TASM. I also didn't get why Peter Parker was written as an awkward teen when talking to Gwen, but he was also written as a cool outcast that stood up for people. It's like the writers couldn't decide so they just added in different aspects in order to move along the story, thus not creating a fully realized character in the end. I ended up hating Peter Parker; he just seemed like an arrogant jerk. And I like Andrew Garfield. I think he did the best job he could with the material he had. The best part for me was Emma Stone. She made me care about Gwen Stacy. She was the only three dimensional character in the film and she's the only reason I have hope for TASM 2.

"Mature"? You think that Peter Parker dancing around is mature?

If Spider-Man 3 set the bar, then it's pretty damn low.

The theme of redemption and forgivness is mature... usually in big Hollyweird CBM's, it's always killing the villain that is considered the thing to do, 'Spidey 3' at least dared to try something different, and it worked in some regards!

And that scene of PP doing the jive is absolutley HILARIOUS, never understood why people hated it so, I think they misunderstood the fact that Pete was making a fool of himself and everyone but him knew it because he was intoxicated with pride and ego off the symbiote suit!

What 'Spidey 3' did NOT need was another 'misunderstood' villain who's only doing it because he's somehow a victim of circumstances, we had that in the first two films, and what the threequel badly needed was an outright unapologetically vile and utterly demonic villain who is just unlike anything Spider-Man has ever encountered... and Venom was that very villain, at least he would've been if he'd been the primary antagonist and they had dropped Sandman altogether at the development stage!

Always thought Sam Raimi would have been a better choice to direct 'The Hobbit' than Guillermo del Toro, he has very much the same sensibilities as Peter Jackson... but that doesn't really matter now anyway...

I agree, The Amazing Spiderman just seems to go through the motions that we've all seen before, and, like you say, Spidey 3 is convoluted by ambition, whereas TAS has no real reason to be convoluted! If TAS2 is going to be anything but mediocre CGI action dross, spinkled with a little saving grace that is Garfield (and Dehaan), it needs to take it's foot off the brake and show us something new!

At least it can't be as bad as Thor 2! :) x

I think my wording was similar upon leaving the cinema. To this day I generally consider it the worst-but-sadly-not-in-a-funny-way film I've seen. For the so-bad-it's-hilarious movie, please see Sinbad: The Veil Of Mists. There just aren't enough words in the world for how awesomely appalling it is. Utterly brilliant.

It is already evident that The Amazing Spiderman has learned NOTHING from Spiderman 3.

Yes but ironically Maguire's Parker was far better than Garfield's Parker.

Shark jumped right there. Or, chair jumped.

This article also spends a lot of time suggesting lots of 'Easter eggs' make for a good comic book film. They don't. Easter eggs are great for hardcore comic book fans (like myself). But even better is a great movie that just so happens to be based on a comic book character and can be judged on its own merits. Look at the recent Batman trilogy. Movie making is a business. Spider-man 3 didn't make $800+ million from people who buy Spider-man comic books. Most of that money came from average movie goers going to see the next big action blockbuster. If the film is bad, they don't care about what it tried to do.

I haven't watched Amazing Spiderman yet, I'll have to get round to it soon, my son has the DVD and keeps wanting to watch it with me...

Glad to see I'm not the only one who didn't think much of Amazing Spiderman. I just thought the film was lazy. There was no difference at all to the Origin story, aside from a few tweeks to make us not notice. The "untold story" of the parents was just sequel bate; it didn't go anywhere at all. But the worst mistake is the Lizard. They try and paint him as this deep character. That he actually thinks what he's doing is the right thing. There is gorgeous character arc potential here. And you know, for the first half of the movie it works. But as soon as he turns into that God awful terrible CGI Lizard, it's like they just give up. He's going to do bad guy things, and Spiderman needs to stop him. There's no depth, nothing more to this than: oh, he's a bad guy. OK then.

With Spiderman 3, Harry's story is very deep, and really should have been the main focus of the movie (that and Spidy going dark, I think). Sandman is doing it all for his daughter. Even Venom has a reason to hate Spiderman. My point is, they are not just there to be the bad guys. There are reasons. With Lizard we have nothing. He's just a generic villain.

I really want to like Amazing Spiderman, but it just doesn't do it for me. Part of it's the Raimi films, but it's like something's missing. The politics that saw this movie get made are all over it; I'm not really sensing any passion behind it. They wanted the money, and that's it. That's another reason why I'm not excited for the Man of Steel 2/Batman vs Superman/ We Are Shoving Every Superhero Into One Movie For No Reason film coming in 2015.

How can The Amazing Spiderman possibly be worse than Spiderman 3? It's a fact that anything without Tobey Maguire is 10x better than anything with Tobey Maguire and I don't think I even need to mention Kirsten Dunst.

Just grin and bare it my friend.

I will give it one thing though, it had the best Stan Lee cameo of all the Marvel films!

I think the writer may be looking back through Rose-tinted glasses.

I personally didn't think much of the Raimi films, I didn't particularly like any of the supporting casts, I found the story lines forgettable and the scripts were uninteresting and cheesy. I think this all routed at the fact Toby Maguire was just too much of a wiener (i'm a Brit who doesn't use that word but it seems the best way to describe his patheticness) He had no charm, wasn't funny or cocky - at least not in a convincing way.

I was charmed when watching the first one because seeing Spider-man swinging through the streets was cool. That's all i remember from it, none of the films have made me want to go back and watch them again, i tried doing it with Spider-man 2 the other day and got bored half way through.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Amazing Spider-man and found it much more enjoyable and fun.

Seems to me that this is a product of re-booting the franchise too soon. We felt like we'd only just seen the origin story and along comes TAS to tell us it again. Maybe the writers felt caught between feeling like they had to re-tell the origin and the fact that the Raimi/Maguire movies had only just finished so the audience wouldn't want to invest to much time in the story's re-telling.

I found that the more I watched the Raimi films the less I enjoyed them. Not a case of growing bored with them I just watched it and thought "I'm not sure why I ever thought this was great".

Also is anyone sick of seeing Paul Giamatti pulling the same face in every promo shot? I'm not a reader of the Spiderman comics or anything but is Rhinos face always like that?

I remember that same feeling, and using very similar words. I wasn't a massive fan of SM1, but thought that SM2 had been pretty decent, so hopes were high (esp. in the knowledge of Venom's appearance). For all its flaws, ASM is by far the better film for me.

Not sure that ASM was great, but I agree that it was better than Raimi's trilogy. SM2 was ok, SM1 was mediocre and SM3 is terrible. There is a great SM movie just waiting to be made methinks.

Kirsten Dunst is a muppet in human form. For proof, check the teeth.


Sponsored Links