The Amazing Spider-Man So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

[Fox]

What flaws did the '02 film really have though besides Kirsten Dunst?

A bunch of flaws. That's basically been the entire premise of the 'Spider-movie' posts that I've been putting on my blog (largely for the benefit of this discussion. I would have posted them here but it got a bit too long). Not that you should be required to have read them, but I did list a fair number of flaws there in pretty meticulous detail. If you don't want to read what I have to say that's your prerogative, but to say that there are NO documented flaws in Raimi's films is untrue.

If you care to read over the points I've made you can choose from the specific topics in the following links...

Part 1: I talk about superhero movies in general, with a focus on this summer in particular; The thesis of my next posts.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/10/superhero-summer-retrospective-look-or.html

Part 2: I compare SM & TASM's origin, and discuss what essential story beats are needed to tell the story.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/10/spider-movie-part-ii-origin-story.html

Part 3: I compare the two films depictions of Peter Parker, and what it means to be a Nerd/outcast to the character and in modern society.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/10/spider-movie-part-iii-peter-parker-nerd.html

Part 4: I focus specifically on Spider-man, how Peter's alter ego complete's him, and how the two films did it differently
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/spider-movie-part-iv-spider-man-cocky.html

Part 5: I compare the relationships between Peter and his respective love interests (in terms of story, not the actors)
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/gwen-stacy-vs-mary-jane-babe-edition.html

Part 6: I compare the use of the Lizard and the Green Goblin and weigh the pro's and cons of both characters.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/spider-movie-part-vi-green-goblin-vs.html

Part 7: I compare SM and TASM as films, both in their context as stand-alone films, and their place as the first entry in a larger series.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/12/spider-movie-part-vii-serial-stand.html

I would agree that Kirsten Dunst was one of many weaknesses in the Raimi films, but the flaws of that series spread far and wide, and Kirsten was hardly the only (or even primary) problem.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I didn't really dislike Dunst as MJ until Spider-Man 3.

 

[Fox]

I didn't really dislike Dunst as MJ until Spider-Man 3.

That's fair. I've always had issues with the character (in the films), but my biggest issues have always had more to do with the writing. That said, I'm not a huge Dunst fan either.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I don't love Kirsten Dunst, but I don't hate her either. I've always been neutral towards her.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

A bunch of flaws. That's basically been the entire premise of the 'Spider-movie' posts that I've been putting on my blog (largely for the benefit of this discussion. I would have posted them here but it got a bit too long). Not that you should be required to have read them, but I did list a fair number of flaws there in pretty meticulous detail. If you don't want to read what I have to say that's your prerogative, but to say that there are NO documented flaws in Raimi's films is untrue.

If you care to read over the points I've made you can choose from the specific topics in the following links...

Part 1: I talk about superhero movies in general, with a focus on this summer in particular; The thesis of my next posts.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/10/superhero-summer-retrospective-look-or.html

Part 2: I compare SM & TASM's origin, and discuss what essential story beats are needed to tell the story.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/10/spider-movie-part-ii-origin-story.html

Part 3: I compare the two films depictions of Peter Parker, and what it means to be a Nerd/outcast to the character and in modern society.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/10/spider-movie-part-iii-peter-parker-nerd.html

Part 4: I focus specifically on Spider-man, how Peter's alter ego complete's him, and how the two films did it differently
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/spider-movie-part-iv-spider-man-cocky.html

Part 5: I compare the relationships between Peter and his respective love interests (in terms of story, not the actors)
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/gwen-stacy-vs-mary-jane-babe-edition.html

Part 6: I compare the use of the Lizard and the Green Goblin and weigh the pro's and cons of both characters.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/11/spider-movie-part-vi-green-goblin-vs.html

Part 7: I compare SM and TASM as films, both in their context as stand-alone films, and their place as the first entry in a larger series.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/12/spider-movie-part-vii-serial-stand.html

I would agree that Kirsten Dunst was one of many weaknesses in the Raimi films, but the flaws of that series spread far and wide, and Kirsten was hardly the only (or even primary) problem.

I read all these the other night, first of all, you have a way with words. You articulate these points far better than I could but I have thought them all at some point. It really doesnt take long to realize that ASM is better than SM. It didnt have the novelty that SM did in 2002, but thats not at all ASM's fault.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The next film will probably determine whether or not the new franchise is superior or not.

 

[Human Torch]

And to explain my point a little further, which is not about fandom, the reason I don't think TASM caught on in pop culture is articulated best in this:



That is why I think the movie while competent feels kind of empty to many people who watch the newest film.

Those guys at Honest Trailers did a fantastic job summing up TAS. Hilarious!

 

[Oscorp]

Um saying that people who like TASM more are just jumping on to the bandwagon because it is the newest is like saying that people who like SM1 better are just jumping on another bandwagon because of nostalgia.

Yup!

I thought SM1 and SM2 were great films , but I don't have to be a rude condescending a-hole about it. It's a shame we're seeing a lot of that in this thread.

This! You're a good example. Unfortunately SHH! drowns in pretentious a-holes.

Just out of curiosity, did you think that way when you first walked out of SM/SM2?

What does that even matter? When I watched SM at the cinema I loved it, but I was only 10-12 years old or something back then. I'm older now, I see things I just don't like with those films beyond bad CGI. While I still love some of Raimi's humour (some of the awkwardness, situational humour, JJJ and Hoffman etc.), his films are way too cheesy for my taste. Doc Ock's "Nothing can stop me! NOOOTHING!! *arms up in the air*" is one example of a scene that's not meant to be funny yet I laugh everytime I see it because it's so corny.

Tobey and Kirsten kill the whole trilogy for me. Tobey is a great Peter Parker at times, but a horrible Spider-Man. Kirsten is just horrible throughout. And when the two leading roles are so bad, there's not much that can save the films for me.

I still think Raimi's first two Spidey films are good, but no way near ASM IMO. Raimi did a lot of things right, especially when it comes to extremely memorable scenes, imagination and action. I absolutely loved the Harry story. But ASM, while not completely flawless, was just the better Spider-Man film for me. Sure, Lizard left lots to wish for and I missed alot of the brilliance in Raimi's origin scenes (wrestling -> Ben's death), but other than that Webb nailed it for me. This is much more the Spider-Man I always wanted to see, the love relationship I always missed in Raimi's films, the tone I always wanted, the heart and emotions put into it etc.

Storywise it's not exactly how I'd do it but what film is?

However, if the film ages badly for me besides obvious stuff (CGI) like Raimi's did, then I won't pretend that I love it just because I originally did. Opinions change, you see things you didn't notice before for good as well as bad etc. Nothing strange about that at all and I don't really see the problem.

 

[Smegger56]

How I felt after watching SM 1-3... I loved each of them more than the other.

BUT.......

... after each one, when I watched them again on DVD, they started to lose their charm.

So, SM1. Loved it. Then got it on DVD, and watched it many times. The more I did, the more I began to dislike it. Do I hate it? No. But before the announcement of the reboot, I just thought it was an average film, with some excellent moments. The same applies to 2 and 3. Also, I think SM1 is the best overall of the Raimi films.

Now with TASM, I really liked it when I say it. Got it on Blu-ray (and other means) and I've watched it many times. And I love it more and more after each viewing.

There's my answer

 

[Oscorp]

How I felt after watching SM 1-3... I loved each of them more than the other.

BUT.......

... after each one, when I watched them again on DVD, they started to lose their charm.

So, SM1. Loved it. Then got it on DVD, and watched it many times. The more I did, the more I began to dislike it. Do I hate it? No. But before the announcement of the reboot, I just thought it was an average film, with some excellent moments. The same applies to 2 and 3. Also, I think SM1 is the best overall of the Raimi films.

Now with TASM, I really liked it when I say it. Got it on Blu-ray (and other means) and I've watched it many times. And I love it more and more after each viewing.

There's my answer

Exactly the way I feel!

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

Yup!



This! You're a good example. Unfortunately SHH! drowns in pretentious a-holes.



What does that even matter? When I watched SM at the cinema I loved it, but I was only 10-12 years old or something back then. I'm older now, I see things I just don't like with those films beyond bad CGI. While I still love some of Raimi's humour (some of the awkwardness, situational humour, JJJ and Hoffman etc.), his films are way too cheesy for my taste. Doc Ock's "Nothing can stop me! NOOOTHING!! *arms up in the air*" is one example of a scene that's not meant to be funny yet I laugh everytime I see it because it's so corny.

Tobey and Kirsten kill the whole trilogy for me. Tobey is a great Peter Parker at times, but a horrible Spider-Man. Kirsten is just horrible throughout. And when the two leading roles are so bad, there's not much that can save the films for me.

I still think Raimi's first two Spidey films are good, but no way near ASM IMO. Raimi did a lot of things right, especially when it comes to extremely memorable scenes, imagination and action. I absolutely loved the Harry story. But ASM, while not completely flawless, was just the better Spider-Man film for me. Sure, Lizard left lots to wish for and I missed alot of the brilliance in Raimi's origin scenes (wrestling -> Ben's death), but other than that Webb nailed it for me. This is much more the Spider-Man I always wanted to see, the love relationship I always missed in Raimi's films, the tone I always wanted, the heart and emotions put into it etc.

Storywise it's not exactly how I'd do it but what film is?

However, if the film ages badly for me besides obvious stuff (CGI) like Raimi's did, then I won't pretend that I love it just because I originally did. Opinions change, you see things you didn't notice before for good as well as bad etc. Nothing strange about that at all and I don't really see the problem.

I didn't mean to instigate or sound mean or anything. I just want to see how people react to the Raimi films now. That's a great answer. I can agree that ASM is more watchable. Raimi's films are a little dated to me now. But like you said, it doesn't mean that I hate either film.

 

[Picard Sisko]

How I felt after watching SM 1-3... I loved each of them more than the other.

BUT.......

... after each one, when I watched them again on DVD, they started to lose their charm.

So, SM1. Loved it. Then got it on DVD, and watched it many times. The more I did, the more I began to dislike it. Do I hate it? No. But before the announcement of the reboot, I just thought it was an average film, with some excellent moments. The same applies to 2 and 3. Also, I think SM1 is the best overall of the Raimi films.

Now with TASM, I really liked it when I say it. Got it on Blu-ray (and other means) and I've watched it many times. And I love it more and more after each viewing.

There's my answer

That happens with a lot of movies though. Heck, after watching the Dark Knight on DVD a couple of times, I got bored of it really easily. If I watched it now, it would be just as tough to watch as SM1 or SM2.

With TASM, I think that I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw it the first time, didn't know if I loved it or hated it. After seeing it a few times, I accepted that we have a reboot and did love it more after a number of viewings (I think I gave it like a 7.5 rating, now its 8.5). Though after watching it over and over again on blu-ray with friends, I got a little tired of it already.

But that happens with EVERY single movie I've ever seen. Then, after I haven't watched it for like a number of months, or even a year, I get the desire to watch it again.

 

[Smegger56]

That happens with a lot of movies though. Heck, after watching the Dark Knight on DVD a couple of times, I got bored of it really easily. If I watched it now, it would be just as tough to watch as SM1 or SM2.

With TASM, I think that I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw it the first time, didn't know if I loved it or hated it. After seeing it a few times, I accepted that we have a reboot and did love it more after a number of viewings (I think I gave it like a 7.5 rating, now its 8.5). Though after watching it over and over again on blu-ray with friends, I got a little tired of it already.

But that happens with EVERY single movie I've ever seen. Then, after I haven't watched it for like a number of months, or even a year, I get the desire to watch it again.

No. That's not this. I've watched films like JFK, Shawshank many times, then not felt like watching it and then after a while watching it and going 'yeah, these films are boss.'

That never happened with the Raimi films. The charm and novelty wore off and once the excitement of a spidey film had waned, I just saw average films.

Whilst films would lose their initial wow, good films are still watchable and enjoyable. TDK is still very much enjoyable. But that's me.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I didn't really dislike Dunst as MJ until Spider-Man 3.

Dunst, while as an always awful love interest as MJ, she wasn't truly an annoying ***** until S-M 3.

The next film will probably determine whether or not the new franchise is superior or not.

Would it really though? Even if TAS-M 2 is a great film, there will still be debates over which origin film is the best.

 

[Oscorp]

Dunst, while as an always awful love interest as MJ, she wasn't truly an annoying ***** until S-M 3.



Would it really though? Even if TAS-M 2 is a great film, there will still be debates over which origin film is the best.

I found Kirsten extremely unlikeable and annoying in SM2 as well as parts of SM1.

So...let's say that ASM2 ends up being better than SM2 to most people (and no, this isn't about whether or not it will be, just imagine it will).

Would that still mean nothing?

Sounds more like a predetermined mind to me. It won't have a chance to be better, to you, no matter how great ASM2 might end up being, because you already don't want it to be.

 

[Fox]

I read all these the other night, first of all, you have a way with words.

Thanks for reading, and for the compliment! I'm glad you enjoyed them.

It really doesnt take long to realize that ASM is better than SM. It didnt have the novelty that SM did in 2002, but thats not at all ASM's fault.

No it didn't have the novelty, although I would blame that on the sheer quantity of CBM's that have been released in the past 10 years. Even when watching Captain America or Thor I remember thinking that the novelty of Superheroes on film had more or less vanished. Thankfully a good film is a good film, and as long as it has something beyond it's superficial appeal then the good stuff will prevail (ie most of Marvel's stuff and Batman), and the bad ones will fall by the wayside (ie Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, Ghost Rider). The only CBM that still had any 'novelty' left to it was 'The Avengers' because it marked first time a bunch of characters with separate film series team up in one film like that.

'Spider-man' (2002) once had that appeal ("this has never been done before! Wow!"), like you said, and we all loved it. But for me it's grown old, and while I still have a fond attachment to it I can't help but notice the glaring flaws. As a film it just doesn't hold up past the novelty.

TASM didn't have the novelty going for it because the world at large had seen countless 'superhero-origin-coming-or-age' tales, and so we largely wrote it off before even going to the theatres to see it. But (again, to me) it actually had substance where I felt the previous films had been lacking. I went from starting the film with a lot of scepticism, and finishing it feeling like I'd had my eyes opened to what a Spider-man movie should be.

No. That's not this. I've watched films like JFK, Shawshank many times, then not felt like watching it and then after a while watching it and going 'yeah, these films are boss.'

That never happened with the Raimi films. The charm and novelty wore off and once the excitement of a spidey film had waned, I just saw average films.

Yup. Exactly. I don't watch TDK (or any excellent film) ALL the time or I'd grow bored of it. But every now and then (probably once every year or so) I get the urge to re-watch my favourite movies (TDK, Star Wars OT, The Matrix, Memento... the list goes on) and I'll still find myself enjoying it. The urge to re-watch the Raimi flicks comes at an increasingly more seldom pace.

The next film will probably determine whether or not the new franchise is superior or not.

I agree that the next film will certainly indicate which will be the better franchise OVERALL, but in it's role as "the first in the frachise/origin movie for the character" I think TASM has already proven itself to be the better movie.

 

[Shikamaru]

I think the term "campy" gets tossed around a bit freely.Batman & Robin was campy.Spider-Man doesn't deserve that title.

I could never understand how people say Spider-Man wasn't "dark" enough.You have the Goblin killing the guy that just tried to revive him (Stromm), vaporising a group of people,terrorizing Aunt May and sending her to the hospital,trying to kill a group of kids (and MJ) before getting impaled to a wall.Plus Uncle Ben's death and Heaven only knows what that gang was going to do to MJ.

TAS's supposed darkness was all sunshine and rainbows compared to S-M.

You're confusing violence with darkness. Being violent =/= dark. There are things that are just violent, things that are just dark, things that are both, and things that are neither. For example, Happy Tree Friends is very violent but it's not dark by any means. Batman Returns is very violent too (even more than the Nolan films) but it is by no means darker than the Nolan films and it's still a pretty cheesy film.

By the logic of violence equaling the movie being dark, SM1 is almost or just as dark as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. SM1 may have a few violent moments here and there like the ones you brought up but the film itself is by no means dark. TASM has a far more mature and serious tone.

 

[Fox]

^ Exactly.

 

[Oscorp]

I don't know if I'd call TASM dark either. But it sure is more mature and serious than Raimi's films, while still keeping some lighthearted moments in it.

The big major thing that really makes TASM win for me is how real and genuine everything feels.

 

[Shikamaru]

Which fits the nerd idea.

Peter Parker may be an outcast socially awkward nerd but he was never a clumsy dork by any means. That is not a good representation of Peter Parker.

Never said I liked Spider-Man 3.

Never said you did. I'm going by the reasons people in the general public say they think Spider-Man is a bad character. Almost all the reasons they bring up are reasons that apply only to Raimi's portrayal of the character and not to any other version.

Have you seen Spider-Man 1 and 2 at all?

Yes, he doesn't SHOW it as much as Webb's Peter, but at least he knows the stuff on the top of his head rather than having to read about something the day before.

Yes I have seen them.

That would not be considered smart, or even a nerd. That would be considered just a guy with a really good memory. What you just said about TASM's Peter (that he reads about something the day before) is in fact a compliment and shows that Peter in TASM is a true nerd, because nothing yells more "nerd" than Peter having an incredibly understanding (not just memorizing) of something only a day after he read the thing he now has a major understanding of.

He's not? Are you sure about that? Trying to save some kids AND the woman he loves?

I'm going by what the GA says. Also, are you sure that the same guy who quits being Spider-Man in SM2 just to be with MJ even though the whole city (minus Jameson) wants him back and openly says many times that they need his help is that heroic? Or the guy who doesn't ever bother to call 911 when he is the only witness to a guy getting his butt whooped on the street? Or the guy who only is motivated enough to become Spider-Man again not after he sees that guy getting beaten up or after he saves that little girl from the fire or after the whole city begs him to come back because they need his help but after his crush gets kidnapped?

And yes, I know that him quitting was also partly due to him losing his powers but the movie greatly implies that his powers are tied to his emotions, which is why he lost them in the first place. So he is still technically at least partly responsible for not being Spider-Man.

Sure, it sucks he never stood up to Flash pre spider bite as Webb's Peter does, but one thing makes a difference who who can stand up to who?

He doesn't have to stand up to Flash pre-spider bite. I wouldn't expect pre-spider bite Peter from the comics to do that very often either. But even after he gets the spider bite, he still acts like the same wimp when out of costume.

Yes, it makes a difference. The difference is not that he should "be a man and crush those in his way" (as some alpha males would say) but that he shouldn't be a complete pushover.

Well we already discussed this on the other post.

Yes we did.

He's still not funny . Or sounds like he has much confidence behind the mask.

Lame and non-threatening...Lizard.

Yet still more threatening than all the villains in the Raimi films t:.

Sympathetic? Sure, but TAS-M keeps this trend as well as Connors is a very sympathetic man who's only obsessed with a serum that turns him into a giant lizard that messes up his mind in thinking he can "cure" NYC.

The difference is that Connors/Lizard is supposed to be sympathetic because that's the way he is in the comics. Norman's Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Sandman were never sympathetic characters (in the comics, that is). Harry Osborn and Eddie Brock are though but that was poorly executed.

Also, though I think they did a good job with the Lizard and his sympathy, I still would've used a different villain for the movie because I'm personally tired of sympathetic villains in Spider-Man films. It would be nice to get a truly evil villain for once. I hope Electro in TASM 2 will be just that.

 

[Fox]

The big major thing that really makes TASM win for me is how real and genuine everything feels.

THIS. Absolutely. I think the use of the word 'maturity' is far more accurate than 'darker'. When people hear "It's going to be a darker take on the character" they think of Batman. Character's like Spider-man (or Superman etc.) shouldn't necessarily be dark, but having something be 'lighter' or 'more positive' doesn't mean that it can't be mature.

The relationships and character motivations in TASM felt genuine indeed.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ridiculously cheesy lines? I don't think so. The only thing "cheesy" was him interrupting Aunt May's prayer, but I enjoyed Green Goblin's dialogue myself.

Lines like "Hahaha! So long Spider-Man!", "No one says no to me!" "Join me, Spider-Man!", "I'll destroy you Spider-Man!", and other lines that sounded similar to those came off as really cheesy not just from the wording but from the way Dafoe delivered them. The Green Goblin does talk like that to an extent and has a sense of humor but more in a Joker way. I didn't feel GG to be threatening at all.

If we are speaking on an adaptation point of view, is Peter ever shown as a total outcast?

Yes. Pre-spider bite, Peter was a total outcast from most people in the school and had no friends. The only people that payed any attention to him were the popular kids like Flash Thompson that always bullied him. Other than that, everyone just ignored him completely. He becomes less of an outcast after he gets bit by the spider. TASM got this right. We see him by the end hanging out with Gwen, being cool with Flash, and dressing less like an outcast nerd and more like your average teenage kid.

Imo, TSSM has it perfectly, imo. He was this nerd as we see in flashbacks before he was bit and then he became more "chill" as a person, but never much as an outcast as he is in TAS-M either.

He was a nerd and an outcast originally (save for Harry and Gwen who were his only friends and for the people that bullied him like Flash and Liz) and then slowly deviated away from that after the spider-bite. TASM did the same thing and it will continue to be shown even more in the sequels when he meets Harry, MJ, and other people at Empire State.

And yes, there is a huge contrast. Peter became more self confident, but just not to the woman he loves.

And that's exactly what happened. He became more self confident and not just to the woman he loves. And like I said, this will presumably continue in the sequels unless Webb pulls a TDKR and ignores/contradicts all the stuff from the previous films . lol

I don't see that being a problem with Tobey's Peter though. Nolan's Batman isn't the greatest detective as he should be, but it doesn't take away Nolan's Batman being written very well.

Two differences between Nolan's Batman and Raimi's Peter:
1) Peter's intelligence is all "tell but don't show". You never see him using his wits at all and it's like the writers don't even try to show that.
2) BB and TDK are based on stories taking place in Batman's early career as a crimefighter, Year One and Long Halloween respectively. BB and Year One both take place in Bruce's first year as Batman and TDK and Long Halloween both take place in his second year as Batman. If you compare Batman in BB to Batman in Year One, he's not that different in terms of detective skills and how much he uses them. Then if you compare Batman in TDK to Batman in Long Halloween, he's not that different in terms of detective skills either. So Nolan's Batman's detective skills fit with the time in which Batman's career is taking place in. Of course the whole point was to further expand on this and to show how Bruce becomes the veteran experienced Batman as years pass by but TDKR kinda destroyed that progress. But hey, you already know my thoughts on TDKR so I won't get into that here.

Ehh, to each their own. I rather enjoyed Andrew's performance only as Spider-Man and not as Peter Parker, but I feel the quips were fine in Raimi's two Spidey films. Then it sounded corny in the third as much as everything else.

Nothing here. I agree in this case. To each his own as yes, the third movie was the worst one in terms of quips (and in terms of everything).

Fine, you get...half a point.

Finding Gwen in the closet wasn't near scary, imo. And neither was the sewer fight scene as it was predictable as soon as we see his tail sneak behind Spidey.

Tell that to everyone in my theater that jumped during that closet scene and during the sewer scene.

The main scary thing about the sewer scene was that it felt very real. It felt as if Peter was going to die there. You could almost put yourself in Peter's shoes and imagine that you were there underwater being drowned by a giant green Lizard monster.

Hah, debatable.

Sure. I have an open mind. I'm willing to listen.

Still don't see it being quickly rushed. If anything, Green Goblin was rushed only because the film took too much time on the origin side of the film.

It does for me. It feels like a different movie with a different story by the time we get to the GG vs Spider-Man stuff. It's as if they quickly rushed to get the origin out of the way and then when they got to the grad scene, they said "Okay, now we can begin telling the story we want to tell".

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't know if I'd call TASM dark either. But it sure is more mature and serious than Raimi's films, while still keeping some lighthearted moments in it.

The big major thing that really makes TASM win for me is how real and genuine everything feels.

I wouldn't call TASM dark either. Just more serious and more mature. A dark Batman-type of Spider-Man film wouldn't be a good idea at all. It wouldn't fit the character.

Many people do however call TASM dark and gritty simply because it's not all campy and cheesy and takes itself seriously as opposed to a silly film. Those people are usually part of the "comics and comic book movies are supposed to be fun and silly, not mature or intelligent at all!" group that likes to simplify the medium, which I strongly dislike in general. And this doesn't apply to just those bash TASM for trying to be mature but for all those who bash anything comic book related that is not all fun, campy, and silly.

 

[Shikamaru]

THIS. Absolutely. I think the use of the word 'maturity' is far more accurate than 'darker'. When people hear "It's going to be a darker take on the character" they think of Batman. Character's like Spider-man (or Superman etc.) shouldn't necessarily be dark, but having something be 'lighter' or 'more positive' doesn't mean that it can't be mature.

The relationships and character motivations in TASM felt genuine indeed.

Exactly .

It really bothers me when I see many comic book fans bash something comic book related just because it's trying to be a mature film and not just a silly campy film for the kids.

I wrote more about this here:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=449593

 

[Shikamaru]

Not going to pick a fight. I obviously prefer the Raimi film, but it's just I see it all the time. Raimi used to be great to fans, but after SM3 he was bad. After a reboot was announced many fans said they always disliked the original two. Go to the bat boards right now. Quite a few dislike TDKR. The more they talk about the reboot, the more they start saying how unsatisfying Nolan was, just like how Burton went from respected to despised when BB came out. Can you imagine that after four years of hero worshipping on those boards? It is just a trend I see.

I won't deny that band-wagoners like the ones you just described exist but that definitely doesn't apply to everyone that dislikes anything before a reboot. Like I said before, I was dissapointed with SM1 and SM2 prior to seeing SM3 and SM3 was just the final nail in the coffin for me and I wanted a reboot since I walked out of theatres then. Same thing applies for the Burton Batman films to me. I still love BB and TDK just as much as I did before even though I was very dissapointed with TDKR and think Nolan screwed up big time. I was also dissapointed with all Superman films after Superman 2 and I can't wait for Man of Steel but I still really like Superman 1 & 2. I also love the James Bond reboot just as much as the classic films with Connery.

The next film will probably determine whether or not the new franchise is superior or not.

Agreed. TASM was never meant to be the film that proves the success of the reboot. It's almost always the second film in the series that carries that burden because the first film carries the burden of reintroducing the characters and the burden of being a reboot (which itself can generate a lot of backlash) as well as the burden of being the first Spider-Man film after a really bad one. The same thing applied for the Nolan trilogy.