ByAmy Martin, writer at
Amy Martin

When I first saw the original 'Spiderman' (2002) at eight years old, I became absolutely obsessed with it. Obsessed as in - I would watch it once every couple of weeks, and somehow it never got old. There were Spiderman posters and figurines in my bedroom, I drew pictures of the Green Goblin.... you get the picture.

Anyway! Something I have never understood is how so many people find the two new 'Amazing Spiderman' movies (2012,2014) superior, if not far superior to the original trilogy. To me.... Well, I just can't quite get my head around why! Don't get me wrong, I really quite enjoyed the newer flicks - but I wouldn't say they're better than the originals, and here's a list of reasons why!

Please note, this article contains big spoilers for [The Amazing Spider-Man](movie:45497) films, so proceed with caution!

It was hard to connect with the characters, they were the opposite of likable.

Now this obviously doesn't go for all of the characters, as I had absolutely no problem with Gwen Stacy, Uncle Ben etc, but I found that both Peter (Andrew Garfield) and Harry (Dane DeHaan) were VERY hard to connect with as characters, as to me personally, they didn't really mirror teen life, so I really couldn't understand their situations at all - not to mention Harry's haircut OMG!

CGI can be great, but practical effects are always better.

On one hand, I thought Dr 'Curt Connors' turning into a massive mutated lizard man was freakin' awesome, but on the other hand, I find the fact that so much of the 'Amazing' series relies heavily on CGI to be a bit disappointing. Electro was Cgi (obviously), a lot of the spider-man scenes were cgi, even 'Rhino' was cgi. What I loved so much about the original series is that the characters were a lot more believable. Sure, CGI was definitely used (especially in the third installment), but in the first two (and best two) entries, the actors used mainly practical effects for the villains, and had stuntmen instead of choosing the 'easy route' of cgi.

Original had the better 'spidey' costume.

The 'Amazing' costume didn't look bad, like, at all, but once again, the original was soo much better. Don't know that I need to expand on that much, as you can just compare the two in the photo above!

They tried to cram too many villains into The Amazing Spiderman 2.

I'm sure most people will agree with me on this one - Electro, okay, cool, he's our main villain - then there's also 'Rhino' on top, which is cool too, as he's just been added as a bit of fun. Then suddenly a rather disturbing interpretation of 'The Green Goblin' turns up out of nowhere near the end of the film, just to kill off Gwen Stacy. It feels super forced, like they couldn't quite figure out how to add him in, so just threw him in for 5 minutes at the end.

Peter Parker just isn't Peter Parker.

In all honesty I'm probably a bit bias about this, as I really don't like Andrew Garfield as a person, but put all that aside, and I still really don't like his Peter Parker. Again, it's not AWFUL, but Tobey Maguire will always be the best, no matter what! As spider-man, Andrew Garfield came across as an egocentric douchebag (sorry, it's true), and was all witty and cracking jokes whilst playing the character. He was so full of himself, and even out of character, he wasn't exactly unpopular or portrayed as a 'loser'. Therefore, it's hard to connect with him. Tobey Maguire on the other hand played a very timid quite individual, who was bullied and pushed around by his classmates - that's the kind of character we can connect to, as we feel sorry for them. As Spider-man, Tobey was also friendly and polite, and his main goal was to just help people, not show off.

The films got a little too dark for younger viewers.

OK, sure, Gwen Stacy dies in the comics, but was it really a necessary scene to add to the film? Perhaps it could have just been implied, without the audience actually seeing the impact of her head against the concrete. There was also Max being fried, and the rather violent scene in an aeroplane within the first 10 minutes of the [The Amazing Spider-Man 2](movie:508593). In general, I find that the 'Amazing' movies are fairly more violent than the originals, hence why they received their PG-13 rating. Is this really a bad thing? Well, yeah, I think so. Considering most Spider-man fans are 6-12 year old boys, I think they should be a bit more fun, a bit cheesy even, because that's what the kids want to see.

So there's my opinion! The two new films are pretty good, but the 'old' ones are absolutely fantastic (2002 is considered old now?). So thanks for reading, and let me know if you agree or disagree in the comments section below!


Latest from our Creators