MovieChat Forums > The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Discussion > Here is why I think it's better than Spi...

Here is why I think it's better than Spider-man (2002)

posted 8 years ago by RynoII
17 replies | jump to latest

Spider-man is not necessarily bad, but I feel that the S piRaimi origin story had some weaknesses in it, that the reboot avoided. I feel that in the 2002 one, Spider-man is having too much fun with his powers, when he wakes up all muscular and cheering himself on as he jumps from building to building instead of being more scared and confused, like in the 2012 one.

I also do not like how in the 2002 one there is the unnecessarily love triangle going on with Mary Jane, which really doesn't do anything for the movie, since we know she is just going to go for Peter in the end anyway, so what's the point? I also do like Connors better as a villain compared to Green Groblin, but the Green Goblin was not bad though. Just thought Connors was better.

I also like how in the origin story of this one, Peter, after not being able to find the vigilante, follows Captain Stacy's philosophy, about helping people in general, rather than constantly going after one guy, as a crime fighter.

In the 2002, Spider-man catches up to Uncle Ben's killer, and the killer accidentally trips and falls out the window, which felt like a forced convenience from the writers, since they didn't want to have Peter kill him, nor choose to let him live. It just felt like a convenient way to end the subplot.

But those are mainly the reasons why I like the 2012 one better. What do you think?

[–] greg-233 8 years ago

I prefer the 2012 one as well. Although I liked the Sam Raimi version when I first saw it in 2002, the Marc Webb version seems more "grown up" somehow.

[–] therickers 8 years ago

I totally agree. If I woke up will powers like that, I would be very scared and probably wouldn't be jumping off a roof or getting in fights at school. I would be doing what Andrew did, hiding and testing them in a safe-ish environment.

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

The 2012 does have it's cons too though, such as Norman Osbourne being mentioned but you never see him and it feels underdeveloped, along with the man blackmailing Connors, who all of a sudden disappears after the bridge action sequence. But I suppose the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to the 2012 one being better for me.

[–] therickers 8 years ago

very true, they tried to avoid Spider man's Joker-esk villain. Bad idea. There were a few to many story lines that never came to fruition, but i still like it more than the 2002 version

[–] manchof1 8 years ago

The 2002 film is better for the fact it isn't dull and dark, I'm rewatching the 2012 film with commentary and its about as exciting as watching paint dry and I can't wait for it to end. Interesting that Marc Webb wanted to portray Peter as a kid having fun when the film is a laborious chore to sit through.

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

Spider-man is not necessarily bad, but I feel that the S piRaimi origin story had some weaknesses in it, that the reboot avoided. I feel that in the 2002 one, Spider-man is having too much fun with his powers, when he wakes up all muscular and cheering himself on as he jumps from building to building instead of being more scared and confused, like in the 2012 one.

Not a huge difference; Maguire Peter was initially a little weirded-out by the powers but then saw them as cool and things to have fun (and make money) with while Garfield Peter was initially distressed that he was too strong but within a few minutes, without explaining how he was better able to control them, was also using them for fun.

I also do not like how in the 2002 one there is the unnecessarily love triangle going on with Mary Jane, which really doesn't do anything for the movie, since we know she is just going to go for Peter in the end anyway, so what's the point?

The love story and lack of love triangle in TASM were indeed a lot better.

I also like how in the origin story of this one, Peter, after not being able to find the vigilante, follows Captain Stacy's philosophy, about helping people in general, rather than constantly going after one guy, as a crime fighter.

In the 2002, Spider-man catches up to Uncle Ben's killer, and the killer accidentally trips and falls out the window, which felt like a forced convenience from the writers, since they didn't want to have Peter kill him, nor choose to let him live. It just felt like a convenient way to end the subplot.

Having the killer die by accident is a bit of a contrivance (just apprehending him would be better) but it's a lot better than, as in TASM, stretching out Peter's very slow process of becoming heroic (and having Peter not pursue the killer initially is a bit of a contrivance too if not a bigger one).

I thought both films had flaws and strengths but overall the 2002 film had a much better protagonist and story.

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

How is Peter choosing to not go after his Uncle's killer a contrivance though? He was going after the killer, trying to find him until The Lizard started attacking. So he figured that the lizard was a bigger threat that needed much more immediate attention compared to the Uncle's killer. So doesn't it make sense in that, the lizard is a bigger threat that needs to be dealt with first?

I also didn't find the backstory to be too long and dragged out at all. No longer than the backstory in other movies like Batman Begins or Iron Man anyway.

Peter in TASM was only having fun with his powers, a few days after he got them. First he freaked out a lot, and then later on was having fun with them, such as with Flash at school.

So I thought it was more realistict in TASM cause Peter waited a while to have one, and waited to get over his freak out period, where as in the 2002 one, Peter only freaked out for a very short time, and there was no waiting period, for him to get comfortable with the powers. He was comfortable immediately, so I thought it was rushed in comparison.

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

How is Peter choosing to not go after his Uncle's killer a contrivance though? He was going after the killer, trying to find him until The Lizard started attacking. So he figured that the lizard was a bigger threat that needed much more immediate attention compared to the Uncle's killer.

I meant not initially trying to follow or catch the killer the night of the act, especially as in I think all other versions of the story Peter had already made a costume to disguise himself as and even in this film he initially (and actually kind of ever) wasn't very concerned about protecting his identity. Maybe he's too young and hesitant to try to pursue soon after seeing the killing but that wasn't very well conveyed and instead it felt like a change for the sake of change. To be fair in the other versions he goes into action partly because he knows where the killer is because the police told him and he and they don't know in TASM.

Peter in TASM was only having fun with his powers, a few days after he got them. First he freaked out a lot, and then later on was having fun with them, such as with Flash at school.

So I thought it was more realistict in TASM cause Peter waited a while to have one, and waited to get over his freak out period, where as in the 2002 one, Peter only freaked out for a very short time, and there was no waiting period, for him to get comfortable with the powers. He was comfortable immediately, so I thought it was rushed in comparison.

To me it felt at least as believable that Peter would look on the powers as beneficial given that his life before getting them was pretty frustrating and in TASM the initial concern is well-done but then there's not much explanation of how he was able to control his level of strength-exertion.

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Okay then. I didn't think of it as a change just for the sake of a change, cause Captain Stacy gave Peter the speech about how Spider-man was just interested in finding one guy, and not interested in protecting people. So I thought that Peter's change naturally came from Stacy's philosophy, and then once the lizard attacked, he applied the philosophy to that, since the lizard was a much bigger threat. So I felt it was a natural progression change.

I agree that they could have explained the level of strength exertion a bit better, but I feel that TASM has more pros than cons going for it. The 2002 has some pros, such as level of exertion, and the wrestling match plot was good, but I did not like how he got too comfortable, too quickly with the powers, and the unnecessary love triangle.

I also like Connors better as a villain than Osborne. So for those pros, I like the TASM better, compared to the 2002 one's cons.

[–] ee_dixon 8 years ago

Spider-man is not necessarily bad, but I feel that the S piRaimi origin story had some weaknesses in it, that the reboot avoided. I feel that in the 2002 one, Spider-Man is having too much fun with his powers, when he wakes up all muscular and cheering himself on as he jumps from building to building instead of being more scared and confused, like in the 2012 one.

The origin story in the 2002 film was based on Amazing Fantasy #15. In that comic, Peter wasn't scared at all when he first discovered his powers, in fact he was amazed by it and wanted to do something with it (he briefly became a wrestler). Same thing happens in the film.

I also do not like how in the 2002 one there is the unnecessarily love triangle going on with Mary Jane, which really doesn't do anything for the movie, since we know she is just going to go for Peter in the end anyway, so what's the point?

It wasn't unnecessary though. They used that to build up tension between Harry and Peter and his turn into the Green Goblin. Something similar also happened in the comics.

I also do like Connors better as a villain compared to Green Goblin, but the Green Goblin was not bad though. Just thought Connors was better.

The Lizard was a lame villain in that movie. As flawed as Green Goblin's writing was in the 2002 film, atleast he was memorable and he had memorable moments. I honestly can't tell you a single memorable moment in TASM that featured the Lizard.

I also like how in the origin story of this one, Peter, after not being able to find the vigilante, follows Captain Stacy's philosophy, about helping people in general, rather than constantly going after one guy, as a crime fighter.

I thought that was stupid and solidified one of my biggest complaints about TASM which was the fact that the movie basically gave you the impression that Captain Stacy was more important to Peter than Uncle Ben was, which is something you're NOT supposed to do. Uncle Ben's death alone should've been the driving force for Peter to start helping people not some talk with Captain Stacy. The 2002 film captured it way better than TASM film did. Not once in TASM (or TASM2 for that matter) did Peter even remotely feel guilty and responsible for his Uncle dying.

In the 2002, Spider-man catches up to Uncle Ben's killer, and the killer accidentally trips and falls out the window, which felt like a forced convenience from the writers, since they didn't want to have Peter kill him, nor choose to let him live. It just felt like a convenient way to end the subplot.

It's better than what TASM did and just basically the abandon the subplot altogether when the Lizard showed up (which is something they did ALOT in that movie) and you can't say that the plot was resolved after the talk with Captain Stacy because they showed the sketch drawing of his killer at the end of the movie for a reason.

[–] manchof1 8 years ago

Yup, the writing is the big reason why the 2002 film is far superior to the 2012 turd sandwich called The Amazing Spider-Man. It was trying too hard to be different but too similar at the same time and didn't know what it wanted to be.

[–] Dannysich 8 years ago

Well his origin and what he did felt more like amazing fantasy 15.

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

I also prefer this one over the 2002 version, but I admit I haven't seen the first Raimi one in a long time. I don't think it will hold up though, as I never ranked it that highly to begin with. I loved Spider-Man 2 far more anyways.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 6 years ago

The only thing better about this movie as compared to the 2002 movie was Parker having mechanical web shooters. Otherwise, the 2002 version is much closer to the original comic book (Amazing Fantasy #15), and contained key elements from subsequent Spider-Man comic books (starting with The Amazing Spider-Man #1), such as J. Jonah Jameson (an excellent portrayal no less) and Parker being a freelance photographer for the Daily Bugle whose niche is taking pictures of Spider-Man.

Additionally, Aunt May looked like her comic book counterpart in the 2002 movie while Sally Field looks nothing like Aunt May.

Also, the 2002 movie looked WAY better. Not only was it shot on 35mm film (like movies are supposed to be), but it's an especially good example of a shot-on-film movie; the very natural looking and vibrant color timing is beautiful; it's one of the best looking movies I've ever seen. As a side note, a couple of other particularly good-looking movies are Quigley Down Under (1990) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). The 2012 movie on the other hand, was ugly. It was shot on video and had dark, muted colors.