This message has been deleted.

I still can't forgive Raimi for failing so hard with SM3. I was so stoked for this movie. The first 2 films were a dream come true for me as I grew up with the comics and the animated series. My hype meter had reached the sky. I was hanging in the IMDb board everyday and I had watched the trailers a thousand times.
Then it came out Boy, what a disappointment.
For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

It's not that Peter hated Spider-Man, it's that Spider-Man, as much fun as Peter has while he's in costume (and you can see the comedic joy on his face in Spider-Man 2 when he jumps off the roof screaming "I'm back!"), takes a toll on Peter Parker. That has long been a character point. There's a part of it that is therapeutic for Peter, but it's also a big part of the weight that he's carrying on him. Spider-Man has often gotten in the way of Peter living his life. That's a story that resonated with Raimi, the weight of heroism, and it's something he wanted to address.
I'll always say that Raimi dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3. It was a misguided movie. He tried to satisfy himself creatively while also making the film the studio wanted him to make, and it didn't work. It could have been a great movie, there's a version of it that's great. But that troubling result doesn't, or at least shouldn't, taint what he got to say about the character with those first two films. I still hold them both as some of my favorites in the genre.

Tobey's Peter seemed to hate Spider-Man and saw it as nothing but a burden, they're disregarding such an important part of the character - that Peter is a kid of lfes being Spider-Man, and as Spider-Man he just wants to have fun.
I think he had more than enough fun as Spider-Man in the first movie. There are so many scenes where he is just swinging around and trying his powers.
For me Raimi's movies (the 1st and 2nd only) are the best adaptations of the character on the big screen. They are not perfect, but much better than the Amazing Spider-Man films.
For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

I agree for the most part, except about Tobey and Sam. That interpretation of the character is awful. Tobey's Peter seemed to hate Spider-Man and saw it as nothing but a burden, they're disregarding such an important part of the character - that Peter is a kid of lfes being Spider-Man, and as Spider-Man he just wants to have fun. Don't get me wrong, he has to learn that being Spider-Man isn't all fun and games. I really can't stand Tobey's weird, silent, spineless, pushover version of the character.

This message has been deleted.

Nope. Not raked, not dragged, not pulled, and most definitely not hornswoggled.

Would you get raked into that?
.and then the bong hits him on the head and he falls RIGHT over the realitY

I'm not getting roped into that

It's better than how X-Men can hardly go one movie without Holocaust exploitation.

This message has been deleted.

The number one thing working against the Amazing Spider-Man film series was Sam Raimi's original films. If you look at the way they approached the same topics that Raimi did, they did so with a "change for the sake of change" attitude. "Okay, well, he did that and we can't do that, so let's do this instead!" And it just doesn't work.
That's the thing that's disappointing to me about starting the MCU Spider-Man back in high school. Because it runs the risk of the same thing, having to deviate away from what Sam Raimi did just so you don't look like you're copying it, even if doing so runs contrary to what we like about the character. Like, Liz Allen is the new girl, but is that because Gwen and MJ come later or is that because we won't see either of them at all..? Things like that bother me about this, and I want to like it. I've been reading Spider-Man for 20 years, I don't want to doubt the property. But say they made Spidey in his mid-20s. All of that character history that fans hold onto (that they now have to circumvent for risk of repeating what the previous two series did) would have been in the character's background, kinda like the Hulk. Giving themselves a completely clean slate would actually mean moving the character FURTHER AFIELD than he's been to date. Show us a college graduate Spider-Man struggling alongside his wife Mary Jane Watson to make ends meet. Hell, give him a little May Parker (or Annie May Parker, as it is now). That would have been something new rather than starting back at square one and then deciding how to get to a "definitive" incarnation without retreading the same old ground.
I don't like how they've handled this film. I love certain aspects of it, like the casting of Keaton. And that has me excited. But it just feels like it's missing something important.

He might have been decent if he had better scripts to work with and the Peter Parker character given to him wasn't schizophrenic.

What I didn't like about Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man/Peter Parker was that he continued to stalk Gwen even though, as Taylor Swift would say, her dad said stay away from Juliet. He basically broke his promise to Captain Stacy who made that last request on his death bed. In the end, he gets both Gwen and her father killed. Yep, two of the Stacys killed because of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker. Like father, like daughter.
Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend ship Fluttershy and Discord

Spot on.