OK, I've been saving this comment/rant all weekend, Mostly because I have a job that demands most of my free time these days. Plus, I wanted to think what I have to say rather than post a piss-off rant and get in trouble over it.
I will agree with MovieBob mostly on his view of
Spider-Man 3.
Is it a flawed movie? Yes.
Is the movie a victim of Sony and Avi Arad's inept actions to make more money? Yes.
Was Venom and Gwen Stacy needlessly shoehorned into a movie that didn't need them at all? Yes.
Was the retcon of Uncle Ben's death the dumbest thing to do with this movie?! FUCK YES!
That said, there are good qualities in this movie and one point that the Internet likes to *****/parrot about but we'll get to that later.
First off, unless someone else comes along to knock it out of the park, J.K. Simmons will always be THE definitive J. Jonah Jameson in my book. The same can be said for Rosemary Harris' rendition of Aunt May (sorry, Sally Field). James Franco does a good job with his role as Harry Osborn crossing over into the dark side (although, the amnesia part and his "New Goblin" look sucked royally but that's because of too many cooks in the kitchen). Despite Captain Stacy and his daughter Gwen being shoehorned into the movie, James Cromwell and Bryce Dallas Howard did their best with what they're given. Topher Grace's version of Eddie Brock has a lot more depth to his comic book counterpart. Although, the same can be said for the animated version from {i]Spectacular Spider-Man[/i]. Speaking of villain's that got a better rendition from their comic book version, Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/Sandman was a great character. I've always had some issues with the Sandman in the comics, mostly because he was a just thug given superpowers (but I did like his brief stint as a former criminal trying to become a hero until that got stupidly retconned out). But Church's Sandman has a reason for what he has to do (I.E. wanting a better life for his daughter) and being blessed/cursed with his new abilities adds more complexity to his criminal life.
Having said that, I'm not too certain if Sandman and the Vulture would have been the right choice for part 3. Personally, I would have liked
Spider-Man 3 to focus on Harry Osborn's slow turn into the new Green Goblin and the rise of the Hobgoblin. Here are my reasons why. First, Harry mentally wrestling with the idea of avenging his father by killing the only friend he's ever known would be interesting to see. It would have kept the audience guessing on whether or not he would succumb to this legacy of evil or break the cycle of madness. Second, I've always liked the Hobgoblin more than the Green Goblin but that's just my personal preference. The Hobgoblin's motives were more criminally methodical than Norman Osborn's lab accident induced insanity to become the ruler of the world. Rather than be obsessed with Spider-Man, he would turn his attentions to taking over the criminal underworld of NYC. Also, not only would Peter be in the dark about this new goblin's identity (as would the audience until the last portion of the movie) but he would have to worry on whether or not this goblin knows his secret identity after discovering one of Osborn's hidden Goblin lairs (that was part of his origin story in the comics). It would lead to a dramatic finale on the two goblins fighting it out with Spider-Man in the middle, wondering if he has an ally in this battle or another enemy he must defeat. And, just to be clear, I would like to see more closer renditions of the Green Goblin and Hobgoblin for the actors as oppose to that X-Games outfit Franco got stuck with. Finally, as a selling point, I would like to see a movie version of this cover...
Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let's get to the part that everyone keeps harping on about: Toby Maguire's rendition of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Personally, I like Maguire's take on Peter Parker. He plays the role of a social outcast tossed into the chaotic life of a superhero perfectly. He's suppose to be an unlucky geek because, as Bob pointed out, that is what Peter Parker was like in the silver age comics, which was the director's intention for these movies. Yes, he's matured and gotten better with the opposite sex in the comics, but he is still the loveable loser he was in the past. He is plagued with doubts and past failures to live up to his responsibility (there have been some recent deaths aside from Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacy in the comics). He struggles to make ends meet (no big difference from anyone else suffering from the recession but he was getting by before that). Even when things are coming up roses for him, it usually turns sour somewhere down the road. He's Marvel's answer to Charlie Brown. One of the reason's I'm not on board with the Amazing Spider-Man movies is that Andrew Garfield is miscast for the role of Peter Parker. Hes too much of a pretty boy, appearance wise. He might work if he was portraying college era Peter Parker but Sony and Mark Webb went in the wrong direction with their Amazing Spider-Man movies.
I'd like to go on with my theory on why the Internet has a raging mad-on for Raimi's Spider-Man but this comment post is getting way too long and I'm gonna save that topic for later.