Spoilers (maybe?).
Honestly, after having seen the Amazing Spider-Man 2, I have to say that it's up there as one of the best Spider-Man films yet made. Individuals on this thread mentioned that the film is "disjointed," but I don't see where they're getting that from. The plot flowed just fine for my tastes. That's not to say the film doesn't have flaws, but the more I'm seeing of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man, the more I'm liking him more than Toby Maquire's. I'm also not understanding the whole "twilight" comparison... aside from being skinny, Garfield's not an incredibly attractive person ('bout on par with Maguire in my eyes). Is it the hair? 'Cause if it is, then David Tennant was a shitty Doctor Who Twilight-wannabe too. And Smith... but I digress.
Maguire made an interesting 60's Era Spider-Man (although he wasn't actually "Spider-Man", rather than "Generic Superhero with Vaguely Spider-like Powers")that gelled quite well with Post-9/11 America. But the Raimi movies were not flawless masterpieces (barring the incredibly shitty third film). For every excellent decision (casting J.K. Simmons as J.J. Jameson, Thomas Haden Church as Sandman, and Alfred Molina as Dr. Otto Octavius... flawless), the Raimi series makes several terrible, abominable sins (the first film's handling of the Green Goblin, absolutely everything having to do with Harry Osborne (casting and plot), casting a charisma-black hole like Kirsten Dunst, etc.). There is also the fact that, unlike ASM's Gwen Stacey, SM's Mary Jane Watson is not a *person*, she's a thing to be lusted after by Raimi's "hopeless loser" version of Peter Parker. She contributes nothing to the plot but complications, she exists to do *nothing* but "be protected" or "be fought over like a possession." Hell, the entire breakup subplot in SM3 could have been avoided if she was written like a human being and not like a self-centered child. One sentence ("Peter, I got fired from the play, so could you please stop being a douche for a minute?") could have ended that whole thing... but no, it had to be "Smallvilled" out (just like the first two films).
The issue with the Raimi films is that, while they are technically competent, they are nothing more than a series of cool moments and images chained together by convenient plot points and a (frankly mystifying yet) sub-par love story. Willem Dafoe was *excellent* as Norman Osborne, but he was *terrible* as the Green Goblin. This is mostly due to the fact that the Green Goblin is a super-bad-terri-suck-tastic villain *in general*. The combined acting talents of Dafoe, Franco, and Dehaan cannot save this pathetic villain concept from sucking. Personally speaking, if the series could just keep the Osbornes as the villains and just stop with the Green Goblin nonsense altogether, the Spider-Man film series would be better off for it. There's also the fact that James Franco just didn't work in the SM films: Harry Osborne's depiction is bland, there is absolutely no reason he should be friends with Peter Parker or be going to public school (if they kick him out of Military School, *then* I see someone as rich as Norman sending his kid to, ugh, Public School), and SM3's Amnesia plotline was idiotic and (pardon the pun) forgettable.
Now, regarding Emo-Peter: it should never have happened. Ever. Not even as a joke. Why is Peter even *trying* to be cool, I mean *at all*? All the pointing, dancing, and douche-like behavior was just a pointless time-filler and contrived plot gateway to the Jazz Club fight. It wasn't necessary and all it did was add a "what the hell did I just watch" moment. The reason I hate SM3 is not because of Topher Grace's portrayal of Brock/Venom (hell, he was the only one actually excited about the film during the press rounds), but because this film focused far too much on the SM series' weakest point (the love triangle) and succeeded in making Peter Parker into someone as fundamentally loathsome as Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane. Granted, Peter was already skirting the line of being a terrible person in SM2 when he was actively trying to break up MJ's relationship and, basically, lying to her and playing with her emotions (but, it's okay... she leaves her Fiance at the alter for him. You know, because it's funny and romantic... I guess). So, not only is Raimi's Peter Parker a creepy "nice guy" stalker with a myopic fixation on one single human being, now he's a "drug addict" and a manipulative asshole. Well, at least MJ managed to sneak a note to Peter on the bridge after Harry Osborne regained his memories and, together, they stopped his villainy. Oh, wait. No, she didn't. Because she'd rather tear his heart out and keep him in the dark than actually try to solve the problem together (much like Peter kept doing to her, you know, because he *loves* her so goddamn much). I sure Love to see that Smallville legacy firmly entrenched in the SM films. Love it.
I will agree on one point, however: I really, really like the Sandman's "becoming" scene. I dig it, hardcore.
Now, onto the ASM Films. Are they a blatant cash grab on Sony's part? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Do they ditch the 60's Spider-Man in favor of one more in line with Ultimate Spider-Man? Yep, and I am glad they did. I'm tired of Peter Parker being how old former-athlete business executives think nerds actually are and am interested in the personal growth of a nerdy-looking, socially awkward dude with neuroses similar to my own. Also, Gwen Stacey (as portrayed by Emma Stone) as a character and love interest is just. plain. better. period. She has charisma for *days*, chemistry with Garfield (one would hope), and is capable of emoting onscreen without looking constipated (or "Pulling a Dunst").
Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborne makes more sense in his connections to Peter Parker because they're both freaky looking weirdos whose Dads work together. His motivations for hating Spider-Man, while just as strong as Franco's Osborne, are far more realistically portrayed. And, finally, while I hate the Green Goblin in this movie too, his transformation scene was friggin' boss and I like how they made the suit important(ish). He was *way* underused in the third act (they could have shaved some minutes from the Electro fight and from some of the slower scenes to enhance the GG's role in the film), which is fine because the GG sucks as a villain/character/concept but ultimately harms the movie due to his rather sudden appearance and disappearance.
Jamie Foxx is *terrible* as Max Dillon. His portrayal is hokey to the point of being Raimi-level Camp. However, once he becomes Electro, Foxx tones it down and becomes a rather respectable antagonist. He is Peter Parker if Peter internalized his anger and powerlessness, only to unleash it all once he gained actual power. He still wants to help people, to be wanted and adored, to feel as though he has control... but his rage is just too strong (and, iirc, they hint that some of that "Lizard" insanity is affecting him as well). His whole interaction with Osborne in Ravencroft was great and demonstrated all this rather well (although Dr. Kafka and Ravencroft is pretty campy as well).
The fact is, all these movies (DC, MCU, ASM, SM, X-Men, etc.) suck balls as far as "film" is concerned. They're hundred million dollar blockbuster films that take shortcuts where plot development is concerned, confuse "shock and awe" for "storytelling," and they have trouble with consistency in just about every way, shape, and form. But you know what? I'm not so freakishly myopic or superlatively thin skinned that I go off on a rant each and every time someone mentions the original Raimi films. The sheer fact that this film "broke" Moviebob so much that he had to waste content on telling us why "we were wrong about Spider-Man 3" not only reeks of self-important hyperbole but of someone struggling to find something, anything, to fill time. So, this is goodbye, Moviebob. I'm done. As far as I'm concerned, I anticipate your opinion on film and geek culture in the same manner as I anticipate medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.
Love, Peace, and Chicken Grease,
The Mighty Grendel