The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Vs. Spider-Man (2002)

Lets just say that my expectations of The Amazing Spider-Man (TASM from this point on) were pretty low. Before I even knew anything about it I was of the opinion that it was too soon for a reboot, so it was never going to be top of my must watch list. Thinking that I would not get around to seeing it at all, I've pretty much devoured every available review and opinion piece I could find on it. The majority of these did not do much to convince me that it was worth watching, with only a few positive opinions from people that I respected to hint otherwise. I didn't set out to compare it to the original Sam Raimi film but when I finally got to see it and then ended up watching Spider-Man later the same day it just felt pretty natural.

To begin with, I was most concerned about sitting through an entire origin story again but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the first half of the film. The growing relationship between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is quite nicely handled and wasn't what I expected after hearing that it was "A Spider-Man for the Twilight generation". The first scene after getting his spider powers was also pretty funny and I thought that this scene amongst others showed a more realistic, street level view of New York than the original films (he says having only visited the place once).

In comparison though, what struck me about the original Spider-Man was how quickly it gets going. In the first scene you find out everything you need to know about Peter Parker and the supporting cast via the minimum amount of information. I think within 7 minutes he has received the crucial spider bite, allowing the film to be more about the joy of discovering his powers. The irony being that this feels like exactly what this new version should have done, deal with the transformation quickly and move on, just like The Incredible Hulk did after Hulk. Even if the first half of the film turned out to be the best part, it still seems strange to spend around an hour on the same stuff that was originally handled in about twenty minutes.

A lot of attention has been placed on who plays a better Peter Parker/Spiderman and it might not be the popular opinion but my money is still on Tobey Maguire. I still feel that he captured the nerdy Parker perfectly and Spider-Man allowed him to lose his inhibitions. He way not have been quipping every five seconds but I thought there was enough enthusiasm there to get across that he was really enjoying himself with this persona. Andrew Garfield's Parker is a pretty different take and I can respect that but he was nothing like either the comic or cartoon versions I know of. I felt that his Spider-Man veered over the line of cocky quips into just plain being a dick, I didn't get the sense that taking on this hero persona was bringing out the good sides of his personality.

Looking at both interpretations I wouldn't say that either of them are perfect, perhaps Maguire didn't have enough of Parkers characteristics, whereas Garfield just adds far too much stuff into the mix. It might have been different if Raimi had gone with the idea of webshooters (though I'm not someone who thinks the organic webs are ridiculous) but you never get the feeling that he was the kind of person who could engineer them. Garfield on the other hand starts off as a handsome guy who is a photographer, inventor, skateboarder and all around science whizz - no one with that many interests could be top of his game at all of them (and still get the girl without added spider confidence).

Though most will probably associate the Green Goblin as Spider-Man's most iconic enemy, growing up with the cartoon version I would probably vote for the Lizard instead. I remember a lot of storylines that revolved around Dr. Connors' struggle to overcome the beast and with Spider-Man usually being involved in his initial transformation, it forms a very strong link between the two characters that makes sense for an origin story. The crocodile like creature in a lab coat is also an incredibly iconic image. So it probably comes as no surprise then that I was very disappointed by his representation in this, which felt like a completely wasted opportunity.

Aside from the lizard design being as ugly as sin, in his human form Connors veers into total insanity for no real reason before finally overcoming it at the end just because the plot demands it. It makes me wonder if they were concerned about The Lizard ending up too similar to Raimi's version of the Green Goblin, in terms of how Norman Osbourne had no idea what he was doing every night. But I think it had every right to make this a more explicit Jekyll and Hyde type situation, as that's historically been his story - while I've always found the Green Goblin to be more intimidating when Norman Osbourne is fully aware of what's going on too. Again it seems kind of ironic that pretty much all of the films in the Raimi series took a pretty black and white villain and turned them into a more sympathetic character for this to then screw up an established character that had a very sympathetic story to begin with.

Looking back at Spider-Man it is in no way perfect. The Green Goblin suit is still terrible and a lot of the CGI is looking pretty ropey now - something that the practical effects of TASM will hopefully alleviate in the long run. But I think the original's strength has always been in the journey of its characters and it has a much stronger ending. The ease with which the new Parker does exactly the opposite of old Parker is disturbing and his final line caused involuntary eye rolling. The problem is not so much that Uncle Ben doesn't say the exact line "with great power comes great responsibility" but that Parker doesn't seem to have learnt this lesson - or anything else from the whole experience for that matter.