le go
Formidable post... but I think I can match it.
This film butchered Peter and I blame the writing. Comic Peter, in general, is a mocked, prideful teenaged genius turned accidental superhero who learns about responsibility the hard way. Raimi's Peter is a pushover/nobody nerd who turns into a superhero after learning to never put the puss over the fam. Webb's Peter is a
loner genius slacker rebel without a cause angst teenager who the audience never really gets to understand.
Regardless of how much Garfield tries, Peter is written to completely unlikable in everything he does minus the bridge scene. He's practically a Mary Sue ala Twilight's Bella. We're given no reason why anyone would like Peter yet Gwen falls for him from the get. Not to mention, Pete breaking into private labs for shyts and giggles....screwing some intern out of a future for shyts and giggles...Lying to a dying man...Then theres how he handles Ben's death, ignores/disrespects his Aunt and Uncle repeatedly. Also without the wrestling bits, why does Pete design a Spider costume? Oh cuz he fell in a luchador wrestling gym and likededededed it
Why did you cross out all those descriptors? They're all accurate in this case. If anything, this Peter is more subtle than the last one because he touches on all of those, and there's no reason all of them can't be true at once. As for the differences in the teenage portrayal, giving him more angst was a good thing in this case. Also, you have to take into account that the notion we have of nerds now is not at all the same as it was 10 years ago- Peter fits the bill perfectly for a more modern nerd, since they do have more cultural cache now and can also be rebels, etc.
As for being unlikeable- that's exactly how he's supposed to be for most of the movie, along with being a stupid teen, though one with potential. That's what makes this movie's arc so much more interesting than Tobey's. Tobey was an overly "likeable" (in the sense that the movie was pandering to the viewer to like him) underdog from the start. His only real inner conflict is that he uses his powers for selfish purposes for a very short while before going back to being the same goodie-goodie he was before he got was bitten. He's basically Captain America- a character with no real internal conflict whatsoever, and so no reason to grow.
And as for Gwen liking him- it's clear they knew of each other before the film begins. She likes him for standing up to Flash, for being intelligent like she is, etc. I’d rather that, which is a bit more realistic teen romance than the Raimi’s overly fate-reliant version where MJ is a lifelong next-door neighbor and he gives some corny speech about how he loved her since they were 5 or whatever. Also, the chemistry between the two in this film >> the chemistry between Dunst and Tobey.
I was also fine with the “lying to a dying man” thing- it was clear he wasn’t lying, and that he meant it at the time. They made it a legitimate struggle, which is not much different than the way the first movie attempted the same thing. I’m also glad they didn’t go the wrestling route- they were doing a modern movie and that idea just doesn’t work anymore. They nodded to it enough for the inspiration to make sense, and moved on.
2.) Ben's dead is fail. Peter's whole motivation for fighting crime and not living the life with his new found powers is because his actions lead to Ben's death. Amazing Spiderman robs Peter of that. Ben's death ends up being entirely Ben's fault. Raimi's film had enough sense to put Pete in a position where his pride lead directly to criminal killing his Uncle. Webb's Peter flatout says "lol its not my problem" not spite the store owner like Raimi's Pete did, he lets the guy go because he truly is a dikk. Even when Ben is bleeding out on the ground, Pete yells to someone to call the ambulance....this a$$hole was just on his cellphone the scene before.
How is the basic narrative structure of Ben’s death any different in this one? In both, Peter fails to stop a criminal to spite the person being robbed (it’s clear he’s doing it out of spite in this one because he uses the same phrase the cashier uses, if I remember) and that criminal later ends up killing Ben. The spite here comes partially from the clerk, but partially because he’s still angsty and immature as you point out, which actually makes sense, whereas Tobey’s spite just explodes out of nowhere based on not being paid once, which seems less realistic to me and only highlights how forced that whole wrestling part of the movie was in trying to give him some real internal conflict. At no previous point in the movie is Parker shown to be prone to such rash and negative behavior.
Besides that, what makes the new one superior is that happens in a much more interesting way when you get down to the details- he’s just stormed out of the house and Ben is looking for him, giving him more guilt, and he never gets closure with Ben, either- there’s no cliché, last words scene. As for the cellphone, well, assuming he should have the presence of mind to use it, it would just be a minor scripting error and doesn’t affect my view of the movie in a serious way.
3.) Oscorp was no different than in Raimi's film only Norman was absent. A generic big bad Corporation.
This Oscorp looked much better, and was a bit more fleshed out than the other one.
4.) Pete donned the costume out of revenge on some Batman shyt. He never considered being a hero until the Bridge scene and even then his only goal was stopping the lizard. Haphazardly stumbling into a iconic character is lame.
See, this for me was a serious advantage. We got to see him become a superhero not just by putting on the costume, but actually going through a process that was more than just him stopping short of revenge. It was more of a transition. That’s also why I’m glad he never catches Ben’s killer- the point is that he stops thinking in those terms and grows into something else without ever reaching direct closure in the form of potential vengeance- he never needs to have the killer in a position where he can finally kill him. "Stumbling into it," as you put it, is how it should be.
5.) Half this film wasnt even flim in NYC and what was filmed was done in the dark or the gutta places.
Sure, but the city looked much more like NY should look in a modern Spider-man movie. The Raimi film attempted some dark, dangerous scenes and it looked awful. The sets in this movie were great. Also, I recognized a lot of NYC in this film, and that appealed to me, but that’s subjective because I grew up/live here.
6.) Flash was a generic "im better than you" jock who existence lead to Peter's transition to Spiderman in Raimi's film. Flash in Webb's film goes from a bully to a victim to a BFF yet still manages to be unimportant to the story. Take him out and not a damn thing changes.
This new Flash was more realistic than the other one, who was purely a faceless stereotype for Peter to transcend. This one actually changes through the movie, and his relationship to Peter vs. his Spidey fandom is introduced, as well, which is interesting both for Peter and for him as a character.
7.) As for Goblin > Lizard
Writing: Goblin - Norman slowly going mad was great. His relationship with Peter and Harry was believable and the cat and mouse he played suspenseful
Lizard - See Doc. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Kurt has almost no personality because the writers didnt do shyt for him. He pops up for 2 minutes at a time to remind us there's a bad guy in this film. Kurt's ties to Peter is extremely contrived also as is Pete's backstory
First of all, I concede that everything about the lizard was terrible. I think you may have gotten the wrong idea- I’m not defending him. What I am saying is that the Green Goblin was also trash, so hating on the lizard isn’t a way to defend the Raimi film. The similarities between the two characters that you noted are evidence towards this point. Since he was done terribly, though, I’m glad he didn’t get that much screen time. That way he didn’t drag the movie down nearly as much as he could have.
Norman did not go slowly mad. He went mad instantly due to the experiment. The cat and mouse thing was ok- I’ll grant you that. But he also had a lot of bad parts- especially that part at the end I mentioned where he tries to convince Peter that he was a father to him, despite the movie not backing that up at all. They didn’t pull that Oedipal nonsense with the lizard by trying to pass him off as a surrogate father to Peter through the movie, which was a plus. Also, Connors’ scenes where he displays guilt for his involvement in Peter’s parents’ situation were not bad at all. It’s not Connors that’s the problem, but the lizard.
There's more, too, like how Gwen, Ben and May in this film > the Raimi versions, and how Garfield's physical performance > Tobey's, but this is more than enough for now.
At The End of TDKR with Catwoman. 
