Um no Spider-Man would have been huge with or without the X-Men movies, don't know what you're talking about. Spider-Man is like Batman and Superman - he will be huge no matter what (as long as the movie is good).

But yes the first X-Men movie was the start of the comic book craze, I can agree with that... it's just as I said Spider-Man is on a different level than X-Men.

Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is X-Men started the Superhero hype. If X-Men would have flopped Spider-Man would might not even be made.

I edited my post a bit, but Spider-Man would have been made no matter what though.... cause he's on a different level than X-Men (he's on the Superman/Batman tier of superheroes).

In fact they were trying to get a Spider-Man movie made since the 90s but never got off the ground until Sony bought the rights. Spider-Man was going to get made no matter what and was going to be HUGE no matter what, the only question was which script and director was right?

And I have to thank gosh that The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't the first one in 2002....

Why? Because shitface Maguire would not have had the chance to almost ruin Spider-Man?

You can say whatever you want but Garfield was much Spider-Man then the depressive ass-face Maguire.

For the record, that's grown, school teacher, married to a super-model/actress Spider-Man.  It's not awkward, outcast, science geek, High School Spider-Man.

*Minor Spoilers Ahead (not enough to ruin the movie)*

Andrew can NEVER be seen as a geek - EVER. In fact, with his Twilight hair do and skateboarding skills, he'd be the cool kid in town. And there is no way he'd get denied on any dates. He was not an outcast. On the other hand, Tobey's Peter was a true awkward nerd which was what Peter is. Tobey wasn't perfect, but he was far better.

Andrew trying to come off as nerdy and shy came off as awkward and terrible. Parker is not a hipster like Garfield is. By changing the dynamics of Peter Parker, they chang Spider-Man as well. This movie is trying too hard to come off as "dark" and "gritty" and totally destroys what Spider-Man is (was). Spider-Man is always getting bashed - by the newspapers (his boss), the police, even New Yorkers and his aunt, and he still does the right thing.  The second movie shows that Peter has to give up a LOT of things to become Spider-Man, his love, job, friends, even family... in this movie Peter is practically a hero at the end even to Flash.

This series has the potential to increase drama with Peter breaking his promise at the end, and then Gwen meets her fate.... but really that's it. The whole Uncle Ben death was rushed and whatever (besides for Spidey searching for the killer for a little bit no one even cared about his death), Sally Field was terribly miscasted as Aunt May, the love scenes were awkward because it looks like it was cut (I will admit Andrew and Emma had chemistry but it needed MORE), the Lizard subplot was hugely rushed...

The movie was trying to be different from Raimi's version and unfortunately it happened to be the same movie except worse. For example, it follows Raimi's formula to a T - scientist wants to benefit humanity, but now has a deadline to get it to work, tests on himself, and goes crazy and wreaks havoc. He then tries to re-do the experiment on a grander scale. Webb and co. tried to be different by taking out beloved characters from the trilogy like Harry and J. Jonah but did not replace them. Tried with Captain Stacy but he's no J. Jonah!

Overall a terrible movie. This is my opinion of course but the fact is this Peter is pretty much entirely wrong.

I don't know what the hell I want.  I guess I'd be happy if Garfield was cast as Spider-Man but he played it with a Tobey McGuire Spider-Man personality.  He should have been less confident until he put on the mask.  He's got the perfect face for Peter Parker but he was too cool to be considered an outcast.  He dressed cool.  He had a skateboard.  He had movie star hair.  He should have been geeky until he got his powers.  I know most science geeks like to shred after school but......yeah.

Of course, they were revamping it.  I read that Peter was a self imposed outcast because he had issues with his missing parents.  I dunno.  I guess my problem is that they made the Spider-Man movie they wanted to make instead of the Spider-Man movie I would have made.  Don't get me wrong.  The movie did have some issues (like didn't he get shot in the leg at some point?  Doesn't that require medical attention and not just spraying webs on top of it?) but I can appreciate what we have over what I wish we had.

I'd give it a 7.8/10 on the superhero movie scale.

This was a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. It truly sets the bar for what's mediocre and uninspired in Hollywood. I think they've hit a plateau when it comes to this non-stop pumping out of sequels (even those based on sequels). There are virtually no new, creative, and unique blockbuster movies anymore. The most important movies in history (the ones that created/renewed the audience's interest in going to the movies) were never sequels, so let's hope they remember that as soon as possible.

seeing it day after. Good to see most are loving it!!

What a lot of people don't realize is that Sony HAD to make this movie--well, maybe not this particular movie. Spider-Man is a creation of Marvel Comics and Marvel is now property of Disney. If Sony doesn't do anything with the Spider-Man property (aka possibly their biggest franchise), it goes back to Disney who could do something with it or license it out to somebody else. There's going to be a new Spidey movie from Sony every few years whether you like it or not.

With that kind of pressure, things turned out a little better than expected.