In Defence of The Amazing Spider-Man

Spider-Man is Marvel’s most enduring character, who has appeared in countless forms of media. The cinematic universe got its first reboot in 2012 with The Amazing Spider-Man.

Peter Parker’s (Andrew Garfield) disappeared when he was a child. When looking through his father’s suitcase, Peter finds a lead and goes to meet one of Richard Parker’s colleagues, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). When at Oscorp, Peter gets bitten by a genetically altered spider, giving him superpowers. This coincides with Connors injecting himself with an experimental formula, turning him into The Lizard.

Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy was lucrative for Sony, but Spider-Man 3 was plagued with production issues. Despite Spider-Man 2 being one of the greatest superhero films of all time, Sony took more creative control over the sequel. One of the biggest issues was Sony mandating Eddie Brock/Venom’s appearance in the threequel, which helped make that film a bloated mess. Spider-Man 3 ended up being the lowest-rated film in the franchise at the time. After Spider-Man 3, many of the contracts would have had to be renegotiated, so Sony decided to press the reboot button.

The idea of a Spider-Man reboot was met with cynicism: I was one of those cynics. Sony was making the film so they could keep hold of the Spider-Man film rights, and for the executives to have more control. The film retold the origins story despite the first Spider-Man movie being only 10 years old in 2012. Marc Webb was hired to be the director, who had made one feature film and was known for making music videos. He stepped up to the task, but hiring someone with that level of experience was done so a studio could dictate to them.

My big criticism of The Amazing Spider-Man was redoing the origin story. The Sam Raimi film did it perfectly, and by trying to be different, The Amazing Spider-Man was worse. In the 2002 film, Peter choosing not to stop the thief was understandable because the young man wasn’t paid what he was promised. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter came across as a dick because a shopkeeper wouldn’t let the young man underpay for a bottle of chocolate milk. Spider-Man’s origin story is set in stone, like Batman’s parents getting shot in an alley and Superman being sent to Earth because his home planet gets destroyed.

If a film had Spider-Man (2002)’s origin story, and The Amazing Spider-Man’s visuals, it would have been the perfect Spider-Man origins film for me. The Amazing Spider-Man was made during the ‘dark and gritty’ era, a movement that’s scoffed at now, but I generally like that approach. It started with films like The Bourne Trilogy and The Dark Knight Trilogy, and was used for films like Casino Royale, Iron Man, and Man of Steel. The Amazing Spider-Man was pretty much the Spider-Man version of Batman Begins.

Visually, The Amazing Spider-Man holds up. There were great special effects, and there was a lot of location shooting, which gave the film some physicality. It looked better than some superhero films made a decade later (i.e. Thor: Love and Thunder, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, The Marvels, and The Flash). The third act had some excellent action sequences, mainly the fight between Spider-Man and the Lizard in the school (featuring one of Stan Lee’s best cameos), and the fight on the top of Oscorp Tower. It hit the appropriate superhero movie buttons. The Amazing Spider-Man did have a great teaser, showing Spider-Man’s point of view, and I would have loved more sequences because they were immersive.

The Ultimate Spider-Man comic book series influenced The Amazing Spider-Man. Marvel’s Ultimate series aimed to be an entry point for new readers and a more grounded version of Marvel’s characters. The Ultimate Spider-Man series was arguably the most successful in this universe. The Amazing Spider-Man followed two of the key elements of those comics: be more grounded, and show Oscorp as an omnipresent threat. One of the story threads in The Amazing Spider-Man was the mystery of what happened to Peter’s parents and why they disappeared. This made The Amazing Spider-Man a bit bigger. The Amazing Spider-Man does ramp home the character theme of ‘Who Am I’ because of Peter’s lost parents and later, dual identity.

The Amazing Spider-Man did focus on Peter’s high school days, something the Raimi film only showed briefly. It was nice that The Amazing Spider-Man showed more of Peter in high school, even though he was played by a 28-year-old man at the time. The Amazing Spider-Man had a more revisionist take because Peter reveals his secret identity to Gwen without any prompting. It was something common during this era of superhero films because Carol Ferris saw through Green Lantern’s disguise, and Lois Lane used her journalistic skills to find Superman.

The casting director did a great job finding talent. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were rising stars, having appeared in films like The Social Network and Easy A, and they went on to have great careers. Garfield wasn’t as nerdy as Tobey Maguire’s version of Peter Parker, but he was an excellent Spider-Man. He mastered Spider-Man’s humour and sarcasm, even when in the heat of battle. The reboot made the love interest a more active participant in the story. Gwen was a scientific wiz like Peter and was key to creating an antidote.

The Amazing Spider-Man may not be peak Spider-Man, but it was still a well-made film that time has been kind to. I would put it way above its predecessor. To a generation of fans, The Amazing Spider-Man would have been their introduction to the character, and they could have done a lot worse.