The Rami/Maguire Spider-Man didn't suck at being Spider-Man. He wanted to quit in the second film, that was it.
Peter couldn't handle life in the second film because of the nature of his dual personas and responsibilities. He fell on his face because he needed his glasses. He wasn't depicted as being inept before he got his powers in the first film. Just a ****ing nerd that got bullied like a little *****, just like the comics.
Norman's accident in the lab is hardly "tragic". His hubris and company got the better of him.
What main female character in these films aren't kidnapped or in danger by the villains? Vicki Vale, Chase Meridian, Pepper Potts, Rogue, Gwen Stacey, Lois Lane, Rachel Dawes, Miranda Tate, etc. It's a common trope. It's only more apparent because Mary Jane is prominent throughout. Each film makes sense of it though, so I don't see the problem,
- SM1, Norman finds out from Harry that the one person that Peter truly loves (other than Aunt May, whom he attacked before) is MJ. So what does he do? He nabs her to **** with Spider-Man. Makes sense.
- SM2, Ock needs the tritium. He goes to Harry's like, "bring me Spider-Man and I'll give you more". Ock doesn't know where to find him, so Harry, being the ***** he is, puts his friend's life in danger by telling him about Peter. Ock has meant Parker, they've talked about women, romance and ****. So what does he do? He sees Peter sitting with the chick he was talking about and grabs her so Parker gets him Spider-Man.
- SM3, Venom/Brock has all of Parker's memories. What has been the constant thing for Peter in these films? Mary Jane. It makes sense, but at this point, the "kidnapping of MJ had gotten old". Venom should have just killed her or something. Just because it was poorly done in 3 doesn't mean it's bad in the first two. The thing to take away from it is being Spider-Man can potentially harm his loved ones. Mary Jane isn't the only one put in these situations, Aunt May is too.
- Norman doesn't apologize. In fact, he plans to stab Parker in the back as he distracts him because he's an evil mother ****er. Ock doesn't apologize either. The message there (which I think is very poignant and true) is that to do what's right, you have to make sacrifices. That's what Spider-Man is all about. Ock didn't want to die a monster (another common trope with old horror movie monsters) and instead sacrifices himself for the city.
I hate Spider-Man 3 and think the Uncle Ben/Sandman retcon is garbage, but that is the first time we see a villain apologize in the films. It also has a message about forgiveness, choices and misunderstanding that I thought was okay.
Suicide? Norman's scene is right out of the comics. It's fine. Done in by his own glider. Who didn't want to see that? Ock? He doesn't really commit suicide, it's more like martydom. Sandman? Doesn't die. Venom? Spider-Man killed him.
Hardly rinse and repeat. We could say that about any superhero movie, or any sequel in general. Spider-Man is a good movie, Spider-Man 2 is a great film, Spider-Man 3 sucked and was a disappointment (like most if not all movies of these types of franchises). I'm no Raimi fan boy, but he did fine in my book. That Spider-Man 4 crap about Vultress an **** is pure conjecture on Deckard's part. Nobody knows if Raimi really intended to have "Vultress", and really, it seems more producer driven like Venom was. I bet that idea was Avi Arad, the same Man responsible for these Webb ASM flicks. Let's remember, Spider-Man 3 originally had Sandman and Vulture in the mix. No "Vultress", no Venom. Raimi intended to have those two classic baddies in #3. The studio ****ed it up, not Raimi.
If he wanted "Vultress", why then did he want Vulture back in 2006? Hmmm. Nah, couldn't be Sony. I can't wait to see the ASM series get driven into the ground by the same suits.
