Alright, we know that the second of the reboot Spider-Man films came out a couple of months ago, and I think it would be a good time to debate on which of the planned trilogies do you prefer (since we can honestly say the majority of us didn't like the 3rd Sam Raimi film). This can be argued based on story, acting, screenplay, vibe, accuracy...anything that you want.

For me, I am more leaning towards the older ones because I think they are executed better (though I can admit that having to see an origin story again might play a factor in how I decide this) but I think that taking some combinations between both movies would have made it into a wayy better movie trilogy. The execution and the telling of the story was better for the old, but the newer ones are trying to be more accurate in terms of the comics (a student was surprised when I said I knew what would happen in the end of the Amazing Spider-Man 2 because of the comic timeline), I prefer Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone over Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, especially when Andrew is better at throwing those sarcastic lines, and obviously with better technology, you would expect the effects to be better, there were huge moments when the new movies just go off in terms of pacing and the plot didn't flow as well compared to the old one.

play4fun : I would probably have to go with Spider-Man if it is the one from the early 2000's, probably only becaause I have not gotten around watching the Amazing Spider-Man series yet.

I've seen all three Raimi movies, and I've seen the first Amazing Spider-Man movie. Of the four, I'd have to say I liked the Amazing Spider-Man better. The Raimi movies are still good, but I can't take them quite so seriously.

I prefer the old Spider- Man movies over the new ones. In fact for me the new Spider-Man movies are bad I don't like the the new guy that plays Spider-Man or the way the new Spider-Man acts. the only reason I will even watch the second one is because I do like Emma Stone and that is why I will not be watching the next one. Now the old Spider-Man movies for me were great I really loved them and I don't see how anyone can like the new ones over the old.

I too have seen the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and The Amazing Spider-Man, and I must say that Andrew Garfield's acting skills are amazing. That said, Spider-Man 2 is pretty much my favorite movie of all time. The plot points are almost perfectly executed, and it connects on a much deeper level than The Amazing Spider-Man. It has everything: Horror, comedy, drama, action, and more and knows exactly where to place each one for maximum effectiveness. We have a harder time relating to Garfield's Peter Parker because he is so much more shallow than Maguire's Peter Parker. And he was meant to be that way, I realize. But if doesn't mature like the Peter Parker of Raimi's trilogy did in Spider-Man 2, then the appeal of Spider-Man is lost. Spider-Man is supposed to be the wise-cracking, vulnerable everyman in contrast to someone like Superman, who has a strong sense of morality, but rarely lightens up.

This is why Spider-Man 2 was so good. The Peter Parker of that movie was vulnerable, so vulnerable, but he overcame strong odds against him to triumph and become who he needed to be. The movie's main theme is that of becoming who we need to be, despite any pressures against us. This is why Spider-Man 2 triumphed on so many levels. It wasn't preachy, yet left us with a greater desire to be our own Peter Parker. And for that I love it.

Spider-Man 3, however, was so much more depressing. It wasn't a downright terrible movie, but it was more about regret than anything else. I hated to see Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy end on the note it did.

Spider-Man was OK, but it just didn't cut it very well upon a rewatch. It was dramatic and well done, and showed a lot of Raimi flair, but the action sequences don't hold up nearly as well as they did in 1999.

Imo, Spider-Man 2 > The Amazing Spider-Man > Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3.

I haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, though.

I prefer the new Spider Man movies. I am not really a fan of either to be honest. I prefer Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America. But if I had to chose one I would rather the new one. I think that it is funnier than the old one, and that Andrew Garfield is a better actor. Also, Emma Stone is a plus

I prefer the newer ones, the older ones were better witht he story, execution stuff, but I felt that the newer ones were easier and more fun to watch and because of this, I paid attention more to the small details. Then of course, there were the graphics, which I feel were great in the newer ones.

play4fun : I have seen all the Sam Raimi ones and both the amazing Spiderman 1 and 2 but if i had to choose amazing is better

Marc Webb did a pretty good job at making the movies and Sam Raimi's will always be legend. However as a huge fan of the comics I found a lot of flaws with "The Amazing Spiderman". Granted "Spiderman" didn't follow the comics either but it took "The Dark Knight" and "Man Of Steel" approach to it and strayed from the comics a bit. The goal of TAS was to make it as close to the comics as possible but I didn't like how they started of with the Lizard. Overall he plays a pretty minor impact on Peters life. I would have loved it if they had incorporated Kingpin or The Big Man into the film. Then in the second movie instead of Electro they should have had Dr.Octopus with Green Goblin. The two could have had a good hatred and rivalry going on. This way they could have also added Venom into the third movie. What I didn't like about the second one however is the Green Goblin backstory. They lead up to Harry transforming into the Goblin (which I didn't like either, it should have been Norman) then and get rid of him after 5-10 minutes.

Both movies have their ups and downs. Personally I will always picture Toby McGuire as Spiderman mainly because he's who I grew up with.

I don't really like the spider-man movies that much. But here is my opinion.

The "Spider-Man" series, AKA The Old Ones.

I don't like Toby McGuire very much, I think he was a lousy super hero. Other than that, the first was a solid movie.

The "Amazing Spider-Man" movie, AKA The New Ones

It's pretty much the same story line as the old, but just with a better main actor. I also like the girl better, as I thought she acted more like a teenager than Kristen Dunst did. But the movie was so forgettable! There was nothing original; it was 'just a spider-man movie'.

So I have to lean towards the very first film as my preferred choice.

I like the old spider man better, mainly because I sort of grew up with it. My step dad was crazy about Marvel, so granted everything that he saw i saw so it holds nostalgic memories for me.  The amazing spider man is alright and has more action but my heart still lies with the old spider man. Every time I think of spider man, I just think of toby.

I found Spiderman 2 to be my favorite of the Spiderman Trilogy. Spiderman 3...Decent action scenes, but there was soooo much filler that I had to skip most of the movie just to get to the punching. I also didn't like Tobey McGuire's screaming..."MARY JANE!!!!!" "AAAAAHHH" "HAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-------"

TAS,while I found the shades on the first costume and the MECHANIZED webshooters, I enjoyed the movie more. Andrew Garfield is funnier to me, and I love his moments with Aunt May.

In my opinion The amazing spiderman was the better one because well the 3rd of the early ones ruined the movie trilogy to me.

It's hard to choose, but liked the original 3, and don't really see what was wrong with the 3rd 1. It was less serious than the 1st 2, but still liked it. Mostly liked it for adding the Venom story line into it.

I'd go with the Raimi Spidey movies. Tobey Maguire wasn't that good with quips, but he did an excellent job as an honest, hardworking, naïve Peter. Even though the Raimi trilogy wasn't really faithful to the comics, you can tell he was a huge Spider Man fan. It shows in just how much care was put into each movie.

The Amazing trilogy, on the other hand, is more faithful to the comics, but is darker. Not everything needs to be dark. Andrew Garfield is a better Peter than Maguire in so many ways, but there's just something about Maguire's performance... I dunno. Garfield is absolutely terrific with quips, awkward scenes, and emotional scenes. He just doesn't come off as innocent as Maguire's Peter.

The Amazing movies are great, no doubt, but there's just so much charm, care, and great chemistry w/the cast members in the Raimi trilogy. It feels wrong not to go with the Raimi movies