skyjedi2005 said:
There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.

Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.

When adapting a character who's been published non-stop for 40+ years, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be 'faithful' to the work.

Should you be faithful to the original 12 page origin story? Or the years he was a hipster college student with two hot girlfriends, often considered some of the best years? Why not get his origin out of the way ASAP, and then be faithful to the years he was married to supermodel Mary Jane, my personal favorite years? Or the 'Ultimate Spider-Man' retellings, or the "Lost Years" re-tellings, or one of fifty other retelings of his origin? Would a almost exact recreation of the story where he fought Man-Wolf, the lycanthropic astronaut, be better than an adapted version of the Green Goblin saga?

And I persoanlly thought Spiderman 1 and 2 both had a great deal of depth.

(It seems unfair to label accomplished directors with varied carreers 'b-movie horror directors' on the basis of their first films. On that same line, since Lucas made Star Wars early in his career, he's still a Great Director.)