I can only imagine the only reason you genuinely like Spider-Man 1 over the sequel is because you don't really watch them as movies, but just grade them on their comic book accuracy.
No, I found it accurate enough - but the first movie had an even balance between Peter Parker's personal life, and his superhero career - which is why I like the character so much - both aspects are interesting.
2 was just "Peter Parker mopes or is a regular guy and doesn't do anything so Tobey can show off his acting chops - oh yeah, this was supposed to be a Spiderman movie, right?"
It's like watching a Terminator movie where 90% of the movie is Ahnold fixing a toaster or doing yard-work. The story was unbalanced.
And are you kidding me about the villains? The villain in SM2 is worlds better than SM1.
SM1 had an actual villain. Doc Ock was another emo do-goody wuss. And not in a way that has depth. More in a way that's just annoying.
Doc Ock's motivation was brilliant when compared to the Green Goblin's motivation which was, essentially, he so craaaaaaazy.
It seemed to be the same motivation to me. Green Goblin is so craazy cause of gas. Doc Ock is so craaaazy because he has tentacles wired to his spine that tell him what to do.
I'll believe that gas will make you crazy. Believing that robotic prosthetics can talk to people and turn eeevil? That's just stupid.
That's more than you can say for Willem Dafoe, who seemed to just roll his eyes at a comic book movie and chew scenery.
That's pretty much what an archenemesis archetype has to do.
And last, but perhaps most important, there are no close up shots of a Dr. Pepper can in Spider-Man 2, nor does Macy Gray perform.
What's weird is that if I remember correctly, Macy Gray was old news loong before Spiderman 1 even went into production.
