Spider-Man: Younger Does Not Mean Better.

So currently, I've been reading articles and reviews and comments about the newest addition to the Spider-Man franchise and I have been more than slightly irritated about them. Since his appearance in Civil War, he has been dubbed "the best and absolute perfect casting for Spider-Man," before his solo movie has even been released and even if it is true, it isn't fair to state things like that as a matter of fact, because the truth of the matter is, he's a third try at a franchise that has never really failed in their first movie.

Tobey Maguire's take on Spider-Man in the early 2000's was amazing and was honestly what I believe to be the first time Marvel had a breakthrough with a superhero movie. It was an amazing movie, with amazing actors and actresses trying their best to make something as silly and childish as a comic book (not saying that they're either of those things, it's just how I've heard them described) into something a lot more relatable and accepted for a general audience to enjoy without having to feel like a "nerd" for seeing it. It was an instant blockbuster and the sequels were no less, granted, the third was a bit more jam packed because of studio interference but it was still widely enjoyed by fans.

On the next attempt for a Spider-Man franchise was The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. This reboot was highly doubted to be better to than the original, mostly due to its re-imagined costume and a different, a bit darker looking style. Yet despite not living up to its predecessor, it still did very well, gaining a 77 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. (For reference, the original received an 89 percent score.) The second movie in its series had the same problem as the originals did, trying to fit more villains than it could handle into its movie. Couple that with the contract complications, the movie would not go on to be a trilogy like the Tobey Maguire version did.Now let's talk about Homecoming. I won't bring up the Rotten Tomato score because it hasn't been shown in theaters yet, though I should say it has been very highly praised by critics. It stars a younger actor (Tom Holland) as its leading role of Spider-Man, unlike the others, this is a bit more accurate to its comic counterpart. Also, his acrobatic background helps him sell it as a more believable Spider-Man, though I wouldn't say he's had the best body type for Spider-Man. That I would have to give to Andrew Garfield, his skater build was a lot more reminiscent of the Spider-Man in the newer graphic novels/ comics. Tom Holland also has an amazing and diverse supporting cast, as well as great writers. Honestly, I don't doubt that he will be an amazing Spider-Man. The point I'm trying to make is, all of the Spider-Man movies have been successful (Except for Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was a bit of a box office bust) and this movie might not be any different, but it still isn't fair to say that Tom Holland is the definitive Spider-Man when others before him have poured their souls into the character, making their respective movies shine in their unique ways. Sure, he may be younger, but that doesn't exactly translate to better. I think that maybe we should take a step back from this movie and revisit the other ones and admire how much effort was put into those movies. And besides, we can all agree that even if this is the best Spider-Man movie it'll never have a J.J. Jameson as good as JK Simons. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie opening weekend.