Top 10 Reasons Why Spider-Man 3 is Better Than The Amazing Spider-Man 2

All characters in this movie were interesting. Sandman, Harry, Peter and even Venom all had their fair share of screentime and development. The only somewhat good character of TASM 2 was Electro and even then he pales in comparision to SM3's characters.

Personally, I thought Spider Man 3 was decent. I nevery understood the hate for that movie. It was cool

Hear me out. A common complaint people have with 'Spider-Man 3' is there's too much going on. Whilst that is true at least it's all connected well with the main theme of the story, revenge. It shows how we all have a dark side and those who allow revenge to consume them can do the most bad. Because the movie is not incoherent or hard to follow the multiple plotlines never bothered me much. But if you think the movie sucked because of that then there's no defending 'The Amazing Spiderman 2', because there is no plot. The movie is roughly 90% exposition, the rest is set-ups for future movies. No character development, no solid narrative, and the first Amazing Spider-Man movie might as well not even exist in the context of this movie.

Personally I was never bothered by the sub-plots, because in the end they're all interesting and relevant to the main plot, which is a good one.

This just comes across as a desperate attempt to try and appease the fans of the comic books by saying "This movie is just like the comic books, therefore it HAS to be better". They turn Harry Osborn into the Green Goblin, but because we as the audience have no connection to the character (aside from one scene with him and Peter) his transformation comes across as meaningless, and Spiderman cracking jokes at inappropriate times when he should be saving people. Oh yeah, and killing off Gwen Stacy at the end, it's obvious that the writers only put that in because it was in the comics, and because it doesn't have any consequences or long lasting impact on the characters or story in general it just comes off as simply another death.

Yup, as much as the fans love to rip on Venom in 'Spiderman 3' he at least had a motivation for his villainy, as shallow as it was (basically just ruin the life of the person who ruined his). And I actually think Sandman was a great misunderstood villain, a poor guy desperate for money who unfortunately got mixed up with a bad crowd. Also I'm sure even the movie's haters can agree that Sandman's birth scene was excellent. And hey, at least when the villains got screen time they were fun to watch.
'The Amazing Spiderman 2's villains on the other hand were LAME. Electro was just an overly obsessed nerd who suddenly turns evil because Spiderman forgot his name (I'm not even making this up), Green Goblin only arrives late on into the movie and like Electro Harry Osborn's character changes for a contrived reason. Oh and Rhino at the end was only included for a sequel-bait move and to appease the fans. Utterly pointless.

Sandman and Harry are both excellently written villians with understandable and relatable villians, and even Venom wasn't that bad to be honest. As for TASM2, Electro is half-good and half-bad, while Harry totally sucked.

Want to know why the climax of 'Spiderman 3' is so exciting? Not just because it's a visual spectacle, but because of the huge hurdles Spiderman has to overcome. Not only does he have to fight Venom (who matches Spiderman both in physical strength and speed), but also a sand colossus. Because of the severe disadvantage Spiderman is at it adds to the tension of the scene.
In 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' there's no 2 on 1 fights. Green Goblin and Electro work together, but they never double team Spiderman. Harry just lets Electro fight Spiderman 1 on 1, and because we've already seen Spiderman beat Electro earlier the scene loses a lot of it's intensity and excitement, because we know Spiderman's gonna win.

I don't understand this. How does a movie from 2007 end up looking better than a movie made 7 years later with more advancements in technology? And especially since both movies were made at a similar budget. The only thing kind of creative in 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' are the Electro effects, but even then they aren't as unique looking as Sandman morphing into sand particles. Venom and the symbiote suit also looked great as well. The action scenes also look so much better in 'Spiderman 3'.
Oh, and on a side note, Doug Walker, you're out of your damn mind for thinking 'The Amazing Spiderman' movies have better action than the Sam Raimi trilogy (still like ya though).

TASM 2 focused too much on pointless explosions that they probably ran out of budget, while SM 3 used the budged much more wisely.

Back when the first Amazing Spiderman movie had that cliffhanger ending with the man in the jail cell the writers of the movie admitted that they didn't have a clue where it was going. Also the sub plot involving Peter Parker's parents, the room with the Sinister Six doors, it's clear the writers were just making this up as they go along. There were so many loose ends at the end of 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' (What happened to Harry Osborn? , What were the consequences for Gwen Stacy's death? , When did the Rhino come into the fray? etc).
Here's a lesson to be learned. Having cliffhanger endings don't guarantee a sequel. As 'The Amazing Spiderman 3' has now been cancelled these plot threads will forever be left hanging. Maybe it's for the best.

This is more of a personal preference but I always loved Danny Elfman's score for the Spiderman trilogy. It captures the heroic vibe of superheroes, is upbeat and dramatic sounding, and when it needs to be soft and sombre for an emotional moment, it really hits hard. 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' has Hans Zimmer doing the score, and as much as I love the work from Hans Zimmer this is one of his weakest efforts to date. I mean come on, dubstep in a Spiderman movie? That's just not right.
Also the Danny Elfman score is just instantly more recognisable.

At the end of the day what good is an action film that can't entertain you? And in this regard 'Spiderman 3' may have plot holes (big ones in fact) but the action scenes still remain enjoyable, the story feels very adrenaline fuelled with lots going on, and the movie is a visual marvel (pun entirely intended). 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' could work on those same grounds, but the movie is needlessly long at two and a half hours, filled with exposition, and looked worse than Spiderman movies from a decade ago, and all this does is bring the attention back to how bad the writing in this movie is.
Again this one is subjective, but if you just wanted to have fun with a film, plot holes aside I'm sure more people will enjoy watching 'Spiderman 3' over 'The Amazing Spiderman 2'.

I agree with this list 100%