Spider-Man 2, released in 2004 and heralded as one of “the best screen adaptations of comic book heroes,” won consistently favorable reviews among critics and fans alike (Steve Persall, Tampa Bay Times). Tobey McGuire plays Spider-Man (Peter Parker), perfectly capturing the charming high-school outcast while humorously embodying the unique struggle of balancing school, work, and saving New York. The original comic writer, Stan Lee, designed the character of Spider-Man in 1962 to fill a gap in comics; despite the child and teenage audience, most superheroes were adults. Peter Parker, with all his school struggles, became wildly popular for his relatable charm. Spider-Man 2 captures this same unique spirit of adventure and reality that make it so easy to like and connect to Peter Parker.

Unfortunately, the “fresh” ratings of Rotten Tomatoes turn sour for the third and final episode of this Spider-Man franchise. Spider-Man 3, released in 2007, loses sight of McGuire’s charm and bombards the story with seemingly random villains. Spider-Man 2 scores 93% on rotten tomatoes while Spider-Man 3 receives a mere 63%, and even that seems high to me. The second in a reboot of the Spider-Man movie series, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, released in 2014 and starring Andrew Garfield, echoes the failings of Spider-Man 3 in its oversaturation of villains and plot twists. Both Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 stray away from Stan Lee’s original charming character, prescribing too much to this overused notion of bigger is better.

Spider-Man 3, the final film of the original franchise, is comical—only sometimes on purpose—for its over-the-top nature. Spider-Man must fight Green Goblin and the Sandman, all the while being partially possessed by an evil symbiotic suit (Venom). If you know anything about Spider-Man, you probably know that a key part of his character revolves around his Uncle Ben’s death, which always occurs near the beginning of the story and influences him as a character from then on out (spoilers!). Well, Spider-Man 3 has the audacity to create a retroactive continuity (ret-con) that changes the identity of Uncle Ben’s killer from a burglar that Peter failed to stop to the Sandman. Peter could have stopped the thief before he committed a worse crime, but he didn’t, so he dedicates the first two movies to saving people, driven by his uncles words: “with great power comes great responsibility.” Spider-Man 3 ruins the notion that Peter was in some way responsible for his uncle’s death, thus partly invalidating the personal meaning that quote has to Peter.

Some of Spider-Man 3’s shortcomings can be attributed to the issues it has during production. The director, Sam Raimi, had some disagreements with the studio (Sony), which insisted he add the popular Spider-Man villain, Venom. This symbiotic suit latches onto Peter and turns the lovable, puppy-eyed Parker into a manufactured pseudo-emo that results in some pretty laughable dance montages. Mixing three villains with overlapping plots while manipulating Peter’s lovable qualities made the final film of the franchise a sheer disappointment. Raimi shares some of the blame, but the studio’s cash-grab mentality to insert a misplaced but more marketable character in the film is a grim foreshadowing of how some future superhero films would fall short. They don’t lack in characters, but an oversaturation of ideas does not create a spectacle, it only bombards the audience and de-emphasizes the importance and value of any one character.

Unfortunately, Sony didn’t learn from their first mistake, and they re-booted the franchise, this time starring an effortlessly cool Andrew Garfield. This casting is my first issue with this film. Garfield lacks the original appeal of the Peter Parker who is down on his luck and bullied at school. Garfield’s Peter already seems cool with his swishy hair and skateboard, giving him a different, less sympathetic charm. With this new, hip, Peter aside, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was again oversaturated with villains. Spider-Man has to fight Electro, The Green Goblin (again), and The Rhino, while numerous other characters appear in cameo for the sole purpose of setting up future films. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also manufactures a strange conspiracy theory surrounding the death of Peter’s parents, and Uncle Ben’s iconic line in this franchise is butchered into “[Peter’s father] believed if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things.” I think out of all the shortcomings of this film, mutilating Uncle Ben’s famous and eloquent line into an angry stutter is perhaps the worst failure.

Both Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 prove that bigger is not better, and most of the time it’s worse. Part of the problem is that Sony tried to milk a character for all it’s worth, and even tried again when their first attempt started to derail. After the first two films in the original Spider-Man franchise, Sony committed the fatal mistake of trying to make it larger than life. A relatable high school kid wasn’t enough anymore; the studio needed higher stakes and more characters to market into their own film franchises. However, this isn’t what audiences want. Intense action sequences are cool and exciting to watch, but if the film lacks humanity—real human connection—then it’s uninspiring and forgettable. People crave connection, and the real way these studios could succeed is not by making it bigger, but bringing the story back to the character behind the superhero. In some of the newest superhero films, such as the Avengers series, the entire world is sometimes at stake, but it’s hard for humans to comprehend destruction on that level, so instead of making the solution more crucial and dire, people lose interest. You can’t cover-up poor character development with action sequences, and I hope the newest reboot film of Spider-Man—Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)—remembers this.