My Review of SPIDER-MAN (2002)

Here is my question. Let's say that a newer, more interesting Spider-Man movie exists and it is objectively the "best" Spider-Man movie, all things considered. Let's also say that people can agree the newer one wouldn't exist without the foundation that was laid by the earlier one (this one). In other words, the formula had to be perfected by the early movie in order to be expanded, turned on its head, etc., by the new one. Does that make the first Spider-Man movie better, because the other ones WOULDN'T exist without it? Actually, is the new one better, because it is actually a higher quality movie? How much influence is enough to excuse the super linear plot and creepy acting of this old one? I just don't know. I tap away on this computer, as multiple application deadlines burn holes in my calendar, and think about these useless things.