The word "reboot" is tossed around a lot these days. Usually, the connotation is negative. I admit that I often cringe when I hear something is being rebooted, particularly when the current iteration of the franchise is only a few years old. While reboots used to be primarily limited to franchises that didn't meet financial expectations or were received poorly, we're now hearing rumblings of even the biggest success stories – like Nolan's Batman movies – headed toward a reboot.

As fans of comics, games, movies and television, we've come to accept the process as a part of the life cycle for modern entertainment. Just think of reboots as a creative team change up on your favorite comic book. It's the same story interpreted in a new way. As we move forward into an age where continuity is less acceptable in the bid to gain more viewers (or readers), love it or hate it, this is something we have to learn to live with as fanboys and girls. This is the train of thought that gave birth to my excitement for The Amazing Spider-Man Sam Raimi's Spider-Man set the benchmark for superhero adaptations. If Bryan Singer's first X-Men unlocked the door, Spider-Man kicked it right the hell down. Followed up by Spider-Man 2 and the less popular but still financially successful Spider-Man 3 , Raimi established the web slinger as a box office sure thing. But the original Spider-Man movie had the benefit of being in that first wave of modern superhero blockbusters, with each sequel built outwards from there. Since then, most of Marvel's movies – whether at Marvel Studios or someplace else – have more or less followed the same template. So here we are. Raimi and his cast are gone and an all-new crew is on board for a complete overhaul. But just as fans were wary of the original Spidey movies when news and photos started pouring in, so too is the case with Amazing Spider-Man. I can't tell you how many times I've seen comments that call out the Spider-Man costume for looking like a basketball.Fanboys have this amazing ability to never be held accountable for their changing opinions. That's not an accusation; it's happened to me too. We tend to have a gut reaction to any bit of news, positive or negative, only to go back on our words later down the line. We might never speak about it (you know who you are), but we've all retroactively loved or hated things, despite the comments we left on forums forever ago. Such is the case with Raimi and Spider-Man, and I'm willing to bet even Nolan's Batman films will suffer the same fate. So with the memories of Raimi's Spider-Man waning, where does that leave the reboot?The obvious details are in the back-to-basics approach. In terms of scope, everything is scaled back. To some degree, the mandate of a reboot demands as much. Amazing Spider-Man seems to suggest an origin, one villain, and one love interest. By that logic, we're back to that original Spider-Man template I mentioned earlier. But here's the thing: The Amazing Spider-Man is shaping up to be everything that Raimi's Spider-Man wasn't.As much as I like Tobey Maguire , his Peter Parker was flat. He was a geek, but not a geek I wanted to root for. I liked him because I knew he was supposed to be Peter Parker, but I never really connected with him. Andrew Garfield (Doctor Who street cred aside) is an actor that I can buy in both roles – as Peter Parker and as Spider-Man – when Maguire never sold me in either.Garfield, combined with director Marc Webb , screenwriter Steve Kloves (Harry Potter), and the lack of a J. Jonah Jameson character gives the impression that The Amazing Spider-Man will have a renewed focus on two things; high school and humor. Both of these are huge contributions to the success of Brian Michael Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man , which rejuvenated the character in the comics even before the first Spider-Man movie came out. Half of the reason that I found such a disconnect with Raimi's Peter Parker could very well be because of his mere 30 minutes spent in high school before he moved onto living in the big city, rejecting Norman Osborn's money.More importantly, we've seen Kloves' knack for adapting J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series to the screen with its humor intact amongst the more dramatic story beats. There's no reason to think that the same won't be true for Spider-Man. The other half of why I couldn't connect with Raimi's Parker is that he just wasn't fun. He offered a few lame quips on occasion, but they fell flat. Raimi's films were more focused on the dramatic trifecta of Peter, Harry, and Mary Jane. That's well and good, but it was at the expense of good ol' web slinging fun. Hopefully Kloves, with the addition of Webb in the director's chair and Garfield's natural charm, can offer up the kind of experience that Raimi's movies never could.We've got to move beyond the notion of a reboot as being a bad thing. Regardless of the generational positives – there are 12 year-old fans that likely didn't see Raimi's Spider-Man in theaters – reboots serve to refocus the passion we have for our favorite characters and properties. Would you rather see a disinterested filmmaker tackle a fourth installment just to make a quick buck, or a whole new group of talented folk who want to make the best movie they can? Reboots are the way of the future, and it's time to get on board.Are you excited for the Spider-Man reboot? What was missing from Raimi's films that you hope will make its way on screen this time around? Has your opinion changed on reboots in general? Sound off in the comments below or follow me on Twitter And just a heads up for the Hero Worship loyalists -- due to San Diego Comic-Con next week, there will be no column! We'll be back the week following.