Re: Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy vs Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy
Even if one prefers the Spider-Man character, the three Batman movies were much more consistent and satisfying.
The first Spider-Man film was okay (even back in 2002 the popularity of that film eluded me), but Spider-Man 2 was and is still amazing (still better than that reboot we got last year). Just excellent all around. The third film falls into okay territory, and you could tell Sony was calling the shots on the secondary characters. You could tell Raimi was being yanked between Avi Arad's orders (Venom, Peter acting like a douche) and wanting to tell his own story. I enjoy big chunks of SM-3, but I can't watch the whole film through anymore. Had SM-3 been as good or enjoyable as the second one, it'd be a tie between the Raimi Spider-man trilogy and Nolan's Batman films.
As for TDKR, I really don't see the hate it gets. Sure, the villains weren't as good but the movie was a satisfying end. I felt satisfaction at TDKR's ending, whereas SM-3's ending left me unmoved. It's sad, really, that Raimi's Spider-man trilogy made so much money for Sony and Marvel -- and yet Avi Arad wouldn't give Raimi creative leeway to finish the series the way he wanted. Nolan had no such problems with TDKR.
And as for Mary Jane vs. Rachel thing, I preferred the Mary Jane over the course of the first two Spider-Man films over Rachel. But SM-3's Mary Jane irritated me more than Rachel.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine Channing Tatum grinding his crotch in a human face, forever."