View Single Post
Old 04-26-2013, 04:05 AM   #80
henzINNIT's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,906
Default Re: Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy vs Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

Originally Posted by Grommers View Post
Now with SM3, You have a very different approach, very formulaic movies, however there is some clear success behind this franchise for this reason.

It's let down is, how much does Peter really grow? He gets better at his powers etc, and at the end of spider-man 1, he realizes he is spiderman, than he realizes he may not want to be spider-man and needs to balance his life, and than I honestly dont know what you could argue the third one is about.
3 is about being humbled, learning the strength of forgiveness over vengeance. Parker is being consumed by his own fame and slipping down an ugly path. It is a pretty interesting theme for a superhero story and could have been very powerful if handled better.

You can see the elements in play: Spidey fueled by revenge, coupled with his friend Harry who has gone the same way. Peter learns from Harry how to forgive, and then you have Sandman as the man who did wrong who wants forgiveness, and on the other hand you have Venom who is too consumed by vengeance to be saved.

Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
Nolan also can't direct a fight sequence to save his life.
Very true. He has a lot of strengths but action set-pieces are not among them. I found the Bats vs Bane brawls to be a step up though, not in choreography, but in pure intensity.

Originally Posted by kedrell View Post
By that arguement then Spider-man 3 already broke that curse long before TDKR came around. It's fresh on RT and more than half(a majority) of the GA liked it and it was the highest grosser WW of the series.

But I don't accept those terms at all. Whether the curse is broken is completely a subjective thing and each person will see it differently. As far as I am concerned it really doesn't matter if TDKR was a good movie so as to break the curse(though as far as I'm concerned it's not a good movie at all) since I regard TDK as one of the worst CBM's of all time and so a crappy entry negates the possibility of a complete trilogy of good movies. As far as I'm concerned the only good one is BB.

The main point is that no measurable success is real proof that a movie is actually good. That will always be up to the individual. Most like Nolan's trilogy and I accept that. Most of the GA likes Bay's TF trilogy as well.
Post of thread? Maybe

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316 View Post
What makes TDKR a better film than Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 is the fact that the film has a much more streamlined feel to it. It never feels like it's being diverted by pointless, unrelated side plots and you can actually feel its approach towards a conclusion, plus, what side plots there were actually felt developed and had successfully completed their respective arcs. X3 had numerous side plots that either went nowhere or ended too abruptly, and Spider-Man 3 was just all over the map.
This is why I find this comparison interesting. These two trilogies are the only two that have been seen through by one director.

I don't agree that SM3 was all over the map. If anything, I feel it had a slightly more natural progression than TDKR did. It came straight off of SM2, with Harry's inevitable turn and the turbulence of Peter and MJ's relationship. TDKR had the burden of following TDK, which was arguably a perfect end to Nolan's Batman story. There's a huge amount of time spent in the third film putting the pieces back in motion.

It's not fair to judge X-Men: The Last Stand by the same token, because Brett Ratner basically just shat out all of the progression Singer had built with the first 2 X-Men films. I'll try not to get into this though haha

henzINNIT is offline   Reply With Quote