How have the Spider-Man films stood the test of time? OPINION

[Picard Sisko]

Considering that the Raimi films are not classics (as most films aren't), they have aged pretty well.

As we said many times in other threads, the sequel to TASM will make or break the franchise. If the sequel is really good, then TASM will hold up pretty well. If not, then it will be forgotten.

[Spuzz]

Everything besides some CG shots have aged great.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Spuzz

Everything besides some CG shots have aged great.

I agree. And the CGI was never "bad," it was just getting a little outdated. The whole final swing of the first Spider-Man movie looks really good even today IMO.

[Rogue Kira]

I think The Trilogy has stood the test of time especially the 1st film. seeing spider-man on the big screen and swinging through New York for the first time was amazing. they were not without their flaws. but what movie isn't right?

[pr0xyt0xin]

If I had felt the three films were all that extraordinary to begin with I imagine they would've aged well. But to me they are more of the same mundane superhero flicks that existed before Hollywood realized superhero flicks could actually be quality movies. It falls in the ranks of the X-Men franchise (which I also believe to be FUBAR), Burton's Batman films and the first couple 1970's Supermans.

I see these movies as little more than "first attempts." And the best way to learn is from our mistakes.

[Rogue Kira]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

If I had felt the three films were all that extraordinary to begin with I imagine they would've aged well. But to me they are more of the same mundane superhero flicks that existed before Hollywood realized superhero flicks could actually be quality movies. It falls in the ranks of the X-Men franchise (which I also believe to be FUBAR), Burton's Batman films and the first couple 1970's Supermans.

I see these movies as little more than "first attempts." And the best way to learn is from our mistakes.

one could say that.

[Thundercrack85]

Does it really age if you weren't a fan of it in the first place? The dialogue was hokey. Cringe worthy at times. The special effects haven't held up well. Just look at the Green Goblin flying. Looks like a sixth generation video game opening. Spider-man's effects have held up slightly better.

[Picard Sisko]

BUMP.

I was wondering, do you guys think that TASM will stand the test of time? Or at least, do you think it will age better than SM1?

I think overall, the movie will age pretty well. Not as much as the Avengers, TDK, or even SM2, but I think it will still be enjoyable years to come.

[Anno_Domini]

I have no doubt that TAS-M will not stand the test of time. It's not a great movie to begin with.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I have no doubt that TAS-M will not stand the test of time. It's not a great movie to begin with.

But see that is your opinion. I think it depends on how good the sequels are. If TDK and TDKR were failures, no one would really care about Batman Begins, which I think aged just as much as the Raimi Spider-Man films.

[The Joker]

Batman Begins was more well received critically and with fans than TASM was. It also kick started the reboot craze in Hollywood.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Batman Begins was more well received critically and with fans than TASM was. It also kick started the reboot craze in Hollywood.

It was more well received upon its release, but that doesn't mean it would stand the test of time. I think Batman Begins aged a lot since 2005, and without TDK, it would have aged even more.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

But see that is your opinion. I think it depends on how good the sequels are. If TDK and TDKR were failures, no one would really care about Batman Begins, which I think aged just as much as the Raimi Spider-Man films.

But yet you did ask what others think. And I gave my answer, so why reply and make mention that it's only my opinion when of course it is? Expect everyone's answer to say 'Of course it will stand the test of time!'?

Originally Posted by The Joker

Batman Begins was more well received critically and with fans than TASM was. It also kick started the reboot craze in Hollywood.

Bingo.

BB has stood the test of time. Heck, I think it's gotten better through the test of time as more people have become to enjoy the film, especially with the Dark Knight Trilogy being complete.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

It was more well received upon its release, but that doesn't mean it would stand the test of time.

But it has so far. 7 years later it still holds up, and it has nothing to do with TDK. A great sequel has no bearing on it's predecessors quality, just like a bad sequel has no bearing on it's predecessors quality.

Spider-Man 3 has not hurt Spider-Man 2 in any way for example.

I think Batman Begins aged a lot since 2005, and without TDK, it would have aged even more.

You've no basis for that opinion. Especially considering all the major reboot franchises use Batman Begins as inspiration; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins#Impact

You don't use a dated movie as inspiration to reinvigorate a new franchise.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

But yet you did ask what others think. And I gave my answer, so why reply and make mention that it's only my opinion when of course it is? Expect everyone's answer to say 'Of course it will stand the test of time!'?

I was referring to your statement that it is not a great movie to begin with.

Bingo.

BB has stood the test of time. Heck, I think it's gotten better through the test of time as more people have become to enjoy the film, especially with the Dark Knight Trilogy being complete.

The movie has certainly gotten more attention since TDK, but IDK if its gotten "better" at all. It has certainly aged a whole lot. It would have aged a lot more if it weren't for the two sequels.

[The Joker]

How does a sequel help the previous movie from aging? Explain that to me. Spider-Man 2002 has aged in several ways, and the greatness of Spider-Man 2 can't do anything to stop that.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

I was referring to your statement that it is not a great movie to begin with.

Well that is the reason I don't see it standing the test of time. Because I don't feel it's a great movie to do this. Should I have added 'imo' for you to understand it?

The movie has certainly gotten more attention since TDK, but IDK if its gotten "better" at all. It has certainly aged a whole lot. It would have aged a lot more if it weren't for the two sequels.

So you must have the logic that a bad movie like Spider-Man 3 or Superman III makes films like Spider-Man 2 and Superman II go down in quality, yes?

Saying TDK makes BB a better film is a riot because BB is critically praised by critics and fans and was this way before TDK even came out.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by The Joker

How does a sequel help the previous movie from aging? Explain that to me. Spider-Man 2002 has aged in several ways, and the greatness of Spider-Man 2 can't do anything to stop that.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Well that is the reason I don't see it standing the test of time. Because I don't feel it's a great movie to do this. Should I have added 'imo' for you to understand it?



So you must have the logic that a bad movie like Spider-Man 3 or Superman III makes films like Spider-Man 2 and Superman II go down in quality, yes?

Saying TDK makes BB a better film is a riot because BB is critically praised by critics and fans and was this way before TDK even came out.

You clearly did not get my point. Batman Begins got very little attention upon its release, despite getting good reviews. If it was its own movie, or followed by a failed sequel, I'm pretty sure this movie would be forgotten. After TDK came out, many grew an interest in watching Batman Begins later on, and there was a bigger appreciation for the movie afterwards as well.

If it weren't for TDK, I don't think it would aged much better than TASM.

The circumstances for BB and TASM are also very different. BB came out 7 years after a failed Batman movie, which was considered one of the worst films ever made. It was also the first time we had seen the origin of Batman on film ever. With TASM, it was 5 years after a successful Spider-Man trilogy (despite SM3 being a "failure," it wasn't nearly as bad as Batman & Robin), and only 10 years since SM1, which told Spider-Man's origin. This was the reboot "no one wanted," so it did affect many critics opinion of the film unfairly IMO.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

You clearly did not get my point. Batman Begins got very little attention upon its release, despite getting good reviews. If it was its own movie, or followed by a failed sequel, I'm pretty sure this movie would be forgotten. After TDK came out, many grew an interest in watching Batman Begins later on, and there was a bigger appreciation for the movie afterwards as well.

If it weren't for TDK, I don't think it would aged much better than TASM.

You're not talking about aging, you're talking about attention. That's something else entirely. Lack of attention doesn't affect the quality of a movie. Nothing affects the quality of a movie except the actual quality of it itself.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by The Joker

You're not talking about aging, you're talking about attention. That's something else entirely. Lack of attention doesn't affect the quality of a movie. Nothing affects the quality of a movie except the actual quality of it itself.

Yes, I understand that. I was saying that the movie feels aged to me, and hasn't gotten any better. But its gotten some higher reception even recently just due to its attention after the release of TDK. I'm not the one who brought up critical reception.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Yes, I understand that. I was saying that the movie feels aged to me, and hasn't gotten any better.

You were using the attention from the sequels as some kind of argument to support your point. Sequels don't make previous movies better or worse, unless you're talking about enhancing the story by continuing it.

But movies on their own stand on their own two feet based on their own quality. If a movie needs a sequel as a crutch to make it good then it was never a good movie to begin with.

That is certainly not the case with Batman Begins.

But its gotten some higher reception even recently just due to its attention after the release of TDK.

Name a movie that didn't get more attention once a successful sequel to it came out.

I'm not the one who brought up critical reception.

You didn't have to. High praise from critics is just proof it was noticed and recognized for it's great quality.

[Picard Sisko]

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

You clearly did not get my point. Batman Begins got very little attention upon its release, despite getting good reviews. If it was its own movie, or followed by a failed sequel, I'm pretty sure this movie would be forgotten. After TDK came out, many grew an interest in watching Batman Begins later on, and there was a bigger appreciation for the movie afterwards as well.

Did Spider-Man 2 become forgotten because of Spider-Man 3? Did Superman II because of Superman III? Did X2 because of X-Men 3?

You said Batman Begins only became more popular because of TDK and this claim is bogus because if a film is only better because of a sequel, then the same can be said of how a film can be easily forgotten, which you even mentioned, if a following sequel is just plainly awful but that is never the case as well.

If it weren't for TDK, I don't think it would aged much better than TASM.

Even though Batman Begins is hailed as something that created the reboot trend or that Batman Begins even has better ratings than TAS-M, but yah, I definitely see how BB could have only aged as bad as TAS-M.

The circumstances for BB and TASM are also very different. BB came out 7 years after a failed Batman movie, which was considered one of the worst films ever made. It was also the first time we had seen the origin of Batman on film ever. With TASM, it was 5 years after a successful Spider-Man trilogy (despite SM3 being a "failure," it wasn't nearly as bad as Batman & Robin), and only 10 years since SM1, which told Spider-Man's origin. This was the reboot "no one wanted," so it did affect many critics opinion of the film unfairly IMO.

While TAS-M followed a successful Spider-Man trilogy, it also followed Spider-Man 3 which is hailed as the worst of the trilogy and still one of the worst CBMs made much like Batman & Robin.

And you're right, TAS-M gets flack for re-doing an origin(even though the origin part of TAS-M is my favorite of the entire film), it's not the only reason it gets the mediocre or bad reviews it gets besides the gathering that does really enjoy TAS-M. The poor villain, the poor plan, the poor characterization except for Peter and Gwen. It's not just the re-doing of the origin.

[Picard Sisko]

I'm done with this argument, but just to make a point, Spider-Man 3 is not even close to how bad Batman & Robin is. There are movies that fit in the worst CBMs ever made category: Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Superman III & IV, Supergirl, Fantastic Four, , Blade: Trinity, Judge Dredd, Elektra, The Punisher: War Zone, Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance, etc.

And the only poor characterization in TASM is The Lizard. Otherwise, the characters where perfect IMO.

My statement about Batman Begins getting more attention is not bogus either. A bad sequel won't necessarily take away from its predecessor, but a better sequel with critical and commercial acclaim can give the first one more appreciation.

Moving on. And I mean it, let's really move on from this discussion please.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

I'm done with this argument, but just to make a point, Spider-Man 3 is not even close to how bad Batman & Robin is. There are movies that fit in the worst CBMs ever made category: Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Superman III & IV, Supergirl, Fantastic Four, , Blade: Trinity, Judge Dredd, Elektra, The Punisher: War Zone, Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance, etc.

That's fine if you can make a list of worse CBMs, but Spider-Man 3 is terrible nonetheless.

And the only poor characterization in TASM is The Lizard. Otherwise, the characters where perfect IMO.

In your opinion, of course. Besides, you really like the film anyways. What I am saying is someone who didn't like the film.

My statement about Batman Begins getting more attention is not bogus either. A bad sequel won't necessarily take away from its predecessor, but a better sequel with critical and commercial acclaim can give the first one more appreciation.

And a worse sequel should hurt the previous film as well if we take it that a better sequel will only make a previous film better in some way. Making the quality of a film work one way and not the other is indeed bogus as it then becomes very flawed logic.

Moving on. And I mean it, let's really move on from this discussion please.

Of course we can move on, but I will definitely reply if you do as well btw.