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

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Webzpinner

Have you ever read ANY classic X-Men comic? (not the crap published today as an X-Men book, but the classics from the 60's -80's) X3's cure story and the characters were great, but they pissed on it by combining it with a pathetic "Dark Phoenix" crap story that didn't need to be there. The cure story would have been enough. With the "death" of Xavier and Cyclops, and the swirling vortex of Wolverine-stripping fire at the end, just made it really stupid. Take out the Phoenix bits, and the film isn't that bad.

All three X-Men movies took story elements from the comics, but I'm simply saying X3 felt like a "comic" is something bogus to say when a comic book film is simply that, a film about a COMIC character(s). Every CBM will have the feel to it. I mean, X2 used the premise for "God Loves, Man Kills". It's nothing new.

I didn't find the cure story all that fascinating myself. I much rather prefer to see the Phoenix storyline conclude as it was hinted at the end of X2. While that conclusion did seem silly, that was the only worthwhile story element that kept me from walking out of the theatre when I saw X3. Needless to say, if Singer did direct X3 the cure storyline wouldn't have even been there as the main goal was to use Emma Frost in controlling Jean Grey.

I thought MAYBE you were right... MAYBE Superman II was less campy... but I just watched the Richard Lester (original) version on Netflix... The thing is more campy than the 1960's Batman. Terrance Stamp is hilariously melodramatic in his BeeGee's disco suit. Ursa and Nod are just played for laughs. The fight in Metropolis with the ice breath, flying toupees, etc, are way too silly for my tastes. Watch the Richard Donner version, you'll see a MUCH better film.

I own both copies, and I still enjoy the original cut of Superman II. You may say it's "much better", but I like both versions equally and better than the first Superman film. The remarks you just made about Zod, Ursa and Non can be said, but for that time, no one had thought of that. Those three looked terrifying as hell when the movie was released. I mean, one can even say Superman's red trousers looks awful on film, but again, during that time, people complained less.

Did we? All I saw in Singer's films was Wolverine. They cut the scene of Cyclops as a boy in an orphanage, to make more room for Wolverine in the fight club. They cut Storm as a teenage "weather goddess" in Kenya. All we got was Wolverine, Wolverine, and more Wolverine. I would LOVE to see an X-Men movie with the REAL first class.

It may not be what YOU wanted in the usage of Storm and Cyclops, but they were still in Singer's films and we needed something new and fresh for First Class. To get as far away from Singer's films is something fortunate. Liabilities are definitely taken, and that was the case with First Class.

He looked great, and I have no problem with the hands and feet, since that WAS his original mutation, but Beast was super athletic and acrobatic, NOT Quicksilver or The Flash. Ever see a Gorilla outrun a cheetah? No... their feet aren't designed for that, and neither are Beast's. They should have had him leaping about and spinning, destroying targets in the danger room (similar to Hulk's leaping in Avengers, but with grace and flourish), not running in circles.

With a film about MUTANTS, do you really think they cared to explain how Beast was able to run so fast or why he even runs so fast?

I don't see them building on it much. The split is already formed. The trust was broken before they even decently forged it. There is no way the scene in X3 of younger Xavier and Erik recruiting Jean would ever happen.
Instead of rushing to get Magneto, they should have let that arc play out for another movie or two. Build the relationship. SHOW Erik and Charles building Cerebro. Show Erik teaching at Xavier's institute. Show him as a caring individual, not just some lost Nazi attack dog. Magneto's terrorism isn't purely based on hatred and retribution, but also compassion for his people. I don't get that from First Class's Magneto.

No one expects Charles and Erik to recruit Jean anyways since First Class really has nothing to do with Singer's films besides certain cameos, and with that being said....those two can reunite and team with eachother in a sequel. Magneto isn't really a full-fledge villain, just right now trying to create his own identity as Charles has created a "Professor X" identity. Both of them are still making their paths and they could still team up for a common enemy.

You obviously aren't a parent, and never had children begging to go see a movie. It wasn't hilarious. The only ones who laughed were braindead teenagers who still find fart jokes to be the end-all of humor. Some of us don't need swear words to enjoy a movie. Captain America, Avengers, Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Harry Potter, etc all manage to entertain without F-bombs, and still make good money. And if Marvel/Fox HAD to have the F-bomb, because it was so pivotal to the plot of the movie, at least rate the movie appropriately. The MPAA is being far too lax in it's ratings, and making it very hard for parents to properly gauge a film's content. Luckily, I watched First Class before letting my kids see it (was planning to take the family opening weekend, but heard about the "scene-stealing humor" and cancelled last minute). Because of Fox's choice, instead of getting $50 from me (two adults and two kids tickets, plus refreshments), they got zero.

So for a film that's rated PG-13 for "Intense Sequences of Action and Violence, Some Sexual Content Including Brief Partial Nudity and Language", you get mad over a F-bomb? Wouldn't you expect some bad language since it's even in the rating? I'm glad you decided to see it first, but language is why it's even rated that. In a PG-13 film, one F word can be used. Plus...shouldn't you have been more concern with the rating having partial nudity anyways? I would think that would trump a curse word.

Also, if this means anything, when I am a parent, I would actually be more cautious of "god damnit" being used such as in Batman Begins just because of what I believe in using God's name in vain.

It's not that "braindead teenagers" are fine with the language, but it's mostly of the fact that if you understand the rating first before you want to take kids to watch it. Which brings me to this...

I'm just surprised Marvel allowed it in a flagship franchise. I expect that in Punisher, Ghostrider, or Blade... they are quirky "Marvel Knights" characters. I lost respect for Marvel because of that, and let them know.

Isn't that really like if a parent blames Eminem for his songs? It's not Marvel/Fox/etc.'s fault. You're the parent, it's your job to stop and think if you should let your kids watch it or listen to certain music. I didn't know any studio had to appease to a certain group, such as parents.

[Spider-Aziz]

I HATE a lot of Chris Claremont's written X-Men stories, they're overrated and blah, like Phoenix and Xavier and the Shi'ar princess

As for the Spider-Man films, they are comedy with great action scenes, I can't consider any of them gold without associating the word comedy. My top 10 comic book movies don't include any of the Spider-Man films

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Isn't that really like if a parent blames Eminem for his songs? It's not Marvel/Fox/etc.'s fault. You're the parent, it's your job to stop and think if you should let your kids watch it or listen to certain music. I didn't know any studio had to appease to a certain group, such as parents.

While I couldn't give a **** about bad language and children (Terminator 2 was my childhood favourite), there should be a responsibility of the studio to make things appropriate for their target audience.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

While I couldn't give a **** about bad language and children (Terminator 2 was my childhood favourite), there should be a responsibility of the studio to make things appropriate for their target audience.

What's not appropriate of using ONE F-bomb when it's ALLOWED?

[Venom75]

I think it's unavoidable that as the years pass by,and with great and complex films like The Dark Knight,Avengers and Iron Man being released,that certain moments in Raimi's Spider-man series will not hold the test of time and,in retrospect will look super cheesy. Hell,even at the time some parts of the films were cheesy(esp. in Spider-man 3). But I still love all the films and the fun is there everytime I catch them on TV or pop a film in the DVD player.

-As far as the original goes,the Goblin suit and his dialogue have always been rather lame. Dafoe was great as Norman,but everytime the Goblin speaks I roll my eyes. "We'll meet again,Spiderrr-maannnn!!" Good grief. Other than that,I really have no problem with the film. MJ seems a bit stuck up,but I don't mind her too much. The final swing is still epic.

-Spider-man 2 holds up pretty well too. I still consider it one of the greatest comic book movie ever. The only thing that bothers me now is Spidey losing his powers. He doesn't want to be Spider-man anymore,so Peter loses his powers? Ridiculous. There will be plenty of days when he doesn't feel like being Spider-man. What if he was sick,or tired or had something else on his mind? Would he keep losing his powers then?
The action scenes,esp. the train fight,remains to this day the greatest action scene/fight ever(with all due respect to the end of Avengers and the truck chase in Raiders of the lost ark).

-Spider-man 3 is probably the most flawed and despised of the series and it's also the one that I look back on with not disgust,but... disappointment. I loved the film when it first came out,but time has really made me see how messed up it is. Honestly,I still like the film. I do. It's really fun and still has alot of awesome moments. But,obviously my major beef is with how Venom and the symbiote were screwed over. Alot of you obviously hate or dislike Venom,so you don't care. But,being a HUGE Venom fanatic,I was very upset and let down with how he was treated and used. Venom was a footnote in this film. Not exactly the way I wanted the debut of my favorite villian to turn out.
Also,watching this film now and then looking back on the series I really see what a horrible character MJ was. She was a selfish,petty and unlikeable tramp. I keep asking myself,"Why does Peter like her??" Raimi and Dunst clearly didn't do MJ justice. Oh,and I kinda agree with alot of you here. I don't like how the series was "all about a girl."
Plus,you have the Sandman is Ben's killer,the waste of Gwen Stacy and playing the symbiote for comedy. Just...Ugh.
Like I mentioned,I still really like the movie and don't believe it deserves all the hate it gets,but it clearly wasn't as good as it should've been.


Despite all the negative I've listed here,as I've said I still love and adore Raimi's series,flaws and all.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Venom75

I think it's unavoidable that as the years pass by,and with great and complex films like The Dark Knight,Avengers and Iron Man being released,that certain moments in Raimi's Spider-man series will not hold the test of time and,in retrospect will look super cheesy. Hell,even at the time some parts of the films were cheesy(esp. in Spider-man 3). But I still love all the films and the fun is there everytime I catch them on TV or pop a film in the DVD player.

I completely agree, and that is an excellent point you make. These comic book films are NOT classics like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Titanic, etc. These movies can be viewed like they were made yesterday. I LOVE comic book movies more than any others, but like most films they will always age.

Even the Avengers will age, and be looked at as cheesy. That scene with the Avengers doing their poses as the camera circles them looks really cool, but I say its corny. In 5-10 years, people will look back on that with different eyes and notice how much it has aged.

[Abudefduf]

Originally Posted by Venom75

and with great and complex films like The Dark Knight, Avengers and Iron Man

I know I'm the only one who thinks this but I'd take S-M2 over these two movies any day of the week.

And by the way, I think the trilogy has aged fine.

S-M1 is fun and entertaining (even though some of the special effect have aged badly), Tobey was at his best as Peter and I liked how over the top Dafoe was as the Goblin. The overall tone of the movie is kinda playful and goofy but it adds to its charm.

Spider-Man 2 is still the best, thanks to Molina as Doc Ock. But in this one I'm not particularly fond of both Maguire and Dunst, even though they don't really ruin the movie. S-M2 is also the better one when it comes to the story.
Basically, it has aged well.

Spider-Man 3 is mediocre, but I don't dislike it, I just don't care. Special effects are still good, but since the story is lacking they can't really save the movie.


With that said, I think a better Spider-Man film can be easily made, that's why I have high hopes for TAS-M.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Venom75

I think it's unavoidable that as the years pass by,and with great and complex films like The Dark Knight,Avengers and Iron Man being released,that certain moments in Raimi's Spider-man series will not hold the test of time and,in retrospect will look super cheesy.

I disagree. None of these films will age all that gracefully. Effects will date, dialogue will become stilted and certain decisions will be looked on lame ideas.

-Avengers already is a little cheesy. Some of the lines fall flat and will only become more noticable. The effects will become old fashioned in no time. The alien villain that book-ends the film is hammy as hell.

-Iron Man has the rock soundtrack that I already find cheesy. That'll no doubt date the movie.

-Dark Knight will probably do the best, but it has issues like the Bat voice which have become big jokes already. The Two-Face effect was always pushing the boundaries of believability but I can see that being looked at as silly soon enough.

Raimi's Spider-Man has a tone that is designed to be cheesy, which might actually benefit the film in the long-term. It's funny how quickly certain things will date though.

[Picard Sisko]

The Raimi movies were supposed to be campy, so I think its less to be concerned about. The movie will probably age most with the special effects, but the 2002 film will always be "The Spider-Man movie" just as we will always know Superman or Superman II.

To me, the Avengers is incredibly cheesy already, and those one liners won't hold up for very long. It works for when the movie is first released, you have a good time, and want to see the movie over and over again. Within 5-10 years, it will age greatly.

Captain America is very corny and dry, so that will age incredibly fast. The Incredible Hulk didn't make a big enough impact, and I think it aged already. Iron Man 1 is still fresh, but it gets tiring very fast. Iron Man 2 sucked from the beginning and will be known as that advertisement for the Avengers.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

-Avengers already is a little cheesy. Some of the lines fall flat and will only become more noticable. The effects will become old fashioned in no time. The alien villain that book-ends the film is hammy as hell.

"Hammy as hell"? What was so "hammy" about the Chitauri? And the effects were outstanding. And they are twice as great as S-M 2's effects and they(S-M 2) still look incredible.

-Iron Man has the rock soundtrack that I already find cheesy. That'll no doubt date the movie.

70s rock is still enjoyable to this day. If it's enjoyable to this day, how would it date the movie later on? A LOT of people, including myself, would prefer to listen to AC/DC or The Clash rather than music you hear on the radio today.

-Dark Knight will probably do the best, but it has issues like the Bat voice which have become big jokes already. The Two-Face effect was always pushing the boundaries of believability but I can see that being looked at as silly soon enough.

Okay, seriously....you're just nitpicking at everything. The thread asked if the films overall have aged well or not....not asking about nitpicks.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

"Hammy as hell"? What was so "hammy" about the Chitauri? And the effects were outstanding. And they are twice as great as S-M 2's effects and they(S-M 2) still look incredible.



70s rock is still enjoyable to this day. If it's enjoyable to this day, how would it date the movie later on? A LOT of people, including myself, would prefer to listen to AC/DC or The Clash rather than music you hear on the radio today.



Okay, seriously....you're just nitpicking at everything. The thread asked if the films overall have aged well or not....not asking about nitpicks.

Calm down buddy.

In Avengers, I didn't say the soldiers were hammy, I said the guy that book-ends the film was. The guy who reports to Thanos at the end. He is full-on panto evil.

It's great that you like 70's rock, but I maintain that its use in Iron Man will date the film eventually.

Nitpicks or not, these are indicators that the Dark Knight will also suffer the ravages of age in time. It is inevitable.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Calm down buddy.

In Avengers, I didn't say the soldiers were hammy, I said the guy that book-ends the film was. The guy who reports to Thanos at the end. He is full-on panto evil.

It's great that you like 70's rock, but I maintain that its use in Iron Man will date the film eventually.

Nitpicks or not, these are indicators that the Dark Knight will also suffer the ravages of age in time. It is inevitable.

"Calm down buddy". Didn't know I was upset? Why is that term even used on a forum just because they can't really have any solid reasoning for their remarks?

The guy who reports to Thanos isn't hammy at all. He seems to be just the regular old "minion" we've seen countless times. The scenario might be hammy, but that's it.

If the music hasn't been outdated, I don't see it doing it to a film in the next thirty or so years. You may think the music is cheesy, but the music represents Tony and Iron Man in the MCU.

If it's still a good movie as Spider-Man 2 is, it won't age that much even if Batman's voice "bothers" some people

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

"Calm down buddy". Didn't know I was upset? Why is that term even used on a forum just because they can't really have any solid reasoning for their remarks?

People use that term when others aggressively refute their opinion. I've given my reasoning but you don't accept it. Cry me a river, if you don't agree that's fine.

[optimus2861]

My thoughts:

1. Spider-Man doesn't age very well as a whole, but the origin part of the movie is spot on. The spider bite, Peter first discovering his powers, Ben & Peter's conversation in the car, the wrestling match, the thief running away, Peter having to watch Ben die (an element that I don't believe is present in any other telling of the origin), Peter realizing what he's done when he confronts the thief - note for note excellent. Stan couldn't have done it better himself. It is sullied by the thief falling to his death, though.
2. Spider-Man 2 still holds up quite well. No complaints here.
3. Spider-Man 3 didn't hold up through its running length, never mind over a few years. Up to the end of the first Spidey/Sandman fight, the movie hums along with some charm (I really love the key to the city scene, with Spidey hamming it up for the crowd while the band plays the old 60s Spidey theme), but derails badly once the black suit appears. Oh, what this move might have been if not for executive meddling..

I'm still not sure if I'm going to like the reboot. It's a big old wait-and-see.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

People use that term when others aggressively refute their opinion. I've given my reasoning but you don't accept it. Cry me a river, if you don't agree that's fine.

Because your reasons are laughable. The music that hasn't died out for the last forty or so years will outdate a film? Someone's voice will age a film?

THOSE are your reasons? Lol.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Because your reasons are laughable. The music that hasn't died out for the last forty or so years will outdate a film? Someone's voice will age a film?

THOSE are your reasons? Lol.

Lol. Lol.

The juxtaposition of throwback music in a contemporary film will indeed date the film in time.

The bat-voice, Harvey's face, these sorts of things will likely go down as laughable elements later on which is especially note-worthy in films that take themselves so seriously. The seriousness of Nolan's films will date them. This is my opinion taken from the fact that people are already poking fun at them.

I await your witty retort, and I'll let you have the last word so that you feel like you've won.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Lol. Lol.

The juxtaposition of throwback music in a contemporary film will indeed date the film in time.

The bat-voice, Harvey's face, these sorts of things will likely go down as laughable elements later on which is especially note-worthy in films that take themselves so seriously. The seriousness of Nolan's films will date them. This is my opinion taken from the fact that people are already poking fun at them.

I await your witty retort, and I'll let you have the last word so that you feel like you've won.

Please do let me have the last word because I oh so need it

Again....reasons to poke fun at the film, sure, but for the FILM TO AGE?

Spider-Man 2 hasn't aged yet, but I can poke fun at so many elements of that film. You don't seem to understand the difference.

[Havok83]

Ive watched the entire trilogy in the last 2 weeks again for the first time in ages and just finished 2 and 3 this weekend.

SM2:

Well its better than I originally thought it to be. I always thought it was the most overrated of teh films a I didnt quite like it as much back when it came out. Never liked Ock as a villian and I enjoyed SM1. After watching SM1 and being dissapointed at how cheesy and childish it was, I now see that SM2 fixxed many of my issues as it did take itself a bit more serious and showed some character growth within Peter as well as how the film was presented. Goblin was a very cringeworthy villian so Ock in comparison was quite refreshing.

Back then I might have given this an 8. Now its closer to a 9. Im able to appreciate it a bit more for what it is and see at the time of release, it really was one of the best comic movies out there

[Spider-Fan83]

I remember not liking the original movie very much when it first came out (was very excited for the film as a long time spidey fan) saw it in theaters and was very disappointed with it...

so, when 2 came out I didn't even see it til years later (on tv) but when I finally got around to seeing it I actually liked it, much better then the first

when I heard about them making a third I followed news/production on it

[El Payaso]

Not very well IMO. All that cheese Raimi loves to load these movies with felt dated the very day they were released. Those Shazam jokes and such... was never good. The acting were many times a caricature done natural.

[Spuzz]

Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz

As for the Spider-Man films, they are comedy with great action scenes, I can't consider any of them gold without associating the word comedy. My top 10 comic book movies don't include any of the Spider-Man films

I respect your opinion but HIGHLY disagree with it.

[Toby#1]

Have they stood the test of time? I'd say yes. I think mostly, due to Toby, these films were a huge success.

[Scar Predator]

They have held up quite well and I think they will continue to do so. 1 & 2 were extremely well written. Spidey 3 was flawed mainly because pathetic versions of the symbiote mythos and Eddie Brock were crammed in as an afterthought. Yet even that film wasn't unenjoyable as a whole.

Based on what I've seen with ASM, the tone of the Raimi Trilogy was that of the Silver/Bronze age. That's probably the dominant impression that the general population has of Spidey, so I don't look for the new Spidey flicks to brush aside the Raimi ones like Nolan's Batman did with the older Bats films.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Not very well IMO. All that cheese Raimi loves to load these movies with felt dated the very day they were released. Those Shazam jokes and such... was never good. The acting were many times a caricature done natural.

Cheese doesn't really date though. Things that go for "cool" often suffer more. I wouldn't be surprised if TASM looks worse than Raimi's films after 10-20 years.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Cheese doesn't really date though. Things that go for "cool" often suffer more. I wouldn't be surprised if TASM looks worse than Raimi's films after 10-20 years.

Seeing as how the '02 film already has that feeling, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right.