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

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Well compared to Spider-Man 2 which had a $200 million budget, and Spider-Man 3 which had a budget of $258 million, it is a bit limited. Even the reboot costs about $220 million.

That was $150 M in 2002 dollars, which is about $190 M today.

[Vid Electricz]

Have they stood the test of time?

Aesthetically, are they distractingly dated? Can I watch the film without being taken out of it by outlandish clothes and styles (80's films are often a victim of this)?

I'd argue that Raimi did a great job of keeping the aesthetic of these movies pretty timeless.

I will be very curious to see how TASM ages, on the other hand. It uses a lot of trendy, contemporary styles and technology that will look dated in only a few years time, given how often these things change.

[Anno_Domini]

That's one big thing to notice about TAS-M, imo, of how it relies on the "now" with the technology and what have you; Raimi's films did not, nor do rarely most CBMs.

[Vid Electricz]

Peter's phone, for instance, will look positively ancient in ten years time.

It's like in 80's/90's movies when they pull out their Zach Morris cell phones. lol.

The Nolan Batman films are examplary of what creating a timeless comic book movie should be. I can watch Batman Begins and nothing strikes me as dated. It could easily take place today, even though it was made almost ten years ago.

[Anno_Domini]

What works for Batman Begins with its technology as it feels like the technology doesn't quite exist yet(like the microwave emitter) or that Gotham's train could have existed back in the 80s like it could fit in a Burton-directed Batman film. And the same goes for TDK and TDKR where things feel like it couldn't be made in this day and age, but somethings feels like they could. It's a complete contrast with certain things in Nolan's trilogy that gives it an ageless feeling.

[Picard Sisko]

Things like cell phones and computers will age, but if the movie is good, its good. What matters is rewatch value.

Batman Begins doesn't have dated technology, but I find it hard to watch again after 7 years as if it came out yesterday. Its not a classic.

[Anno_Domini]

In 2013, I've seen it already and it still excites me to this day. The trilogy as a whole is what makes BB classic, so I'm not just saying BB is a classic like Godfather or anything. As a CBM and as part of one of the greatest trilogies out there, THAT makes it a classic.

[Vid Electricz]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Things like cell phones and computers will age, but if the movie is good, its good. What matters is rewatch value.

Batman Begins doesn't have dated technology, but I find it hard to watch again after 7 years as if it came out yesterday. Its not a classic.

A good movie IS a good movie, you're right.

I definitely consider Batman Begins to be a classic: It had a good solid, thematically sound and emotionally resonant script, wonderful, subdued direction, an excellent cast, a fresh and inventive take on the character which acknowledged much of the characters history while also maintaining a sense of verisimilitude to the spirit of the Batman character that no filmic incarnation in had yet managed to do.

Begins also has a very high rewatchability factor. I never catch myself checking my watch when viewing it.

TASM is not in the same league.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

In 2013, I've seen it already and it still excites me to this day. The trilogy as a whole is what makes BB classic, so I'm not just saying BB is a classic like Godfather or anything. As a CBM and as part of one of the greatest trilogies out there, THAT makes it a classic.

Its as much of a classic as Spider-Man 1 or X-Men 1 IMO.

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

A good movie IS a good movie, you're right.

I definitely consider Batman Begins to be a classic: It had a good solid, thematically sound and emotionally resonant script, wonderful, subdued direction, an excellent cast, a fresh and inventive take on the character which acknowledged much of the characters history while also maintaining a sense of verisimilitude to the spirit of the Batman character that no filmic incarnation in had yet managed to do.

Begins also has a very high rewatchability factor. I never catch myself checking my watch when viewing it.

TASM is not in the same league.

I disagree. I find it rather difficult to watch after all these years, but of course, its all just a matter of perspective. Its too early to tell, but I feel that TASM has just as much rewatch value as BB.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Its as much of a classic as Spider-Man 1 or X-Men 1 IMO.

I can definitely agree with the bold because I really love Spider-Man as well.

But X-Men? It's a fun watch, but that's about it. Nothing in the league of Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I disagree. I find it rather difficult to watch after all these years, but of course, its all just a matter of perspective. Its too early to tell, but I feel that TASM has just as much rewatch value as BB.

I start twitching in my seat and looking down at my watch after the first hour of TAS-M. With how much I talk about TAS-M re-doing the origin which isn't needed, it's still leaps and bounds better than anything else in TAS-M.

[Picard Sisko]

To each his own!

[bapi]

I saw both TASM and SM in last 4 days and Raimi's Spider-Man is still excellent. It's very compact, well-written and has some memorable scenes. And it's almost 11 years old, unbelievable. Meanwhile TASM is worse and worse, reminds me Green Lantern right now. Spider-Man 2 has got some bad, bad dialogues and stupid moments but actions scenes are still wonderful and probably the best I ever saw in any comic book movie!
I still love first two movies and it's not important if both movies are 9 or 11 years old.

[Picard Sisko]

I think if anything, the dialogue was vastly improved from the Raimi films.

[Anno_Domini]

It was improved(don't know if I can say vastly), but that doesn't mean the dialogue can't be improved again for TAS-M 2 from the first film even.

[Picard Sisko]

I thought the dialogue in TASM was as good as it really could have been. It can be improved, yes, but not that much.

[Anno_Domini]

To each their own I suppose. I feel like everything about the script can be vastly improved and that includes the dialogue.

[kedrell]

No, the Raimi stuff hasn't aged well, IMO. Not that I really ever was much of a fan of any of it to begin with.

[Creator]

When the dialogue is written horribly, the acting feels stale and stiff (especially the romance) and there are far too many cheesy and over-the-top scenes, that's what dates the film for me. Raimi's movies are riddled with all of the above.

[kedrell]

Macy Gray instantly dates the Raimi franchise all by herself.

[Creator]

Why do people keep saying that music dates a film, "Bad To The Bone" was playing in Terminator 2, and that movie is still one of the best action/sci-fi films of all time?

[kedrell]

I don't necessarily think music dates a film. But Macy Gray actually is IN Spider-man1 and that's different.

[Venom75]

How many of you guys still get that 9/11 vibe from the original film? I just can't help feeling that the whole September 11th attacks cast a shadow on the movie,esp. with all the early images of the World Trade Center in Spidey's eye and the one trailer that was pulled where the robber's chopper gets stuck in a web between the Twin Towers. Kinda makes me sad a bit.

[Anno_Domini]

I only get the vibe when the New Yorkers were throwing stuff at GG. The vibe from seeing the American flag used to be there, but it isn't after seeing the flag show up in other ways in the trilogy.

[Creator]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I don't necessarily think music dates a film. But Macy Gray actually is IN Spider-man1 and that's different.

Well, you have a point there.

[Anno_Domini]

Oh yes, a popular artist at that time definitely dates a film that he or she is in.