So now we've seen both, which was the best?

[Jexx]

In my personal experience on this site (which is like a week or two), I've noticed that Dragon seems to take an aggressive approach to his debates with others (well, with the topic of this movie anyway).

Yea, I talk about that.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Jexx

In my personal experience on this site (which is like a week or two), I've noticed that Dragon seems to take an aggressive approach to his debates with others (well, with the topic of this movie anyway).

Yea, I talk about that.

Yeah. Somehow he's turned something that we do quite often on here, which is guess how a story will play out, and turned it in to me being desperate.

I don't get it? lol

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Smegger56

Errr, nooo. What I have done is taken a plot point that excited me and played out an idea we could see, like we do with sequels if I'm correct. We discuss what we could see in the sequel that may carry over from he first.

That was some desperate attack there Dragon. But please, go on.

Can I ask does anyone else not do this? You know, talk about sequels and what we may see or like to see?

There wasn't any question about a sequel. We're discussing this film. Peter is supposed to stop a killer- especially because he's partly responsible for the killer being allowed to kill. Webb made a mistake by convoluting, twisting and pointlessly drawing out the story, just so this film can appear to be different in some way.

[Tony Stark]

While Garfield's performance was excellent and will hopefully lead to much more, Webb's film was severely flawed. There is more in common here with Batman Begins than with Spider-man.

Raimi's was the better Spider-man film, and perfectly captured the Lee/Ditko, Lee/Romita era of Spider-man.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Dragon

There wasn't any question about a sequel. We're discussing this film. Peter is supposed to stop a killer- especially because he's partly responsible for the killer being allowed to kill. Webb made a mistake by convoluting, twisting and pointlessly drawing out the story, just so this film can appear to be different in some way.

WHAT? lol.

I'm discussing what they may do with the sequel. Again, you tell me what is wrong with that? What's wrong with guessing?

Also, you don't like it. I GET IT. I do. You see it as needless and convoluted, I see it as different and exciting. I like this take on it.

Once again, if I choose to guess how they're going to take this, then I will. Like we all do film story points in films.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

While Garfield's performance was excellent and will hopefully lead to much more, Webb's film was severely flawed. There is more in common here with Batman Begins than with Spider-man.

Raimi's was the better Spider-man film, and perfectly captured the Lee/Ditko, Lee/Romita era of Spider-man.

I disagree. I would say Raimi's film is a better film, but Webbs is easily a better SPIDER-MAN film.

When I watch a film that's an adaptation, I try to watch it as a film first and judge it as an adaptation second. I will say, SM2 and SM1 are tighter films. But as a lifelong Spider-man fan, ASM was leaps and bounds more fulfilling to me. I'm okay if you change small details (organics vs. mechs, don't care) but what I look for is the characters. You have to stay true to the CHARACTERS. Raimi missed quite a lot in that respect for me.

PETER:
I think Raimi did a passable job with Peter in the Spider-man movies, and bad with Spider-man. To begin with, Spider-man NEEDS to have a persona. In his early career, Spider-man is as different from Peter Parker as Batman is to Bruce Wayne. Spider-man is Peter's outlet. When he's Spider-man, he's confident, cocky, he acts like the swashbuckling heroes he grew up reading about. He's the person he's always wanted to be, but was too afraid and shy to try and be. It's the representation of what we all did as little kids when we dressed up and pretended to be superheroes. Except Peter gets to LIVE it. Raimi completely missed that.

Also, Peter was shy and a bit awkward in the comics, but nowhere near the borderline socially impaired Peter we saw in the movies. A lot of this was the writing. It was just very cheesey and never felt natural. They never really showed us Peter's genius. The kid is a great engineer and has a wonderful scientific mind. That was barely touched upon in the Raimi movies. At least the inclusion of the webshooters and Peter being integral in helping Connors develop the formula showed more of that. Also, by the time Peter hit college, he was becoming more confident. He wasn't the social misfit, he was pretty popular, and more of a loner by choice. He had a bit of a bad boy image. But Raimi persisted in showing his COLLEGE classmates bully him with spitballs and such the same way a freshmen in high school would, which was just a bit much to me.

Now, Raimi did handle the sense of guilt and responsibility Peter felt, but overall, it wasn't the Peter I wanted to see. It wasn't the Peter I grew up with.

MARY JANE:
I don't think I have to say much about this. Raimi butchered the character. I really enjoyed the character of MJ in the comics, but the only thing movie MJ had in common with her comic counterpart was the red hair. She was bland, uninteresting, and by the second movie unlikeable. (At least I felt she was in the 2nd, I think most agree she was pretty unlikeable in the 3rd.) This is a HUGE flaw for me in these films. Raimi starts off his first movie saying "This is a story about a girl" Granted, I wasn't fond of that right off the bat, but it's even worse when the main girl is a BAD character. I cringe when I re-watch scenes between Dunst and Toby in the movies because the dialogue is so cheesy and forced. It was just very, very frustrating.


And really, that is where my main problem lies with the Raimi films. Of his main two characters, MJ and Peter, one was handled all right, and one poorly. That was his main relationship, and it was an uninteresting one. I could go on about other things that bothered me about the films, but that is the main criticism. It's simply not good storytelling if the relationship between the two main characters is handled poorly. Sure, you can make successful movies despite it, twilight has shown us that, but it won't be the best story.

ASM has it's flaws. I'll be the first to admit it. But it got the MOST important elements right: Peter and Gwen. I love watching the scenes between Peter and Gwen in this movie, and that instantly makes the re-watchibility factor ten times higher for me.

[ChildfreeAggie]

Okay, a second viewing actually made the lackluster opinion I had of the movie even worse; being more aware of what was about to happen I was able to notice even more and I'm telling you, the errors in this version of Spider-Man were utterly glaring. Where everyone is coming up with this delusional "Andrew's take on Peter Parker IS the Peter from the comics" I don't know; my Dad still has his stash of Spidey comics from the 60's and 70's and I'm telling you the character I saw on screen was the furthest thing from Parker I've ever seen.

Raimi was a sincere fan of the classic comic and that is what he pieced together so well in his origin; Spider-Man was in every way the better movie and a far more accurate representation of Peter and of Spidey's abilities. And if I hear one more time about how Raimi's Spidey didn't quip enough, I say again, when you're fighting for your life and you're watching your loved ones quite possibly die in front of your eyes, you're not going to be thinking of your next one-liner. And, hate to break it to you, but Spidey's jokes in this movie were just, well, NOT FUNNY. Case closed.

This film was atrocious, a 5/10 for me, Raimi's Spider-Man origin was better. The end.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by ChildfreeAggie

Okay, a second viewing actually made the lackluster opinion I had of the movie even worse; being more aware of what was about to happen I was able to notice even more and I'm telling you, the errors in this version of Spider-Man were utterly glaring. Where everyone is coming up with this delusional "Andrew's take on Peter Parker IS the Peter from the comics" I don't know; my Dad still has his stash of Spidey comics from the 60's and 70's and I'm telling you the character I saw on screen was the furthest thing from Parker I've ever seen.

Raimi was a sincere fan of the classic comic and that is what he pieced together so well in his origin; Spider-Man was in every way the better movie and a far more accurate representation of Peter and of Spidey's abilities. And if I hear one more time about how Raimi's Spidey didn't quip enough, I say again, when you're fighting for your life and you're watching your loved ones quite possibly die in front of your eyes, you're not going to be thinking of your next one-liner. And, hate to break it to you, but Spidey's jokes in this movie were just, well, NOT FUNNY. Case closed.

This film was atrocious, a 5/10 for me, Raimi's Spider-Man origin was better. The end.

I have a collection of most of the essential Spider-man's, so I grew up reading the 60's comics (and the modern comics at the time), and have watched every cartoon iteration of the character aside from the newest USM cartoon. And I completley disagree with your assessment of the film. But that's the fun part about this I suppose. He is a character that has existed for a long time and can be interpreted many ways.

However, I wasn't referencing quips when I made my post (if you were referring to me). I was referencing to the Spider-man persona in general. I will say, I thought ASM could have pushed the envelope even more, but what we got was leaps and bounds better then previous films.

And then the MJ thing...well yeah. I honestly can't see how someone could defend Raimi's MJ if you like the comic MJ.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

It always seemed like the Raimi/Dunst version of MJ was just Ultimate MJ, only less dynamic of a character.

And with Andrew Garfield, I'll admit I've never really delved deep enough into 616 to fully understand and follow it, but his portrayal was pretty much Ultimate Spider-Man. Andrew's version of Peter just seemed like he got on his feet quicker. Where Ultimate Peter would've gone outside of the school to avoid suspicion of Spider-Man somehow being inside the building, Andrew's version jumped right out and immediately started working on getting rid of the problem.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by PSYLENTGuardian

It always seemed like the Raimi/Dunst version of MJ was just Ultimate MJ, only less dynamic of a character.

And with Andrew Garfield, I'll admit I've never really delved deep enough into 616 to fully understand and follow it, but his portrayal was pretty much Ultimate Spider-Man. Andrew's version of Peter just seemed like he got on his feet quicker. Where Ultimate Peter would've gone outside of the school to avoid suspicion of Spider-Man somehow being inside the building, Andrew's version jumped right out and immediately started working on getting rid of the problem.

And that's pretty bad when you think about it. Ultimate MJ was a solid character, but she was really more of an updated Gwen. Though she was still easily more likeable then the movie MJ.

And Ultimate Peter and 616 Peter (in terms of personality) are pretty much peas in a pod. USM Peter was just a teen in the modern world. But besides that they weren't really different in terms of their characters. At least for the first few volumes. The last few volumes I stopped reading, right around after Ultimate Clone Saga.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

And that's pretty bad when you think about it. Ultimate MJ was a solid character, but she was really more of an updated Gwen. Though she was still easily more likeable then the movie MJ.

Yeah, I always figured that Ultimate MJ was 616 Gwen in red hair. Definitely more likable than Dunst's MJ.

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

And Ultimate Peter and 616 Peter (in terms of personality) are pretty much peas in a pod. USM Peter was just a teen in the modern world. But besides that they weren't really different in terms of their characters. At least for the first few volumes. The last few volumes I stopped reading, right around after Ultimate Clone Saga.

Ah, I see.

[webs]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

The trilogy v ASM?
Raimi's portrayal of Spidey (the character) v Webb's portrayal of Spidey?

For me ASM didn't top Spidey 2, sorry, not for me. The villian was WAY better, everything else in ASM tops Raimi's take on the Spidey universe.
Webb needs to have a kick arse villian that I feel weight and stakes when Spidey and the villian clash and I just didn't feel that in ASM.

To be fair to Webb, I thought the villians in BB and IM were rubbish but that didn't ruin my enjoyment of those movies as it didn't ruin my enjoyment of ASM.

This..!!

[AF3619]

is it wrong if i like TASM final swing better than SM1´s?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Tell me if i can post the final swing of TASM

[I Am The Knight]

Not one bit.

[Jexx]

It'd be illegal to post the final swing of the movie, unless it's acquired by means other than bootleg vids. >.<

Heck, I'm sure ripping the final swing from the DVD would be legal, but if it's from bootlegged versions of it, that's a no no. :P

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by Jexx

It'd be illegal to post the final swing of the movie, unless it's acquired by means other than bootleg vids. >.<

Heck, I'm sure ripping the final swing from the DVD would be legal, but if it's from bootlegged versions of it, that's a no no. :P

ok ,thanks i asked just because someone posted the Norman Osborn from ASM video btw
what final swing do you think is more epic
SM1,SM2 or ASM?

[Jexx]

ASM... slingshot out of crane, epic slow-mo fall, web-rush parkour, web to da face? Yea, def ASM.

I don't even remember the final swings of SM1 or SM2, and I watched them a month or two ago.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by AF3619

is it wrong if i like TASM final swing better than SM1´s?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Tell me if i can post the final swing of TASM

I'm confused why at the end they stopped the web shot after about a foot/metre.

My favorite part of the entire sequence is when Spidey propels himself through the crane, it's like a Battlestar Galactica Star fighter leaving the hanger.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by jexx

asm... Slingshot out of crane

snap!

[Jexx]

They wanted to tease us and leave us wanting more... :P

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

I disagree. I would say Raimi's film is a better film, but Webbs is easily a better SPIDER-MAN film.

I will quote this and agree

Maybe Ditko & Lee co-writing was a bad idea

[spider-neil]

In the Raimi movies there was only ONE time where I felt Spidey acted like Spidey

'Hey kiddo, let mum and dad talk'

That was classic Spidey but there isn't nearly enough of that in 3 movies

[Visualiza]

I have to disagree with the general consensus regarding the female leads. In my opinion, Raimi handled MJ quite admirably; there was so much depth and conflict in her characterization that it's making me wonder if we're all talking about the same films. From the family issues, to the slew of troubled relationships, to her professional struggles, fawning over Spidey, and everything in between, I think Raimi arguably did more justice to MJ than he did Peter. This isn't to say that everyone should LIKE the portrayal, but saying that Raimi did nothing with the character is just daft.

I think the problem arises from Dunst's acting, which was horrendous. She's a terrible actress, which still puzzles me because her work in Interview With the Vampire is among the best child performances I've ever seen to this day; it's a wonder that her skill diminished so severely as she grew up. Anyway, Raimi gave the character plenty of room to breathe, grow, and dazzle the audience. In this case, it wasn't the script or the director so much as it was the actress and her limited range. Sad, but true.

Besides that, the romance between her and Peter was very well portrayed. It's established from the beginning that she's his childhood crush, he sees her with the bad guy, the family problems, dating his best friend, sharing the awkward and tender moments, and finally wins her over. In the end, he does the responsible thing and at least tries to leave her out of his life. I'm not seeing where there was room to include much more outside of a sex scene. Argue about camp, cheese, whine, or whatever flavor you like, the love story was undoubtedly one of the more well-handled aspects of the Raimi movie.

With TASM, almost everything is flipped on its head. This time we have a very capable, charismatic young actress that can captivate an audience with her presence...yet she's woefully underutilized. Gwen Stacy was a soulless corpse in this movie; Stone practically sleepwalked through the entire performance, and I attribute this to the abysmal writing and conflicted direction.

First of all, the love story between her and Peter was the most forceful, spoon-fed romance I've ever seen in a comic book flick. There was no indication that either of them were attracted to one another, and every time they were on screen together it felt as if they were just shoved in front of the camera for the sake of it. Damn near every scene of the two was like this, from when she intervened on Flash beating him up(What the Hell kind of resolution was that anyway?'Flash, why didn't you come to my house to study? Let's go to class, Flash' ...atrocious writing yet again), to the equally silly scene of them in the hallway after Uncle Ben scolds Peter. There was zero chemistry between the two; every encounter between them seemed so unnatural and forced.

With that being said, the non-existent build-up for their relationship was worthless. Why did he ask her to "uh, um, or maybe we could uh, oh..." in the first place? Why invite this strange kid to your house for dinner? Because it was in the script? The part that really sent me off the deep end was his big reveal on her rooftop...definitely a WTF moment. In and of itself, it was a slick move that was very clever and romantic, but again, their chemistry(or the lack thereof, rather) didn't warrant that, nor was there any good reason for him to reveal his identity to her in the first place. The happenings in this scene alone are among the biggest examples of the poor writing and misguided direction in the film.

Even the ham-fisted attempt at giving her character depth was a huge fail, when she opened up about her concern with her father leading a dangerous lifestyle. Where was this conflict ever illustrated throughout the film? Not once before that line was uttered do we see her pain in this regard or for that matter, an example of Capt Stacy suffering any work-related trauma(be it an injury, death of a friend/partner, crisis somewhere in the city, whatever) This movie didn't give me any idea of who Gwen Stacy was, and I find that to be a huge problem. There was no context to her character whatsoever; was she the popular girl or the loner? Does she come from a conflicted or loving family? How does she relate to Parker outside of being an intern at Oscorp(yet another poorly conceived plot device). Where was her wit, charm, and personality? There was no romance, love, or chemistry between the two whatsoever. Sharing a few scattered and poorly written scenes is not enough to show that. The conclusion was abysmal as well. Her father's death was rendered meaningless in the entire epilogue, from the moment she went to his house pleading with him to that crass smile she cracked in the classroom.

Once again, I attribute this more to the writing and direction than I do Stone herself. I'm every bit as excited as anyone else to see what she has in store for us in the sequels, provided the script is the right fit next time around. For what it's worth though, I don't blame Marc Webb, not entirely anyway. The development of this movie is nearly as conflicted as Spider-Man 3 was, and not only is this evident from the trailers and screens that contain plenty of missing footage, but the disjointed scenes and shoddy pacing make it painfully obvious. The studio needs to loosen the reins and let the director do his thing next time around.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the film, but moreso because I'm a shameless Spider-Man fanboy than anything else. Very disappointing on so many levels, and this critique is just me highlighting one of several missteps this movie made. It seems that a lot of people are overlooking many fo the more gross oversights in the film. No biggie, the same thing happened in 2002. I think that when the dust settles, much like how many people reflect upon Raimi's Spider-Man, people will see the flaws much more clearly. As it stands right now; however, many of them were simply inexcusable, especially with the other films to serve as a blueprint of sorts.

TL;DR: Dunst was a bad actress in a well-written role, and Stone is in the opposite situation.

[Sony23]

Raimi's. Webb's was not even close. Webb seemed to want to make it just because he was hired not because he knew or loved the character. While Raimi's weren't perfect by any means, they were much better films. ASM was just a soulless uninspired film made by a marketing department.

[Ajendo]

Raimi's spidey movies were flat out awful save got a few action scenes but the majority of it was horrendous.