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

[grieven]

Originally Posted by 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.

In my opinion there is a long list of things that Webb's film outdoes Raimi's, and soul is chief among them.

[Arun1910]

Definitely Webbs. I know we have only seen one movie but Webbs' Origin Vs Raimi's? Well Webbs wins.

Now that we have seen that Webbs has made a better origin, they can now do whatever (give or take) for the sequel! I have no doubt they will make a better sequel since Webbs' origin kicked the ass out of Raimi's one. I just hope Sony doesn't mess things up for the 3rd.

[TheWallCrawler]

Definitely outdoes Raimi, but I kinda feel sorry for TASM as I feel that TDKR will outdo TASM by a mile. Though, that's not a fair comparison as TDKR is the last one in the series and TASM is the "Begins" and TASM is totally on the same level as Batman Begins

[Spider-Aziz]

I don't think Webb's origin very much kicked Raimi's origin out of the water, I mean they're both fun to watch, but something in Webb's origin leaves me dry

[TheWallCrawler]

I think it was miles better (except the part where Ben dies, which I felt was also kinda weird in BB when Bruce's father died), but I guess that's just me

[RustyCage]

Webb's is just objectively better. Raimi's is largely flat, dopey, and corny by comparison. Amazing has me wondering why I ever liked them in the first place.

To suggest that the writing, acting, energy, depth, or action are somehow lesser in Amazing is simply a fanboyish, nostalgic lie. This is coming from someone who loved Spider-man 1 and 2. The music is probably the only point of debate, as they both do some things better than the other, and they both are missing things that the other had. I'm sure we'll see Amazing's music blossom as the sequels come out (kind of like Hans Zimmer's work on Batman has been an evolution).

The only challenge Webb is going to have is pulling off a more visually convincing Doc Ock, and to make him as appealing as Alfred Molina did (despite the contradictory lines about privilege which happened to express his MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER FACET, dunno how that crucial of a slip up made it into the final cut).

Assuming they go with Ock, anyway. They might not - and they don't really need to.

On the other hand, topping Mary Jane should be a walk in the park. No competition. They don't really need to bother with her either though, to be honest. If Gwen isn't a constant, I'd rather see Felicia, even though it would nice to have the REAL MJ instead of the frustrating husk of the character we got in Raimi's films.

Gwen Stacy might as well have never existed (in the films) before Amazing. So well done. I'd like her to stay.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by TheWallCrawler

Definitely outdoes Raimi, but I kinda feel sorry for TASM as I feel that TDKR will outdo TASM by a mile. Though, that's not a fair comparison as TDKR is the last one in the series and TASM is the "Begins" and TASM is totally on the same level as Batman Begins

It's done way better than I expected though, I'm happy for it.

And I agree with your reasoning, it seems understandable that TDKR will do better - we'll probably see the same thing with TASM3 versus some other superhero film. haha

[bapi]

Easy, Raimi's

But I know fanboys' logic is like 'new=better'

[©KAW]

...or Cheese/Bad Acting/Kirsten Dunst's Teeth=Better.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by bapi

Easy, Raimi's

But I know fanboys' logic is like 'new=better'

Actually, it tends to be the other way around. There is a LOT of (childish) animosity toward reboots when fans are attached to the old series.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

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.

Loved this post.

Also, to the people saying Andrew is somehow nothing like Peter Parker/Spider-man but Tobey Maguire is perfect, your memory must be severely warped. Blows my mind how people will literally bend reality to defend a fallacy.

[RustyCage]

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 like every swing better. Spider-man looked and moved far more organically and in more stylized, true-to-source postures, and the camera was WAY more energetic and dynamic.

They were also very diligent in making sure that Spidey had something to attach his web to every single time. I noticed that throughout the whole movie. Love that attention to detail. They were super creative/appropriate with that, and with the other action.

[bapi]

Originally Posted by bapi

Easy, Raimi's

But I know fanboys' logic is like 'new=better'

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Raimi, Maguire, Dunst or Franco but come on. If people love TASM then there's nothing to say. Yeah, I love that romance between Peter and Gwen but the rest is awful, full of plot holes, so-so action, stupid/naive scenes with cranes... And it looks like almost every 'normal' person would say something similar. But I know it's different with fanboys. Sorry.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by bapi

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Raimi, Maguire, Dunst or Franco but come on. If people love TASM then there's nothing to say. Yeah, I love that romance between Peter and Gwen but the rest is awful, full of plot holes, so-so action, stupid/naive scenes with cranes... And it looks like almost every 'normal' person would say something similar. But I know it's different with fanboys. Sorry.

Eh, not really. The movie got solid reviews (and most reviews are done by non-fanboys).

In fact, Fanboys tend to be much MORE critical of a film then any normal audience member. Simply because we:

1.) Nitpick certain scenes to the point of ridiculousness, and normal people simply don't care that much about the movie.
2.) Have preconcieved notions of the character because we've grown up with them and studied them more then a priest studies a bible.
3.) WE OVERREACT (In general).

Case in point: Spider-man 3. When that film came out, you would have thought half of the posters on here had an immediate family member DIE. That's how huge the fall out was. But the general audience? They mostly thought it was "meh." They didn't hate it, they didn't love it. They thought it was a mediocre movie. And it was. It was only the hardcore comic fans yelling about how it was one of the worst comic book movies ever (which is utterly ridiculous).

People keep talking about plot holes and such, but this movie was solid. It's certainly no worse then the other general action movies out there (and quite a bit better I think), and I can garuntee that the majority of the general audience are not sitting around obsessing over the "plot holes" like we are. If they did, movies like Transformers wouldn't make hundreds of millions of dollars.

[AF3619]

stupid/naive scenes with cranes

i liked the crane scene and a lot of people seem to like it , most of the leaked footage from the movie on YT is the crane scene

[bapi]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Eh, not really. The movie got solid reviews (and most reviews are done by non-fanboys).

In fact, Fanboys tend to be much MORE critical of a film then any normal audience member. Simply because we:

1.) Nitpick certain scenes to the point of ridiculousness, and normal people simply don't care that much about the movie.
2.) Have preconcieved notions of the character because we've grown up with them and studied them more then a priest studies a bible.
3.) WE OVERREACT (In general).

Case in point: Spider-man 3. When that film came out, you would have thought half of the posters on here had an immediate family member DIE. That's how huge the fall out was. But the general audience? They mostly thought it was "meh." They didn't hate it, they didn't love it. They thought it was a mediocre movie. And it was. It was only the hardcore comic fans yelling about how it was one of the worst comic book movies ever (which is utterly ridiculous).

People keep talking about plot holes and such, but this movie was solid. It's certainly no worse then the other general action movies out there (and quite a bit better I think), and I can garuntee that the majority of the general audience are not sitting around obsessing over the "plot holes" like we are. If they did, movies like Transformers wouldn't make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Solid? Reviews are closer to S-M3 than S-M1 so it's funny when 2/3 of guys here say TASM is better than Raimi's Spider-Man.

[bapi]

Originally Posted by AF3619

i liked the crane scene and a lot of people seem to like it , most of the leaked footage from the movie on YT is the crane scene

I don't know, maybe it's different in America but here in Europe people are like 'OMG '.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by bapi

I don't know, maybe it's different in America but here in Europe people are like 'OMG '.

Really? Because, as a European, I, and many, liked the crane scene.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by bapi

Solid? Reviews are closer to S-M3 than S-M1 so it's funny when 2/3 of guys here say TASM is better than Raimi's Spider-Man.

...That was my whole point.

SM3 got average reviews. But only people on here, nerds as in US, people who frequent message boards (who are NOT in the majority for theatre goers) think that SM3 is horrible. The general audience thought it was average.

And the general audience thinks this movie is solid as well. We overreact.

Now, as a movie, I will say I think SM1 and SM2 are tighter then ASM. But as a Spider-man movie, I vastly prefer ASM. Raimi messed up too much with the characters in his movies for me to be a big fan of them.

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by bapi

I don't know, maybe it's different in America but here in Europe people are like 'OMG '.

well , maybe in TASM 2 they cut the cheese factor

[Radioactive1980]

I was not a fan of the Raimi films (primarily because of Maguire and Dunst both of whom were poorly cast) and was very happy to hear about the reboot. But now, after watching TASM I can see what a well written film SM1 was.

TASM feels like two steps forward and three steps back.

Garfield is a much better PP than Maguire and the webslinging and Spidey fight scenes have finally been perfected, but the rest of the film is just a total mess. Apart from that it's also incredibly dumb. So I rate both SM1 and TASM as 6.5/10. If SM1 had Garfield, Stone & the modern fight scenes, now THAT would be a great Spidey film.

The only people rating this film 8 and above are most likely fans who either a) came to Spidey through the Raimi films or b) just don't know the character that well. The people who have been reading Spidey for decades, they are the ones who know what they are talking about. Dragon and TheManOfBat for example.

Also a lot of you keep talking about how camp the Raimi films were, almost as if you don't get Spider-Man...
He's a guy swinging around in a skintight red & blue one piece taking the piss out of his enemies, there is an inherent camp quality and that's the way it's supposed to be.

Messing up Spidey's origin and drawing it out into the second film is just incredibly lame for several reasons-

1) Spidey's origin is one of the greatest, most powerful stories told in comics, one that deserves to faithfully re-cretaed in a Spidey film. It's basically sacred to the character because it defines who he is. OK, we already saw it in the Raimi films, but for the love of Stan Lee, don't screw it up! All they had to do was a 10 minute recap as Spidey reminisced on a roof and then then get on with an all new story.

2) They did not include 'With Great power...',- Spidey's mantra, another absolute no no. OK Ben said something to the same effect, but I can't even remember that line, just shows how poignant it was huh? Sheesh.

3) Spidey does not catch the killer- that is the moment that defines him, that is the moment when he truly becomes Spider-Man. Without it he's just not the same character of the comics, does not have the same motivation.

4) Someone earlier in this thread said they found spreading the origin out over several films to be an interesting new take on the character. Let me tell you, it's not interesting- it's LAME because we all know how his origin ends, only now we have to wait several films until he actually becomes Spidey for real. And it also shows a lack of imagination on the scriptwriters part that instead of actually doing something new with Spidey, crafting an awesome new story, all they can do is ape and draw out the origin over several films and in the process deliver an inferior take on it.

And that is just the messed up origin of TASM, which is top of about 5 or 6 big problems I have with the film.
I wouldn't be surprised if years down the line TASM is looked upon in a similar light as the Schumacher Bat-films.

I mean, which is more dumb- Bat ice skates or Peter Parker showing everyone his Spider powers in school by jumping 30 feet across a basketball court to slam dunk, Throwing a football into a goal post to break it or how about taking his mask off in school as Spidey right after he has fought the Lizard despite the fact the school is filled with CCTV...

[Jexx]

Originally Posted by bapi

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Raimi, Maguire, Dunst or Franco but come on. If people love TASM then there's nothing to say. Yeah, I love that romance between Peter and Gwen but the rest is awful, full of plot holes, so-so action, stupid/naive scenes with cranes... And it looks like almost every 'normal' person would say something similar. But I know it's different with fanboys. Sorry.

The general audience loves the movie, and they love the crane scene.

So.. your definition of normal doesn't apply to the.. normal people?

[Golgo-13]

Originally Posted by Troy_Parker

Webb's. Some more character development for Connors/the Lizard and the inclusion of his wife and kid would have made it better, but the pros outweigh the cons for me.

I find that Dr.Ock's development was just as vague as Connors was in ASM. I mean, we only got like one scene with Octavious and his wife, before he becomes Dr.Octopus- the villan. I would even go as far and say that we got more Connors pre-lizard than we did Octavious, yet nobody seems to notice that.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Radioactive1980

I was not a fan of the Raimi films (primarily because of Maguire and Dunst both of whom were poorly cast) and was very happy to hear about the reboot. But now, after watching TASM I can see what a well written film SM1 was.

TASM feels like two steps forward and three steps back.

Garfield is a much better PP than Maguire and the webslinging and Spidey fight scenes have finally been perfected, but the rest of the film is just a total mess. Apart from that it's also incredibly dumb. So I rate both SM1 and TASM as 6.5/10. If SM1 had Garfield, Stone & the modern fight scenes, now THAT would be a great Spidey film.

The only people rating this film 8 and above are most likely fans who either a) came to Spidey through the Raimi films or b) just don't know the character that well. The people who have been reading Spidey for decades, they are the ones who know what they are talking about. Dragon and TheManOfBat for example.

Also a lot of you keep talking about how camp the Raimi films were, almost as if you don't get Spider-Man...
He's a guy swinging around in a skintight red & blue one piece taking the piss out of his enemies, there is an inherent camp quality and that's the way it's supposed to be.

Or they simply have a difference of opinion. I don't think you need to resort to questioning our knowledge of Spider-man simply because we enjoyed the movie and you didn't like it as much. I've been watching and reading Spidey for nearly twenty years and ASM is by far my favorite of the film series. I think I know the character pretty well.

I also think people like Dragon know the character very well, but we simply have a difference of opinion.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by bapi

Easy, Raimi's

But I know fanboys' logic is like 'new=better'

No, over-cheesed and corny = bad.

Originally Posted by bapi

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Raimi, Maguire, Dunst or Franco but come on. If people love TASM then there's nothing to say. Yeah, I love that romance between Peter and Gwen but the rest is awful, full of plot holes, so-so action, stupid/naive scenes with cranes... And it looks like almost every 'normal' person would say something similar. But I know it's different with fanboys. Sorry.

Every single of those posts are surpassed by Raimi. SM1 had its own share of plotholes - not to mention that Green Goblin had no motivation at all after he killed the boards members and that happened halfway into the movie - the action was comparable with ASM's, and the scene with the new yorkers at the brigde surpassed every possible standard of naivety and stupidity.

And of course, those imaginary 'normal' people would agree. My imaginary normal people agree with me too.

Originally Posted by bapi

Solid? Reviews are closer to S-M3 than S-M1 so it's funny when 2/3 of guys here say TASM is better than Raimi's Spider-Man.

Yeah, it's so crazy that we don't think the quality of a movie is defined by reviewers.