The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man

View Poll Results: Which was the best?
Raimi's Spider-man 87 33.98%
Webb's Amazing Spider-man 129 50.39%
I don't want to compare them 22 8.59%
They are equal 18 7.03%
Voters: 256. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-17-2012, 11:28 AM   #76
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Plus, the version of Two-Face they based the movie version on fits better with the movie's plot than the split personality version. So I don't see why that would be an issue.
Thats the whole point of my argument
I want the Villian to be perfect for the plot rather than a perfect copy of his comic book counterpart.

Quote:
1) The big problem is not so much rushing through the origin but making it blatantly obvious you're trying to get it out of the way. As I said before, after Ben's death, the whole movie feels like a different movie altogether with a whole new story. There are ways you can "rush" the origin and still making the rest of the movie's story feel more consistent. In my opinion, the first Superman movie does do the origin pretty quickly but once you get to Metropolis, it doesn't feel like a whole different film starts (at least not to me).
I could say the something similar for BB
It felt to me that they concentrated too much on the origin part which is the main reason why Ra's and Scarecrow character landed flat because of no development.
The 'different movie' aspect was a LOT more apparent with TASM.One moment he is looking for his Uncle's killer,then BOOM he starts fighting a giant Lizard without even giving a reason for his change in motivation.

I would IM1 was the perfect mix between the Origin and the antagonistic forces
Spider-man comes a close second at that imo.The origin is no way rushed as you say and it didnt felt like a different movie to me.His source of motivation is completely clear unlike TASM.The character development is seen throught the movie down to the last scene where he walks away from MJ and narrates how he cannot afford to be with her because of his powers

Quote:
2) Doing the origin =/= not having an individual film with a unique story and a story with no point. I can name comic book movies that were origin films that had strong and good stories with the "point" still being there (Batman Begins and Iron Man are good examples). The origin is not by any means something that "drags" or that just simply shows how the hero came to be and nothing else (though that is the case with a good chunk of superheroes) and this applies especially in Spider-Man's case, who has one of the greatest origins out there. The origin story itself is a great Spidey story to begin with.
You are missing a major point here,2002 was not a time when CBM's especially concentrated on origins,as you yourself said,X-men didnt even bother showing the origin of any characters.People were like that back then.They wanted direct action,the genre wasnt famous at that time aswell which is why directors didnt like to take a risk spending to much time on telling the origin and have the audience give it a cold shoulder.(I think this is what happened with BB as far as box office is concerned)

With the Genre a lot more famous nowadays and people talking interest in the characters,directors are more at ease on taking time showing the origin well and keeping the whole trilogy in mind rather than concentrating on making individual movies a success.

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 11:55 AM   #77
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
I dont think I underrate them.
I rate them as they deserve.Very very few people actually think TDKR is better than TDK so how is that underrating?
I'm not saying you need to like TDKR more than TDK, but you don't seem like you give TDKR its due even or especially BB when you just slam that origin film down whenever you can, especially slamming these films whenever I have something bad to say about TAS-M like you're trying to "one-up" the situation to make yourself feel better, which is uncalled for needless to say.

Quote:
Thats like saying BB didnt influence movies because they made more than it
Well it sure didn't help those films in the money department as you make it seem like Spider-Man helped other CBMs make so much money.

Quote:
10+ years ago nobody though a 'kids' genre would be capable of crossing the billion mark and that too multiple times.
A CBM doesn't help another CBM in making so much money.

Quote:
Because Spider-man reignited people's interest in the genre,its success influenced studios to invest money in Superhero movies
So you're talking about studios investing in money. Okay, that sounds wiser than saying Spider-Man helped other movies in the way of the general audience spending money to see them.

Quote:
Saying that is alright but saying 'If there was no BB there would be no TASM' is being ridiculous,Spider-man movies will keep coming
Maybe a different and maybe better TASM would be there but spidey movies will keep coming
If there wasn't BB, there WOULDN'T have been a TAS-M. There would be no inspiration to help with the new take. That's as simple as saying there wouldn't be no interest in investing into a lot of CBMs without Raimi's Spider-Man.

Quote:
I dont see how changing the look of Bane or Scarecrow was 'revolutionary'.You are sounding like an Apple employee
It was same as changing GG's look


The fact that the films themselves are revolutionary and are indeed taken more serious and more "real" calls for a change in the looks of villains such as Bane and Scarecrow.

And..."You are sounding like an Apple employee"...what the ****?

Quote:
Everything about that green and yellow costume looks comic booky to me.
Huh?

Quote:
Its my belief it would look ridiculous in Raimi's movie aswell
That type of Costume would look ridiculous in any movie.(It would only work if they show an eccentric or insane Norman with an obsession with Folklore,and Raimi wasnt going that way,he wanted to portray Norman as a Hardworking,self-sacrifing industrialist)
Avengers had a fun tone,still they didnt use a costume for Hawk eye.It gives you an idea
Won't look ridiculous when the same material used with Spidey's costume can be used on GG's. Won't be ridiculous because Osborn already has so many masks of different cultures in his manor so why not add some fascination to folklore?

These things aren't so ridiculous that they could've fit into Spider-Man.

Plus...Green Goblin's costume > Hawkeye's costume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Thats the whole point of my argument
I want the Villian to be perfect for the plot rather than a perfect copy of his comic book counterpart.
Too bad that doesn't go along with Green Goblin either who wasn't a perfect villain for Raimi's origin film.

Quote:
I could say the something similar for BB
It felt to me that they concentrated too much on the origin part which is the main reason why Ra's and Scarecrow character landed flat because of no development.
Nolan concentrated on an origin because Batman never received an origin on film

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 01:08 PM   #78
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,919
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Thats the whole point of my argument
I want the Villian to be perfect for the plot rather than a perfect copy of his comic book counterpart.
That's not what I meant with Two-Face. I said he is accurate to the Two-Face in the comics but just not to the most well known version of Two-Face from the comics, which is the split-personality version. But the version of Two-Face in the movie is still an accurate portrayal. It is an accurate portrayal of the version of Two-Face from the comics that the movie's Two-Face was based on. Same thing doesn't apply for Doc Ock. He's never been written as the "good guy at heart" and if he was, it was a small (possibly even non-canon) one-shot thing that most fans probably didn't care for and ignored.

Quote:
I could say the something similar for BB
It felt to me that they concentrated too much on the origin part which is the main reason why Ra's and Scarecrow character landed flat because of no development.
Ra's didn't fall flat at all. I'm not sure what type of development you would expect from a character like him. He is the mentor of the protagonist and serves the job of providing a contrast for Bruce and a challenge not just physically but philosophically. He gets plenty of development during the whole first act (with Bruce not in Gotham) and at the end. I'm not sure what you mean by "development" when it comes to him. If what you mean by that is that you believe they should've expanded on his background, origin, how he formed the League, and all of that, then I would disagree with you on that. Ra's has always had a mysterious part of him to begin with and I personally think all of that wasn't needed in the movie just like how most of that wasn't needed in the comics (at least up till now).

As for Scarecrow, he gets enough development for what he is intended to be, which is just a small "pawn" in the grand scheme of things. I do agree Scarecrow deserves a much bigger role and should've got more screen time. Personally, I would've had him be the main villain in BB and I would've brought Ra's in TDKR but the way they did it in BB worked out fine in the end IMO. Scarecrow may have not been used much but I think they do him justice in the scenes they use him in and they nail the character (except for how they have him get defeated ).

Quote:
The 'different movie' aspect was a LOT more apparent with TASM.One moment he is looking for his Uncle's killer,then BOOM he starts fighting a giant Lizard without even giving a reason for his change in motivation.

I would IM1 was the perfect mix between the Origin and the antagonistic forces
Spider-man comes a close second at that imo.The origin is no way rushed as you say and it didnt felt like a different movie to me.His source of motivation is completely clear unlike TASM.The character development is seen throught the movie down to the last scene where he walks away from MJ and narrates how he cannot afford to be with her because of his powers
Yay. Back to Spider-Man. lol

The reason I say SM1 feels like a separate movie is because everything after the origin feels different. I heard someone sum the movie like this: "Peter Parker got bit by a spider and is dealing with his uncle's death and with how to use those powers. Meanwhile, somewhere out there, a man named Norman Osborn created a glider and a serum that will forever change him into something else..." TASM didn't have that problem. I liked how the Lizard's origin was connected to Peter's origin and wasn't just "Will Peter learn how to control his powers? Meanwhile, this guy called Doc Connors is experimenting with himself and transforming into a giant Lizard!".


You pretty much unknowingly addressed Peter's entire character arc in the movie. At first, it is all about avenging his uncle by catching his killer. He feels guilt over not only causing his uncle to be there but also for letting the criminal get away and kill his uncle so he is completely centered around finding his uncle's killer. He embarks on a mission to don a costume and to look for him. In his mind, he is doing the right thing by doing this.

Then when he is invited to dinner with Gwen's family, he hears Captain Stacy call out Spider-Man as nothing but a vigilante with an agenda. Peter is angered by this because he believes that to not be true until Captain Stacy says "It seems to me like this guy isn't a hero. He just has an agenda. It seems he's just searching for some guy" or something among those lines. This makes Peter realize that that is in fact his whole motivation for why he is Spider-Man and realizes that Captain Stacy is not just some butthurt cop but that he actually knows what he's talking about. Realizing this, he then apologizes to him and Gwen calls him outside, where he is still reflecting on what her father said.

Then, while he is still reflecting on that, his spider sense goes off and he jumps in to see what's going on (makes sense, since he was reflecting on what Captain Stacy said prior to that). Following him saving those people and discovering that Connors is the Lizard, he begins to realize that he should be Spider-Man not solely to find his uncle's killer but because a lot people need him. Then after he defeats the Lizard, saves the city, and listens to his uncle's voicemail about how Peter owes the world his gifts, he finally stops being so centered on finding his uncle's killer and is more focused on being Spider-Man because "with great power comes great responsibility" (and although he doesn't hear the exact phrase, he does learn the main message of the phrase by the end). This doesn't mean that he no longer cares about finding his uncle's killer at all; just that his uncle's killer is not a bigger or smaller priority now than saving you or me from being robbed/hurt by another criminal.

Also notice how when Peter is Spider-Man solely just to find his uncle's killer, Captain Stacy is against him but when Peter is Spider-Man for the reasons the Peter we know (from the comics) is Spider-Man, Captain Stacy turns to his side.

Quote:
You are missing a major point here,2002 was not a time when CBM's especially concentrated on origins,as you yourself said,X-men didnt even bother showing the origin of any characters.People were like that back then.They wanted direct action,the genre wasnt famous at that time aswell which is why directors didnt like to take a risk spending to much time on telling the origin and have the audience give it a cold shoulder.(I think this is what happened with BB as far as box office is concerned)

With the Genre a lot more famous nowadays and people talking interest in the characters,directors are more at ease on taking time showing the origin well and keeping the whole trilogy in mind rather than concentrating on making individual movies a success.
You missed my other point. There are ways you can tell the origin quickly without making the rest of the movie feel like another film altogether. I already sourced Superman I as a movie that achieved this.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 01:20 PM   #79
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,919
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Because Spider-man reignited people's interest in the genre,its success influenced studios to invest money in Superhero movies
I kinda addressed that in the last page. I talked about how I believe the only reason SM1 did so well and is considered to be one of the best comic book movies ever made is not only due to nostalgia but also due to the fact that it was one of the first comic book movies made and the first Spider-Man movie made. Notice how whenever you critique all the flaws the movie has as a Spider-Man film, the main defense people use, including yourself, is "Well, sure it has major flaws but it's the first SM movie and did a lot for the genre because it was a big success". It's like the 1989 Batman movie all over again. Even though it got everything wrong and had Batman kill left and right, people today defend it by saying "Yeah, it's not that good but at least it made Batman dark again".

People seriously give the Raimi films a pass due to those reasons while they go after TASM for either small flaws or flaws that the Raimi films had too (and usually to a much bigger degree) or for things from the comics. I still hope someone would give me an honest opinion on the question I asked a few pages back. If SM1 came out now in 2012 as opposed to 2002, would it still be anywhere as well received? I think not. The nostalgic factor wouldn't work and the "yeah but it was one of the first comic book movies" excuse for its flaws wouldn't work either. Back then, the bar was set very low for comic book movies and almost anything with a decent story that would have good special effects and would show a superhero in live-action would be praised as if it was the pinnacle of the genre.


The Nolan films and the MCU movies changed the face of comic book movies forever. The Nolan films put great emphasis on how important it is for a comic book movie to be more than just a good comic book movie but to be good and intelligent films in general, period, while the MCU movies put great emphasis on how important it is to stay true to the source material and to the characters. This doesn't mean that one failed in one department while the other succeeded in the other. Both the Nolan films and the MCU films succeeded in both departments (except for TDKR, which I and many other Batman fans thought it failed in both departments but most of the general audience liked it) but they each put more emphasis on the importance of succeeding in one of the 2 departments.


If SM1 came out now, would it have really been as praised as in 2002? I highly doubt it. People would have critiqued it for all sorts of reasons, both legitimate and false, just like TASM. A good chunk of fans would've demanded a reboot due to Spidey not being a wisecracker, MJ not being the attractive party girl and not being anything like MJ in general, no webshooters, Spidey not showing his intelligence, Peter acting more like George McFly than as Peter Parker, the ridiculously cheesy tone (cheesy =/= lighthearted; Avengers was lighthearted but by no means had the cheesy tone the Raimi films had), etc. And this doesn't apply for just SM1. I believe it applies for many other old comic book movies that are very praised these days including the Burton Batman films.

Heck, I would go as far as to say that even if Spider-Man 4 came out and it was just as good as Spider-Man 2 (the best of the trilogy), it still wouldn't have been as praised. People would've just thought it was ok or good but nowhere near the Nolan films or the MCU films.

I would really like to hear people's thoughts on my theory. I really don't mean to offend anyone who loves the movie but it's how I feel the majority would've reacted if SM1 came out today.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 03:11 PM   #80
OcStat
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 958
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

So after watching The Amazing Spider-Man last night, I can say without a doubt in my mind it is the better of the two films.

That is not to say Spider-Man is a bad movie. But I feel Amazing is closer to what I envision Spider-Man being in real life.

The action scenes are top notch, CGI is top notch, Spider-Man's movements are more Spider than Man, Peter Parker is more akin to his comic book personality. I mean really, I don't see how anyone who is a fan of the character wouldn't like the film.

OcStat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 02:50 AM   #81
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Well it sure didn't help those films in the money department as you make it seem like Spider-Man helped other CBMs make so much money.
A CBM doesn't help another CBM in making so much money.
It made the genre famous as whole,the benefits of which movies like TA and all are reaping

Quote:
If there wasn't BB, there WOULDN'T have been a TAS-M. There would be no inspiration to help with the new take. That's as simple as saying there wouldn't be no interest in investing into a lot of CBMs without Raimi's Spider-Man.
Do you mean to say sony wouldnt make a Spidey film after SM3?
Thats as ridiculous as it sounds
TASM would come in anyway,maybe a different TASM but notheless,spider-man movies will always keep coming

Quote:
The fact that the films themselves are revolutionary and are indeed taken more serious and more "real" calls for a change in the looks of villains such as Bane and Scarecrow.
I dont consider BB or TDKR as anything revolutionary,and before you say I am underrating anything,I dont consider any of Spider-man movies as revolutionary aswell,You are using the word to loosely.TDK is the only movie here which comes close to being revolutionary

What was done with Scarecrow and Bane was exactly what was done with GG in SM1,i.e making the look more realistic and less comic booky.
You are making a logic that just because Nolan was being realistic and dark on his take on Batman,he gets the right to mess around with the look and what Raimi did was flawed
And thats a stupid logic imo

Quote:
Won't look ridiculous when the same material used with Spidey's costume can be used on GG's. Won't be ridiculous because Osborn already has so many masks of different cultures in his manor so why not add some fascination to folklore?
He develops a split-personality and he drifts in an out of it.He is not completely insane to make a costume,he doesnt even know about his exploits when he is in his 'Normal' personality

Quote:
Too bad that doesn't go along with Green Goblin either who wasn't a perfect villain for Raimi's origin film.
More perfect than Scarecrow was in BB
And I am not one-upping you here,just comparing 2 origin films

Quote:
Nolan concentrated on an origin because Batman never received an origin on film
It was not a wrong thing to do,but its my opinion that he concentrated too much and because of that,couldnt develop the villians

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 03:09 AM   #82
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
That's not what I meant with Two-Face. I said he is accurate to the Two-Face in the comics but just not to the most well known version of Two-Face from the comics, which is the split-personality version. But the version of Two-Face in the movie is still an accurate portrayal. It is an accurate portrayal of the version of Two-Face from the comics that the movie's Two-Face was based on. Same thing doesn't apply for Doc Ock. He's never been written as the "good guy at heart" and if he was, it was a small (possibly even non-canon) one-shot thing that most fans probably didn't care for and ignored.
I am not referring to DocOck here,I am referring to GG
People are calling him imperfect because his look doesnt resemble the one from the comics,thats like Two-face was immperfect just because he got burned with fire instead of Acid

Quote:
Ra's didn't fall flat at all. I'm not sure what type of development you would expect from a character like him. He is the mentor of the protagonist and serves the job of providing a contrast for Bruce and a challenge not just physically but philosophically. He gets plenty of development during the whole first act (with Bruce not in Gotham) and at the end. I'm not sure what you mean by "development" when it comes to him. If what you mean by that is that you believe they should've expanded on his background, origin, how he formed the League, and all of that, then I would disagree with you on that. Ra's has always had a mysterious part of him to begin with and I personally think all of that wasn't needed in the movie just like how most of that wasn't needed in the comics (at least up till now).
The audience forget about him in the centre of the movie,I dont think that has happened with any CB villian before.

Quote:
As for Scarecrow, he gets enough development for what he is intended to be, which is just a small "pawn" in the grand scheme of things. I do agree Scarecrow deserves a much bigger role and should've got more screen time. Personally, I would've had him be the main villain in BB and I would've brought Ra's in TDKR but the way they did it in BB worked out fine in the end IMO. Scarecrow may have not been used much but I think they do him justice in the scenes they use him in and they nail the character (except for how they have him get defeated ).
My point being Goblin in SM1 was in every aspect,a better villian than those in BB
SM1 wins in the Villian aspect imo

Quote:
The reason I say SM1 feels like a separate movie is because everything after the origin feels different. I heard someone sum the movie like this: "Peter Parker got bit by a spider and is dealing with his uncle's death and with how to use those powers. Meanwhile, somewhere out there, a man named Norman Osborn created a glider and a serum that will forever change him into something else...
Agree that to an extent
But they narrated both their origins together,plus Norman and Peter had a relationship with Norman,and Norman looked up to him like a son he never had,Harry was the mutual connection between them and all so it isnt exactly 'somewhere a man' its a man who is his best friend's father and a man he looks up to.I understand your point but it wasnt entirely like that
Quote:
TASM didn't have that problem. I liked how the Lizard's origin was connected to Peter's origin and wasn't just "Will Peter learn how to control his powers? Meanwhile, this guy called Doc Connors is experimenting with himself and transforming into a giant Lizard!"
I get the maker's point in connecting their origins together but imo the final product wasnt that great.The whole concept was good but the execution wasnt imo,not of the level of how it was done in IM and BB

Quote:
You pretty much unknowingly addressed Peter's entire character arc in the movie. At first, it is all about avenging his uncle by catching his killer. He feels guilt over not only causing his uncle to be there but also for letting the criminal get away and kill his uncle so he is completely centered around finding his uncle's killer. He embarks on a mission to don a costume and to look for him. In his mind, he is doing the right thing by doing this.
Thats all pretty good till there

Quote:
Then when he is invited to dinner with Gwen's family, he hears Captain Stacy call out Spider-Man as nothing but a vigilante with an agenda. Peter is angered by this because he believes that to not be true until Captain Stacy says "It seems to me like this guy isn't a hero. He just has an agenda. It seems he's just searching for some guy" or something among those lines. This makes Peter realize that that is in fact his whole motivation for why he is Spider-Man and realizes that Captain Stacy is not just some butthurt cop but that he actually knows what he's talking about. Realizing this, he then apologizes to him and Gwen calls him outside, where he is still reflecting on what her father said.
I actually thought about that after thinking a lot about the movie.It shouldnt be like that,the motivation should strike you like anything

I mean,Stacy lectures him,he then goes out and confesses his identity to Gwen and scores a make out session,then jumps the roof and goes to stop a giant lizard,after that saves a boy and starts thinking about the father he never had
I mean everything goes so fast that you never get to think about Stacy's speech and his whole motivation
In SM1 its completely clear,after his graduation he takes out his new Spidey costume and Uncle Ben's final words ring in his ears,I still get chills when I watch that.His motivation is completely clear there

Even in IM and BB the motivation is made quite clear.Maybe if they made it slow in TASM and concentrated on one thing at a time rather than the motivation,romance and the orphan aspect all at once

Quote:
listens to his uncle's voicemail about how Peter owes the world his gifts, he finally stops being so centered on finding his uncle's killer and is more focused on being Spider-Man because "with great power comes great responsibility" (and although he doesn't hear the exact phrase, he does learn the main message of the phrase by the end). This doesn't mean that he no longer cares about finding his uncle's killer at all; just that his uncle's killer is not a bigger or smaller priority now than saving you or me from being robbed/hurt by another criminal.
That was an excellent addition imo,I will give it that credit

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 03:34 AM   #83
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
I kinda addressed that in the last page. I talked about how I believe the only reason SM1 did so well and is considered to be one of the best comic book movies ever made is not only due to nostalgia but also due to the fact that it was one of the first comic book movies made and the first Spider-Man movie made. Notice how whenever you critique all the flaws the movie has as a Spider-Man film, the main defense people use, including yourself, is "Well, sure it has major flaws but it's the first SM movie and did a lot for the genre because it was a big success". It's like the 1989 Batman movie all over again. Even though it got everything wrong and had Batman kill left and right, people today defend it by saying "Yeah, it's not that good but at least it made Batman dark again".
I dont think SM1 has any big flaws
Maybe little ones here and there but I give them a pass because if someone decides to make a CB origin movie today,he has this whole bunch of successful origin movies to look up to and take influence from,look at their mistakes and learn from them,improved technology and a already famous genre which guarantees easy money if the movie is decent
Raimi had none of that in 2002,he had on shot at making the character a success,he went all out at it(used the best villians and all) and passed with flying colours imo
The fact that it still holds pretty well against origin movies like BB,IM1 and TASM despite it being 10 years old already and the comparison being unfair for the reasons I meantioned is a testimonial to the fact that how good it is

Quote:
The Nolan films and the MCU movies changed the face of comic book movies forever. The Nolan films put great emphasis on how important it is for a comic book movie to be more than just a good comic book movie but to be good and intelligent films in general, period, while the MCU movies put great emphasis on how important it is to stay true to the source material and to the characters. This doesn't mean that one failed in one department while the other succeeded in the other. Both the Nolan films and the MCU films succeeded in both departments (except for TDKR, which I and many other Batman fans thought it failed in both departments but most of the general audience liked it) but they each put more emphasis on the importance of succeeding in one of the 2 departments.
Nolan's films I agree but you are giving too much credit to MCU movies
Except IM1 and TA,the rest are servicable at best.
2/6,thats not a record I would be proud of.
Even Movies like Daredevil and Fantastic 4 are true to the source material


Quote:
If SM1 came out now, would it have really been as praised as in 2002? I highly doubt it. People would have critiqued it for all sorts of reasons, both legitimate and false, just like TASM. A good chunk of fans would've demanded a reboot due to Spidey not being a wisecracker, MJ not being the attractive party girl and not being anything like MJ in general, no webshooters, Spidey not showing his intelligence, Peter acting more like George McFly than as Peter Parker, the ridiculously cheesy tone (cheesy =/= lighthearted; Avengers was lighthearted but by no means had the cheesy tone the Raimi films had), etc. And this doesn't apply for just SM1. I believe it applies for many other old comic book movies that are very praised these days including the Burton Batman films.

I would really like to hear people's thoughts on my theory. I really don't mean to offend anyone who loves the movie but it's how I feel the majority would've reacted if SM1 came out today.
Interesting question
I am not prasing SM1 becuase of Nostalgia,I am praising it because of its impressive quality
I enjoy it more than TASM and thats very surprising since I was anticipating TASM so much
If SM1 would come out today,it would be even better and have better CGI with the technology of 2012 and have a better plot with better ideas looking at so many CBMs as an example and inturn be even better recieved

Raimi would obviously decrease the cheesyness looking at how audience expected more realistic stuff,maybe introduce Web shooters realizing how audience adored being realistic in today's world,get a better actor for Peter Parker,get a bigger budget from Sony and have a better CGI and action sequences
You should look at both sides of the coin
And I think you are giving too much credit to MCU,for all their 'being true to source material' only 2/6 are great movies.
With all due respect,they are not to mentioned in the same line as Raimi's Spidey or Nolan's Batman
Overrated trailers like Thor,Incredible Hulk and CapAm:the first avenger,do not deserve to be inspiration for Spider-man or considered the pinnacle of CB movie making like you making them out to be

10 years from now,when a new rebooted Avengers or Rebooted Batman comes in,I am sure people will find the same number of flaws with movies like TDK and TA.Just that take away the fact that they are excellent movies?
People will start bashing Nolan's Batman,because he isnt a martial artist,or a detective and master tactitian or versatile genius,or creating a love interest out of thin air like you are bashing Raimi's Spidey because of Web Shooters and not enough wise cracking


Last edited by Spiderdevil; 11-18-2012 at 03:48 AM.
Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 04:35 AM   #84
Oscorp
Side-Kick
 
Oscorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,528
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

I see Batman people!

__________________
Yeah they should just cancel the films and not even bother and spend the budget on building a giant statue of toby macguire instead!
-BRAB

"it's ****ing terrible. it's twilight ********."
-Levitikuz' friend, as told to Levitikuz' friend's date, about TASM.
Oscorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 04:54 AM   #85
spider-neil
spins a web any size!
 
spider-neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,323
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

It's in a fans nature to place movies in order and say what is better than what I've tried doing that with the summer superhero movies I've seen this year and to be be honest I really liked them all and will be buying them all on Blu ray. I have Avengers and ASM already and will be getting Dredd and TDKR.

I have the original Spider-Man trilogy on Blu and I doubt I will get rid of it, the ASM hasn't made me want to sell Raimi's movies.
I have the Nolan movies on Blu and none of the original Batman movies because frankly (imho) I don't think they are any good.

spider-neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:23 AM   #86
Oscorp
Side-Kick
 
Oscorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,528
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Why would one even consider selling those films? Used films won't give you much in money at all anyway.

__________________
Yeah they should just cancel the films and not even bother and spend the budget on building a giant statue of toby macguire instead!
-BRAB

"it's ****ing terrible. it's twilight ********."
-Levitikuz' friend, as told to Levitikuz' friend's date, about TASM.
Oscorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:31 AM   #87
spider-neil
spins a web any size!
 
spider-neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,323
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscorp View Post
Why would one even consider selling those films? Used films won't give you much in money at all anyway.
I sell all the movies I can't see myself watching again, it keeps my collection small and manageable. I can definately see myself watching the Raimi movies again, even the 3rd one.

spider-neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:49 AM   #88
Spider-Aziz
Shinya Kogami
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere I Belong
Posts: 39,454
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
That story was actually in the Silver Age (early 1950's to be exact)
How early? I get the Silver Age starts somewhere in 1955
Quote:
and was retconned many years ago. In Post-Crisis continuity, including the new 52, the Joker has no canon origin.
I forgot about that Crisis, and Basil being murdered before it then returning to life

__________________
State Your Opinion on a Marvel Character
6th annual animated shows tournament voting has begun.
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

~*SHH SIX*~
member 14: Supa-Pizza
H.E
Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:52 AM   #89
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
It made the genre famous as whole,the benefits of which movies like TA and all are reaping
No...Spider-Man made the genre famous by getting more people into CBMs(studios and the general audience). The money other films make gives Raimi's film no credit.

Quote:
Do you mean to say sony wouldnt make a Spidey film after SM3?
Thats as ridiculous as it sounds
TASM would come in anyway,maybe a different TASM but notheless,spider-man movies will always keep coming
You may find it ridiculous, but it's true. TAS-M would not have been made if it wasn't for Nolan's Batfilms because there would be no direction Sony would want to take Spidey with a reboot. TAS-M itself wasn't a gamechanger of a film and was inspired by something else; only Raimi's film was a gamechanger.

Quote:
I dont consider BB or TDKR as anything revolutionary,and before you say I am underrating anything,I dont consider any of Spider-man movies as revolutionary aswell,You are using the word to loosely.TDK is the only movie here which comes close to being revolutionary
Lol, that's because no Spider-Man film has been revolutionary, only iconic as Spider-Man 2 is. But there's even a difference between revolutionary and iconic. Still say you're underestimating BB and TDKR, but no need to go on and on about it.

Quote:
What was done with Scarecrow and Bane was exactly what was done with GG in SM1,i.e making the look more realistic and less comic booky.
You are making a logic that just because Nolan was being realistic and dark on his take on Batman,he gets the right to mess around with the look and what Raimi did was flawed
And thats a stupid logic imo
No need to change GG's look when the tone itself was nothing like BB or TDKR for GG to be looked more realistic. You say my logic is stupid but you still think GG had to be radically changed as much as Scarecrow and Bane when Spider-Man was nowhere near the tone or atmosphere we had in BB and TDKR. Your logic, my friend, is what's rather "stupid".

Quote:
He develops a split-personality and he drifts in an out of it.He is not completely insane to make a costume,he doesnt even know about his exploits when he is in his 'Normal' personality
He's not insane enough to make a costume but insane enough to make a mask for his pilot outfit?

Quote:
More perfect than Scarecrow was in BB
And I am not one-upping you here,just comparing 2 origin films


The greatest enemy for Spider-Man being short changed in an origin film is more important to use in a film than a minor character? Yah, that makes sense. Raimi tried to make up for this by using the spirit of Norman Osborn or whatever in Spider-Man 2, but it doesn't make up for the fact that Spidey's greatest villain was short changed. Burton and Nolan did not do this with Joker because the greatest villain for a hero should not have to be given lesser time with an origin film

Quote:
It was not a wrong thing to do,but its my opinion that he concentrated too much and because of that,couldnt develop the villians
Because when dealing with an origin, you HAVE to focus on the hero. That was the problem with Spider-Man and that's why Green Goblin feels so underused in the film as well. Besides, at least one of the villains from BB(Ra's) was developed a bit more in TDKR.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 12:45 PM   #90
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
No...Spider-Man made the genre famous by getting more people into CBMs(studios and the general audience). The money other films make gives Raimi's film no credit.
The general audience pay the tickets right?
Anyway you get the point

Quote:
You may find it ridiculous, but it's true. TAS-M would not have been made if it wasn't for Nolan's Batfilms because there would be no direction Sony would want to take Spidey with a reboot. TAS-M itself wasn't a gamechanger of a film and was inspired by something else; only Raimi's film was a gamechanger.
So you are saying they wouldnt have made a spidey film after that because there wouldnt be an influence?
Hahaha How wrong you are,you expect Sony to own Marvel's crown jewel and not make movies about him and that too after having 3 movies being huge financial success
As soon as they cancelled SM4,they announced plans to reboot

Quote:
Lol, that's because no Spider-Man film has been revolutionary, only iconic as Spider-Man 2 is. But there's even a difference between revolutionary and iconic. Still say you're underestimating BB and TDKR, but no need to go on and on about it.
You are mixing all 3 of Revolutionary,Iconic and being influential
BB was influential,TDK was revolutionary and iconic and TDKR was a good movie

Quote:
No need to change GG's look when the tone itself was nothing like BB or TDKR for GG to be looked more realistic. You say my logic is stupid but you still think GG had to be radically changed as much as Scarecrow and Bane when Spider-Man was nowhere near the tone or atmosphere we had in BB and TDKR. Your logic, my friend, is what's rather "stupid".
Tone wasnt the reason to change the look.How wrong you are
It was making him look realistic and making it less comic booky to fit on the big screen.I gave Hawk Eye's example,and TA wasnt Dark
Either ways,if they are flawed,then all 3 are flawed.The reason behind it doesnt matter

Quote:
He's not insane enough to make a costume but insane enough to make a mask for his pilot outfit?
We dont know if he made the mask

Quote:
The greatest enemy for Spider-Man being short changed in an origin film is more important to use in a film than a minor character? Yah, that makes sense. Raimi tried to make up for this by using the spirit of Norman Osborn or whatever in Spider-Man 2, but it doesn't make up for the fact that Spidey's greatest villain was short changed. Burton and Nolan did not do this with Joker because the greatest villain for a hero should not have to be given lesser time with an origin film
Thats your logic,I had no problems with it.He had as much screentime as Molina had in SM2.Your argument is invalid
He tried nothing to 'make up for it' or whatever BS you are referring to.
The hallucinations were to build up the New Goblin persona into Harry for SM3
And didnt Burton use Joker as the Villian in his first Batman movie?

Quote:
Because when dealing with an origin, you HAVE to focus on the hero. That was the problem with Spider-Man and that's why Green Goblin feels so underused in the film as well. Besides, at least one of the villains from BB(Ra's) was developed a bit more in TDKR.
No one says they dont need to concentrate on the hero,it possible to do so and also have a Villian with good development.GG and Iron Monger are perfect examples.
And Ra's being developed later doesnt change the fact that the villians in BB fell flat on their face.I think even CapAm:FA and Thor suffer from this to a lesser extent

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 04:49 PM   #91
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
The general audience pay the tickets right?
Anyway you get the point
Because of the quality of certain CBMs. No one goes to see Avengers and thinks "Raimi's Spider-Man made The Avengers awesome and that's why I'm paying money to see this in theatres."

Spider-Man may have revamped Hollywood's thinking of CBMs, but there were as many bad ones as there have been great ones and it's the quality that makes those great ones making so much money. It's not because of one 2002 film.

Quote:
So you are saying they wouldnt have made a spidey film after that because there wouldnt be an influence?
Hahaha How wrong you are,you expect Sony to own Marvel's crown jewel and not make movies about him and that too after having 3 movies being huge financial success
As soon as they cancelled SM4,they announced plans to reboot
Oh my god you're stubborn.

There wouldn't have been a reboot taking a darker route without a movie to have inspired it to do such. That is my point. There could have very well been a Spider-Man 4, or a reboot that is still taking a light tone as Raimi's, but TAS-M with its dark tone would not have been thought of without Nolan's Batfilms.

Quote:
You are mixing all 3 of Revolutionary,Iconic and being influential
BB was influential,TDK was revolutionary and iconic and TDKR was a good movie
Lol, you say I'm mixing it but you're confusing revolutionary and iconic. The trilogy as a whole of Nolan's films are revolutionary as they take a very unconventional take with Batman. Don't say others are confusing words when you really are.

Plus, TDK was influential as well as that was the inspiration behind Skyfall.

Quote:
Tone wasnt the reason to change the look.How wrong you are
It was making him look realistic and making it less comic booky to fit on the big screen.I gave Hawk Eye's example,and TA wasnt Dark
Either ways,if they are flawed,then all 3 are flawed.The reason behind it doesnt matter
Lol, it's sometimes so fun having a discussion with someone that doesn't really know that much. The tones ARE the reason why Bane and Scarecrow were changed to match their looks with the overall feelings of the films. "How wrong are you"

But...Hawkeye's suit was changed because of the tone of the film as well. No one would take the look of Hawkeye's purple suit seriously, but anyone would take Green Goblin's green and purple look because we already have a guy in red and blue spandex.

Quote:
We dont know if he made the mask
So he **** out the mask?

Quote:
Thats your logic,I had no problems with it.He had as much screentime as Molina had in SM2.Your argument is invalid
He tried nothing to 'make up for it' or whatever BS you are referring to.
The hallucinations were to build up the New Goblin persona into Harry for SM3
And didnt Burton use Joker as the Villian in his first Batman movie?
The screentime doesn't mean a thing simply because Doc Ock was developed enough already and he still made a better impact as a villain and was even written better than any other medium of Doc Ock, imo.

And I say they try to make up for it because they tried to keep Green Goblin alive somehow.

Also...Burton did use Joker in his first Batman film, but it wasn't a real origin film for Batman, now was it?

Quote:
No one says they dont need to concentrate on the hero,it possible to do so and also have a Villian with good development.GG and Iron Monger are perfect examples.
And Ra's being developed later doesnt change the fact that the villians in BB fell flat on their face.I think even CapAm:FA and Thor suffer from this to a lesser extent


Green Goblin and Iron Monger are your two "perfect examples"? Oh Christ, that's hilarious. I mean, at least Iron Monger isn't Iron Man's greatest enemy, but IM was a pitiful villain to use in one simple battle, that's it. But at least like with Willem Dafoe, we had Jeff Bridges who were amazing in their roles simply because they're top-notch actors even while dealing with underused characters.

And please, stop with your backhand comments. Ra's may have had mild development in BB, but it was fine after TDKR after he was developed more.


Last edited by Anno_Domini; 11-18-2012 at 04:52 PM.
Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:07 PM   #92
OcStat
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 958
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

We get it dude, without Nolan we would be stuck watching interpretions of a "Howard the Duck" calibur.

Can we MOVE ON now?

PS - I think your cheating by throwing in Ras' expanded history from TDKR. Did Cillian Murphys cameo make Scarecrow better characterized in BB too?


Last edited by OcStat; 11-18-2012 at 05:11 PM.
OcStat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:19 PM   #93
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by OcStat View Post
We get it dude, without Nolan we would be stuck watching interpretions of a "Howard the Duck" calibur.

Can we MOVE ON now?

PS - I think your cheating by throwing in Ras' expanded history from TDKR. Did Cillian Murphys cameo make Scarecrow better characterized in BB too?
We get it dude, you don't enjoy reading the posts going back and forth from me and Spiderdevil, but deal with it

And, no, throwing in Ra's al Ghul's expanded history is not "cheating" in any way. It's as much accurate with Uncle Ben's death being expanded in Spider-Man 3. They're both in their respective trilogies and are expanded on. And do you really want to say Scarecrow was better characterized after his stint on TDKR?

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:29 PM   #94
OcStat
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 958
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Well I apologize, I thought this was the thread to compare and contrast Spider-Man with the Amazing Spider-Man.

OcStat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 05:31 PM   #95
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Oh, it is, but sometimes we do linger on other topics as well. It's all fun and games until a mod tells us to stop.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 08:45 PM   #96
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,919
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
I am not referring to DocOck here,I am referring to GG
I didn't know that. I apologize.

Quote:
People are calling him imperfect because his look doesnt resemble the one from the comics,thats like Two-face was immperfect just because he got burned with fire instead of Acid
I can only speak for myself when saying this but the main problem with GG's look in SM1 is not so much that it's different from the comics but that it looks bad. Plain and simple. It makes GG look like a Power Rangers reject/guy in a green tin can and the mouth part looks incredibly stupid. Plus, the Green Goblin, much the like the Joker, has to look terrifying and insane. And he doesn't.

Quote:
The audience forget about him in the centre of the movie,I dont think that has happened with any CB villian before.
That's kinda done intentional. I don't think I can explain it in full detail now but basically, Ra's was built up to be the mentor of Bruce who Bruce did not want to follow in the end due to philoshopical disagreements and then defeated and returned to Gotham. From that point on, it's all about Bruce coping with how to fight against Gotham's underworld. Ra's is not expected to be the big villain or to return, or to even be alive, until later in the movie. He's supposed to be an afterthought to both Bruce and the audience, and both get taken by surprise in the third act.

Quote:
My point being Goblin in SM1 was in every aspect,a better villian than those in BB
SM1 wins in the Villian aspect imo
GG had no motivations whatsoever past killing those employees that fired him. He keeps trying to get Spider-Man to "join him" throughout the movie. Join him for what exactly? Destroying New York? Taking over America and establishing a dictatorship? Teaming up in the Olympics to win all the gold metals since they're both superhuman? He has no motivation at all. His entire character is just "Muahahahaha! I am evil and do evil things! Join me Spider-Man!" At least Ra's and Scarecrow had motivations for doing what they did, and good motivations too.

And before you presumably bring this up, no he doesn't have to have some deep villain motivation. He could've had a very simple motivation. Him saying "Join me Spider-Man and together we'll rob every bank in New York!" would've been enough.


Quote:
Agree that to an extent
But they narrated both their origins together,plus Norman and Peter had a relationship with Harry,and Norman looked up to him like a son he never had,Harry was the mutual connection between them and all so it isnt exactly 'somewhere a man' its a man who is his best friend's father and a man he looks up to.I understand your point but it wasnt entirely like that
It still felt very disconnected to me. To rephrase my example from last time since I misinterpret it to you the first time with the "somewhere a man" part, here is a more accurate description of how it felt to me.

"Hey, you see this Peter guy here? And this Norman guy here? Yeah they know each other. Anyways, this Peter guy here accidentally has this happen to him over here while this Norman guy here accidentally has this happen to him over here. And now you have a hero and villain you can enjoy to see battle in the same movie. Yay!"

It doesn't have to be a direct connection like in TASM. Having the institute where Peter got bit by the spider be an Oscorp building and later having Osborn get his Goblin powers also through his Oscorp tech/research would've been a good enough connection (the connection being "Oscorp created these people, Oscorp is a strange place" just like in Ultimate Spider-Man and the reboot).


I get the maker's point in connecting their origins together but imo the final product wasnt that great.The whole concept was good but the execution wasnt imo,not of the level of how it was done in IM and BB


Quote:
I actually thought about that after thinking a lot about the movie.It shouldnt be like that,the motivation should strike you like anything

I mean,Stacy lectures him,he then goes out and confesses his identity to Gwen and scores a make out session,then jumps the roof and goes to stop a giant lizard,after that saves a boy and starts thinking about the father he never had
I mean everything goes so fast that you never get to think about Stacy's speech and his whole motivation
In SM1 its completely clear,after his graduation he takes out his new Spidey costume and Uncle Ben's final words ring in his ears,I still get chills when I watch that.His motivation is completely clear there
I agree with you on the TASM part. The second act of the film does have pacing problems and that part specifically does go by fast (and it continues at that speed up until Peter's fight with the Lizard in the sewers). However, that is more of a pacing flaw than a character/motivation flaw.

As for SM1, that's exactly why the film feels like a completely different movie after the origin. Yes, he does graduate, learn the message of WGPCGR, and then dons his suit but everything from that point on is a new movie with a new story. The setting is different, the focus of the story, etc. To provide a good analogy, if SM1 was a comic book, everything up until graduation would be the first volume/story arc and then everything after that would be the second volume/story arc. You wouldn't even know if everything after grad takes place a day after grad or 6 months after grad, much like how story arcs in the comics and in TV shows are structured. That formula doesn't work that well in live-action films.

Quote:
Even in IM and BB the motivation is made quite clear.Maybe if they made it slow in TASM and concentrated on one thing at a time rather than the motivation,romance and the orphan aspect all at once
I agree but again, that is more of a pacing problem with the second act than a character problem or a motivation problem.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 09:23 PM   #97
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,919
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
I dont think SM1 has any big flaws
Maybe little ones here and there but I give them a pass because if someone decides to make a CB origin movie today,he has this whole bunch of successful origin movies to look up to and take influence from,look at their mistakes and learn from them,improved technology and a already famous genre which guarantees easy money if the movie is decent
Raimi had none of that in 2002,he had on shot at making the character a success,he went all out at it(used the best villians and all) and passed with flying colours imo
The fact that it still holds pretty well against origin movies like BB,IM1 and TASM despite it being 10 years old already and the comparison being unfair for the reasons I meantioned is a testimonial to the fact that how good it is
It has major flaws as an adaptation. As just a movie on its own, it is ok but the dialogue makes it really cringeworthy to watch in many places.

I give older comic book movies a pass on certain things depending on the time circumstances. For example, I would look at a comic book movie from 1978 (let's say Superman I) and I would ask myself "Is this the best thing they could've done with Superman for the late 1970's?" If the answer is yes, then I would give certain things a pass like the special effects and the whole spinning-around-the-earth-turns-back-time thing (because it was surprisingly an actual scientific theory believed by many people in the 70's). If the answer is no, then I consider the movie to be either good but having much more potential to be better even for its time, ok, or plain bad (it depends on the movie at hand).

I would apply the same thing to SM1 and I do believe they could've made a far better movie even for 2002. Some easy things that could've improved the movie are actors that can actually portray at least the lead characters properly (Peter & MJ), a wisecracking Spidey, a less silly and more threatening Goblin even if just by little, and a few other things here and there. Also, the special effects could've looked good even for 2002. There are certain times during SM1 where I can tell they're using a green screen. So even for its time, SM1 could've been a lot better which is why I can't give it a pass on many things. Accurate character portrayal is not limited to time.

A movie holding up to another movie is an opinion. You would argue that it holds up just like how I would argue that it doesn't thus it is a flawed circular logic to say "the reason it holds up so well these days is a testimonial fact that it's good". You may say that the majority's opinion of it holding up is a testimonial fact of SM1's quality but in that case, many people including myself would argue there are reasons to why the majority thinks it holds up. Like I said before, I believe the only reason people believe it to hold up is due to nostalgia and due to the fact that it's the first Spider-Man film and one of the first comic book movies.

Quote:
Nolan's films I agree but you are giving too much credit to MCU movies
Except IM1 and TA,the rest are servicable at best.
2/6,thats not a record I would be proud of.
Even Movies like Daredevil and Fantastic 4 are true to the source material
I would slightly disagree on that. I would argue what I said earlier about the MCU films applies to 3/6 (IM1, TA, and TIH) while the other 3 are either just good or alright movies. However, the remaining 3 are by no means bad movies. They could've been better IMO but they're not exactly bad either and don't butcher the characters. I would say that's a record to be proud of IMO - 3 great and 3 not bad.

Daredevil Director's Cut was great. The main problems with Fantastic Four wasn't the source material but everything else. The story, character arcs, and the plot holes it had (specifically the second movie).


Quote:
Interesting question
I am not prasing SM1 becuase of Nostalgia,I am praising it because of its impressive quality
I enjoy it more than TASM and thats very surprising since I was anticipating TASM so much
I never said everyone would feel the same way I do about SM1 if it came out today. I said I believe most people would. I have no problem with your opinions on SM1 and TASM though.

Quote:
If SM1 would come out today,it would be even better and have better CGI with the technology of 2012 and have a better plot with better ideas looking at so many CBMs as an example and inturn be even better recieved

Raimi would obviously decrease the cheesyness looking at how audience expected more realistic stuff,maybe introduce Web shooters realizing how audience adored being realistic in today's world,get a better actor for Peter Parker,get a bigger budget from Sony and have a better CGI and action sequences
You should look at both sides of the coin
That doesn't really answer my question because that would be a different movie altogether. I'm asking if SM1 - exactly how it was in 2002 but with better and more updated 2012 special effects - came out today, would it be anywhere as critically praised as it was in 2002 by most people? In my opinion, no.

Quote:
And I think you are giving too much credit to MCU,for all their 'being true to source material' only 2/6 are great movies.
Already addressed.

Quote:
With all due respect,they are not to mentioned in the same line as Raimi's Spidey or Nolan's Batman
I respect your opinion. Though I do find it funny that Anno says (or at least that you think Anno says this; I'm not really keeping up with your discussion) that you underrate the Nolan Batman films when you clearly do not.

Quote:
Overrated trailers like Thor,Incredible Hulk and CapAm:the first avenger,do not deserve to be inspiration for Spider-man or considered the pinnacle of CB movie making like you making them out to be
Like I said, I would argue TA, IM1, and TIH do. Although the rest are not exactly to be considered the "pinnacle" of CB movies, they're still good movies IMO. MS has yet to make a bad movie IMO.

Quote:
10 years from now,when a new rebooted Avengers or Rebooted Batman comes in,I am sure people will find the same number of flaws with movies like TDK and TA.Just that take away the fact that they are excellent movies?
People will start bashing Nolan's Batman,because he isnt a martial artist,or a detective and master tactitian or versatile genius,or creating a love interest out of thin air like you are bashing Raimi's Spidey because of Web Shooters and not enough wise cracking
You may have a point. Only time will tell. But like I said above, I judge comic book movies by how good they could've been in the time period they were made. I would say TDK and the Avengers were good enough for 2008 and 2012 respectively, whereas I had problems with the Raimi films for years now. The first time I can remember when I rewatched all the Raimi films and I was dissapointed with them was in 2007 shortly after SM3 came out. That was before TDK and the MCU movies even came out.

As for Nolan's Batman not having the things you brought up, I would argue he does but that's a topic for another time.

Also, just to clear things up, I don't completely hate the Raimi films minus SM3. I don't like them as adaptations. As just movies, I think the 1st one is just ok (except that the dialogue is really cringeworthy at times) and I think SM2 is a good movie.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 10:45 PM   #98
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Spider-Man may have revamped Hollywood's thinking of CBMs,
You get the point,thats all

Quote:
Oh my god you're stubborn.
And you are not?

Quote:
There wouldn't have been a reboot taking a darker route without a movie to have inspired it to do such. That is my point. There could have very well been a Spider-Man 4, or a reboot that is still taking a light tone as Raimi's, but TAS-M with its dark tone would not have been thought of without Nolan's Batfilms.
And what've I been saying all this time?
TASM would always be there,may be a different TASM but Spidey films will keep coming
And TASM wasnt so epic for you to stake BB's claim,its very much possible that a light hearted reboot would have been better

Quote:
Plus, TDK was influential as well as that was the inspiration behind Skyfall.
I get it,one of the Batman movies is an inspiration behind everything
Sherlock Holmes,Skyfall,TASM,IM,Star Wars.
You name it

Quote:
Lol, it's sometimes so fun having a discussion with someone that doesn't really know that much. The tones ARE the reason why Bane and Scarecrow were changed to match their looks with the overall feelings of the films. "How wrong are you"
So tone is the only reason you want to change the costume?

Quote:
But...Hawkeye's suit was changed because of the tone of the film as well.
The Tone of TA was very similar to that of SM
Quote:
No one would take the look of Hawkeye's purple suit seriously
Thats exactly my point about Green Goblin,no one will be take a villian seriously if he runs around in a green and yellow spandex
That is why I would never want my main villian to wear a spandex

Quote:
, but anyone would take Green Goblin's green and purple look because we already have a guy in red and blue spandex.
Didnt CapAm wear a spandex?
And you are missing another point,the hero isnt meant to be taken seriously,especially Spider-man,you have to relate with him and look at his fun mentality,plus a spandex has its uses in velocity for a guy who swings around
While there should be an aura of fear or havoc when GG comes.And one cannot achieve that if he shows him in a spandex

Quote:
And I say they try to make up for it because they tried to keep Green Goblin alive somehow.
Because they wanted to use Harry Osborn as the villian from the start

Quote:
Also...Burton did use Joker in his first Batman film, but it wasn't a real origin film for Batman, now was it?
Why wasnt it?

Quote:
Green Goblin and Iron Monger are your two "perfect examples"? Oh Christ, that's hilarious. I mean, at least Iron Monger isn't Iron Man's greatest enemy, but IM was a pitiful villain to use in one simple battle, that's it. But at least like with Willem Dafoe, we had Jeff Bridges who were amazing in their roles simply because they're top-notch actors even while dealing with underused characters.
I dont even get your point here.
And neither of them were underused
Ra's and Scarecrow where underused
Quote:
And please, stop with your backhand comments. Ra's may have had mild development in BB, but it was fine after TDKR after he was developed more.
We are not comparing trilogies,we are comparing the individual origin movies
So stop with all this 'He was developed later'

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:01 PM   #99
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
I can only speak for myself when saying this but the main problem with GG's look in SM1 is not so much that it's different from the comics but that it looks bad. Plain and simple. It makes GG look like a Power Rangers reject/guy in a green tin can and the mouth part looks incredibly stupid. Plus, the Green Goblin, much the like the Joker, has to look terrifying and insane. And he doesn't.
Thats a good point,its up to opinion really
And I especially agree to the part in bold,that is why I dont want him to wear the green and yellow spandex he wears in the comics

Quote:
Ra's is not expected to be the big villain or to return, or to even be alive, until later in the movie. He's supposed to be an afterthought to both Bruce and the audience, and both get taken by surprise in the third act.
It didnt work that well for me,he came across as underdeveloped
They went a similar way with Obadiah Stane in IM1,they didnt want him to come across as a villian and wanted the audience to be taken by surprise in the end.And it worked out well imo,without being felt underdeveloped

Quote:
GG had no motivations whatsoever past killing those employees that fired him. He keeps trying to get Spider-Man to "join him" throughout the movie. Join him for what exactly? Destroying New York? Taking over America and establishing a dictatorship? Teaming up in the Olympics to win all the gold metals since they're both superhuman? He has no motivation at all. His entire character is just "Muahahahaha! I am evil and do evil things! Join me Spider-Man!" At least Ra's and Scarecrow had motivations for doing what they did, and good motivations too.
Agreed
The 'Join me' was a hickup in his plans

Quote:
And before you presumably bring this up, no he doesn't have to have some deep villain motivation. He could've had a very simple motivation. Him saying "Join me Spider-Man and together we'll rob every bank in New York!" would've been enough.
Well Spidey never expected the offer for him to brief him
JK

Quote:
It doesn't have to be a direct connection like in TASM. Having the institute where Peter got bit by the spider be an Oscorp building and later having Osborn get his Goblin powers also through his Oscorp tech/research would've been a good enough connection (the connection being "Oscorp created these people, Oscorp is a strange place" just like in Ultimate Spider-Man and the reboot).
I get your point
Though not a big fan of the 'Oscorp's is evil thingy' they are going for in the reboot

Quote:
As for SM1, that's exactly why the film feels like a completely different movie after the origin. Yes, he does graduate, learn the message of WGPCGR, and then dons his suit but everything from that point on is a new movie with a new story. The setting is different, the focus of the story, etc. To provide a good analogy, if SM1 was a comic book, everything up until graduation would be the first volume/story arc and then everything after that would be the second volume/story arc. You wouldn't even know if everything after grad takes place a day after grad or 6 months after grad, much like how story arcs in the comics and in TV shows are structured. That formula doesn't work that well in live-action films.
Fair point
I think Raimi meant for it to be like that.
Its only in today's era that people want the origin to be expanded through the movie.At that time the origin was seen as burden to be dealth with as quickly as possible.
Raimi still did a great job at the origin.Just didnt connect probably didnt want it to be connected to the rest of the movie

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:08 PM   #100
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
You get the point,thats all
You mean the same point I acknowledged as well? Of course I get that, seeing as how I've said the same thing

Quote:
And you are not?
Sure, I can be, but definitely not as much as you.

Quote:
And what've I been saying all this time?
TASM would always be there,may be a different TASM but Spidey films will keep coming
And TASM wasnt so epic for you to stake BB's claim,its very much possible that a light hearted reboot would have been better
The bold is where you need to pay attention. Never said there wouldn't be a reboot, now did I? Only said we wouldn't have gotten this particular reboot without Nolan's influence from his Batfilms.

And of course TAS-M wasn't epic at all, but it's silly to not see BB inspired the take on the reboot, which you countlessly do.

Quote:
I get it,one of the Batman movies is an inspiration behind everything
Sherlock Holmes,Skyfall,TASM,IM,Star Wars.
You name it


So while not accepting fact, you're trying to make fun of it.

Quote:
So tone is the only reason you want to change the costume?
To fit the film's tone and atmosphere, yes. Would Bane wearing a luchador mask fit with the overall feeling with The Dark Knight Rises?

Quote:
The Tone of TA was very similar to that of SM
Eh, debatable.

Quote:
Thats exactly my point about Green Goblin,no one will be take a villian seriously if he runs around in a green and yellow spandex
That is why I would never want my main villian to wear a spandex
I'm surprised they took a hero wearing spandex seriously then if that's your reason.

Quote:
Didnt CapAm wear a spandex?
And you are missing another point,the hero isnt meant to be taken seriously,especially Spider-man,you have to relate with him and look at his fun mentality,plus a spandex has its uses in velocity for a guy who swings around
While there should be an aura of fear or havoc when GG comes.And one cannot achieve that if he shows him in a spandex
Captain America's suit looked nothing like spandex.

And...LOL! The hero isn't meant to be taken seriously? Really? I thought I said that question as a joke, but are you really saying this right now? Lol.

Quote:
Because they wanted to use Harry Osborn as the villian from the start
And also to keep the Goblin legacy alive, by using Green Goblin again, but at least it was nice to know that it wasn't the end of a short changed Green Goblin.

Quote:
Why wasnt it?
Have you seen the film? And you really want to ask me why wasn't it an origin film? Nothing about the origins of Bruce becoming Batman, only a few quick shots of Bruce's parents being murdered...you call that an origin film? Really?

Quote:
I dont even get your point here.
And neither of them were underused
Ra's and Scarecrow where underused
Green Goblin was short changed and underused in an origin film.

And while Stane was pretty well-developed in Iron Man, the whole him becoming Iron Monger was crap and underused.

Now I stated how Ra's was underused, there's no lie about that, but it was still forgivable as Iron Monger in Iron Man simply because they're NOT the hero's greatest enemy who deserved more, but coincidentally, Ra's did receive more in TDKR.

Quote:
We are not comparing trilogies,we are comparing the individual origin movies
So stop with all this 'He was developed later'
Stop telling the truth then?

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.