So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

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).

Thats the same way I look at SM1

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.

We havent seen an accurate portrayal of Batman even.Will you give Nolan's Batman any less credit because of that?
About Actors and CGI,Raimi was limited my budget.CBMs werent famous at that time so Sony was obviously reluctant to give it a lot of Budget
Noadays even characters like Thor get a 150M budget
There are instances in even TASM where the Green screen in clearly visible,all the fights look too cartoony.Thor has pukeworthy CGI,especially at that part when that metal guy attacks.Ditto with CapAm and TIH(Only Marvel movies having good CGI are IM,IM2 and TA)
BB has terrible terrible fight scenes and the whole train scenes have very bad CGI
CGI is something very difficult to get right,I dont count it as a massive flaw
Raimi got a bigger budget for SM2 and look at the fight scenes.The train fight is still the best fight in CBM history for me

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.

You raise an interesting question
I have talked about the movie in real life with atleast 50 people,and all of them except 2-3 have said that SM1 was a far better movie
A couple of my friends even refused to watch the movie after hearing WOM even when I offered to pay for their tickets
Except my Sister and a couple of Female friends,I am yet to meet someone in real life who finds TASM better than SM1
True Story

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.

Spidey has 3/4
As I said before,MCU doesnt deserve to be called the pinacle of CB movie making,and should not be taken as an inspiration for Spider-man

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.

As I said you have to look at both sides of the coins
There would be a dozen more changes in the movie besides the special effects.At that time CBMs were seen as fun movies which is why Raimi took that route and that is the reason why you feel some dialogues as cringe worthy
Its fair to say that if he made the movie today,he would have updated the tone and plot according to today's expectations

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.

Same can be said about Raimi's spidey
He quips from time to time(Let mom and dad talk Jonah,Here's you change,I have a knack for that,Hate those things,I am sheriff around these parts....)
Not enough for most people
Same can be said about Batman,his detective aspect is touched upon on occasions,just not enough
When the movie Reboots,people will bring this up about him.Its only natural,people need to find ways to justify the reboot by bringing out flaws in the previous series,(Im not talking about you,just the general opinion I have after following the movie in this forum)

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.

Respect your opinion

[AF3619]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

What you guys think?

[T-CLIPSE]

Amazing Spider-Man all the way.

I never liked the Raimi version from the very beginning. It's a sappy love story with some superhero elements thrown in and that's it. As soon as the movie started with a narration from Peter Parker saying "this is a story about a girl" I knew I was going to hate it..and I was right.

The goblin was ridiculous looking..nuff said.

Mary Jane was the very definition of the term "plain jane"., I hated her character, what Peter saw in her I'll never know. She was self absorbed, selfish and overall very insecure and shallow.

The super villian plot line was lame, the extent of his master plan was for him to convince Spider-Man to join him as his partner,.what a weak plot device.

Spider-Man had no sense of humor, he didn't crack jokes and was way off in terms of characterization.

[Aracno_8000]

Thats how i answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lISR...s&feature=plcp

LoooooL

[Doctor Octopus]

It is hard to choose because I like The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 equally.

[Project862006]

Originally Posted by T-CLIPSE

Amazing Spider-Man all the way.

I never liked the Raimi version from the very beginning. It's a sappy love story with some superhero elements thrown in and that's it. As soon as the movie started with a narration from Peter Parker saying "this is a story about a girl" I knew I was going to hate it..and I was right.

The goblin was ridiculous looking..nuff said.

Mary Jane was the very definition of the term "plain jane"., I hated her character, what Peter saw in her I'll never know. She was self absorbed, selfish and overall very insecure and shallow.

The super villian plot line was lame, the extent of his master plan was for him to convince Spider-Man to join him as his partner,.what a weak plot device.

Spider-Man had no sense of humor, he didn't crack jokes and was way off in terms of characterization.

the biggest misconception on SHH do you people even watch the raimi films because i constantly see this toby was wise cracking sorry he didn't go all ryan reynolds on you but he was wise cracking

people rewatch the raimi films please

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

It is hard to choose because I like The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 equally.

Good thing we're only comparing the first films then, huh?

[Spider-Aziz]

As a movie I still like SM1 more
When it comes to origin I'm on the fence about it, I like the thought of Peter not aiming to show off for money, and I like the removal of Ben telling Peter the line, it's best if Peter comes to the "Great Power, Great Responsibility" conclusion himself

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Project862006

the biggest misconception on SHH do you people even watch the raimi films because i constantly see this toby was wise cracking sorry he didn't go all ryan reynolds on you but he was wise cracking

people rewatch the raimi films please

I have. Recently. Several times. And yes he has what I guess would pass for a few quips here and there, but barely, and nothing compared to Garfield's Spidey.

[Picard Sisko]

Raimi's Spider-Man did have a sense of humor, and threw out some sarcastic quips here and there... they just didn't stand out too much, and were very subtle.

Both Tobey and Andrew had qualities that were true to the comic book character, and those that weren't. But isn't that common in ALL comic book films now? Marvel Studios' Tony Stark is very different from the one featured in the comics, in terms of personality, and his lack of a drinking problem (HE ONLY GOT DRUNK ONCE IN IRON MAN 2). Thor wasn't given his human counterpart "Donald Blake," etc.

Point is, the characters will always be somewhat different, as not everything can properly translate to film well.

[Spideyisthelaw9]

I think Raimi's SM1 is better than TASM. Raimi is a great director and some scenes in SM1 still impress me. I hated The Amazing Spider-Man and I hated Peter Parker as we see it in Webb's movie. Dafoe is great, Ifans is nothing compared to him and the Green Goblin was definitely better than The Lizard. In TASM we don't have great scenes such as the mirror scene in SM1 or the fantastic sequences in the final battle.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

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

He doesn't wear spandex in the comics. He wears either fabric material or armor (or a mix of both) depending on the writer and time period. The costume is just drawn to look like spandex (or at least it was on many occasions in the past) much like how Batman's costume in the comics also looks like spandex a lot of the time but is in fact made of fabric materials similar to Cap's costume in Avengers.

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

Those are 2 completely different cases. Obadiah Stane was supporting character and people were taken in by surprise that a supporting character would be responsible for what happened to Tony. Ra's al Ghul was different. We already knew from his first fight with Bruce that the League of Shadows were villains and the audience knew there was more going on behind the scenes; they just didn't know who Crane was working for and what they wanted/planned. Once Crane reveals he is working for Ra's, the mystery of Ra's al Ghul begins and the audience begins to wonder how Ra's is still alive and then when "Ducard" shows up in Gotham, it's all explained. Plus, Obadiah and Ra's were different characters to begin with. Stane was just a supporting cast member that seemed fishy and Ra's was a mysterious character since the beginning of the film. A mysterious character like Ra's can't have the development and screen time of Obadiah Stane or else that would've destroyed the point of the character. I can kinda see why you would think he was underdeveloped but your comparison isn't really a good one because you comparing 2 different types of villains and plot twists.

I get your point
Though not a big fan of the 'Oscorp's is evil thingy' they are going for in the reboot

I personally like it. It is in my opinion one of the few good ideas that came from Ultimate Spider-Man.

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

In my opinion, he didn't do a terrible job with the origin but he didn't do a great job either. There are a few problems the origin has that when you add up, it hurts the origin overall. Things like Peter perfectly catching MJ's food followed by him shooting a web followed by him punching Flash and throwing him halfway across the halfway followed by him swinging across New York with no mask on make me question how no one suspected anything. On top of that, we know he signs up to enter that wrestling match. He key words are "signs up". As in with his legal name & unmasked and then goes by the stage name "Spider-Man". I know that it's a comic book movie and that I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief but that is just ridiculous. Peter would've immediately been outed as Spider-Man.

Meanwhile, Peter in TASM only uses his powers when out of costume to fight a bunch of drunks in a subway train that don't even remember his face and will probably never see him again, breaks a basketball post made of glass (which can be done in real life without any powers), and is only seen unmasked by 4 people in the movie overall (Gwen, Connors, George Stacy, and the kid in the car - technically 2 since Capt. Stacy is dead and the kid in the car barely counts for obvious reasons). And how do people react to this?

"Oh my God! How does the whole city not know he is Spider-Man???"

I guarantee that if Webb's Peter went to a wrestling match and did the exact same thing Raimi's Peter did, people would've critiqued the movie big time for it.

Though to be fair and to not sound like a hypocrite, I do think the football throwing scene in TASM was completely stupid and could've got Peter exposed (though it's nowhere near as stupid as the situation with the wrestling scene in Raimi's film).

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

Thats the same way I look at SM1

You don't think they could've at least cast better actors as Peter and MJ respectively and have Spidey quip more? Or have a better written MJ that doesn't come off as shallow a lot of the time?

We havent seen an accurate portrayal of Batman even.Will you give Nolan's Batman any less credit because of that?

Same can be said about Raimi's spidey
He quips from time to time(Let mom and dad talk Jonah,Here's you change,I have a knack for that,Hate those things,I am sheriff around these parts....)
Not enough for most people
Same can be said about Batman,his detective aspect is touched upon on occasions,just not enough

2 problems with that comparison:

1) You're comparing a personality trait with a specific set of skills. Spidey's sense of humor is a personality trait while Batman's detective skills are skills he has acquired over years of training and studying. If a Batman story doesn't require Batman to use detective skills, then it makes sense why he doesn't use detective skills much whereas there is no such thing as a Spider-Man story where he isn't required to use his humor because his humor is not a skill but a personality trait. Spider-Man not wisecracking enough would not be the equivalent of Batman not using enough detective skills but the equivalent of Batman constantly wisecracking throughout an entire movie, which would go against his personality.

2) The first 2 Nolan films are based on stories that take place in Batman's early career as a crimefighter and mirror the skills he had during that time so obviously you can't just jump in and already have Batman as the "Bat-God" of the current comics that can take down almost anyone with prep time. Year One and Long Halloween specifically are the movies BB and TDK are based on respectively. Year One and BB both take place in Bruce's first year as Batman and TLH and TDK both take place in Bruce's second year as Batman. Batman in BB and TDK is not that different from the Batman in Year One and Long Halloween in terms of abilities. Bruce in BB and TDK uses about as many detective skills as he does in YO and TLH which is why the amount and level of detective skills he uses in BB and TDK is acceptable. There is no excuse for TDKR though. It takes place 8 years later and there is no reason why Bruce shouldn't have been the world's greatest detective by then because he was no longer a rookie crimefighter and was no longer based on the early YO & TLH version of Batman. That's one of the many reasons why I found TDKR very disappointing but that's a topic for another time.

When the movie Reboots,people will bring this up about him.Its only natural,people need to find ways to justify the reboot by bringing out flaws in the previous series,(Im not talking about you,just the general opinion I have after following the movie in this forum)

Of course they will. There will always be people who will compare a reboot to the previous films and will bash the previous films. It's a natural thing for fans to compare a new franchise to the films before it. It's not just with comic book movies but with movies and stories in other forms of medium in general. However, I would argue it works both ways. There still are a lot of people who prefer the Burton films and dislike the Nolan films and people who prefer the Raimi films and dislike the reboot. In either case, some people bring up good arguments to support their opinion while others don’t.

In my case, the reason I like TASM has nothing to do with the Raimi films and the reason I like the Nolan films (minus TDKR) has nothing to do with the fact that I disliked the Burton films. I’ve had major issues with the Burton films from the beginning as well as the Raimi films. I wanted to see a Spider-Man reboot even before the reboot was officially announced so I doubt that my dislike of the previous franchises comes from their respective reboots.

Don’t get me wrong. SM1 and SM2 are by no means bad movies. SM1 is an ok movie and SM2 is a good movie but I always saw them as half-assed Spider-Man movies that could’ve adapted the characters better, even for its time.

About Actors and CGI,Raimi was limited my budget.CBMs werent famous at that time so Sony was obviously reluctant to give it a lot of Budget
Noadays even characters like Thor get a 150M budget
There are instances in even TASM where the Green screen in clearly visible,all the fights look too cartoony.Thor has pukeworthy CGI,especially at that part when that metal guy attacks.Ditto with CapAm and TIH(Only Marvel movies having good CGI are IM,IM2 and TA)
BB has terrible terrible fight scenes and the whole train scenes have very bad CGI
CGI is something very difficult to get right,I dont count it as a massive flaw
Raimi got a bigger budget for SM2 and look at the fight scenes.The train fight is still the best fight in CBM history for me

The budget for SM1 was $140 million. Adjust it for inflation and that is equal to Thor’s budget or more. Yet as much as I think the CGI for Thor could’ve looked a lot better, it still looks a lot better than certain scenes in SM1 and the green screen is still less visible.

I had no problems with Captain America and TIH’s CGI. I do think the Hulk looks a bit fake at times and that Abomination could’ve had a much better look overall but the fight scenes make up for it. That last fight in TIH is the second best fight in a comic book movie so far IMO (the first being the final fight in Avengers).

I can’t think of any scenes in TASM that look too cartoony. That’s just me.

I count bad CGI as a massive or minor flaw depending on the characters, story, and genre. A Batman movie, especially a grounded-in-reality Batman movie, does not exactly need that much CGI to begin with. I personally liked the train scenes and think they served in giving Gotham more of a distinct look and I think TDK and TDKR’s Gotham didn’t look as good as Gotham did in BB due to the train and the narrows not being shown. As for the fight scenes, I really dislike them too. But then I thought about it more and came to the conclusion that Nolan did it to leave it to the audience’s perspective about what exactly happens during those scenes. Though I did not like the idea, I respected the decision. Then I thought about it even more and came to the conclusion that there was no way to make the fights in BB the exact length they were and have the audience see everything. I personally think those fights would’ve dragged and been longer than they should’ve been had they been filmed better. And although I understand why Nolan did it and think he vastly improved the action in TDK and TDKR, I still think the action could’ve been handled a lot better and what we get isn’t anything great. The new CW Green Arrow TV series seriously has better filmed and better choreographed fights than the Nolan films had for the most part (no joke). However, everything else in the Nolan films make up for the fights and the movies were not meant to be big action films to begin with. They were more psychological crime dramas.

I agree on SM2. The special effects and the fights in that movie look great. However, keep this in mind. SM1’s budget was around $150 million while SM2’s budget was around $200 million. SM1 had around 75% of the budget SM1 had yet SM2 looks at least 3 or 4 times better than SM1. This means they could’ve either made SM2 look better than it already did or they could’ve done a better job with SM1 from the budget they had.

You raise an interesting question
I have talked about the movie in real life with atleast 50 people,and all of them except 2-3 have said that SM1 was a far better movie
A couple of my friends even refused to watch the movie after hearing WOM even when I offered to pay for their tickets
Except my Sister and a couple of Female friends,I am yet to meet someone in real life who finds TASM better than SM1
True Story

Fair enough. It works the opposite way for me. Almost everyone I talked to in the real world (friends, family members, random people, etc.) said they liked TASM more. Maybe it’s because I live in Canada. Lol

Part of the reason why many people refused to see it is because the reboot came out too soon. I still hold to that opinion. I think they should’ve waited a bit longer before rebooting because I knew the movie would get tons of backlash simply for being a reboot, even more backlash than the standard level of backlash that the standard reboot gets.

Spidey has 3/4
As I said before,MCU doesnt deserve to be called the pinacle of CB movie making,and should not be taken as an inspiration for Spider-man

They’re not the pinnacle of CB movies (that would be TDK at the moment) but a couple of them are definitely up there or at least The Avengers and Iron Man are (and also The Incredible Hulk IMO). And no, Spider-Man should not take inspiration from them. What I meant is that we deserved to get a Spider-Man movie that stays true to the characters and mythos just as much as the MCU movies stood true to the characters and mythos of the comics and characters they adapted.

As I said you have to look at both sides of the coins
There would be a dozen more changes in the movie besides the special effects.At that time CBMs were seen as fun movies which is why Raimi took that route and that is the reason why you feel some dialogues as cringe worthy
Its fair to say that if he made the movie today,he would have updated the tone and plot according to today's expectations

The Avengers is the most fun comic book movie ever made and I don’t feel it to be cringeworthy.

I was talking about the general audience. If the general audience saw the movie today for the first time, would most of them still like it as much as they liked it in 2002? In fact, scrap the idea of Raimi just making the movie now. Let’s say it was made in 2002 but it was only released now for the first time as the “lost Spider-Man movie”. Would the general public and comic book fans alike still like the movie as much as the movie is liked? I think not. And the main reason why I think comic book fans specifically wouldn’t like it as much is not due to the campy tone or the rushed origin but due to things like Spidey not wisecracking enough, MJ being portrayed badly, stuff like Peter giving his legal name at the wrestling match which they could use to track him and find out he’s Spider-Man, etc. Basically, people today wouldn’t have overlooked a lot of the problems SM1 has in general from an adaptation point of view like they did back in 2002. It would’ve been bashed harder than TASM was.

[Shikamaru]

Damn. I sure like to write. lol

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Damn. I sure like to write. lol

But you do it so well

[Sentinel X]

I think Raimi's Spider-man is infinitely better. It was a much more entertaining film experience and the characters were handled better overall. It also had some very memorable scenes such as the final swing and the upside down kiss. TASM had nothing nearly as memorable as these scenes and I honestly would easily forget this film if it wasn't "spider-man".

Its a shame though because I definitely think TASM had potential to top Raimi's films or at least be on the same level.

[Chris Wallace]

Raimi hands down. I didn't like Webb's at all.

[ThePhantasm]

I agree that Raimi's was better, minus Spidey 3.

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by T-CLIPSE

The super villian plot line was lame, the extent of his master plan was for him to convince Spider-Man to join him as his partner,.what a weak plot device.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Joker did it 6 years later, and look at the response it got

Originally Posted by Project862006

the biggest misconception on SHH do you people even watch the raimi films because i constantly see this toby was wise cracking sorry he didn't go all ryan reynolds on you but he was wise cracking

He made a few in each movie

And to ones saying what a wise cracker TASM's protagonist is, he only made a few jokes there, about as many as he said in the first film

[spider-neil]

For me, it's not the lack of wise cracks in this raimi movies which is the problem, its the delivery. The best one is 'Hey kiddo! Let mum and dad talk', that one for me works, the rest of wise cracks are maguire just speaking his lines with no emotion or gusto behind it.

Garfield delivers the wisecracks with punch and pizazz 'uhh, it that knife, my weakness...'. Spidey has a personality and Toby's Spidey just doesn't.

As for Peter Parker to be honest I don't know HOW I that to be played. On the one hand I think shy and timid as PP so when he is in the costume the shift in personaility is stark like he is truly free to be the person he simply can't be in normal life and on the other hand I want Peter to be dry and snarky so you believe the person wisecracking as Spidey is the same person out of costume.

I kind of like what Toby and Andrew did with Peter but if I could only choose one it would definately be Garfield. You absolutely believe the person who humiliates Flash at Basketball would humiliate criminals in the same manner.

[MarvelKnight]

Watched TASM again last night and it is def. better than my first few viewings. I still like Maguire's Parker over Garfield's and Garfield's Spider-Man over Maguires. Still, I think SM1 still gets a slight edge, for me, but I have become much more of a supporter of TASM than I have been in the past.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I agree that Raimi's was better, minus Spidey 3.

[Excelsior.]

I feel I would've enjoyed ASM better if they actually delivered on their marketing promise of the "unknown tale" that they so hyped up. If they hadn't left that narrative thread to hang bare for the sequel this film could really have done something to differentiate itself from Raimi's first. However the sequel I think shows a lot of promise. So I am not off the Mark Webb team just yet.

[MrSpoiler15]

The Raimi movies takes a massive crap on TASM. The ending scene where "Spider-Man" shoots his web at the screen was stupid. Stupid because it looks like they ran out of money and said, "Whoops! We can only make him shoot his web a couple of inches out of his wrist". Epic fail.

[Anno_Domini]

Hrm....how is that an epic fail? It's a slo-mo shot of his webbing being shot out.