The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > General Movies > Misc. Comics Films

View Poll Results: What is your favorite comic book film of all time?
Spider-Man (2002) 13 12.26%
Spider-Man 2 26 24.53%
The Amazing Spider-Man 20 18.87%
The Dark Knight 49 46.23%
The Dark Knight Rises 24 22.64%
Marvel's The Avengers 36 33.96%
Iron Man 20 18.87%
Captain America: The First Avenger 7 6.60%
Thor 11 10.38%
Superman 10 9.43%
Superman II 6 5.66%
V For Vendetta 5 4.72%
Watchmen 3 2.83%
X2: X-Men United 17 16.04%
X-Men: First Class 11 10.38%
Other 15 14.15%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2012, 07:20 PM   #326
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 36,899
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
That statement makes no sense. Comic books are just another form of medium like movies and books. They can be crime thrillers, horror stories, romances, sci-fi stories and the list goes on and on. Batman has had tons of stories that are crime thrillers. The stories BB and TDK were influenced by the most specifically (Year One and Long Halloween) were pretty much crime thrillers as well.
Exactly. There's nothing in the plots of Nolan's movies that does not fit with the style of the Batman comics. The amount of influence from the comics on his movies is heavy.

Just look at how much was put into the Joker alone; http://www.jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 07:49 PM   #327
C. Lee
I'm not old, I'm ancient
SHH! Administrator
 
C. Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 44,980
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Are people only counting "superhero" or "costumed hero" comic book movies? Tom Hanks's ROAD TO PERDITION was based upon a graphic novel (also called a comic book)....

C. Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 08:26 PM   #328
SpideyFan866
Raggle Fraggle.
 
SpideyFan866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Some place, Some Where, Next Door
Posts: 15,590
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Lee View Post
Are people only counting "superhero" or "costumed hero" comic book movies? Tom Hanks's ROAD TO PERDITION was based upon a graphic novel (also called a comic book)....
This. A History of Violence was based on a graphic novel as well

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Chipperson View Post
Yeah, I'm just worried that if Pan of Steel isn't widely accepted by the audience and critics, they might try to shoehorn Pinocchio into the sequel, and we all know how long Hollywood has been trying to do a 'Pan vs Pinocchio' team up movie.
The Legend of Labeouf by Schlosser85
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=226

#Hypsters4Sawyer
SpideyFan866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 09:13 PM   #329
pr0xyt0xin
Shaper Savant
 
pr0xyt0xin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 4,841
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Red, Spawn, The Spirit, Green Hornet, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1-3, Swamp Thing

There's a ton people typically leave out. Not to mention animated films. Who knows?

__________________
2014 Cinematic Adventures:
Noah | Captain America: The Winter Soldier | The Amazing Spider-Man 2 | Godzilla | X-Men: Days of Future Past | Dawn of the Planet of the Apes | Guardians of the Galaxy | Lucy
pr0xyt0xin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 11:41 PM   #330
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,154
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
He can. And he did. He wouldn't be able to survive as Batman throughout anything in BB, TDK, or even TDKR if it he didn't know at least a few fighting styles.
None of the fighting styles were showed.Just brutally punching people like a madman is not a fighting style

Quote:
Of course. BB was the one that established he learned different fighting styles. TDK is a follow-up to BB so that wasn't needed. Everyone watching it knows it's Batman and that he knows how to fight.
Nope,we never saw him using any,we cant simply assume

Quote:
I didn't have a problem with it in BB and TDK but TDKR took it WAY too far. The whole message of the film is one that I find very anti-Batman which is that anyone good at heart that wants to make a difference can inherit the batcave and fight Gotham's crime.
Yeah thats true,not once did I feel that Blake was worthy of becoming a second Batman.
Hell Catwomen was more worthy

Quote:
It beats you how creating a completely new love interest for the story is ok as opposed to altering and ruining an iconic beloved character from the comics?
Contrary to your beliefs,MJ isnt really iconic.
Her character is totally different in different mediums-ASM or SSM or Ultimate Comics,different in TSSM cartoon aswell
She the party girl in ASM comics
In the Ultimate comics is she like the original Gwen,Peter's childhood friend and studios girl who wants to be journalist,isnt even a party girl
In the TSSM cartoon she is a girl who never gives a **** about relationship and isnt even a love interest of Peter

Quote:
Whatever floats your boat. Technically, it wouldn't usually be ok to create a love interest for the movies either. If Nolan created Rachel for Superman or Spider-Man, there would be a problem because those guys have iconic consistent love interests. But like I said before, Batman doesn't a consistent love interest so it works for him. He can have any woman, from the comics or not. What Nolan did is no different than what most writers do when they start writing for a Batman comic, which is bring in a different love interest for Bruce.
Batman has had dozens of love interests in the comics,as you said,nothing was really steady
No one would have complained had he took one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Love_interests) and modified her character to fit the story instead of conjuring a new character out of thin air

Quote:
Also, I completely disagree that Raimi's MJ suits the story. I don't see how taking a beloved fun beautiful party girl with a broken family and turning her into a complete unattractive annoying self-centered **** fit the story.
I did saw she was fine in SM1 and SM2,the character wasnt written properly in SM3,but then again,nothing was written properly in SM3

Quote:
Though to be fair, Katie Holmes was never exactly the best choice either.
I thought she was fine in BB,she acted well(Atleast better than Maggie Gyllenhaal) and was cute
Maggie was a terrible terrible Rachel Dawes and I may come across as shallow here but she was ugly aswell(I spilled my drink when Joker said 'And you are beautiful')
Probably Nolan's worst casting decision

Quote:
I'm not too sure about that. Being a lawyer fighting for Gotham was a big part of her character. I can't think of a love interest in the comics (at least off the top of my head) that would fit that portfolio and I'm not sure I would like the idea of someone else being modified to fit that portfolio due to multiple reasons such as the love interest's iconic job and personality (ex: Vicki Vale being a reporter) and the chance to adapt the love interest really well in future sequels (if TDKR didn't have a set ending, that is). I also know there would've been tons of fan complaints that they altered the love interest so much that she is barely the same character anymore and stuff like that.

Let me ask you a question though. If you take someone like, for example, Vicki Vale and you replace Rachel in BB and TDK with her and you write her exactly the same as Rachel was written, then technically there is no difference between the two of them other than the name. So then why is it a problem if Nolan creates a new love interest as opposed to greatly altering one when the only difference would be the name?
Nobody would have bothered had that happen
Pepper Potts wasnt the love interest of Tony Stark and they made her like that in the movies and nobody complained
Jane Foster's career was completely changed(From Nurse to a researcher) in Thor and I see a lot of people praising that decision

Quote:
Sure he did. By turning Peter into George McFly and Spider-Man into a mute. Those two things right there hurt the character big time and in some cases,
I can say the same for Nolan's Batman
Thug on Roids,throat cancer,just a symbol and not a genius/detective...I could go on and on

Quote:
he even got Spider-Man's powers wrong (the little hairs he grows on his hands and feet are not the reason he can stick to walls and the spider sense sometimes doesn't work for some reason).
And Webb got it right? The Spider-sense is ambiguous and he shouldnt be able to crawl through those shoes
And I think the little hairs were always the reason for his abilities,it is the reason due to which real spiders crawl aswell.
They have never been adequately explained so its no problem if Raimi gives his version,I wouldnt complain if Webb makes it biomagnetism aswell
The Spider-sense was lot more inaccurate in TASM
It was almost always accurate in the Raimi trilogy
The only 2 times it didnt work was when Harry and Venom attacked him.And that was because Harry was his friend for so long and his sense did not consider him a threat,and his powers could never detect the symbiote in the comics,Eddy Brock even mocks this.It was accurate than even
Plus a little inconsitency needs to be always present with the Spider-sense,or else the films would be boring with him dodging everything

And I would like to mention that Webb didnt do a particularly great Job with the quips either.The 'Do you really think I am a cop' and 'Small knives' lines are fine but webbing him in the mouth and in the crotch and picking on him like a bully is not a witty spider-man,its border line douchebaggery

Quote:
It didn't withstand the test of time and one of the main reasons why the Raimi films are seen as some of the greatest comic book movies ever made is because they're the first Spider-Man films and two of the first comic book movies overall. That's just my opinion.
No comic book movie ever withstands the test of time(except maybe SM2 and TDK)
Just wait a couple of years,TA will torn to bits.TDKR is already being bashed here and there

Quote:
TDKR is. Big time. Possibly the biggest wasted potential I've ever seen with a comic book movie.
We agree to something



Quote:
Better character portrayals. Thus you can adapt the comics easier and certain actions by certain characters are more believable.
  1. The more mature tone. Raimi's tone was very limited to the cheesy 60's lighthearted stuff. TASM's tone is a mix of the Whedon's Avengers tone with Nolan's Batman tone. You can have a classic fun 60's Spidey story adapted (which was the case with the Lizard's look, character, and plan) but you can also have more serious stories down the line like Kraven's Last Hunt.
  2. Gwen before MJ & The Death of Gwen Stacy. This is obvious. The chances of being able to adapt this on the big screen alone makes the new franchise have far more potential than the old one.
  3. The pacing. They're not rushing the Spider-Man years or skipping stuff. They're taking their time with Peter in high school, with Peter's relationships (again, Gwen before MJ), Peter's developing friendship with Flash, and all of that. This allows for better character development, more clear character growth, and once again more story potential because you're not skipping over any of the big stuff.
  4. Not killing off the villains. Once again, more story potential here. I know Lizard is the only villain so far but I'm certain there will be at least a few other villains that won't die.
  5. Having a better set up universe with tons of easter eggs. The Raimi films were very stand-alone films. Other than the Harry's revenge and Peter & MJ's relationship subplots, everything else in the Raimi films is just introduced in the movie they appear in and not set up at all. Raimi is not that good at setting up things in an ongoing franchise. TASM does just that. You have the Norman Osborn foreshadowing, the Death of Gwen Stacy foreshadowing, the Daily Bugle foreshadowing and the establishment of Peter as a photographer, etc. The franchise feels like an actual franchise and makes the sequels look better planned and better set up and also once again brings in the chances for better character development, more adapted elements from the comics, better plot twists, and a world that feels a lot like the comics since the comics have these types of storytelling all the time. The Raimi franchise doesn't really feel like a franchise. Every movie feels like "Oh, let's see what story we should tell in this movie!" That's not necessarily a bad thing but I prefer the TASM route
All valid points.But Webb simply failed to reach the iconic status like SM1 did
Raimi turned a whole generation of young kids into Spider-man fans instantly with SM1.Did Webb manage to do that? Nope


Last edited by Spiderdevil; 12-19-2012 at 11:56 PM.
Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 11:54 PM   #331
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,154
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
That statement makes no sense. Comic books are just another form of medium like movies and books. They can be crime thrillers, horror stories, romances, sci-fi stories and the list goes on and on. Batman has had tons of stories that are crime thrillers. The stories BB and TDK were influenced by the most specifically (Year One and Long Halloween) were pretty much crime thrillers as well.
CBMs are associated with being action packed or something like Transformers with Superhero(s) (Dont get me wrong here)
Nolan's Trilogy is not like that,more like a crime-thriller and I never said anything is wrong with that

Quote:
TASM doesn't have a dark theme. It has a mature theme. Just because it's not all silly and goofy like the Raimi films doesn't mean that it is dark. It just takes itself seriously. It's no different from what the comics are doing. The comics are not exactly dark but they're mature stories and they're not aimed for a younger audience (the Amazing comics at least). There are even stories in the comics that are far darker than TASM was like Death of Gwen Stacy, Kraven's Last Hunt, and Maximum Carnage. Venom in Amazing Spider-Man #300 was also partly inspired by the 80's slasher films' villains.

If you think about it, Spider-Man has the highest body count of supporting characters out of all superheroes except for maybe the X-Men. You just don't realize it that so many people around him have died over the years due to his wisecracking nature and fun personality.
It looked to me like they tried to ape Nolan's tone and failed at that and that is why it comes across as 'Mature'
Anyway,the sequel will give us an idea about it

Quote:
I agree Spider-Man's comics/movies/cartoons/games should never have a dark tone similar to Batman or the Punisher but to say that there should never be a dark or tragic theme or moment associated with the character is ridiculous.
I never said he should never have a tragic moment
I did say a mixture of all those elements

Quote:
I understand if you prefer cheesy "beat the bad guy and save the day" types of stories but comics are now a medium like everything else and have evolved past that. Spider-Man's story is not all fun and games. Stuff like him letting the burglar get away, him letting Gwen die, him struggling with bills, the symbiote stuff, getting beaten badly by Morlun, temporarily killed by Kraven, and mentally scarred by GG many times are all dark moments that perfectly fit into the Spider-Man mythos with no problem.
Thats exactly what I want
Fun moments with his wise cracking and fun personality and ofcourse JJJ,Drame with his unsteady relationship,Dark moments like Death of Uncle Ben,Gwen stacy etc and the cost of living a double life

Quote:
I agree he's not the right guy at all for a Spider-Man movie but he is also not an idiot. He knows there is a difference between Spider-Man and Batman and that Spider-Man can't be dark or realistic. His Spider-Man movie would suck due to reasons such as the fact that he's not exactly the best writer when it comes to female characters and one-liners, not due to the movie being too dark gritty and realistic.
My point exactly
He sure is intelligent,which is why he didnt direct Superman since he knows that he is not the best person for action sequences


Last edited by Spiderdevil; 12-19-2012 at 11:59 PM.
Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 08:36 AM   #332
TheWallCrawler
hero or a menace?
 
TheWallCrawler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: a realm of non-physical existence
Posts: 4,768
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
It looked to me like they tried to ape Nolan's tone and failed at that and that is why it comes across as 'Mature'
Nolan's Batman movies are story driven and most scenes are very dialogue driven. Also one of the biggest things making the tone along side with what I already said is the score, which is gritty, heavy and "real world-ish" and it sounds more like a thriller score than a score from a superhero movie. the visuals look really real and they are hardly stylized

Webb's TASM was character driven and dialogue was very spared. The score is fantastical and pretty lighthearted. The visuals are stylized to make a certain tone. It's pretty much like 80's and 90's Spider-Man comics which are quote "mature", not Nolan-like. The visuals were darker, but the story had many night scenes because of their story

Now please don't tell me that you accuse this movie of aping the tone because it had more night scenes... it's just as dumb as saying that it's like Twilight because Andrew has puffy hair

TheWallCrawler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 08:39 AM   #333
Oscorp
Side-Kick
 
Oscorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,357
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWallCrawler View Post
Nolan's Batman movies are story driven and most scenes are very dialogue driven. Also one of the biggest things making the tone along side with what I already said is the score, which is gritty, heavy and "real world-ish" and it sounds more like a thriller score than a score from a superhero movie. the visuals look really real and they are hardly stylized

Webb's TASM was character driven and dialogue was very spared. The score is fantastical and pretty lighthearted. The visuals are stylized to make a certain tone. It's pretty much like 80's and 90's Spider-Man comics which are quote "mature", not Nolan-like. The visuals were darker, but the story had many night scenes because of their story

Now please don't tell me that you accuse this movie of aping the tone because it had more night scenes... it's just as dumb as saying that it's like Twilight because Andrew has puffy hair
This! Might shut up some people from spitting out things just for the sake of bashing the film. It's one thing to give thought out criticism and another to just say whatever negative things you can come up with.

__________________
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
Oscorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 09:43 AM   #334
Spider-Aziz
SUPERMAN
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35,601
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Lee View Post
Are people only counting "superhero" or "costumed hero" comic book movies? Tom Hanks's ROAD TO PERDITION was based upon a graphic novel (also called a comic book)....
Comic book films in general
I listed Men in Black and Scott Pilgrim

Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 09:49 AM   #335
Picard Sisko
Prepare to be Assimilated
 
Picard Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,948
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWallCrawler View Post
Nolan's Batman movies are story driven and most scenes are very dialogue driven. Also one of the biggest things making the tone along side with what I already said is the score, which is gritty, heavy and "real world-ish" and it sounds more like a thriller score than a score from a superhero movie. the visuals look really real and they are hardly stylized

Webb's TASM was character driven and dialogue was very spared. The score is fantastical and pretty lighthearted. The visuals are stylized to make a certain tone. It's pretty much like 80's and 90's Spider-Man comics which are quote "mature", not Nolan-like. The visuals were darker, but the story had many night scenes because of their story

Now please don't tell me that you accuse this movie of aping the tone because it had more night scenes... it's just as dumb as saying that it's like Twilight because Andrew has puffy hair

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Parker
"No matter how small I am--no matter how hopeless everything seems--I mustn't give up! My size doesn't matter! Even my life doesn't matter! No one can win--every battle, but--no man should fall-- without a struggle!"
Avatar by SpideyK.
Picard Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 03:27 PM   #336
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,624
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
None of the fighting styles were showed.Just brutally punching people like a madman is not a fighting style

Nope,we never saw him using any,we cant simply assume
Are you kidding? We see him learning fighting styles at the beginning of Batman Begins. Everything those ninjas do are considered fighting styles. We see Bruce learning how to use a sword, camouflage in the darkness, and fight multiple ninjas at once. It's all there in Begins. Ra's even says "We can teach you how to engage 600 men". He realistically wouldn't be able to survive as Batman anyways if he didn't know any fighting styles.

Quote:
Yeah thats true,not once did I feel that Blake was worthy of becoming a second Batman.
Hell Catwoman was more worthy
LOL Hell yeah, that is so true .

Quote:
Contrary to your beliefs,MJ isnt really iconic.
She is almost as iconic as Lois Lane is (and very close to her too). Everyone knows who she is (even prior to the Raimi films) and that she is Spider-Man's girl. Her marriage to Spider-Man in the 1980's got a lot of hype and media coverage even outside of the fanbase.

Quote:
Her character is totally different in different mediums-ASM or SSM or Ultimate Comics,different in TSSM cartoon aswell
She the party girl in ASM comics
In the Ultimate comics is she like the original Gwen,Peter's childhood friend and studios girl who wants to be journalist,isnt even a party girl
In the TSSM cartoon she is a girl who never gives a **** about relationship and isnt even a love interest of Peter
Ultimate Spider-Man is a comic in an alternate universe that is intentionally trying to be different from the 616 comics so of course that MJ is going to act different. By that logic, almost no Marvel character at all is iconic because they're almost all completely different in the Ultimate universe from the main universe. It is a common trait of the Ultimate universe to just alter stuff simply for the sake of being different even though the alterations they do usually strips the character at hand of everything that made him or her interesting in the 616 comics to begin with.

She isn't that different in the TSSM cartoon from the TASM comics. Both versions of MJ have that independent party girl vibe and feel. Reason she wasn't a love interest to Peter in the show was because the show took place in Peter's very early career as Spider-Man. Liz Allen and Gwen Stacy predate MJ as love interests. If the show would've continued, Gwen would've probably died at one point (maybe not in the show itself but in a DVD movie) and MJ would've became the lost interest at one point.

Quote:
Batman has had dozens of love interests in the comics,as you said,nothing was really steady
No one would have complained had he took one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Love_interests) and modified her character to fit the story instead of conjuring a new character out of thin air
But like I said, what's the problem with Rachel then if nothing was really steady to begin with when it comes to Bruce's love interests? What's the difference between Nolan creating a new original love interest and a new writer on Batman creating a new original love interest? And what's the problem with Rachel if you're ok with completely changing a love interest from the comics to make her like Rachel was in the movies? Because at that point, the only difference between Rachel Dawes and the altered love interest from the comics would be the name. Character wise, it would be the exact same character.


Quote:
I did saw she was fine in SM1 and SM2,the character wasnt written properly in SM3,but then again,nothing was written properly in SM3
I'm talking about SM1 and SM2 as well. MJ was never fine in any of the films. She was always poorly written and poorly acted from the beginning.

A user on this site going by the username Fox did a really good job of explaining in his blog what an annoying ***** MJ was in the Raimi films.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/1...e-edition.html

Quote:
I thought she was fine in BB,she acted well(Atleast better than Maggie Gyllenhaal) and was cute
Maggie was a terrible terrible Rachel Dawes and I may come across as shallow here but she was ugly aswell(I spilled my drink when Joker said 'And you are beautiful')
Probably Nolan's worst casting decision
I thought she was written well in BB but Katie Holmes couldn't deliver some lines throughout the film and I couldn't buy her in the role a lot of the time. I thought Maggie did a much better job acting wise but she wasn't written as well in TDK and part of that is because her character already served her goal in BB and only appeared in TDK to be killed off (for good reasons too).

Nah, you're not coming across as shallow. I thought the same thing when I first saw the movie so I can totally relate to you since I pretty much reacted the same way when I heard the Joker deliver that line LOL. But that eventually went away for some reason. I don't think she's now a beauty queen by any means but I don't think she's ugly either.

Quote:
Nobody would have bothered had that happen
Pepper Potts wasnt the love interest of Tony Stark and they made her like that in the movies and nobody complained
Jane Foster's career was completely changed(From Nurse to a researcher) in Thor and I see a lot of people praising that decision
Pepper Potts was still technically Pepper Potts, the assistant of Tony Stark. The movie just made her a love interest to Tony and had her constantly flirt with him. But she was still Pepper Potts.

Most people didn't have a problem with Jane Foster for mostly 3 reasons:
1) It was well done (though I admit you can argue the same thing about Nolan altering a love interest from the comics).
2) It was Natalie Portman, who is a pretty big actress and did a really good job.
3) It is an MCU movie and a lot of people blindly give big changes like those a pass just because it's the MCU. Everyone complains that Peter has a skateboard in TASM but barely anyone complains about how ridiculously watered down the Red Skull was in Captain America.


Quote:
I can say the same for Nolan's Batman
Thug on Roids,throat cancer,just a symbol and not a genius/detective...I could go on and on
Already discussed the "thug on Roids" part. Nolan's Batman may not be the fantastical brilliant experienced Batman from the comics but he is by no means just a "thug on Roids". He still has extraordinary feats and cannot exist in the real world.

The throat cancer voice is an acting problem, not an adaptation problem. We know that Bruce covers his real voice with a really deep voice in the comics too. They just did a bad job at trying to give Batman a deep voice that sounds cool/normal.

His level of intelligence in BB and TDK is around his level of intelligence in Year One and Long Halloween respectively. Both BB and Year One take place in Bruce's first year as Batman while TDK and Long Halloween take place in his second year. So it makes sense while he is not fully there yet. Though I do wish we did see him use detective work more consistently throughout the movies as opposed to just during certain quick moments here and there. This is why I really wanted to see the Riddler for Batman 3 and why I was looking forward to Bane in TDKR when he was announced since I was hoping Bruce would've had to amp up all his skills in order to take on Bane. We still haven't had a Batman movie yet where Batman continuously has to be a detective. I hope the next movie will be just that.

Quote:
And Webb got it right? The Spider-sense is ambiguous and he shouldnt be able to crawl through those shoes
And I think the little hairs were always the reason for his abilities,it is the reason due to which real spiders crawl aswell.
They have never been adequately explained so its no problem if Raimi gives his version,I wouldnt complain if Webb makes it biomagnetism aswell
The Spider-sense was lot more inaccurate in TASM
It was almost always accurate in the Raimi trilogy
The only 2 times it didnt work was when Harry and Venom attacked him.And that was because Harry was his friend for so long and his sense did not consider him a threat,and his powers could never detect the symbiote in the comics,Eddy Brock even mocks this.It was accurate than even
Plus a little inconsitency needs to be always present with the Spider-sense,or else the films would be boring with him dodging everything
Wow. No offense but there is so much wrong with this.

First, the spider sense is not left ambiguous. It is right there in the movie. There just isn't a scene where they openly address the spider sense in dialogue like other versions of the origin (which isn't a problem if you do a bit of research on spiders because a lot of spiders do have something very similar to the spider sense). The spider sense also constantly works throughout TASM while that is not the case with the Raimi films. In the Raimi films, it seems to only work when the writers want it to work. It wasn't just against Harry and Venom where it didn't work; it didn't work a couple of times against the Green Goblin and Doc Ock (I remember 2 times for GG when it didn't work and once for Doc Ock but I have a friend who says he counted a lot more so I'll ask him more about that), and it didn't even work once against Bonesaw. Venom makes sense but the reason for why it didn't work when Harry attacked him doesn't make sense. Even if Peter is attacked by a friend, the spider sense would still warn him he is in danger. The symbiote is the one big exception because it was once physically and mentally part of Peter.

Second, how Peter can crawl on walls was explained in the comics and it has nothing to do with little hairs. According to the comics, the spider bite gave him the ability to possess an electrostatic cling that reverses the polarity in his hands and feet which allows him to stick to any surface regardless of how rough or smooth it may be. The cling is so strong that you literally cannot remove him from the surface he is on. In the first crossover between Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, the Thing even tries to pull him off the wall and ends up ripping part of the walls on the Baxter Building. You do realize that theoretically speaking, if he had little hairs on his hands and feet, not only would he not be able to stick to walls when wearing shoes and gloves (which would be 99% of the time and including when he wears his costume) but all you would have to do is rip those little hairs off his fingers and his wall-crawling abilities would be gone at least until those little hairs grew back. Thus the Raimi films are the ones at fault here when it comes to wall crawling, not TASM.

And lastly, you say inconsistency is needed with the spider sense because it would be boring seeing him dodge everything. That's not true. The spider sense doesn't automatically mean he can't dodge anything. It's just a mechanism that warns him danger is coming but if Peter doesn't react fast enough or is too busy thinking about something else, he can still get hit by whatever is coming towards him. Notice how in TASM, his spider sense goes off when the police is firing bullets at him but still ends up getting shot because he wasn't too careful and was rushing to get to the Lizard.

Quote:
And I would like to mention that Webb didnt do a particularly great Job with the quips either.The 'Do you really think I am a cop' and 'Small knives' lines are fine but webbing him in the mouth and in the crotch and picking on him like a bully is not a witty spider-man,its border line douchebaggery
I disagree. I thought he did a great job with the quips. And "douchebaggery" like that is, believe it or not, stuff that Spider-Man does all the time in the comics. He webs up people's mouths all the time, both the mouths of criminals and the mouth of Jameson whenever he wants to shut him up. The guy is a troll to an extent.

Quote:
No comic book movie ever withstands the test of time(except maybe SM2 and TDK)
Just wait a couple of years,TA will torn to bits.TDKR is already being bashed here and there
That's not necessarily true. The Donner Superman films, BB & TDK, and even some of the X-Men films have withstood the test of time so far. As for TA being torn to bits in a few years, I don't think it will (at least not like the Raimi films) but we'll have to wait and see. TDKR has been bashed here and there since the movie came out and that's because it has tons of flaws. It has nothing to do with not withstanding the test of time. It hasn't even been 6 months since the movie came out.

Quote:
All valid points.But Webb simply failed to reach the iconic status like SM1 did.
Explain what that means. The "iconic status" of Spider-Man varies from person to person. What I think you mean by that is different than what you might actually mean and different than what someone else reading your post might think you mean by that.

Quote:
Raimi turned a whole generation of young kids into Spider-man fans instantly with SM1.Did Webb manage to do that? Nope
First, Webb did manage to get a lot of young kids into Spider-Man. I don't know the exact number or how that compares to the kids into Spider-Man from 2002 but you just don't hear from them for the same reason you wouldn't have heard from them on the internet in 2002. They're way too young now to go on forums like these.

Second, I'm no director but I'm pretty sure that when I make a movie, or in Webb's case a movie franchise, my main goal isn't just to appeal to the younger kids of the new generation. The main goal is to appeal to people in general. This may sound cruel of me but if a franchise appeals more to people in general as opposed to just more specifically to the kids, I don't see why it's a big problem. The new franchise's more mature tone will probably appeal to many more people in general in the long run.

Third, those kids that Raimi turned into Spider-Man fans have now grown up and are mostly part of the problem as opposed to a good thing. A lot of them have bashed TASM because it's not like the Spider-Man they grew up with AKA the Raimi version of Spider-Man even though the new Spider-Man is more like the comics. Many of them have bashed things in the movie like the webshooters, Gwen Stacy (because she's not MJ), Spidey's sense of humor, and I have even seen them criticize Peter Parker for not being a "silly dork" which, according to them, is what Peter Parker is (which is 100% wrong; Peter may be a nerd but "dork" is something he has never ever ever been ).

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 09:54 PM   #337
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
So by posting "lol" I'm a troll?
Right after my reply; yah, excuse me, but that felt like an attempt at just trying to focus that 'lol' you made right towards me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Whatever,its understandable for Peter to overestimate his mistake,I feel like that all the time when I make a mistake
Seriously,you have crossed all limits on hating this movie,now you are nitpicking on a simple dialogue
Never said I hate the film or whatever because of dialogue. Only that I didn't like it. Seriously, I mentioned anything and all of a sudden it's a reason I didn't like this film

Quote:
I guess you never visited the box office thread then
I never do unless it's on an occasion, but it's simply not a major thing to be brought up. You bring up the box office thread because it's something not someone would say unless you're in a specific thread such as the BOX OFFICE thread.

Quote:
I dont think it will be an accomplishment though,even Thor made 500M
But Thor was not trying to beat some previous Thor film. It will indeed be something great that a Superman film beat out the previous Superman film as much as it would've been an accomplishment that The Amazing Spider-Man beat Spider-Man financially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
TDKR is. Big time. Possibly the biggest wasted potential I've ever seen with a comic book movie.
I get it that people don't like TDKR or some simply hated it, but what's this wasted potential? Yes, TDKR didn't use Joker again and yes the city doesn't have as much of a voice or soul as in The Dark Knight, but TDKR had the biggest wasted potential? Really? Have you ever seen Spider-Man 3?

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 01:19 AM   #338
Spider-Aziz
SUPERMAN
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35,601
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I get it that people don't like TDKR or some simply hated it, but what's this wasted potential? Yes, TDKR didn't use Joker again and yes the city doesn't have as much of a voice or soul as in The Dark Knight, but TDKR had the biggest wasted potential? Really? Have you ever seen Spider-Man 3?
A very, VERY, misunderstood film

Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 02:58 AM   #339
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 36,899
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz View Post
A very, VERY, misunderstood film
In what way? People saw it for what it is.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:00 AM   #340
Ken-Kaniff
Blue Steel!
 
Ken-Kaniff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

In this particular order:

1. The Dark Knight Rises
2. The Dark Knight
3. Spider-Man 2
4. Iron Man
5. Batman Begins
6. The Avengers
7. The Amazing Spider-Man
8. Spider-Man

I voted for all 8. It's kinda tight between the last two, cause some things were better in Raimi's SM1, others in TASM1, but Webb's takes the cake imo. I just wish Uncle Ben's death was more emotional, like Sm1 for example. But these are just bits.

As for the rest of the movies, can't say I was a big fan of any, but that doesnt mean they were all bad.

__________________
!
Ken-Kaniff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:12 AM   #341
Spider-Aziz
SUPERMAN
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35,601
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
In what way? People saw it for what it is.
It'll take too long to explain, so many posts in debate
People viewed it in certain angles

Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:15 AM   #342
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,154
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Are you kidding? We see him learning fighting styles at the beginning of Batman Begins. Everything those ninjas do are considered fighting styles. We see Bruce learning how to use a sword, camouflage in the darkness, and fight multiple ninjas at once. It's all there in Begins. Ra's even says "We can teach you how to engage 600 men". He realistically wouldn't be able to survive as Batman anyways if he didn't know any fighting styles.
If you saw my previous post,I said just that
We see him speak chinese or some language,referencing on his multi-lingual ability
Ra's references different fighting styles and we see him learning them.It was good in BB.Nolan just went backwards after that
Just because we saw him learn some fighting styles doesnt mean we can assume he uses them to beat thugs,we need to see that happen

Quote:
She is almost as iconic as Lois Lane is (and very close to her too). Everyone knows who she is (even prior to the Raimi films) and that she is Spider-Man's girl. Her marriage to Spider-Man in the 1980's got a lot of hype and media coverage even outside of the fanbase.
MJ as such is iconic(The name MJ) but her personality isnt,its different in different versions of Spider-man

Quote:
Ultimate Spider-Man is a comic in an alternate universe that is intentionally trying to be different from the 616 comics so of course that MJ is going to act different. By that logic, almost no Marvel character at all is iconic because they're almost all completely different in the Ultimate universe from the main universe. It is a common trait of the Ultimate universe to just alter stuff simply for the sake of being different even though the alterations they do usually strips the character at hand of everything that made him or her interesting in the 616 comics to begin with.
She isn't that different in the TSSM cartoon from the TASM comics. Both versions of MJ have that independent party girl vibe and feel. Reason she wasn't a love interest to Peter in the show was because the show took place in Peter's very early career as Spider-Man. Liz Allen and Gwen Stacy predate MJ as love interests. If the show would've continued, Gwen would've probably died at one point (maybe not in the show itself but in a DVD movie) and MJ would've became the lost interest at one point.
Its is fair to say Raimi was trying to different like the ultimate comics.
Nothing wrong with that till the 2nd movie(She just got on the nerves in the 3rd)

Quote:
But like I said, what's the problem with Rachel then if nothing was really steady to begin with when it comes to Bruce's love interests? What's the difference between Nolan creating a new original love interest and a new writer on Batman creating a new original love interest? And what's the problem with Rachel if you're ok with completely changing a love interest from the comics to make her like Rachel was in the movies? Because at that point, the only difference between Rachel Dawes and the altered love interest from the comics would be the name. Character wise, it would be the exact same character.
Respect to the source material.A link to the comics,something for the comic book readers to relate to better.If everyone ends up creating new major characters to go with the CB heroes,whats the use of decades of mytholgies?
Just pick up a character and create a whole new universe around him
As I said before,what Marvel did with Thor and Iron Man is the best example.I am not their biggest fan but they really know how to show respect to the source material even after modernising most of the concepts

Quote:
I'm talking about SM1 and SM2 as well. MJ was never fine in any of the films. She was always poorly written and poorly acted from the beginning.
A user on this site going by the username Fox did a really good job of explaining in his blog what an annoying ***** MJ was in the Raimi films.
http://fenskeland.blogspot.ca/2012/1...e-edition.html
He is mostly criticizing the chemistry,which I admit wasnt the best and was ambiguous at places
Needless to say,it wasnt any better in BB or TDK either.From the corny way Batman discloses his identity to the whole whole 'I will be with you,when Gotham no longer needs Batman'-Idiotic dialogue.
Not to mention how unattractive Maggie Gyllenhaal was and how terribly she acted
My point being,we rarely see Female characters being potrayed the right way in CBMs.Webb has started something here,lets see how it continues

Quote:
I thought she was written well in BB but Katie Holmes couldn't deliver some lines throughout the film and I couldn't buy her in the role a lot of the time. I thought Maggie did a much better job acting wise but she wasn't written as well in TDK and part of that is because her character already served her goal in BB and only appeared in TDK to be killed off (for good reasons too).

Nah, you're not coming across as shallow. I thought the same thing when I first saw the movie so I can totally relate to you since I pretty much reacted the same way when I heard the Joker deliver that line LOL. But that eventually went away for some reason. I don't think she's now a beauty queen by any means but I don't think she's ugly either.
She was written well till the 3rd act,The corny way in which Batman discloses his identity like a love-struck teenager was lazy writing.
Also her final dialogue(I'll be with you when Gotham no longer needs Batman) made no sense,especially when she is someone who fights crime herself

Quote:
Pepper Potts was still technically Pepper Potts, the assistant of Tony Stark. The movie just made her a love interest to Tony and had her constantly flirt with him. But she was still Pepper Potts.

Most people didn't have a problem with Jane Foster for mostly 3 reasons:
1) It was well done (though I admit you can argue the same thing about Nolan altering a love interest from the comics).
2) It was Natalie Portman, who is a pretty big actress and did a really good job.
You are right,but we have to give credit to Marvel for changing the female character in such a way that it modernises things plus being respectful to the source material at all times.

Quote:
3) It is an MCU movie and a lot of people blindly give big changes like those a pass just because it's the MCU. Everyone complains that Peter has a skateboard in TASM but barely anyone complains about how ridiculously watered down the Red Skull was in Captain America.
This.
People worship Nolan and Marvel so much that everything they change is genius but when Sony does something similar,then they are ruining the character and what not

Quote:
Already discussed the "thug on Roids" part. Nolan's Batman may not be the fantastical brilliant experienced Batman from the comics but he is by no means just a "thug on Roids". He still has extraordinary feats and cannot exist in the real world.
His skills other than fighting were very impressive,I will give him that credit.He was creative with his gadgets and the whole capturing-Lau scene in TDK was mindblowing
Its his fighting style that resembles 'Thugs on roids'.Its how someone fights when they very very angry and have lost their minds in the anger,not someone who is supposed to calm and composed and prey on the enemies fear.That Style suited Bane but not Batman

Quote:
The throat cancer voice is an acting problem, not an adaptation problem. We know that Bruce covers his real voice with a really deep voice in the comics too. They just did a bad job at trying to give Batman a deep voice that sounds cool/normal.
And thats a flaw alright.
People criticize Tobey's crying face,as if anyone looks photogenic while crying

Quote:
His level of intelligence in BB and TDK is around his level of intelligence in Year One and Long Halloween respectively. Both BB and Year One take place in Bruce's first year as Batman while TDK and Long Halloween take place in his second year. So it makes sense while he is not fully there yet. Though I do wish we did see him use detective work more consistently throughout the movies as opposed to just during certain quick moments here and there. This is why I really wanted to see the Riddler for Batman 3 and why I was looking forward to Bane in TDKR when he was announced since I was hoping Bruce would've had to amp up all his skills in order to take on Bane. We still haven't had a Batman movie yet where Batman continuously has to be a detective. I hope the next movie will be just that.
So its a flaw alright
My final point-Raimi didnt get a one or two of characteristics spot on for Peter Parker/Spider-man but neither did Nolan for Bruce Wayne/Batman.It beats me why Raimi get so much blame for that while Nolan's faults are so watered down

Quote:
Wow. No offense but there is so much wrong with this.

First, the spider sense is not left ambiguous. It is right there in the movie. There just isn't a scene where they openly address the spider sense in dialogue like other versions of the origin (which isn't a problem if you do a bit of research on spiders because a lot of spiders do have something very similar to the spider sense). The spider sense also constantly works throughout TASM while that is not the case with the Raimi films. In the Raimi films, it seems to only work when the writers want it to work. It wasn't just against Harry and Venom where it didn't work; it didn't work a couple of times against the Green Goblin and Doc Ock (I remember 2 times for GG when it didn't work and once for Doc Ock but I have a friend who says he counted a lot more so I'll ask him more about that), and it didn't even work once against Bonesaw. Venom makes sense but the reason for why it didn't work when Harry attacked him doesn't make sense. Even if Peter is attacked by a friend, the spider sense would still warn him he is in danger. The symbiote is the one big exception because it was once physically and mentally part of Peter.
As I said before,The spider-sense will always remain ambiguous,its ambiguous in comics aswell
You simply cant see Spidey dodging every single move since that would make him unbeatable and they cant have that sound ring on everytime somebody throws a punch as it will be irritating and take you out of the moment
Raimi had it explained through that Lady at the field trip and after wards in the school fight,it was enough explanation and the audience get it
Plus you dont get the basis,the spider-sense just warns him of an oncoming dangers,he has to judge and dodge them himself.You cant take him getting hit here and there as the spider-sense not working,its Spidey not able to dodge

Webb basically aped Raimi in this aspect,he changed the school fight for the subway fight,we cant say he did a better job.Raimi atleast had the scientific basis explained

Quote:
Second, how Peter can crawl on walls was explained in the comics and it has nothing to do with little hairs. According to the comics, the spider bite gave him the ability to possess an electrostatic cling that reverses the polarity in his hands and feet which allows him to stick to any surface regardless of how rough or smooth it may be. The cling is so strong that you literally cannot remove him from the surface he is on. In the first crossover between Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, the Thing even tries to pull him off the wall and ends up ripping part of the walls on the Baxter Building. You do realize that theoretically speaking, if he had little hairs on his hands and feet, not only would he not be able to stick to walls when wearing shoes and gloves (which would be 99% of the time and including when he wears his costume) but all you would have to do is rip those little hairs off his fingers and his wall-crawling abilities would be gone at least until those little hairs grew back. Thus the Raimi films are the ones at fault here when it comes to wall crawling, not TASM.
And the electro static cling shouldnt be able to work with the thick shoes Webb's spidey has.Thats a bigger flaw

Quote:
And lastly, you say inconsistency is needed with the spider sense because it would be boring seeing him dodge everything. That's not true. The spider sense doesn't automatically mean he can't dodge anything. It's just a mechanism that warns him danger is coming but if Peter doesn't react fast enough or is too busy thinking about something else, he can still get hit by whatever is coming towards him.
Exactly,but do we need a sound everytime to make us understand that? We got adequate explanation is SM1,people will understand through out the trilogy
Quote:
Notice how in TASM, his spider sense goes off when the police is firing bullets at him but still ends up getting shot because he wasn't too careful and was rushing to get to the Lizard.
Nope,I saw that scene again
It only went off when Stacy is about to unmask him
Also Webb got it wrong in the subway scene aswell,he isnt supposed to react after the drop hits his forehead,thats reflex not the spider-sense

Raimi portrayed it better imo,it was explained at the field trip then before his confrontation with Flash,we see an increased sense of resposiveness to the surrounding before the uncoming danger,he percieves even small things as Danger(The fly and water droplet),he sees Flash's moves in slow motion and hence can dodge them easy.Thats basically spider-sense,there can be no better explanation

Quote:
I disagree. I thought he did a great job with the quips. And "douchebaggery" like that is, believe it or not, stuff that Spider-Man does all the time in the comics. He webs up people's mouths all the time, both the mouths of criminals and the mouth of Jameson whenever he wants to shut him up. The guy is a troll to an extent.
I disagree
TSSM cartoon is the best example on how spidey to should quip
There is thin line between being funny and coming across as a douche or bully
What he did to the car jacker was basically what Flash was doing to that kid,it shouldnt be like that

Quote:
That's not necessarily true. The Donner Superman films, BB & TDK
BB -Nope,it only got attention after TDK was successful.Just wait till Batman is rebooted,BB will be bashed here and there for its flaws if it isnt already
Quote:
and even some of the X-Men films have withstood the test of time so far.
Apart from First class,all others are simply 'good'.
Very few will disagree
Quote:
As for TA being torn to bits in a few years, I don't think it will (at least not like the Raimi films) but we'll have to wait and see.
TA is basically the same as SM1 in terms of tone.What people find funny and witty now,will be branded as 'Cheesy' and 'Corny' few years down the line when there is change of tone,its inevitable

Quote:
TDKR has been bashed here and there since the movie came out and that's because it has tons of flaws. It has nothing to do with not withstanding the test of time. It hasn't even been 6 months since the movie came out.
Test of time simply means the flaws becoming more apparent,they are already apparent in case of TDKR in just 6 months

Quote:
Explain what that means. The "iconic status" of Spider-Man varies from person to person. What I think you mean by that is different than what you might actually mean and different than what someone else reading your post might think you mean by that.
Its SM1 which made people think that Superhero movies arent just kids stuff and can actually be fun and earn money.Its SM1 which made the genre famous in the modern era
The amount of sucess SM1 had in 2002 is imo more than what TA has in 2012

Quote:
First, Webb did manage to get a lot of young kids into Spider-Man. I don't know the exact number or how that compares to the kids into Spider-Man from 2002 but you just don't hear from them for the same reason you wouldn't have heard from them on the internet in 2002. They're way too young now to go on forums like these.
I am yet to see something which proves that
SM1 did something which is only comparable to what TA has done or what TDK did.TASM doesnt come close imo.Hopefully TASM2 will

Quote:
Second, I'm no director but I'm pretty sure that when I make a movie, or in Webb's case a movie franchise, my main goal isn't just to appeal to the younger kids of the new generation. The main goal is to appeal to people in general. This may sound cruel of me but if a franchise appeals more to people in general as opposed to just more specifically to the kids, I don't see why it's a big problem. The new franchise's more mature tone will probably appeal to many more people in general in the long run.
I just used Kids as an example,Raimi's Duology was famous in all sections of the audience

Quote:
Third, those kids that Raimi turned into Spider-Man fans have now grown up and are mostly part of the problem as opposed to a good thing. A lot of them have bashed TASM because it's not like the Spider-Man they grew up with AKA the Raimi version of Spider-Man even though the new Spider-Man is more like the comics. Many of them have bashed things in the movie like the webshooters, Gwen Stacy (because she's not MJ), Spidey's sense of humor, and I have even seen them criticize Peter Parker for not being a "silly dork" which, according to them, is what Peter Parker is (which is 100% wrong; Peter may be a nerd but "dork" is something he has never ever ever been ).
Needless to say,if the movie was as good as SM1,they would have admired and adapted to the changes


Last edited by Spiderdevil; 12-23-2012 at 03:27 AM.
Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:17 AM   #343
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,154
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I get it that people don't like TDKR or some simply hated it, but what's this wasted potential? Yes, TDKR didn't use Joker again and yes the city doesn't have as much of a voice or soul as in The Dark Knight, but TDKR had the biggest wasted potential? Really? Have you ever seen Spider-Man 3?
SM3 was an even bigger waste of potential,no one denies that

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:20 AM   #344
Spider-Aziz
SUPERMAN
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35,601
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
SM3 was an even bigger waste of potential,no one denies that
Hello, it's a good movie imo

Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:33 AM   #345
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,154
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

It had the potential to be phenomenal not just 'good'

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:36 AM   #346
Spider-Aziz
SUPERMAN
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35,601
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Ok, giantic wasted potential
Then again, none of the Spider-Man films is great

Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:38 AM   #347
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,154
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

SM1 and SM2 are

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:40 AM   #348
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 36,899
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz View Post
Ok, giantic wasted potential
Then again, none of the Spider-Man films is great
Spider-Man 2 is.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 03:41 AM   #349
Spider-Aziz
SUPERMAN
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35,601
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

SM1 is close to being great
SM2 is good, not much more

Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 06:03 PM   #350
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,624
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Just noticed there was another post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
CBMs are associated with being action packed or something like Transformers with Superhero(s) (Dont get me wrong here)
Nolan's Trilogy is not like that,more like a crime-thriller and I never said anything is wrong with that
Going off-topic but I'll briefly address this here since I saw an "opening" (thanks ). I really hate the term "comic book movie" to begin with. From the way I see it, there is no such thing as a comic book movie - there's only movies based on comic books. The term "comic book movie" implies that the film is like a comic with multiple panels on screen which we have yet to get (except for a few scenes in Ang Lee's Hulk). From the way I see it, if there is such thing as a comic book movie, it means either something similar to the scenes in Ang Lee's Hulk where he used multiple panels or it means any movie based on a comic book but there is no such thing as, for example, "This X-Men movie right here is a comic book movie but that Batman movie right there is not a comic book movie". I find that ridiculous. Comic books are a form of medium on their own. They can be love stories, crime drama, fun action stories, and the list goes on. Anyone who doesn't see this simplifies the medium whether they realize it or not.

I talk more about this topic here:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=449593

Quote:
It looked to me like they tried to ape Nolan's tone and failed at that and that is why it comes across as 'Mature'
I don't really see where that idea comes from. It's not just you. It's something I heard people say this before many times. So just because they're trying to tell a mature story that older audiences can take seriously (just like how comics are today and how they've been like for the past 30 years) as opposed to just a silly cheesy story automatically means they're trying to ape up Nolan's tone?


It all goes back to the guys described here:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=449593

These people drive me nuts at this point (not saying you specifically are part of them). "Oh, why does TDK bother to be serious and intelligent and have a good story behind it? It's a comic book movie!"

Quote:
I never said he should never have a tragic moment
I did say a mixture of all those elements

Thats exactly what I want
Fun moments with his wise cracking and fun personality and ofcourse JJJ,Drame with his unsteady relationship,Dark moments like Death of Uncle Ben,Gwen stacy etc and the cost of living a double life
You said it over here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
I dont know what you mean 'go there' but Spidey should never have a dark theme.Maybe realistic but never dark.It was a terrible terrible idea to try it imo.Batman can have it because many of his comics and characters are actually dark

Spidey's been around for more than half a century with various different comic mediums,cartoons,games and ofcourse movies.And not a single one(Except TASM) used the dark theme and were all very successful.Thats how Spidey is supposed to be.A perfect mix of action,comedy and emotion.The dark theme should never be associated with him.
Before you say what I think you're going to say, incorporating moments of darkness into a story =/= you now have the tone of Batman. Uncle Ben's death can be considered a dark moment even though the Spider-Man series itself isn't dark.

Also, I don't know if you noticed, but Spider-Man has the highest body count of supporting characters, more than any other superhero including Batman. Spider-Man in general is by no means lighthearted. You just don't notice how crappy everything in Peter's life is because Spider-Man always covers it up with his humor and makes you, as the viewer, laugh.


Quote:
My point exactly
He sure is intelligent,which is why he didnt direct Superman since he knows that he is not the best person for action sequences
Lies! You secretly loved the shakey cameras! Admit it!

Just kidding. On a serious note, the action sequences in all 3 Nolan films were never that impressive. The new Green Arrow show seriously has cooler action sequences and it is a CW show. I won't even begin to explain how embarrassing that is.


Last edited by Shikamaru; 12-23-2012 at 06:10 PM.
Shikamaru 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 10:39 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.