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 12-23-2012, 07:10 PM   #351
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,912
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?
TDKR had potential to be just as great as TDK or even greater, possibly even blow it out of the water. You have Chris Nolan as the director, you have a movie that is a sequel to 2 great movies with the previous movie being (at least in my opinion) one of the best movies ever made, you have Catwoman, you have BANE - the man who broke the bat, you have a great cast of mostly A-listers like Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, you have a well set up universe, you have tons of great ideas to touch on and to further expand, and you have Knightfall and No Man's Land as the comics used for the inspiration of the movie, which are two of the greatest Batman stories ever told. You have all that and the movie ends up being significantly inferior to what it could've been.

Me saying TDKR is the biggest wasted potential with a comic book movie isn't an insult; it's a compliment. Spider-Man 3 is nowhere close to the wasted potential TDKR is because SM3 never had potential to be on TDK's level to begin with. TDKR did though.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 07:24 PM   #352
GENERAL RAAM582
The Amazing Spider-Man
 
GENERAL RAAM582's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 10,624
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

I don't know, SM3 had a pretty big waste of potential. It could of been as good as or better than SM2, a film many regard as the best CBM. It could of done great justice to the Black Suit and the symbiote story, instead it did a decent job. And it pretty much, aside from the birth of Venom which I loved, butchered Venom.

I wasn't disappointed with TDKR though. Why? I didn't do what some many did. I didn't hype it up as being the next TDK. I wanted a film that was as good or better than BB, and that's what I got. I've learned with my mistakes with Spidey and X-Men. When it comes to a trilogy where the second film is absolutely amazing, and the third film is coming out, no matter how great it looks I won't hype it up to be what the second film was.

GENERAL RAAM582 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 07:55 PM   #353
A Necessary Evil
#Fannibal
 
A Necessary Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,830
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.
Only a monster, whose very existence was a reminder of the hell Raimi left his wife to die in?

__________________
This is my design.

Raimi or not, it's absolutely hilarious how much Sony realizes they screwed the pooch.
A Necessary Evil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 08:40 PM   #354
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 The Joker View Post
In what way? People saw it for what it is.
And people saw it as the equivalent to...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
TDKR had potential to be just as great as TDK or even greater, possibly even blow it out of the water. You have Chris Nolan as the director, you have a movie that is a sequel to 2 great movies with the previous movie being (at least in my opinion) one of the best movies ever made, you have Catwoman, you have BANE - the man who broke the bat, you have a great cast of mostly A-listers like Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, you have a well set up universe, you have tons of great ideas to touch on and to further expand, and you have Knightfall and No Man's Land as the comics used for the inspiration of the movie, which are two of the greatest Batman stories ever told. You have all that and the movie ends up being significantly inferior to what it could've been.
Still not seeing how it had wasted potential. All the things you've mentioned were what made TDKR a great film, imo.

Quote:
Me saying TDKR is the biggest wasted potential with a comic book movie isn't an insult; it's a compliment. Spider-Man 3 is nowhere close to the wasted potential TDKR is because SM3 never had potential to be on TDK's level to begin with. TDKR did though.
Ehh...I don't get this, haha. Your gripe seems to be that TDKR didn't become superior to TDK I guess with this so-called "wasted potential". BUT...needless to say, Spider-Man 3 used characters and wasted their true potential with what could have been in the same caliber/league as Spider-Man 2. Out of that trilogy, everyone talks about Doc Ock and no other villain. At least people talk about Bane in the same vein as Joker with memorable villains and the respective actors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GENERAL RAAM582 View Post
I don't know, SM3 had a pretty big waste of potential. It could of been as good as or better than SM2, a film many regard as the best CBM. It could of done great justice to the Black Suit and the symbiote story, instead it did a decent job. And it pretty much, aside from the birth of Venom which I loved, butchered Venom.
And this

Quote:
I wasn't disappointed with TDKR though. Why? I didn't do what some many did. I didn't hype it up as being the next TDK. I wanted a film that was as good or better than BB, and that's what I got. I've learned with my mistakes with Spidey and X-Men. When it comes to a trilogy where the second film is absolutely amazing, and the third film is coming out, no matter how great it looks I won't hype it up to be what the second film was.
Spider-Man 3 is the last CBM that I had expectations for and so I learned that lesson far before even The Dark Knight was released, but alas, I trusted Nolan with TDK and TDKR and I love both of those films.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 09:19 PM   #355
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,950
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Necessary Evil View Post
Only a monster, whose very existence was a reminder of the hell Raimi left his franchise to die in?
Fixed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And people saw it as the equivalent to...

Hey I think I can see Venom in that pile of poop.

__________________
"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, 09:26 PM   #356
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,912
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
s
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
TDK is a sequel to BB. You obviously don't have to show all of that again or to readdress that because BB already established it. The writers expect people to know all of that walking into TDK and rightfully so.

Quote:
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
Three things:

1) Before we see that, we have to "see" Chris Nolan learn how to properly film fight scenes and choreograph better fights in general. This may sound funny to some people but how do you expect to see Batman fighting and using those fighting styles when we barely see what's going on in the Nolan films during the fights?

2) You admit that yes, we did see him learn some fighting styles. Let me ask you a logical question. If you traveled the world and learned multiple fighting styles which you planned to use to fight crime and then returned home to your crappy corrupt city to fight crime, why wouldn't you use those fighting styles?

3) You do realize that if he never used those fighting styles at any point, he would be dead, right? You try taking on tons of thugs at once and a couple of SWAT teams at once (which was the case in TDK) without any firearms. You would utterly get destroyed if you didn't know how to fight. There would be no other way to win.

Quote:
MJ as such is iconic(The name MJ) but her personality isnt,its different in different versions of Spider-man
In different versions in the comics? Yes. But by that definition, pretty much no one is iconic. Spider-Man himself is not the same in most non-canon stories either.

In different versions as in different in adaptations from the comics? I would argue she was ok in most cartoons but that doesn't really mean she isn't iconic; it just means she isn't properly adapted most of the time which is something that will quickly get fixed with time especially now since we'll probably get a good MJ in live-action. We have yet to see a serious and threatening Lex Luthor in a live-action Superman movie but Lex Luthor is still very iconic.

Quote:
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)
Raimi's MJ is nothing like the MJ in Ultimate Spider-Man. And no, making her different wouldn't be wrong unless you somehow have an idea and you can make her alterations fantastic. Not the case with Raimi's MJ.

Quote:
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?
Fair enough. Though I still don't have a problem with Rachel since what Nolan did was no different than what a comic writer does. If Nolan was a new writer on Batman, Rachel would be the love interest he would bring in the comics until the next writer came. And if you literally change everything about the love interest other than the name, that's not really respect to the source material. That, depending on how it is handled, would be either a nod/homage to the fans or a bastardization of the character.

Quote:
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
That's true though there are still many things about Thor that bugged me. I didn't like that Thor's civilian identity Donald Blake was missing or the reason why Thor came to our world to begin with (as opposed to being sent here because he chose the humans over Asgard). I also didn't like the constant intrusion of other stuff from the Marvel universe in Thor's solo movie.

Quote:
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

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
How do Maggie's looks and acting talents have anything to do with their chemistry, which is what you're talking about right now?

It wasn't great in BB and TDK but it wasn't anywhere as bad as the chemistry between Peter and MJ either. The "I'll be with you when Gotham no longer needs Batman" thing was part of Bruce's character arc in the first two films. He starts out as Batman thinking it's just something he's going to do for a while until he cleans up Gotham and finds a good replacement for Batman and then he can be with Rachel. Then in TDK, he learns that not only it's not possible for him to ever quit but one of the obstacles that was in his way from embracing his true full life as Batman, which was Rachel, has now been killed. So that plot point was all part of the bigger story.

He doesn't reveal his identity to her. He just says "It's not who I am underneath but what I do what defines me". She just figures it out based on that. It's by no means too great of a scene but it's not like he openly told her.

She can't be with him because at the moment, he is an unstable man that dresses up as a bat every night, fights Gotham's criminals head-on (which Rachel doesn't do), and puts Gotham before anything including relationships and family.

Quote:
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.
That's true. You're right about that.

Quote:
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
This is true too .

Quote:
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
Yes and no. He had some moments of anger but that's normal. Some writers write Batman like that as well. Also, the only moments when we see his fighting style was in TDKR where he is past his prime and severely injured from past experiences. We barely saw anything in BB due to the camera angles and while TDK was a big improvement in that department, most of the fights happened in the dark so you still couldn't clearly see everything. So we technically don't see Batman clearly fight throughout the whole Nolan franchise except for when he is the beaten-and-broken-and-worn-out Batman in TDKR .

Quote:
And thats a flaw alright.
People criticize Tobey's crying face,as if anyone looks photogenic while crying
It is a flaw. Never said it wasn't. Just that it was an acting flaw and not an adaptation flaw. Tobey's obviously fake tears were not an adaptation flaw either but an acting flaw.


Quote:
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
We've already been through this discussion. As I already said, Nolan's Batman = very early Batman, specifically from Year One and Long Halloween and that is excluding the entire character arc of Batman in TDK, which fits great for Batman and shows what the difference between Batman and your average vigilante is. Yes, Nolan's Batman has a few small flaws here and there but I don't count those because they can be found in any superhero movie including the Raimi films. I don't count those small flaws for Raimi's Spider-Man either; just the big ones (except for when I want to annoy nitpicky haters that look for really small flaws in the portrayal of Spider-Man in TASM).

Also, regarding your point...
Quote:
My final point-Raimi didnt get a one or two of characteristics spot on for Peter Parker/Spider-man
I highly disagree with you on this point. It is completely wrong. Raimi didn't not get just one or two characteristics wrong about Spider-Man, if you know what I'm implying .

Quote:
As I said before,The spider-sense will always remain ambiguous,its ambiguous in comics aswell
Very rarely in the comics does it not work when he is being attacked head-on and whenever that is the case, it's always due to bad writing.

Quote:
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
Already addressed this. I said in my last post that Spidey having an active spider sense doesn't automatically make him unbeatable or mean that he can't dodge anything coming his way. And no, you don't need the sound ring on every time someone throws a punch. Didn't say you need it. Having a spider sense =/= always hearing the sound effect.

Quote:
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 don't 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
That's what I just talked about now and in my previous post. And most of the times in the Raimi films when it didn't work, it was literally the spider sense just not working. It makes no sense to me how freakin' Bonesaw - who has no powers - was able to sneak up behind him and hit him in the head with a chair. Peter didn't see that coming at all. Not to mention that he doesn't even look worried or as if he feels something is strange when Harry attacks him on the street in Spider-Man 3. Or how about the scene in SM1 where MJ has to warn him that the Green Goblin is about to attack him and only then he turns around and gets hit? I'll have to rewatch all 3 films for all the other times.

Quote:
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
I admitted that already. Raimi had the spider sense explained while Webb had the spider sense not addressed but consistently working good throughout the film. I'll take Webb's spider sense over Raimi's. Plus, like I said, with a bit of Google, anyone can find out about the spider sense because some spiders in real life have something similar.

Quote:
And the electro static cling shouldnt be able to work with the thick shoes Webb's spidey has.Thats a bigger flaw
Umm...no it isn't. At all. It's strong enough that it goes through shoes and yes, it's possible to have an electrostatic cling that strong. The Thing trying to pull Spider-Man off the wall and failing to do so shows exactly how strong it is. But even if it wasn't, how exactly does that make more sense than little hairs that grow out of his shoes? Peter doesn't go barefoot in the comics and in the Raimi films when he is Spider-Man (well, I know not in the comics but I'm assuming he isn't barefoot in the Raimi films). The electrostatic explanation makes so much more sense.

Quote:
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
No you don't need a sound. I already said you don't.

Quote:
Nope,I saw that scene again
It only went off when Stacy is about to unmask him
I'm talking about before that. There is a scene where he tries to dodge multiple bullets coming from multiple police officers and he fails to dodge one bullet.

Quote:
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
The beer bottle that that guy put on his head was going to fall right on his face and would've soaked him everywhere. That was danger to him and his spider sense reacted to that.

Quote:
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
Wow. Even more wrong over here.

Like I already said, yes it wasn't explained in TASM and it should've but an explanation for that is just a Google search away. It's much more important to have it working period than explaining it.

We see an increased sense of responsiveness to the surrounding before the incoming danger? Like I said, only when the writers want to.

Quote:
he percieves even small things as Danger(The fly and water droplet)
Are you kidding me? You just criticized the subway scene in TASM for doing the same thing. The water droplet falling onto his face and the beer that was going to fall onto him and splash him on the face was a small danger perceived and detected by his spider sense.

Quote:
he sees Flash's moves in slow motion and hence can dodge them easy.Thats basically spider-sense,there can be no better explanation
Except that is not how the spider sense works. Peter doesn't see things in slow motion. He detects them before they happen and where they're about to come from. You just explained why Raimi didn't fully understand the spider sense to begin with.

Quote:
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
The Spectacular Spider-Man is the best example of how to do anything Spider-Man related really good if I can't bring up the comics. I can say that about anything.

It's not what a bully does. It's exactly what Spider-Man would do. He sometimes likes to screw with the criminals he fights. He webs up the mouths of criminals like that in the comics all the time and even webs up the mouth of Jameson sometimes just because. I don't see how that makes him a bully or a douchebag. All he did was web up his mouth, crotch, and certain other body parts. It's not like the webbing was painful to begin with and all it did was further keep the criminal secure until the police showed up. There were times in comics where he would web up criminals completely from head to toe.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 09:27 PM   #357
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,912
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
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
Maybe. We'll see. I probably won't bash it all over the place. I've been addressing my problems with SM1 before the reboot was even announced.

Quote:
Apart from First class,all others are simply 'good'.
Very few will disagree
I agree with this. I was specifically talking about X-Men 2. It's not a fantastic movie but I would say it's still being looked as a "good" movie just like when it came out. Basically, although it's not fantastic, the fans' opinion on it over time didn't change by a lot.

Quote:
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
I don't think TA is like SM1. My problems with SM1 is that they're way too cheesy and silly. TA is lighthearted but it isn't that. You can have a fun lighthearted film that isn't silly, cheesy, or corny. As for how TA will be looked at down the road, I can't say for sure I would know that. I'll have to wait and see. It's no classic by any means so there will obviously come a time when it will no longer be liked by people but I doubt it's anywhere as soon as you seem to think it is. Anyways, we'll have to wait and see.

Quote:
Test of time simply means the flaws becoming more apparent,they are already apparent in case of TDKR in just 6 months
TDKR has been bashed since it came out. It didn't start just now because only now after 6 months people began to realize their flaws. Heck, it was bashed even before it came out because just from news and trailers alone, you could tell they screwed up and already contradicted a lot of stuff from TDK. TDKR is the exact opposite of BB and TDK. The way TDK works is the more you overanalyze it, the better it gets. While the more and more you overanalyze TDKR, the worse it gets.

Quote:
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
Simply because it was the first Spider-Man movie and had Spider-Man swinging around the city and fighting a villain. Also because the movie had a lot of stuff very similar with stuff from older comic book movies like the Donner Superman films. There were a lot of classic superhero moments in the movie that the general audience loved, even though none of those fit for Spider-Man.

For example, Peter Parker acted a lot like Clark Kent in the Donner movies did and there were even "Superman shots" where Peter takes off his shirt revealing his costume underneath in a pose very similar to Clark Kent's pose when he became Superman. There's also other stuff like the fact that the atmosphere in the Daily Bugle felt a lot like the atmosphere in the Daily Planet from the Donner films. That is essentially all the problems with the Raimi films in a nutshell: They are Superman films but with Spider-Man. None of these things work for Spider-Man but the GA doesn't know the source material and they really liked the Donner Superman films so obviously that Raimi's formula was loved. There is also the fact that Spider-Man 1 was one of the first comic book movies ever made in general so the GA didn't have much to choose from.

These are essentially all the reasons SM1 was so successful. If it came out after TDK and Iron Man, it wouldn't have been anywhere as successful because being one of the first decent comic book movies couldn't have been used as an excuse to cover it up from criticism. Look at Green Lantern. It is a superhero film with all the cliches in the book just like the older superhero films yet it got bashed to death because you can't get away with rushing superhero films and making them like that anymore. Had SM1 came out in 2011, Green Lantern would've been its fate in terms of success. Just like how if Green Lantern came out in the early 2000's, I don't want to say that people would've praised it but they would've thought it was just alright as opposed to terrible (and I would still disagree with them today that the movie was alright).

Quote:
The amount of sucess SM1 had in 2002 is imo more than what TA has in 2012
Not really. TA made $1.5 billion at the box office. Even adjusted for inflation, TA still made more. Plus, it's been hyped up for a lot longer and had more A-list names like RDJ attached to it.

Quote:
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
SM1 didn't really do as much for comic book movies as TDK and Avengers did either, even for its time.

And yes, hopefully TASM 2 will be the Spider-Man movie we have been waiting for - the epic Spider-Man movie that blows everyone's mind away, makes $1 billion at the box office, and is on TDK's level.

Quote:
I just used Kids as an example,Raimi's Duology was famous in all sections of the audience
Like I said, mostly because it was the first Spider-Man movie and one of the first comic book movies in general. TASM didn't have that luxury and the fact that it came out the same summer as Avengers and TDKR in a post-Nolan and post-MCU world only made it worse. But making $750 million and hyping up the audience enough to convince them to see the next one (it's not like the audience hated the movie) is a great achievement considering all those factors.

Quote:
Needless to say,if the movie was as good as SM1,they would have admired and adapted to the changes
Not necessarily true. BB and TDK were both good but there are still tons of people even today that bash them for not being like Burton's films. Remember the complaints that the Joker killed Batman's parents as opposed to Joe Chill? There are even a good chunk of people today that say stuff like "Bale's Batman is a pussy for not killing people like Keaton's Batman" and "Why doesn't the Joker have an origin like in the comics?" (even though his origin is mysterious and left ambiguous in the comics) or "Why is Bruce Wayne a playboy brat as opposed to a silent serious man that doesn't spend much time outside his mansion?" These complaints are nowhere as strong now but they were heavily strong while BB was in theatres and months prior to TDK coming out.

Spider-Man would've been the same. Some people just can't let go of nostalgia no matter what happens. Heck, even the James Bond reboot still gets crap like that from "nostalgic tards" because Pierce Brosnan isn't in the movies.


Also, I can perfectly understand if you don't feel like responding to this really long post . lol

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 09:51 PM   #358
Visualiza
What is a yout?
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 1,457
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

I think debating whether or not one movie wasted more potential than the other is splitting hairs; however, a good case can be made for both films either way. That much is evident by how many legitimate complaints have been levied towards each of them. They were positioned so differently that I think they're difficult to group together.

The wasted potential in Spider-Man 3 was primarily with the villain(s). I'm sure most people would point to Venom, but I can only think of Sandman, since his entire arc was very obviously neutered by the inclusion of so many disjointed plot elements. I'll always hold to my belief that Haden Church gave a strong, heartfelt performance even in spite of his limited screen time and development. There's more, of course, but this was the biggest misstep for me.

WRT Venom, I can't bring myself to refer to the way he was handled as wasted potential. IMO, for something to have potential, it has to first be positioned in a way that could have realized this potential. In the case of Venom, his entire inclusion was such an obvious after-thought, and based upon that I just can't call it wasted potential, rather a terrible idea. I do believe that there's a difference, although some things can be both, such as Harry and his "New Goblin" alter-ego.

TDKR's wasted potential was that it was positioned as this grand, epic conclusion to a Batman trilogy, but it fell flat on its face. In this case, I feel that Nolan got a little too big for his britches and let his limitless ambition get the best of him. This, for me, is the crux of the problem with TDKR: it's far too ambitious for its own good, and none of the resolutions were appropriate or satisfying. The title of Marshall Fine's review sums up my opinion of this movie's wasted potential perfectly: 'Grandiose, not grand'.

With all of that being said, I don't think we can really say which movie wasted more potential than the other. At the end of the day, both were disappointments and that's the only way I can see it...one being more or less so than the other doesn't really enhance the situation for either. All my opinion, of course.

Visualiza is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 10:55 PM   #359
B
[insert witty comment]
 
B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,037
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Probably at the time of writing this:

1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. Superman: The Movie
5. The Avengers
6. Batman (89)
7. The Amazing Spiderman
8. Spiderman II
9. Thor
10. Iron Man
11. Batman Returns
12. Captain America
13. Spiderman
14. Blade
15. The Incredible Hulk (08)
16. Iron Man II
17. X-Men II
18. Blade II
19. X-Men
20. Superman II

That's pretty much all I can think off without starting to think about which films I dislike the least out of **** like Spiderman III, Superman III/VI/Returns, Hulk, Daredevil, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Watchmen etc.

B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 11:40 PM   #360
flickchick85
Loose Seal
SHH! Moderator
 
flickchick85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,477
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

1. The Dark Knight
2. The Avengers
3. Iron Man
4. Kick-Ass
5. The Dark Knight Rises
6. The Amazing Spider-Man
7. Spider-Man 2
8. X-Men: First Class
9. Captain America: The First Avenger
10. Batman Begins
11. Spider-Man
12. X2
13. Thor
14. Batman ('89)
15. X-Men


After that, you start getting into "dislike" territory for me, which includes the Donner Superman movies, the Hulk movies, IM2, SM3, the other X-Men movies and the Blade movies, none of which would ever make it onto any of my "favorites' lists.

__________________
4.19.14
VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

01000110011011110111001000100000011001010111011001 10010101110010011110010010000001100001011101000110 11110110110100100000011000100110010101101100011011 11011011100110011101101001011011100110011100100000 01110100011011110010000001101101011001010010000001 10000101110011001000000110011101101111011011110110 01000010000001100010011001010110110001101111011011 10011001110111001100100000011101000110111100100000 01111001011011110111010100101110
flickchick85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 03:41 AM   #361
Spider-Aziz
Shinya Kogami
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere I Belong
Posts: 39,342
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And people saw it as the equivalent to...
That way
It's a good film

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

~*SHH SIX*~
member 14: Supa-Pizza
H.E
Spider-Aziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 11:14 AM   #362
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?

Are we really arguing over which movie had more potential? In the end, what does it matter? A lot of CBMs have a huge amount of potential.

Spider-Man 3, IMO, could have been no doubt better than sm2, and I think it could have been just as good as TDK. TDKR had a lot of potential, but I never expected it to be better than TDK.

__________________
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 12-24-2012, 11:58 AM   #363
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 The Joker View Post
Hey I think I can see Venom in that pile of poop.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
I think debating whether or not one movie wasted more potential than the other is splitting hairs; however, a good case can be made for both films either way. That much is evident by how many legitimate complaints have been levied towards each of them. They were positioned so differently that I think they're difficult to group together.

The wasted potential in Spider-Man 3 was primarily with the villain(s). I'm sure most people would point to Venom, but I can only think of Sandman, since his entire arc was very obviously neutered by the inclusion of so many disjointed plot elements. I'll always hold to my belief that Haden Church gave a strong, heartfelt performance even in spite of his limited screen time and development. There's more, of course, but this was the biggest misstep for me.

WRT Venom, I can't bring myself to refer to the way he was handled as wasted potential. IMO, for something to have potential, it has to first be positioned in a way that could have realized this potential. In the case of Venom, his entire inclusion was such an obvious after-thought, and based upon that I just can't call it wasted potential, rather a terrible idea. I do believe that there's a difference, although some things can be both, such as Harry and his "New Goblin" alter-ego.

TDKR's wasted potential was that it was positioned as this grand, epic conclusion to a Batman trilogy, but it fell flat on its face. In this case, I feel that Nolan got a little too big for his britches and let his limitless ambition get the best of him. This, for me, is the crux of the problem with TDKR: it's far too ambitious for its own good, and none of the resolutions were appropriate or satisfying. The title of Marshall Fine's review sums up my opinion of this movie's wasted potential perfectly: 'Grandiose, not grand'.

With all of that being said, I don't think we can really say which movie wasted more potential than the other. At the end of the day, both were disappointments and that's the only way I can see it...one being more or less so than the other doesn't really enhance the situation for either. All my opinion, of course.
Agree with Spider-Man 3, as those characters being used in the film should have been used to their potential, but obviously don't agree with TDKR. But it's common if I enjoyed TDKR, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picard Sisko View Post
Are we really arguing over which movie had more potential? In the end, what does it matter? A lot of CBMs have a huge amount of potential.

Spider-Man 3, IMO, could have been no doubt better than sm2, and I think it could have been just as good as TDK. TDKR had a lot of potential, but I never expected it to be better than TDK.
I don't think it's opinion. Spider-Man 3 could have been better than Spider-Man 2 hands down. Sandman, Venom, continuing the Goblin legacy....just saying those three things would make anyone think S-M 3 would have been simply amazing, and it wasn't.

I never expected TDKR to be better than TDK either, nor did I expect anything really. What I got was a fitting conclusion and once more, something different in Nolan's trilogy with how TDK was more of a crime thriller than Batman Begins' tone of a superhero origin flick.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:37 PM   #364
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 Anno_Domini View Post


I don't think it's opinion. Spider-Man 3 could have been better than Spider-Man 2 hands down. Sandman, Venom, continuing the Goblin legacy....just saying those three things would make anyone think S-M 3 would have been simply amazing, and it wasn't.

I never expected TDKR to be better than TDK either, nor did I expect anything really. What I got was a fitting conclusion and once more, something different in Nolan's trilogy with how TDK was more of a crime thriller than Batman Begins' tone of a superhero origin flick.
Of course its opinion. Depends on your perspective tbh.

I think TDKR was a decent conclusion, but I don't think its even as good as Batman Begins IMO.

__________________
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 12-25-2012, 12:21 AM   #365
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?

Ehh....read the novelization if you haven't. Seeing that on film would've definitely rivaled Spider-Man 2.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 04:41 AM   #366
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Just noticed there was another post.



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



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!"



You said it over here.


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.




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.
When comparing Raimi's tone and Webb's tone,most people here seem to say Webb did a better job,but imo whatever tone he had,did not suit spidey

I think Raimi did a perfectly good job with tone till SM2
SM1 was a orgin movie and it had a fun tone with drama and dark elements here and there.Perfect for a Spidey origin imo
In SM2 the tone matured up with the Spidey-no-more and the-cost-of-being-spidey thing they did

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 04:47 AM   #367
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GENERAL RAAM582 View Post
I don't know, SM3 had a pretty big waste of potential. It could of been as good as or better than SM2, a film many regard as the best CBM. It could of done great justice to the Black Suit and the symbiote story, instead it did a decent job. And it pretty much, aside from the birth of Venom which I loved, butchered Venom.

I wasn't disappointed with TDKR though. Why? I didn't do what some many did. I didn't hype it up as being the next TDK. I wanted a film that was as good or better than BB, and that's what I got. I've learned with my mistakes with Spidey and X-Men. When it comes to a trilogy where the second film is absolutely amazing, and the third film is coming out, no matter how great it looks I won't hype it up to be what the second film was.
Imo Venom is an extremely hard character to get spot on
First there needs to be a symbiote and his arrival on earth,then Spidey getting the symbiote and use it for some time,Eddy Brock needs to be introduced,his hatred for Spidey/Peter Parker needs to built up in such a way that it is sympathetic and exaggerated at the same time,then they need to show Spidey being corrupted by the symbiote and ripping it,then there will be Venom

All that in very difficult to fit in a trilogy(With the first movie being an origin)

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 04:50 AM   #368
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Out of that trilogy, everyone talks about Doc Ock and no other villain. At least people talk about Bane in the same vein as Joker with memorable villains and the respective actors
Thats extremely debatable.
Among the various people I've discussed the movie with,none one them have said that Hardy's bane is in the same league as Ledger's Joker

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 04:54 AM   #369
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,950
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Thats extremely debatable.
Among the various people I've discussed the movie with,none one them have said that Hardy's bane is in the same league as Ledger's Joker
Same. I haven't seen Bane get nearly as much praise and attention as the Joker did. Heck I still occasionally see people complain about Bane's voice.

__________________
"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 12-25-2012, 05:35 AM   #370
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
TDK is a sequel to BB. You obviously don't have to show all of that again or to readdress that because BB already established it. The writers expect people to know all of that walking into TDK and rightfully so.
Not at all.The development of Batman is absolutely necessary in any sequel
For example,I would love to see TASM2 have Spidey be inovative with his webshooter than the writters going 'Hey we have given them the webshooters,thats enough)

Quote:
1) Before we see that, we have to "see" Chris Nolan learn how to properly film fight scenes and choreograph better fights in general. This may sound funny to some people but how do you expect to see Batman fighting and using those fighting styles when we barely see what's going on in the Nolan films during the fights?
So Nolan doesnt know how to film fight scenes and that was a big flaw in the trilogy.Glad we got that cleared

Quote:
2) You admit that yes, we did see him learn some fighting styles. Let me ask you a logical question. If you traveled the world and learned multiple fighting styles which you planned to use to fight crime and then returned home to your crappy corrupt city to fight crime, why wouldn't you use those fighting styles?3) You do realize that if he never used those fighting styles at any point, he would be dead, right? You try taking on tons of thugs at once and a couple of SWAT teams at once (which was the case in TDK) without any firearms. You would utterly get destroyed if you didn't know how to fight. There would be no other way to win.
Again you are talking about assuming,we have to see that happening
If TASM2 has Spidey fight crappily,I would definitely count it as a flaw in his character and not say 'Hell he is Spider-man,he has superpowers,he wouldnt survive if he would know how to fight,lets assume he fought a good battle and beat the villian'
Plus who doesnt want to see a good battle? Especially in a Superhero film?
We cant assume that Nolan's Batman is a martial artist just because we saw him learn a few styles in BB.We never saw him use them.
Thats like saying we dont need to see Spidey quip in TASM2 since we already saw him do that in TASM

Quote:
Fair enough. Though I still don't have a problem with Rachel since what Nolan did was no different than what a comic writer does. If Nolan was a new writer on Batman, Rachel would be the love interest he would bring in the comics until the next writer came. And if you literally change everything about the love interest other than the name, that's not really respect to the source material. That, depending on how it is handled, would be either a nod/homage to the fans or a bastardization of the character.
Except that Nolan wasnt writing a comic,he was directing a movie
And no,it wouldnt have been considered a bastardisation to the character,especaily when none of the characters have been explored properly.
Jane Foster was changed from a Nurse to a research scientist,no one called that bastardisation

Quote:
She can't be with him because at the moment, he is an unstable man that dresses up as a bat every night, fights Gotham's criminals head-on (which Rachel doesn't do), and puts Gotham before anything including relationships and family.
The whole movie she is *****ing about him being a playboy and not doing anything worth while and when he finally does that,he suddenly unstable and not suitable to be with?
She wasnt properly written at all

Quote:
Yes and no. He had some moments of anger but that's normal. Some writers write Batman like that as well. Also, the only moments when we see his fighting style was in TDKR where he is past his prime and severely injured from past experiences. We barely saw anything in BB due to the camera angles and while TDK was a big improvement in that department, most of the fights happened in the dark so you still couldn't clearly see everything. So we technically don't see Batman clearly fight throughout the whole Nolan franchise except for when he is the beaten-and-broken-and-worn-out Batman in TDKR .
And that exactly,is the character flaw

Quote:
We've already been through this discussion. As I already said, Nolan's Batman = very early Batman, specifically from Year One and Long Halloween and that is excluding the entire character arc of Batman in TDK, which fits great for Batman and shows what the difference between Batman and your average vigilante is. Yes, Nolan's Batman has a few small flaws here and there but I don't count those because they can be found in any superhero movie including the Raimi films. I don't count those small flaws for Raimi's Spider-Man either; just the big ones (except for when I want to annoy nitpicky haters that look for really small flaws in the portrayal of Spider-Man in TASM).
I disagree.
Nolan's flaws with Batman are as big as(If not bigger) Raimi flaws with Spider-man

Being a detective,a versatile genius and a martial artist is a MAJOR part of Batman.Thats what seperates him from other vigilantes(Not hockey pads,LOL)
And the 'early days' argument doesnt make sense to me because he spent 7 freaking years just training.

Quote:
I highly disagree with you on this point. It is completely wrong. Raimi didn't not get just one or two characteristics wrong about Spider-Man, if you know what I'm implying .
The only 2 flaws I can think of are
1.Lack of Web Shooters
2.Mute Spidey

Quote:
That's what I just talked about now and in my previous post. And most of the times in the Raimi films when it didn't work, it was literally the spider sense just not working. It makes no sense to me how freakin' Bonesaw - who has no powers - was able to sneak up behind him and hit him in the head with a chair
As I said before,you have to take this as him not reacting quickly than the Spider sense not going off

Quote:
Not to mention that he doesn't even look worried or as if he feels something is strange when Harry attacks him on the street in Spider-Man 3.
Spider-sense doesnt consider those close to him as threats.

Quote:
Or how about the scene in SM1 where MJ has to warn him that the Green Goblin is about to attack him and only then he turns around and gets hit? I'll have to rewatch all 3 films for all the other times.
Again,it probably warned.But he was not in a position to dodge that attack

Quote:
Umm...no it isn't. At all. It's strong enough that it goes through shoes and yes, it's possible to have an electrostatic cling that strong. The Thing trying to pull Spider-Man off the wall and failing to do so shows exactly how strong it is. But even if it wasn't, how exactly does that make more sense than little hairs that grow out of his shoes? Peter doesn't go barefoot in the comics and in the Raimi films when he is Spider-Man (well, I know not in the comics but I'm assuming he isn't barefoot in the Raimi films). The electrostatic explanation makes so much more sense.
Hmm...You're right here

Quote:
The beer bottle that that guy put on his head was going to fall right on his face and would've soaked him everywhere. That was danger to him and his spider sense reacted to that.
See it again
He put a beer bottle on top of his head,the spider-sense only went off when a tiny droplet flows down and actually hits his forehead
It looks more like increased perception of touch than spider-sense
He doesnt react before the bottle is placed or before the drop hits his forehead.

Quote:
We see an increased sense of responsiveness to the surrounding before the incoming danger? Like I said, only when the writers want to.
Its exactly like that in the comics
Most writters liken it to Daredevil sense of his surroundings,albiet not that strong
Its the reason why he can find good anchor points during web swinging even without consiously thinking about it
In one of the comics,GG puts some chemical in a toothpaste Peter buys to dampen his Spider Sense and he almost bangs into a advertisement board while swinging

Quote:
Are you kidding me? You just criticized the subway scene in TASM for doing the same thing. The water droplet falling onto his face and the beer that was going to fall onto him and splash him on the face was a small danger perceived and detected by his spider sense.
Because it happens AFTER the droplets hits his forehead.That not how its supposed to work


Last edited by Spiderdevil; 12-25-2012 at 06:15 AM.
Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 06:05 AM   #371
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Maybe. We'll see. I probably won't bash it all over the place. I've been addressing my problems with SM1 before the reboot was even announced.
And I am doing the same with BB
Quote:
TDKR has been bashed since it came out. It didn't start just now because only now after 6 months people began to realize their flaws. Heck, it was bashed even before it came out because just from news and trailers alone, you could tell they screwed up and already contradicted a lot of stuff from TDK. TDKR is the exact opposite of BB and TDK. The way TDK works is the more you overanalyze it, the better it gets. While the more and more you overanalyze TDKR, the worse it gets.
So isnt it fair to say that the fact that people realize the flaws of SM1 and SM2 so long after its release is a testament to the fact about how good they are?

Quote:
Simply because it was the first Spider-Man movie and had Spider-Man swinging around the city and fighting a villain. Also because the movie had a lot of stuff very similar with stuff from older comic book movies like the Donner Superman films. There were a lot of classic superhero moments in the movie that the general audience loved, even though none of those fit for Spider-Man.
People take a lot of credit away from Raimi just because it was the first Spider-man movie on screen and it was supposed to do well
Thats ridiculous imo
People used the same logic with SR.It was the first Superman movie in 2 decades so its bound to do well.We saw how that turned out
Plenty of Superheros have had their first movies on the big screen which didnt manage to impress much

Quote:
For example, Peter Parker acted a lot like Clark Kent in the Donner movies did and there were even "Superman shots" where Peter takes off his shirt revealing his costume underneath in a pose very similar to Clark Kent's pose when he became Superman. There's also other stuff like the fact that the atmosphere in the Daily Bugle felt a lot like the atmosphere in the Daily Planet from the Donner films. That is essentially all the problems with the Raimi films in a nutshell
So if Raimi takes inspiration from Superman films its blashphemy but when movies like IM,TASM and MOS do the same with BB its a great decision?
Sorry but you are not making sense here
The Shirt scene was influenced by Superman along with him stopping a train in SM2.
Two scenes and you make it seem seem as if they aped Superman?
I dont see people saying that IM is Batman Begins with Tony Stark in place of Bruce Wayne

Quote:
None of these things work for Spider-Man but the GA doesn't know the source material and they really liked the Donner Superman films so obviously that Raimi's formula was loved.
Again,you dont make sense
There is a difference of more than 2 decades between he two movies.
The Auidence in the 80s were totally different from those in 2000s,the same formula wont work.

Quote:
There is also the fact that Spider-Man 1 was one of the first comic book movies ever made in general so the GA didn't have much to choose from.
That actually worked against the film
CBMs werent widespead back them and were considered kids stuff.People wouldnt have given it chance unless it were really good.
Not like today,when people flock to the theaters to watch anything remotely comic booky and even Thor makes half a billion

Quote:
If it came out after TDK and Iron Man, it wouldn't have been anywhere as successful because being one of the first decent comic book movies couldn't have been used as an excuse to cover it up from criticism
I have made this point before
If it would have been released today,Raimi would have made dozens of improvements
Better cast,Better CGI,Larger Budget,more ideas with so many CBMs to take inspiration from,Raimi would have made the tone a bit more mature going by what today's audience like
It would have earned a whole lot more with increased ticket prices,3D,more markets in the foreign territory,the genre as a whole being a lot more famous
To quote Loki from TA
'Where is the disadvantage?' .

Quote:
Look at Green Lantern. It is a superhero film with all the cliches in the book just like the older superhero films yet it got bashed to death because you can't get away with rushing superhero films and making them like that anymore. Had SM1 came out in 2011, Green Lantern would've been its fate in terms of success. Just like how if Green Lantern came out in the early 2000's, I don't want to say that people would've praised it but they would've thought it was just alright as opposed to terrible (and I would still disagree with them today that the movie was alright).
And had BB come out in 2003,it would have the same faith as the Daredevil movie

Quote:
Not really. TA made $1.5 billion at the box office. Even adjusted for inflation, TA still made more. Plus, it's been hyped up for a lot longer and had more A-list names like RDJ attached to it.
SM1 total income is 1420M of a 140M Budget(unadjusted) after adding on DVD,VHS,Toys and TV rights sales
Thats very comparable to TAs final income.TA had a bigger budget,3D,higher ticket prices to go with,much larger markets especially overseas.
Not to mention the genre is a lot more famous now and TA is the 6th movie of its franchise


Last edited by Spiderdevil; 12-25-2012 at 06:19 AM.
Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 06:08 AM   #372
Spiderdevil
Side-Kick
 
Spiderdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I don't think it's opinion. Spider-Man 3 could have been better than Spider-Man 2 hands down. Sandman, Venom, continuing the Goblin legacy....just saying those three things would make anyone think S-M 3 would have been simply amazing, and it wasn't.
Funny you say that because I think those 3 things are actually responsible for making SM3 terrible.Using all 3 together was simply too much

Spiderdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 10:19 AM   #373
Oscorp
Side-Kick
 
Oscorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,528
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

New list for me:

1) The Dark Knight
2) The Avengers
3) The Dark Knight Rises
4) The Amazing Spider-Man
5) Batman Begins
.
.
.
The rest remains the same. The reason for this is not ASM being worse now to me but the other films glimmering more in brilliance. 2012 has been such a great year for comic book fans. I'm looking forward to The Wolverine, Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel next year! Superhero films are on a roll!

EDIT: If there's one thing I'll give The Amazing Spider-Man over The Dark Knight Rises it's that I'll find myself rewatching ASM many more times than TDKR, because as great as TDKR is it requires alot of energy to watch through the whole thing numerous times. But that's also one of the beauties of it, you'll watch it once and carry the awesomeness of it with you for a long time and then after half a year or something you'll watch it again with a smile. Very much like Return of the King for me. With ASM, I can watch it all again almost immediately after because it's just so...peaceful to sit back and just enjoy it. I love that there's always a super hero film for me no matter what mood I'm in. I'll definitely watch Avengers the most, wow what a film that is!! It's not far away from TDK as my favourite movie of all time!

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

"it's ****ing terrible. it's twilight ********."
-Levitikuz' friend, as told to Levitikuz' friend's date, about TASM.

Last edited by Oscorp; 12-25-2012 at 10:29 AM.
Oscorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 10:53 AM   #374
Ken-Kaniff
Blue Steel!
 
Ken-Kaniff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Rank every comic book film - where do the Spider-Man films fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Imo Venom is an extremely hard character to get spot on
First there needs to be a symbiote and his arrival on earth,then Spidey getting the symbiote and use it for some time,Eddy Brock needs to be introduced,his hatred for Spidey/Peter Parker needs to built up in such a way that it is sympathetic and exaggerated at the same time,then they need to show Spidey being corrupted by the symbiote and ripping it,then there will be Venom

All that in very difficult to fit in a trilogy(With the first movie being an origin)
I don't see it very difficult to happen in a trilogy, I can see it even in 2 movies if stretched, but in 1 movie it's impossible for sure.

1st movie: you have Brock introduced and give him a couple of scenes;
2nd movie: symbiote arrival. Spider-Man gets it in the beginning of the movie, fits off the main villain (Let's say Scorpion), while also constantly humiliating Brock. Movie ends with Spider-Man ripping off his living "suit" which joins Brock and voila: VENOM (cliffhanger for the 3rd movie).
3rd movie: Spider-Man vs. Venom. venom tries to make Spider-Man's life miserable, while SM also has to deal with a 2nd villain, a B-list villain or how u call the likes of Shocker for example.

This can happen in 4th (after 3rd, where GG is main villain, kills Gwen etc), 5th and 6th. Assuming they will even do that many. Or in 4 & 5 if he gets the black suit in TASM4.

__________________
!
Ken-Kaniff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 11:23 AM   #375
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 Spiderdevil View Post
Thats extremely debatable.
Among the various people I've discussed the movie with,none one them have said that Hardy's bane is in the same league as Ledger's Joker
Among the people you've discussed with should include myself as I've put Bane in the same league and I've noticed some other posters here as well. Perhaps not your friends or anyone you talk to personally, but I've definitely found some Bane love on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Same. I haven't seen Bane get nearly as much praise and attention as the Joker did. Heck I still occasionally see people complain about Bane's voice.
People complain about Batman's voice as well but Bale's Batman is definitely a favorite. The complaint of Bane's voice will certainly lessen over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderdevil View Post
Funny you say that because I think those 3 things are actually responsible for making SM3 terrible.Using all 3 together was simply too much
Read the novelization. Those three things worked just fine in the novelization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscorp View Post
New list for me:

1) The Dark Knight
2) The Avengers
3) The Dark Knight Rises
Pretty good top three

Even with a different ranking for myself, I certainly agree.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM.

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.