The SuperHeroHype Forums  

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

View Poll Results: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man
Batman Begins 123 86.01%
The Amazing Spider-Man 20 13.99%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2013, 06:33 PM   #76
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25,696
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

This says it best:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:


The whole thing is hilarious. But 0:19 to 0:25 lays it out. Pretty perfectly.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 06:39 PM   #77
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,189
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redfirebird2008 View Post
I felt the 90's animated show did a better job with the character, so I can easily imagine someone doing better in live action if they did something more along the lines of the 90's animated show. Same thing with Batman and what Conroy did for the animated version.
I loved the 90's animated series and still love the heck out of it to this day but it is by no means the best representation of Spider-Man. The show had major censorship problems and a lot of the villains were butchered, ridiculously altered, or very unused. The Spectacular Spider-Man is still the best representation of Spider-Man and his mythos to this day IMO with The Amazing Spider-Man being in second place (the 90's series being in third place).

The irony is also that both TSSM and TASM were made by the big bad Sony, showing just how much they crap on the character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Yah, I'm on the boat to say Garfield is nowhere in the league of Reeve, RDJ or Bale(imo). Christian Bale, while not a 100% correct portrayal of Batman, is a GREAT Bruce Wayne.

I think when it comes to be the perfect hero and alter ego, Christopher Reeve is the only one with Superman and Clark Kent.

Bale - Bruce Wayne
RDJ - Tony Stark(although, you can't really be a "perfect" Iron Man when it's mostly CGI, lol)
Garfield - needs help with both
Fair enough. I respect your opinion and I do agree that Bale was a fantastic Bruce Wayne. His Batman could have used a lot of work though.

I personally feel the main reason why Garfield isn't considered up there with Reeves and RDJ by some people yet is because the current Spider-Man franchise still has the reboot stigma at the moment, which won't go away at least until TASM 2 comes out. Plus, both Reeves and RDJ have starred in films that were considered to be THE Superman film and Iron Man film respectively. Garfield still has to be seen as Spider-Man in the movie that ends up being considered THE Spider-Man movie. The first film was just an introduction to the new Spider-Man film universe. However, I feel that in the future when we do get that ideal Spider-Man film and the reboot stigma goes away, Garfield will be fully seen as the Reeves/RDJ of Spider-Man.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:06 PM   #78
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,054
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

If only we got the full version of TASM that Marc Webb had in the first place. I can't watch the film anymore without pausing, watching the deleted scene in this spot online, then turning it back on. It's still not perfect but it's far better. If we had gotten the full version, this would be a much better comparison.

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:10 PM   #79
redfirebird2008
Side-Kick
 
redfirebird2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,537
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
I loved the 90's animated series and still love the heck out of it to this day but it is by no means the best representation of Spider-Man. The show had major censorship problems and a lot of the villains were butchered, ridiculously altered, or very unused. The Spectacular Spider-Man is still the best representation of Spider-Man and his mythos to this day IMO with The Amazing Spider-Man being in second place (the 90's series being in third place).
We were discussing Peter/Spider-Man, right? So why bring the villains into it? I felt the animated version of Peter/Spider-Man was better than what Garfield gave us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
I personally feel the main reason why Garfield isn't considered up there with Reeves and RDJ by some people yet is because the current Spider-Man franchise still has the reboot stigma at the moment, which won't go away at least until TASM 2 comes out. Plus, both Reeves and RDJ have starred in films that were considered to be THE Superman film and Iron Man film respectively. Garfield still has to be seen as Spider-Man in the movie that ends up being considered THE Spider-Man movie. The first film was just an introduction to the new Spider-Man film universe. However, I feel that in the future when we do get that ideal Spider-Man film and the reboot stigma goes away, Garfield will be fully seen as the Reeves/RDJ of Spider-Man.
Or maybe some of us just aren't that impressed by his acting. I can't stand Tobey Maguire's version, so it doesn't have anything to do with a so-called "reboot stigma" in my case. I like the Garfield version, but in no way do I think it's a perfect version like RDJ or Reeve.


Last edited by redfirebird2008; 06-06-2013 at 07:13 PM.
redfirebird2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:29 PM   #80
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Fair enough. I respect your opinion and I do agree that Bale was a fantastic Bruce Wayne. His Batman could have used a lot of work though.
While I'm a fan of his Batman as well, I just love the quiet manner of Keaton's Batman(although his lust of killing just to kill I could do without ). Bale's Bruce Wayne is much better than Keaton's, though, and the best version of Bruce Wayne so far. Even the recluse Bruce Wayne that's given up on life in general is a very intriguing take, imo.

Quote:
I personally feel the main reason why Garfield isn't considered up there with Reeves and RDJ by some people yet is because the current Spider-Man franchise still has the reboot stigma at the moment, which won't go away at least until TASM 2 comes out. Plus, both Reeves and RDJ have starred in films that were considered to be THE Superman film and Iron Man film respectively. Garfield still has to be seen as Spider-Man in the movie that ends up being considered THE Spider-Man movie. The first film was just an introduction to the new Spider-Man film universe. However, I feel that in the future when we do get that ideal Spider-Man film and the reboot stigma goes away, Garfield will be fully seen as the Reeves/RDJ of Spider-Man.
I sorta feel that way. I'm a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, and while I agree the first film didn't do any wonders on Garfield's performance as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, I just think Garfield's acting as both personas could need more help, especially his Parker(didn't want to say 'his Peter', lol).

Perhaps the sequel may help Garfield get that shot of being the iconic version, but that stigma you speak of could still be there and still hang over Garfield's portrayal. With the other guys I mentioned...they hit it out of the park in the very first film really. Reeve - Superman: The Movie, Keaton's Batman - Batman '89, Bale's Wayne - Batman Begins, RDJ - Iron Man.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to hit it out of the park in the very first film...but just to make a comparison on how Garfield is still lacking, imo.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:32 PM   #81
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,189
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
I strongly disagree with the entirety of this.

I will concede that Nolan did not craft a "Bat-God" by any stretch of the imagination. But he stayed true, especially in the first two, to the idea of Batman. He is a brilliant mind who is driven by anger, vengeance and a sense of injustice (with a dash of crazy) to fight crime. And he does so in a very calculated way. Especially in the first one. The way he lays out his plan is very brilliant and Count of Monte Cristo esque, where he is spying on all his enemies and allies for potentially months before he reveals himself as either Bruce Wayne or Batman.

Is he the perfect man in every conceivable field of study and physical performance under the sun? No. Because beyond being a bit simple that does not gel with the cinematic universe that Nolan is establishing. But within the confines of this adapted universe it is all there. Just as the Joker is there, even if it is make-up instead of permawhite skin.
You are essentially saying the exact same thing that I said.

I specifically said that Nolan stayed very true to the idea of Batman and there are many important aspects of the Batman character incorporated to him. My point was that he was not a complete Batman - not even by Year One standards. For one, he never displays the level of genius level intellect that Batman has. On top of him not even making his own gear, he never comes close to being shown as having detective skills on par with what the world's greatest detective would have. Even though we get glimpses here and there showcasing Batman's intelligence, Nolan never put any emphasis on it other than in the sonar scene at the end of TDK. Batman's intellect is just as important as Batman's body. Bruce Wayne was a man who trained his body AND mind into the perfect weapon in order to fight the crime & corruption that poisoned his city for decades. When it comes to Bale's performance as Batman, he never truly captures Batman's intimidating presence and calculative intellect. One of the things Dennis O'Neil always says about Batman that is true is that he looks evil. The man is essentially a monster in human form and what adds to this is Batman's voice, something Bale never truly captured. When you hear Batman speak, you should be able to get a vibe of how intelligent he is from the words he uses and his speaking patterns. This only adds to his terrifying persona. Kevin Conroy and Bruce Greenwood absolutely nailed it in that department; Bale didn't. Nolan's Batman is also nowhere on the same level as Batman should be when it comes to fighting, though this is more of a criticism of Nolan's directing abilities than of Batman's portrayal. Overall, Nolan's Batman is nothing compared to the real deal.

Now, does this make Nolan's Batman bad? No. He is still a great character and the first two films absolutely nail everything else about the Batman mythos down to the very core (the characterization of the villains, of the supporting cast, of Gotham, the messages and statements made about Batman, the themes, etc). BB and TDK are still great adaptations but the thing that keeps them away from being completely spot-on portrayals of Batman is the fact that they don't do as well of a job as showing what Batman is fully capable of in comparison with everything else they showed.

Quote:
I will go so far to say that Bale in all three Batman movies (yes even TDKR) is closer to the Batman's spirit than Garfield ever was to Spider-Man.
Sure. The movie that depicts Batman as a crippled worn-out drunken brawler with the most anti-Batman ending of all time and with an overall message that completely destroys the entire essence of Batman is a better representation of Batman than TASM was a representation of Spider-Man.

Quote:
I say this is as a lifelong Spidey fan. Garfield may be great casting. He COULD play a great Spider-Man. But at least in TASM, it wasn't there. His Peter Parker never learned "with great power" (and I mean more than the turn of phrase, though cutting that was dumb too), he never learned to not be selfish and he was far too much of a jerk to everyone around him. Yes, he made some puns in the costume, but Garfield's take is just as off as Maguire's, but for different reasons.

To even put Garfield's take on the character, which verges on homicidal in some scenes and pseudo-intellectual hipster in others, on the same level as Christopher Reeve's Superman or Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is inconceivable to me.
*sigh*

The usual "Peter was a douche" complaints. I'll briefly address these since I am completely worn out by repeating the same arguments over and over again.

He does learn the message of "with great power". He just learns it a bit differently than in the comics. After Ben's death, Peter is engulfed by vengeance and becomes fixated on tracking the burglar down. As the story progresses, his personal manhunt gets interrupted by the Lizard events. During and after the Lizard events, he comes to the realization that he should stop being so fixated on finding Ben's killer and becomes more fixated on using his powers to help everyone in general. This does not mean that he no longer gives two damns about Ben's killer; just that Ben's killer is now just as important to him as saving someone like you or me from another killer. That is the shortest "in a nutshell" I can give you of his character arc. As for the famous "with great power" line, I do admit I would have preferred for it to be in the movie (it would've fit great during the voicemail IMO) but the message is what is important, not the exact words. Peter does learn the message by the end and contrary to popular belief, Uncle Ben never said the line in Amazing Fantasy #15 either. It was a conclusion that Peter himself came to after Ben's death.

I still don't get the "he was a douche/hipster/jerk/homicidal/emo/whatever" complaints. I see nothing in the film that shows this. If your entire argument is that he got cocky with his powers pre-Ben's death, that is a very poor argument. Peter was a bigger douche post-spider bite and pre-Ben's death in the comics than he was in the movie (that is if one can even justify the movie version as being a douche). In the comics, his reason for letting the burglar get away was even more douchey. Raimi and Webb's versions had a reason as to why they didn't stop the burglar; 616's Peter's reason was "just because". Even told the cops that they should do their job properly and that his only business is to look out for only himself. "I just look out for number one. That means me." -Amazing Fantasy #15

To me, the main reason why Peter gets labelled a douche in TASM is because of the Raimi films. The Raimi films built this idea that Peter is an angel who never did anything wrong that whenever people see Andrew's Peter as anything but that - even if it is normal daily behavior - it shocks them and takes them by surprise. I also fail to see how Raimi's Peter was any less of a douche. If Andrew's Peter was a douche then Raimi's Peter was twice the douche, openly saying to Uncle Ben "you're not my dad" simply when Ben tries to give him some simple good advice (we can also assume that this version of Peter was raised by his aunt & uncle since he was a baby and probably doesn't even remember his real dad) and even tried to talk MJ out of her marriage in the second film. Keep in mind that Andrew's Peter at least acknowledged Uncle Ben as being a "great dad" when Ben told him that he knows he misses his real father. Raimi's Peter also quits Spider-Man to be with MJ despite his whole city needing him (the movie hints at him losing his powers because they're connected to his emotions). Even sees a random civilian getting beaten up but doesn't even bother to call 9/11. But it is only until his crush is captured by Doc Ock when he finally regains the motivation to be Spider-Man again.

But of course, Raimi gets a pass on these things because he is Raimi and his movies came first.

Quote:
I did not list Downey, because he made the character wholly his own. His Stark is more RDJ than pre-2008 IM from the comics.
Downey's Tony is the same classic Tony from the 1960's comics. If you're referring to how Tony was in the comics that were recent prior to the movie, that is because Tony became the Hitler of Marvel after Civil War, something that got fixed with the movie's success.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:34 PM   #82
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25,696
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
While I'm a fan of his Batman as well, I just love the quiet manner of Keaton's Batman(although his lust of killing just to kill I could do without ). Bale's Bruce Wayne is much better than Keaton's, though, and the best version of Bruce Wayne so far. Even the recluse Bruce Wayne that's given up on life in general is a very intriguing take, imo.



I sorta feel that way. I'm a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, and while I agree the first film didn't do any wonders on Garfield's performance as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, I just think Garfield's acting as both personas could need more help, especially his Parker(didn't want to say 'his Peter', lol).

Perhaps the sequel may help Garfield get that shot of being the iconic version, but that stigma you speak of could still be there and still hang over Garfield's portrayal. With the other guys I mentioned...they hit it out of the park in the very first film really. Reeve - Superman: The Movie, Keaton's Batman - Batman '89, Bale's Wayne - Batman Begins, RDJ - Iron Man.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to hit it out of the park in the very first film...but just to make a comparison on how Garfield is still lacking, imo.


If we get one where Spidey does not toy with killing a guy to a strange "this is dark, right?" musical cue or scenes of him snapping and yelling at Aunt May or smiling while he mocks a dead Capt. Stacy...it will be an improvement. Time will tell.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:35 PM   #83
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
I strongly disagree with the entirety of this.

I will concede that Nolan did not craft a "Bat-God" by any stretch of the imagination. But he stayed true, especially in the first two, to the idea of Batman. He is a brilliant mind who is driven by anger, vengeance and a sense of injustice (with a dash of crazy) to fight crime. And he does so in a very calculated way. Especially in the first one. The way he lays out his plan is very brilliant and Count of Monte Cristo esque, where he is spying on all his enemies and allies for potentially months before he reveals himself as either Bruce Wayne or Batman.

Is he the perfect man in every conceivable field of study and physical performance under the sun? No. Because beyond being a bit simple that does not gel with the cinematic universe that Nolan is establishing. But within the confines of this adapted universe it is all there. Just as the Joker is there, even if it is make-up instead of permawhite skin.

I will go so far to say that Bale in all three Batman movies (yes even TDKR) is closer to the Batman's spirit than Garfield ever was to Spider-Man.

I say this is as a lifelong Spidey fan. Garfield may be great casting. He COULD play a great Spider-Man. But at least in TASM, it wasn't there. His Peter Parker never learned "with great power" (and I mean more than the turn of phrase, though cutting that was dumb too), he never learned to not be selfish and he was far too much of a jerk to everyone around him. Yes, he made some puns in the costume, but Garfield's take is just as off as Maguire's, but for different reasons.

To even put Garfield's take on the character, which verges on homicidal in some scenes and pseudo-intellectual hipster in others, on the same level as Christopher Reeve's Superman or Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is inconceivable to me.

I did not list Downey, because he made the character wholly his own. His Stark is more RDJ than pre-2008 IM from the comics.


EXCEPT for bringing in Jackman's Wolverine...I am always switching opinions when it comes to Hugh Jackman being Wolverine because I find him to be lousy at the part when it came to the awful X films, The Last Stand and Origins. At least in Superman III and Quest For Peace, Reeve was still pretty damn solid as Clark Kent/Superman.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:40 PM   #84
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,189
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
If only we got the full version of TASM that Marc Webb had in the first place. I can't watch the film anymore without pausing, watching the deleted scene in this spot online, then turning it back on. It's still not perfect but it's far better. If we had gotten the full version, this would be a much better comparison.
I agree. The deleted scenes really took away from the film. I would go as far as to say that most of the script problems and pacing problems are because of Sony's stupid last minute editing. TASM was the first time I saw deleted scenes of a film and said to myself "WHY wasn't that in the movie?!?!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by redfirebird2008 View Post
We were discussing Peter/Spider-Man, right? So why bring the villains into it? I felt the animated version of Peter/Spider-Man was better than what Garfield gave us.
In that case, both are great. You can't really compare them since they're in two different mediums but they're both very true to the character of Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Garfield has more of a Peter Parker look though since Peter in the 90's show was way too buff.

Also, animated versions of characters are almost always better than the live-action versions. This is because animation is the best medium for superheroes and for straight-off-the-page stories after the comics.

Quote:
Or maybe some of us just aren't that impressed by his acting. I can't stand Tobey Maguire's version, so it doesn't have anything to do with a so-called "reboot stigma" in my case. I like the Garfield version, but in no way do I think it's a perfect version like RDJ or Reeve.
I was talking about the general audience as a whole. I think Garfield will become the Reeves/RDJ to most people in the general audience. Obviously not everyone will think he is the perfect Spider-Man but not everyone thinks Reeves and RDJ were perfect castings either. I have friends who believe Reeves was miscast as Superman and met people before who told me they really hated Downey as Iron Man because they found him a cocky douche (their own words, not mine). It is impossible to ever completely please everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
While I'm a fan of his Batman as well, I just love the quiet manner of Keaton's Batman(although his lust of killing just to kill I could do without ). Bale's Bruce Wayne is much better than Keaton's, though, and the best version of Bruce Wayne so far. Even the recluse Bruce Wayne that's given up on life in general is a very intriguing take, imo.
Keaton's Batman is the best Batman in live-action so far but his Bruce Wayne was lacking a lot IMO. I found Bale to be a great Bruce Wayne and a pretty good Batman.

Quote:
I sorta feel that way. I'm a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, and while I agree the first film didn't do any wonders on Garfield's performance as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, I just think Garfield's acting as both personas could need more help, especially his Parker(didn't want to say 'his Peter', lol).

Perhaps the sequel may help Garfield get that shot of being the iconic version, but that stigma you speak of could still be there and still hang over Garfield's portrayal. With the other guys I mentioned...they hit it out of the park in the very first film really. Reeve - Superman: The Movie, Keaton's Batman - Batman '89, Bale's Wayne - Batman Begins, RDJ - Iron Man.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to hit it out of the park in the very first film...but just to make a comparison on how Garfield is still lacking, imo.
I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one. I thought Garfield knocked it out of the park in the first film. I just love the range of emotions he shows and I love how you can tell what he is thinking throughout the whole film just based on his acting alone. That is my opinion, of course.


Last edited by Shikamaru; 06-06-2013 at 07:49 PM.
Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:44 PM   #85
Kahran Ramsus
Side-Kick
 
Kahran Ramsus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,600
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I don't doubt that until someone uses Lizard again, much like the idea that Bane is this joke because of B&R until Nolan used him again in TDKR. And sure, people may have had a problem with the ending of Bane's arc in TDKR, but what Bane did throughout the film beforehand, made him 1,000x better than what was shown in B&R.
Bane had things a bit easier because nobody really remembered him. I really wonder whether Mr. Freeze will be ever taken seriously again by the general audience. I think it would have to be a director that has earned a lot of goodwill already, such as Nolan.

Lizard is a character that I would also be surprised if he is used again any time soon.


Last edited by Kahran Ramsus; 06-06-2013 at 07:50 PM.
Kahran Ramsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:45 PM   #86
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25,696
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
You are essentially saying the exact same thing that I said.

I specifically said that Nolan stayed very true to the idea of Batman and there are many important aspects of the Batman character incorporated to him. My point was that he was not a complete Batman - not even by Year One standards. For one, he never displays the level of genius level intellect that Batman has. On top of him not even making his own gear, he never comes close to being shown as having detective skills on par with what the world's greatest detective would have. Even though we get glimpses here and there showcasing Batman's intelligence, Nolan never put any emphasis on it other than in the sonar scene at the end of TDK. Batman's intellect is just as important as Batman's body. Bruce Wayne was a man who trained his body AND mind into the perfect weapon in order to fight the crime & corruption that poisoned his city for decades. When it comes to Bale's performance as Batman, he never truly captures Batman's intimidating presence and calculative intellect. One of the things Dennis O'Neil always says about Batman that is true is that he looks evil. The man is essentially a monster in human form and what adds to this is Batman's voice, something Bale never truly captured. When you hear Batman speak, you should be able to get a vibe of how intelligent he is from the words he uses and his speaking patterns. This only adds to his terrifying persona. Kevin Conroy and Bruce Greenwood absolutely nailed it in that department; Bale didn't. Nolan's Batman is also nowhere on the same level as Batman should be when it comes to fighting, though this is more of a criticism of Nolan's directing abilities than of Batman's portrayal. Overall, Nolan's Batman is nothing compared to the real deal.

Now, does this make Nolan's Batman bad? No. He is still a great character and the first two films absolutely nail everything else about the Batman mythos down to the very core (the characterization of the villains, of the supporting cast, of Gotham, the messages and statements made about Batman, the themes, etc). BB and TDK are still great adaptations but the thing that keeps them away from being completely spot-on portrayals of Batman is the fact that they don't do as well of a job as showing what Batman is fully capable of in comparison with everything else they showed.



Sure. The movie that depicts Batman as a crippled worn-out drunken brawler with the most anti-Batman ending of all time and with an overall message that completely destroys the entire essence of Batman is a better representation of Batman than TASM was a representation of Spider-Man.



*sigh*

The usual "Peter was a douche" complaints. I'll briefly address these since I am completely worn out by repeating the same arguments over and over again.

He does learn the message of "with great power". He just learns it a bit differently than in the comics. After Ben's death, Peter is engulfed by vengeance and becomes fixated on tracking the burglar down. As the story progresses, his personal manhunt gets interrupted by the Lizard events. During and after the Lizard events, he comes to the realization that he should stop being so fixated on finding Ben's killer and becomes more fixated on using his powers to help everyone in general. This does not mean that he no longer gives two damns about Ben's killer; just that Ben's killer is now just as important to him as saving someone like you or me from another killer. That is the shortest "in a nutshell" I can give you of his character arc. As for the famous "with great power" line, I do admit I would have preferred for it to be in the movie (it would've fit great during the voicemail IMO) but the message is what is important, not the exact words. Peter does learn the message by the end and contrary to popular belief, Uncle Ben never said the line in Amazing Fantasy #15 either. It was a conclusion that Peter himself came to after Ben's death.

I still don't get the "he was a douche/hipster/jerk/homicidal/emo/whatever" complaints. I see nothing in the film that shows this. If your entire argument is that he got cocky with his powers pre-Ben's death, that is a very poor argument. Peter was a bigger douche post-spider bite and pre-Ben's death in the comics than he was in the movie (that is if one can even justify the movie version as being a douche). In the comics, his reason for letting the burglar get away was even more douchey. Raimi and Webb's versions had a reason as to why they didn't stop the burglar; 616's Peter's reason was "just because". Even told the cops that they should do their job properly and that his only business is to look out for only himself. "I just look out for number one. That means me." -Amazing Fantasy #15

To me, the main reason why Peter gets labelled a douche in TASM is because of the Raimi films. The Raimi films built this idea that Peter is an angel who never did anything wrong that whenever people see Andrew's Peter as anything but that - even if it is normal daily behavior - it shocks them and takes them by surprise. I also fail to see how Raimi's Peter was any less of a douche. If Andrew's Peter was a douche then Raimi's Peter was twice the douche, openly saying to Uncle Ben "you're not my dad" simply when Ben tries to give him some simple good advice (we can also assume that this version of Peter was raised by his aunt & uncle since he was a baby and probably doesn't even remember his real dad) and even tried to talk MJ out of her marriage in the second film. Keep in mind that Andrew's Peter at least acknowledged Uncle Ben as being a "great dad" when Ben told him that he knows he misses his real father. Raimi's Peter also quits Spider-Man to be with MJ despite his whole city needing him (the movie hints at him losing his powers because they're connected to his emotions). Even sees a random civilian getting beaten up but doesn't even bother to call 9/11. But it is only until his crush is captured by Doc Ock when he finally regains the motivation to be Spider-Man again.

But of course, Raimi gets a pass on these things because he is Raimi and his movies came first.
You see, I understand your argument and I believe the dots can be connected. But they aren't really there. It is a poorly written movie. The Uncle Ben Killer subplot is dropped and ignored for the whole movie. And then gets a bandaid scene at the end so it isn't completely up in the air. It is bad writing to build this up as to why he becomes Spider-Man and then drop it out.

Similarly, I think how they killed Uncle Ben was terribly handled, but that is just a badly staged scene.

Moving on from that, Peter is a douche because of how he handles being Spider-Man throughout. Ignoring Raimi's take, I would never imagine either Ultimate or especially 616 Peter Parker freaking out like that and screaming at Aunt May to go to bed or just ignoring how his Spidey-ness is driving her, just weeks after Ben died no less, to fits justified panic and worry. He has a very "Get off my back" vibe in those sequences. I know he brings her the eggs in the end, but I never thought Peter would be that inconsiderate to her, especially so soon after Ben's death. The comics Peter would bend over backwards to hide what had happened. He wouldn't come in with a black eye like he was in the mob and telling the woman to shut up, which for all intents and purposes he did.

Likewise, the way he ignores Capt. Stacy's dying words with a cocky grin is again very douchey. Yes, it will bite him in the ass and Peter breaking a promise is very human and sympathetic. But the way it is handled just makes him come off as smug and entitled. Neither of which are qualities I associate with Peter Parker. And this is not just after Uncle Ben's death, but also Capt. Stacy's.

Also, in his first full-costume scene, Spidey goes from perfect (carjacking jokes) to homicidal. It was a very, very, VERY weak attempt that I can almost guarantee was ordained by Sony execs. "This needs to be dark like the Batman movies!" He suffocates the guy's face and turns his mask at an angle where it looks evil and there is an ominous musical cue. When he doesn't see the tattoo, he lets him breathe at the last minute and says, "This could have gone a lot worse." That implies he would have killed him if he had the tattoo.

Very, very out of character and a forced attempt to make Spidey dark and edgy. It was muddled and didn't even gel with the rest of the film or Garfield's performance. Like the movie, it was a mess of a scene.

Quote:
Downey's Tony is the same classic Tony from the 1960's comics. If you're referring to how Tony was in the comics that were recent prior to the movie, that is because Tony became the Hitler of Marvel after Civil War, something that got fixed with the movie's success.
I am not talking Civil War. Stark was never a motor mouth with a quip a minute until after Downey. He could be funny, but it was usually in a more dry way. Plus, he was always a character haunted by some sort of depression, be it alcoholism or regret. Downey made him into a jovial smartass. Downey has reinvented the character for the better, but it is a departure.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:56 PM   #87
Human Torch
I Can't Dance
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,738
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

There's no way Garfield is to Spidey what Reeve is to Superman.

Human Torch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 08:03 PM   #88
Kahran Ramsus
Side-Kick
 
Kahran Ramsus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,600
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Tony Stark was always a sarcastic smartass, but he wasn't neurotic constantly talking character that RDJ made him. Comic Tony wasn't far off from Daniel Craig's James Bond.

As for ASM, I really hated what they did to Peter Parker's character in that one and Andrew Garfield is nowhere near at the level of the best superhero performances. Forget RDJ's Tony Stark, he's not even Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner. DACrowe is 100% right on that.

Kahran Ramsus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 08:35 PM   #89
redfirebird2008
Side-Kick
 
redfirebird2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,537
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

His arrogant treatment of Aunt May in TASM1 is exactly why I prefer the 90's cartoon. In that show he was always concerned about treating her right. The Garfield version is way too flippant.

redfirebird2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 10:24 PM   #90
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redfirebird2008 View Post
His arrogant treatment of Aunt May in TASM1 is exactly why I prefer the 90's cartoon. In that show he was always concerned about treating her right. The Garfield version is way too flippant.
Garfield's Peter is a troubled teenager, and teenagers might love their parents but that doesn't mean they're not going to fail them.

What's good about this version is that it's not the caricature nerd he was before in the movies.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 02:23 AM   #91
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

The Big Bang Theory is what a caricature of a nerd is, what we got in Raimi's trilogy is a very realistic version of a nerd that specializes in one expertise and not all spectrums of the board like TBBT.

With Webb, we are given more of just this loner type "hipster" that is just intelligent as well, but imo, Peter Parker SHOULD be shown as a nerd, at least before he is bitten.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 02:34 AM   #92
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
The Big Bang Theory is what a caricature of a nerd is, what we got in Raimi's trilogy is a very realistic version of a nerd that specializes in one expertise and not all spectrums of the board like TBBT.
Nerds always wear thick glasses, girls refuse to sit next to them, are always bullied by a football player, people keeps tripping them up? It sounds like one big collection of old cliches.

Difference between Raimi's Peter and TBBT is that I can laugh at TBBT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
With Webb, we are given more of just this loner type "hipster" that is just intelligent as well, but imo, Peter Parker SHOULD be shown as a nerd, at least before he is bitten.
To build your own spiderweb-shooter you need to be more than merely intelligent. Not even raimi thoight his Peter would be able to do it.

But yes, a loner type hipster sounds a lot like a real version of what old series and cartoons have presented us as a "nerd."

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 03:04 AM   #93
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Morose View Post
Nerds always wear thick glasses, girls refuse to sit next to them, are always bullied by a football player, people keeps tripping them up? It sounds like one big collection of old cliches.
You speak of "cliche"...Webb's Peter is bullied as well, people laugh at him and girls ask him to take pictures of them and their boyfriends.

And when did Raimi have girls refuse to sit by Peter?

Quote:
Difference between Raimi's Peter and TBBT is that I can laugh at TBBT.
As you're supposed to laugh at TBBT's caricatures, so I don't get what you mean by that. Did you think Raimi was trying to get laughs at his version?

Quote:
To build your own spiderweb-shooter you need to be more than merely intelligent. Not even raimi thoight his Peter would be able to do it.
That's assuming a whole bunch since Raimi's Peter didn't even need webshooters.

Quote:
But yes, a loner type hipster sounds a lot like a real version of what old series and cartoons have presented us as a "nerd."
To you. I definitely don't prefer the loner type hipster.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 03:06 AM   #94
S. Grundy
Side-Kick
 
S. Grundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,797
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Raimi's Parker was not a caricature at all. He was what Peter Parker should be, really unlucky and a bit of a geek. That's something I did not get from ASM.

He was a loner and a hipster. He was what a lot geeks probably see themselves as, even though they are nothing like him in real life. The term geek has pretty much lost all meaning, before it was someone with a real obsession/encyclopedic knowledge on a subject, now it's just "I like to watch movies, I'm a real film geek." Pretty meaningless.


Last edited by S. Grundy; 06-07-2013 at 03:10 AM.
S. Grundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:40 AM   #95
Visualiza
What is a yout?
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 760
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Grundy View Post
Raimi's Parker was not a caricature at all. He was what Peter Parker should be, really unlucky and a bit of a geek. That's something I did not get from ASM.

He was a loner and a hipster. He was what a lot geeks probably see themselves as, even though they are nothing like him in real life. The term geek has pretty much lost all meaning, before it was someone with a real obsession/encyclopedic knowledge on a subject, now it's just "I like to watch movies, I'm a real film geek." Pretty meaningless.

Visualiza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:23 AM   #96
spider-neil
spins a web any size!
 
spider-neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,520
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Garfield as Spider-Man, meh. However, Garfield as Spider-Man was brilliant, I loved every minute of his snark and sarcasm. Put it this way, when I list my favorite performance of the actor IN superhero costume, my list is;

Reeve - Superman
Downey - IM
Garfield - Spider-Man
Snipes - Blade
and then you have the Thor's, Caps and Hulks. Way down the list is Bale because the ridiculous Bat voice.

spider-neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:12 AM   #97
Happy Jack
Iconographer
 
Happy Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Future
Posts: 5,915
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

I liked Garfield when he was in the suit, in fact I would go as far as to say I liked his Spiderman more than Maguire's. But his Peter Parker left a lot to be desired. Maguire has him beaten thoroughly in that department.

__________________
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Happy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:42 AM   #98
spider-neil
spins a web any size!
 
spider-neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,520
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack View Post
I liked Garfield when he was in the suit, in fact I would go as far as to say I liked his Spiderman more than Maguire's. But his Peter Parker left a lot to be desired. Maguire has him beaten thoroughly in that department.
What Garfield does as Peter Parker which (imho) Maguire fails to, is convey that Peter is a snarky character (see; Basketball scene) so when he (Peter) puts on the costume and you see the snark and sarcasm come from Spider-Man you buy it because it's a part of the character of Peter and it was set up earlier in the movie.

Maguire on the other hand has no snark or sarcasm as Peter Parker whatsoever so when you get the quips as Spidey for the first time 'nice costume, did you husband make it for you?', sure it's a funny line but where on earth does that aspect of Spider's personality come from because it sure as heck doesn't come from Peter.
Sure, you can argue that Peter is reserved and shy and the costume gives Peter a release to say and act as he would never even dream out of costume but you should see 'some' snark, 'some' sarcasm.

I think there is no comparison with Garfield and Maguire in costume as Spider-Man. Out of costume as Peter Parker, it's closer and Maguire does 'nerk/geek' better but you see none of Spidey in Maguire's Peter Parker, not even a teeny tiny bit and for that reason I think Garfield is a better Peter Parker than Maguire.

For context;

Andrew Garfield Spider-Man - 9.5/10
Toby Maguire Spider-Man - 3/10

Andrew Garfield Pater Parker - 7.5/10
Toby Maguire Spider-Man - 7/10

spider-neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 11:17 AM   #99
Spider-Aziz
Greatest Hulk Show
 
Spider-Aziz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 31,594
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
This says it best:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:


The whole thing is hilarious. But 0:19 to 0:25 lays it out. Pretty perfectly.
This makes me think The Amazing Spider-Man is quite an underrated film

Though Batman Begins is easily better, I won't change my mind on that one

__________________
State Your Opinion on a Marvel Character, Part 1
If something is not a choice, but I do it, doesn't this mean I chose to do it instead of choosing to ignore it or to find an alternative? Aren't they all choices by the end of the process?
We're abusing our acronym privileges... ~ Sawyer
Spider-Aziz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 11:59 AM   #100
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack View Post
I liked Garfield when he was in the suit, in fact I would go as far as to say I liked his Spiderman more than Maguire's. But his Peter Parker left a lot to be desired. Maguire has him beaten thoroughly in that department.
I'm not too sold on Garfield's Spider-Man either, but the bold is right on the dot. Did not like his Peter Parker at all.

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 07:19 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.