Batman Begins vs The Amazing Spider-Man?

While I'm no TASM hater and I'm fully on board with Webb's direction and the great cast and can't wait for TASM2 but comparing it to Begins is silly.

ASM was a reboot that followed the plot of the original Spider-Man film relatively closely, only straying into new territory in a few (admittedly interesting) ways.

Begins was a COMPLETELY fresh, mature, deep re-imagining that I myself didn't see coming given the history of the Batman franchise and its roots in campiness.

One was way more important and influential and is the reason the other is the way it is in many ways. And that one is Begins, one of the best hero origin films ever.
 
Just the fact that they are reboots is probably why this poll was even made though, so the comparison isn't too silly.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised someone asks which film is better between Batman Begins or Man of Steel when MOS is released.
 
Begins wins easily. No contest.

However, I really don't see whats so bad about TAS. Its not spectacular, but I don't thinks it really falls into bad territory anywhere. TAS played it safe because the Spiderman franchise was in a bit of a pickle. We got a mediocre, entertaining film. If they took more chances it could have been really good, but also could have been really really bad. They took it safe on the reboot and I think it was a good idea. Get the foundations for the new series set and THEN start taking some chances. They have a good director and a strong cast. Potential for the sequels are very high.
 
I was really enjoying ASM up until the Lizard is introduced and then I just don't think the movie is as interesting. The point in Begins where I start to lose interest is when Bruce returns to Gotham.

ASM had it really hard because they had to bring the character back to his roots but every step feels like a retread. I wanted the origin to linger but I'm sure members of the audience wanted the origin to move along because they have already seen it. You put it in those terms and ASM was going to upset 'someone'.
 
^ Agreed with TAS-M. The first hour of TAS-M is quite enjoyable than it just falls apart.
 
As a movie, I prefer TASM. BB had too many problems for me, the wasting of a villain, the poor dialogue, the choppy action scenes editing. But then again, what Nolan was cooking was far more interesting. Problem for me is that the execution of his first bat-movie didn't deliver very well. Still a good movie.
 
I didn't think I would...but I voted for TASM...and I consider Begins my favorite of that trilogy...:O
 
I love both films but BB is one of my favorites, BB hands down.
 
I didn't think I would...but I voted for TASM...and I consider Begins my favorite of that trilogy...:O

May I say your choice sounds interesting, for the reasons you mention yourself. Do you care to expand a little. What's superior in TASM. If you don't mind I mean.
 
May I say your choice sounds interesting, for the reasons you mention yourself. Do you care to expand a little. What's superior in TASM. If you don't mind I mean.

I think its the enjoyment factor that has caused me to enjoy TASM more and more. Andrew Garfield presents a unique Peter on-screen and Emma Stone as Gwen is superb, although the villain is kinda weak I think each of the main actors in the film do a phenomenal job, that gets me really attached to their roles and attached to the film becuase of it, even with it's weaknesses in the plot. A part of me wishes we got to see Rhys Ifans Curt Conners expanded on. Some of the deleted scenes should of been kept in IMO.

With Batman Begins the only actor that is really superb to me is Gary Oldman, I'm probably biased because he is one of my favorite actors.

EDIT: Oh and Liam Nesson, duh! :doh:
 
Last edited:
I think its the enjoyment factor that has caused me to enjoy TASM more and more. Andrew Garfield presents a unique Peter on-screen and Emma Stone as Gwen is superb, although the villain is kinda weak I think each of the main actors in the film do a phenomenal job, that gets me really attached to their roles and attached to the film becuase of it, even with it's weaknesses in the plot. A part of me wishes we got to see Rhys Ifans Curt Conners expanded on. Some of the deleted scenes should of been kept in IMO.

With Batman Begins the only actor that is really superb to me is Gary Oldman, I'm probably biased because he is one of my favorite actors.

I agree 100% with your take on TASM.
 
The Amazing Spider-Man for me.

Both movies had their problems, but BB's ones are too big.
 
^ Agreed with TAS-M. The first hour of TAS-M is quite enjoyable than it just falls apart.

It is a shame. Lizard was my favorite Spidey villain growing up. Now everyone will always thinks he sucks because of Marc Webb's ineptitude. It still kind of annoys me.
 
I've watched both of these within the last week and it's not close. BB by a mile. I actually like TASM, but BB is still the best live action superhero movie I've seen.
 
It is a shame. Lizard was my favorite Spidey villain growing up. Now everyone will always thinks he sucks because of Marc Webb's ineptitude. It still kind of annoys me.

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.
 
I do have to give credit to The Amazing Spider-Man over Batman Begins in one area, which is the portrayal of the character. Even though Batman Begins is far better film than The Amazing Spider-Man, TASM is a better portrayal of the character of Spider-Man than Batman Begins is a portrayal of the character of Batman.

Now don't get wrong. I am not saying that BB is an inaccurate portrayal. In fact, I think both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both great adaptations that really do justice to Batman, more than any other live-action portrayal of Batman so far. However, there is more to an adaptation than just the protagonist alone. The main reasons why I consider BB and TDK to be great Batman movies are because of the messages and statements made about Batman, the themes addressed, the depiction of the villains, the depiction of the supporting cast, Batman's relationship with his villains and with his supporting cast, the portrayal of Gotham, the story influences from the comics, etc. When it comes to the Batman character himself, he is arguably the weakest thing about the films out of all the things they adapted. He is not the world's greatest detective nor is he anywhere on par with some of comic book Batman's other skills, including Batman's overall intelligence. Bale's performance was also not an ideal performance of Batman. He did a great job but he is not to Batman what RDJ is to Iron Man or what Christopher Reeves is to Superman or what Andrew Garfield is to Spider-Man. These are all examples of perfect castings that nailed it all the way done to the core while Bale almost made it there but never fully crossed the finish line (something true about all the actors that played Batman in live-action so far). One of the aspects that Bale could've captured better was Batman's intimidating presence and the intelligent calculative vibe you're supposed to get by hearing Batman's voice. Batman's fighting skills could have also been better. People often say that Nolan's Batman is a very watered down Batman and to an extent, that is true. Does this mean Nolan's version of Batman was bad? No. He still had many important aspects of the Batman character incorporated into him. However, that was always the thing that separated the Nolan films from Batman TAS: the Nolan films (at least the first two) were very well done adaptation of Batman while Batman TAS was a perfect-or-at-least-as-close-to-perfect-as-possible adaptation of Batman.

On the other hand, The Amazing Spider-Man was by no means the ideal Spider-Man movie for me but it gave me a spot-on portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and his supporting cast even though it does have a few script issues and pacing issues. It set the potential for future films really high.

To sum it all up....
Chris Nolan gave me the Batman movies I always wanted but did not give me the Batman that I always wanted.
Marc Webb gave me the Spider-Man I always wanted but has yet to give me the Spider-Man movie that I always wanted.
 
I disagree. I think Garfield is the perfect Peter Parker and Spider-Man. I can't picture anyone else better in the role.
 
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
 
I disagree. I think Garfield is the perfect Peter Parker and Spider-Man. I can't picture anyone else better in the role.

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 do have to give credit to The Amazing Spider-Man over Batman Begins in one area, which is the portrayal of the character. Even though Batman Begins is far better film than The Amazing Spider-Man, TASM is a better portrayal of the character of Spider-Man than Batman Begins is a portrayal of the character of Batman.

Now don't get wrong. I am not saying that BB is an inaccurate portrayal. In fact, I think both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both great adaptations that really do justice to Batman, more than any other live-action portrayal of Batman so far. However, there is more to an adaptation than just the protagonist alone. The main reasons why I consider BB and TDK to be great Batman movies are because of the messages and statements made about Batman, the themes addressed, the depiction of the villains, the depiction of the supporting cast, Batman's relationship with his villains and with his supporting cast, the portrayal of Gotham, the story influences from the comics, etc. When it comes to the Batman character himself, he is arguably the weakest thing about the films out of all the things they adapted. He is not the world's greatest detective nor is he anywhere on par with some of comic book Batman's other skills, including Batman's overall intelligence. Bale's performance was also not an ideal performance of Batman. He did a great job but he is not to Batman what RDJ is to Iron Man or what Christopher Reeves is to Superman or what Andrew Garfield is to Spider-Man. These are all examples of perfect castings that nailed it all the way done to the core while Bale almost made it there but never fully crossed the finish line (something true about all the actors that played Batman in live-action so far). One of the aspects that Bale could've captured better was Batman's intimidating presence and the intelligent calculative vibe you're supposed to get by hearing Batman's voice. Batman's fighting skills could have also been better. People often say that Nolan's Batman is a very watered down Batman and to an extent, that is true. Does this mean Nolan's version of Batman was bad? No. He still had many important aspects of the Batman character incorporated into him. However, that was always the thing that separated the Nolan films from Batman TAS: the Nolan films (at least the first two) were very well done adaptation of Batman while Batman TAS was a perfect-or-at-least-as-close-to-perfect-as-possible adaptation of Batman.

On the other hand, The Amazing Spider-Man was by no means the ideal Spider-Man movie for me but it gave me a spot-on portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and his supporting cast even though it does have a few script issues and pacing issues. It set the potential for future films really high.

To sum it all up....
Chris Nolan gave me the Batman movies I always wanted but did not give me the Batman that I always wanted.
Marc Webb gave me the Spider-Man I always wanted but has yet to give me the Spider-Man movie that I always wanted.

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"