The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Chanes of this beating SM2 Quality wise?

[Nemeres]

The way I think it will go:

Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3

In terms of rankings. I don't think TASM2 will be better than Spider-Man 2. I think it might be very close, but just won't be. But will be better than The Amazing Spider-Man. I think Spider-Man is better than TASM, it's just more fun and it came before, which you have to take into account.

 

[Nemeres]

I know I personally consider X2 to be better than SM2, but I think the general consensus was that SM2 was better than X2. And X1 has never been considered better then SM2 to my knowledge.

I would agree that many consider TDK, BB, and TA better then SM2. TDKR is a probably, and XFC is a maybe. That one is tougher.

I'd consider SM2 to be second only to TDK. Its character work is above and beyond pretty much anything else in my opinion, even Batman Begins (although that one's perhaps more arguable).

 

[Spider-Aziz]

When it comes to quality; yes it can, at least I hope it will
Spider-Man 2 is not the high quality genre defining movie

I say yes. Just alone because of the fact that this Spider-Man makes me laugh.

Maguire made me laugh plenty of times
By being awkward

 

[Spiderdevil]

There is no superhero movie better than SM2 except TDK.Maybe TA

No other CB movie other than those two come close.
And BB is one of the most overrated CBMs ever,Iron man and SM1 were both a lot better origin movies than BB.TDKR was a disaster.
X-Men:FC was a nice movie but again nowhere near the TDK-SM2-TA league

 

[Valkyrje]

SM2 is the most overrated CBM ever. I'm not saying it wasn't good, but it's not as good as it's made out to be. Don't ever compare it with TDK. There are many which were better.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Many? Like?

Believe me I am not a big fan of SM2,But I will always admit that the only movies better than it are TDK and maybe TA

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The first Men in Black

 

[JOE]

Buzz noise.

 

[Green Goblin]

"Spider-Man 2 is on par with TDK Trilogy, X2, X:FC,TA and Iron Man! The best of the genre!"- a number of people here.

The reality?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/ That is a great score but the 91% The Dark Knight? Hell No!

 

[Green Goblin]

I'd consider SM2 to be second only to TDK. Its character work is above and beyond pretty much anything else in my opinion, even Batman Begins (although that one's perhaps more arguable).

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=463585

 

[Vid Electricz]

Umm....yes? .

Makes sense. The "dancing" scenes in Spider-Man 3 lasted cumulatively, for less than three minutes. Great news! Everyone can stop complaining about them because they were only in the movie for an extremely short amount of time.

I'm assuming he was born in the 1960's. Jamie Foxx is in his 40's in real life, plus Max looks a lot older than Jamie Foxx does and has a bald spot. Purely an assumption on my part, but my point still stands: One thing is to do it one time to one character and an entire other thing is to do that your main protagonist & entire world and then be all in-your-face about it throughout three films.

FYI, I don't hate the Raimi films (other than SM3). I dislike them as Spider-Man films, but I don't hate them. I think SM1 is ok, and that SM2 is really good. I can sit down and enjoy watching them if in the right mood.

Yes, the Raimi films were essentially in a 1960's environment. It's not just Peter's ridiculous George McFly nerd archetype.

You're going to have to clarify. While you are making blanket generalizations about the character being a "nerd archetype" (which makes about as much sense as TASM Peter being an "emo archetype"), I see a Peter who is shy, modest and introverted, with low self-esteem. If you want to make cursory generalizations, that's your business, but don't act like it's fact.

It's everything else. Most characters dress and act like it's the 60's. Even JJJ, who I love, is very 1960's-ish. .

Huh? I'm sure this makes sense inside your head, but there is absolutely nothing anachronistic in the Raimi Spider-Man films as far as the aesthetics go. All the characters dress in whatever the most popular fashions were during the respective year they took place (2002, 2004, 2007)- Peter, MJ, Harry, JJJ, etc...You'll need to clarify as to exactly what made these characters and their environment appear to be "1960's-ish".

The environment itself also looks very 1960's. Notice how there are barely are glass skyscrapers in all 3 Raimi films? Mind you, none of these things are bad things but it would have worked a lot better if the films actually took place in the 1960's but the film takes place in the 21st century.

Again, I'm sure this makes sense to you in some way, but when you've got exteriors filmed on the actual streets of New York in 2002-2007, it kind of defeats/invalidates your argument. Have you actually been to New York? It's not (nearly) all glass skyscrapers.

 

[Green Goblin]

Makes sense. The "dancing" scenes in Spider-Man 3 lasted cumulatively, for less than three minutes. Great news! Everyone can stop complaining about them because they were only in the movie for an extremely short amount of time.

But Electro is "a loser" and when Spider-Man is under the influence of the black suit he shouldn't be dancing.

You're going to have to clarify. While you are making blanket generalizations about the character being a "nerd archetype" (which makes about as much sense as TASM Peter being an "emo archetype"), I see a Peter who is shy, modest and introverted, with low self-esteem. If you want to make cursory generalizations, that's your business, but don't act like it's fact.

There are many re-incarnations of characters in comics... sometimes like in Ultimate they are updated for a new era (our case early 21st Century)

Huh? I'm sure this makes sense inside your head, but there is absolutely nothing anachronistic in the Raimi Spider-Man films as far as the aesthetics go. All the characters dress in whatever the most popular fashions were during the respective year they took place (2002, 2004, 2007)- Peter, MJ, Harry, JJJ, etc...You'll need to clarify as to exactly what made these characters and their environment appear to be "1960's-ish".

I think Rami has stated that the Stan Lee era was his favorite and the feel and presentation does show that, sometimes in how a character dresses.

Again, I'm sure this makes sense to you in some way, but when you've got exteriors filmed on the actual streets of New York in 2002-2007, it kind of defeats/invalidates your argument. Have you actually been to New York? It's not (nearly) all glass skyscrapers.

True

 

[Vid Electricz]

But Electro is "a loser" and when Spider-Man is under the influence of the black suit he shouldn't be dancing.

Correction: Electro is a "loser" in the TASM2 movie. In the comics, he's just your everyday, average schmuck. He didn't have a combover, buck teeth or glasses.

(aside: What does "loser" mean? It means his look must conform to all the usual, predictable and obvious Steve Urkel stereotypes and cliches?)

Just as in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie, he does dance while wearing the symbiote.

There are many re-incarnations of characters in comics... sometimes like in Ultimate they are updated for a new era (our case early 21st Century)

I'm not seeing what your argument is. The Raimi films DID update the characters for the 21st century (seeing as how the movies took place IN the 21st century).

I think Rami has stated that the Stan Lee era was his favorite and the feel and presentation does show that, sometimes in how a character dresses.

Still not getting it. You'll have to be more specific. There is nothing in any of these films that insinuates or implies that the aesthetic of the Sam Raimi movies were based off of, or "inspired" by the 1960's. Please provide examples.

 

[Loki882]

The dialogue and portrayal of the characters in Raimi's films felt very 60's to me. It didn't sound 21st Century at all, which made it awkward.

 

[amazingly atiba]

ive never heard that complaint. really guys? it felt to 60's? now i know why vid is like this

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I like the first two Spider-Man films, but it's a no brainer that Raimi was trying to capture the essence of the 60' s comics and what made them so great for him. He made his Spider-Man film(s), the ones he wanted to make (minus SM3). Not only was the dialogue and characterizations in the films old fashioned in feel, but his New York felt antiseptic. NYC should have some grit & grime to it, and you should feel it's texture and scale. We didn't really get any of this. It just wasn't part of his aesthetic or overall vision of the character.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I like the first two Spider-Man films, but it's a no brainer that Raimi was trying to capture the essence of the 60' s comics and what made them so great for him. He made his Spider-Man film(s), the ones he wanted to make (minus SM3). Not only was the dialogue and characterizations in the films old fashioned in feel,.

Was it? It was a bit innocent at times, sure, and it captured much of the humour and playful innocence of the comics at that time- but as far as the aesthetic goes (wardrobe and set decoration)? I don't think so.

but his New York felt antiseptic. NYC should have some grit & grime to it, and you should feel it's texture and scale. We didn't really get any of this. It just wasn't part of his aesthetic or overall vision of the character.

Did it? Again, most the exterior shots were on location. Did Peter meeting MJ on the side of the Moondance Diner with the dumpster in plain view and everyday NY civilians walking about seem unauthentic? Was MJ being accosted in the dark alleyway or Peter falling into the muddy puddle next to the dumpster not "gritty and grimey enough"? You'll have to be more specific.

If you have ever lived in a big city then you would know that not all of any city (NYC included) is all "grit and grime". lol. There are beautiful, clean areas as well. The aesthetic in TASM essentially wasn't any different aside from:

1. More night scenes.
2. A darker filter used in select scenes.


Also, as far as I know, Raimi grew up on the Spider-Man comics from the 70's and has always been a fan of that era in particular.

 

[Oscorp]

I never got the 60's feeling in Raimi's films.

I do get some of the criticism of Peter Parker being too dorky. I think that was perfect for SM1, but I often felt that he stayed basically the same for too long in the sequels, even though there were some exceptions here and there.

It's not that big of a flaw for me though. At least not compared to how horribly Mary Jane was written. That whole relationship is almost a film killer for me. You shouldn't root for a love interest character to die. Three films in a row I ended up disappointed in that she ended up saved haha :P It's very much like Rachel in TDK. I was actually reliefed that she was finally gone and felt like giving Joker a high five through the screen.

I think that's by far the biggest flaw in SM2. Everything else to me is really, really great even though I'm not a big fan of the A.I. taking over Doc Ock's mind thing. But that relationship is a big flaw if you ask me. It's painful to watch those two.

I have a hard time deciding right now if I prefer SM2 or ASM. SM2 is superior when it comes to a better told story, villain and action. But ASM resonates to me so much more emotionally, and I prefer the cast. I have high hopes for ASM2 and I have a feeling that Jamie Foxx will deliver some real goods. I'm not sure whether ASM2 will end up being the better film over SM2 (obviously), but I definitely think there's a big chance that I may enjoy it more.

EDIT: I didn't realise the irony of my post given that I actually want to see Gwen's death. But that's for a completely different reason. I wanted MJ to die just so I wouldn't have to see her in the films anymore, whereas I want to see the Death of Gwen Stacy story come to Life because it's a damn captivating story that I think has the potential to really shine.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I never got the 60's feeling in Raimi's films.

Never felt it either

 

[WarriorDreamer]

Well there is one thing we can be sure of, even if The Amazing Spider-Man 2 isn't better than SM2 lets all hope that The Amazing Spider-Man 3 can't be any worse than Spider-Man 3 right?

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Was it? It was a bit innocent at times, sure, and it captured much of the humour and playful innocence of the comics at that time- but as far as the aesthetic goes (wardrobe and set decoration)? I don't think so.


Did it? Again, most the exterior shots were on location. Did Peter meeting MJ on the side of the Moondance Diner with the dumpster in plain view and everyday NY civilians walking about seem unauthentic? Was MJ being accosted in the dark alleyway or Peter falling into the muddy puddle next to the dumpster not "gritty and grimey enough"? You'll have to be more specific.

If you have ever lived in a big city then you would know that not all of any city (NYC included) is all "grit and grime". lol. There are beautiful, clean areas as well. The aesthetic in TASM essentially wasn't any different aside from:

1. More night scenes.
2. A darker filter used in select scenes.


Also, as far as I know, Raimi grew up on the Spider-Man comics from the 70's and has always been a fan of that era in particular.

It's funny you mention the Diner scene, that was one of my favorite scenes. I loved that shot. The dark alley shot was too stylistic for my taste, in fact I feel the the whole series was caught up in it's stylistic trappings. New York's energy wasn't captured like it has been in other films. Again, too antiseptic and one-note. The films lacked a sense of scale that I expect from a big budget film shot in NYC. I want it more stripped down and raw, more visceral. This kept the films from going to another level emotionally. Nothing wrong with it, I understood what Raimi was going for, but I would certainly hope for something different in the future. Webb did a much better job in this respect, unfortunately the script had problems. This time around 95% of the film was shot on location so hopefolly we'll see a dramatic difference in how NYC is portrayed.

 

[amazingly atiba]

it wont. an SM2 isnt the definitive superhero movie but it is a great spider man movie and doesnt mean it wont be over htrown. lets hope TASM 2 is a better spider man film. which can easily be done. i have faith that it will

 

[WarriorDreamer]

@Oscorp, I agree the Peter/ MJ thing was probably the weak point of the franchise. I think Venom was poorly handled but wasn't handled any worse than Connors/ Lizard was in my opinion taking into account they also had Flint/ Sandman. But at least the Peter/ MJ thing was compelling, while it was weak you at least wondered where it was going to go next.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I know I personally consider X2 to be better than SM2, but I think the general consensus was that SM2 was better than X2.

They're interchangable at to top imo.

With XMFC bringing up the third.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

X2 is my favorite, SM2 is still hanging on in my top 5, at number 5