Favorite Spider-Man film so far.

[The Joker]

Critic reviews are based on the subjective.

Not the point I was making, nor were you. You said everything in this thread is subjective. The level of critical and financial success of Raimi's movies (the first two anyway) is not subjective. It's factual. As is their popularity with fans and audiences.

Popularity and financial success are zero indication of quality. The Bayformer movies and Spider-man 3 made more money than most movies and they're complete trash.

I didn't say they were an indication of quality did I? I said they factually have big popularity and are hugely successful.

That's not subjective. That's fact. It still is. You can choose to dismiss all of it as no indication of quality if you want. But Bayformers and Spider-Man 3 don't have popularity, and big critical and financial success. Spider-Man 1 and 2 do have all three. Another fact.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I will say it followed his formula way too much of one love interest (Gwen instead of MJ) who is the girl next store that Peter woos while fighting a fallen father figure victim who is an accident of a science experiment gone wrong. Toss in the origin and we really have seen it ALL before.

Gwen is very different from Mary Jane. She's nerdy and has a sharp wit. Her father was heavily involved in the story.

The fallen father figure involved in a bad science experiment is true to the comics. It's not Webb's fault, Raimi made Dr. Ock a father figure too. The Lizard was the most logical choice for the next villain and Dr. Connor's was always a sympathetic character and mentor to Peter.

The re-done origin was constantly attacked by Raimi fans and critics alike. It probably hurt the movie more than anything else.

Still, I do not think its success was due to Raimi's films. I think its success was due to being Spidey. Likely the close proximity hurt TASM's box office. Also that and audiences were not blown away by it like they were with the first two.

I wouldn't say audiences were "blown away" by SM1 or SM2. Those films made alot of money for the same reasons Phantom Menace and Attack of Clones made alot of money. They benefited from decades built up anticipation. The anticipation and hype for the Raimi's Spider-man movies weakened with film.

Spider-man 2 always makes plenty of fanboys top twenty all-time movie list but rarely anyone from the general public.

Spider-man 1 wouldn't even make most people's top 40. People were "blown away" by Star Wars A New Hope and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those movies consistently make the general movie goer's top ten, no matter how much time goes by.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-man 2 always makes plenty of fanboys top twenty all-time movie list but rarely anyone from the general public.

So what comic book movies do usually make the general public's top 20 all time movies?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Not the point I was making, nor were you. You said everything in this thread is subjective. The level of critical and financial success of Raimi's movies (the first two anyway) is not subjective. It's factual. As is their extreme popularity with fans and audiences.

Well the title of the thread is "Favorite Spider-man film" and if people use critical reviews and box office receipts to prove their point it still doesn' t prove anything. Those critic reviews ARE SUBJECTIVE in every way. There's nothing factual about them.

You claim tickets sold as objective evidence when the evidence itself is based on the subjective.

1) buying tickets = subjective choice

2) number of tickets bought = objective fact

3) using tickets sold as indication of quality = back to subjective

You're going in circles and not making any scientific/objective progress. Using irrelevant factoids in this thread doesn't make it any less subjective.

I didn't say they were an indication of quality did I? I said they factually have big popularity and are hugely successful.

That's not subjective. That's fact. It still is. You can choose to dismiss all of it as no indication of quality if you want. But Bayformers and Spider-Man 3 don't have extreme popularity, and big critical and financial success. Spider-Man 1 and 2 do have all three. Another fact.

1) You can have popularity without quality, so who cares if SM1 and SM2 are popular?

2) that popularity/financial-success is based on the subjective, so it can't be used objectively to prove an opinion. You CAN prove objectively that SM1 made alot of money but not that it DESERVES to make more money. So how is the amount of money it made relevant to this thread?

3) Popularity and financial success are both pretty much being used synonymously by you. Either way they are based on the subjective so their don't prove anything objective other than monetary value.

 

[Spider-Fan]

So what comic book movies do usually make the general public's top 20 all time movies?

Agreed. TASM isn't on most people's top 20 lists that are not comic fans, either. The fact Raimi's movies might not be is meaningless and doesn't change the fact that SM1 and SM2 are well loved films, made money, and critics liked them

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So what comic book movies do usually make the general public's top 20 all time movies?

I'd say TDK and Avengers at the moment.

The true test will be if they can still make the list in another 10 years.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well the title of the thread is "Favorite Spider-man film" and if people use critical reviews and box office receipts to prove their point it still doesn' t prove anything. Those critic reviews ARE SUBJECTIVE in every way. There's nothing factual about them.

You claim tickets sold as objective evidence when the evidence itself is based on the subjective.

1) buying tickets = subjective choice

2) number of tickets bought = objective fact

3) using tickets sold as indication of quality = back to subjective

You're going in circles and not making any scientific/objective progress. Using irrelevant factoids in this thread doesn't make it any less subjective.



1) You can have popularity without quality, so who cares if SM1 and SM2 are popular?

2) that popularity/financial-success is based on the subjective, so it can't be used objectively to prove an opinion. You CAN prove objectively that SM1 made alot of money but not that it DESERVES to make more money. So how is the amount of money it made relevant to this thread?

3) Popularity and financial success are both pretty much being used synonymously by you. Either way they are based on the subjective so their don't prove anything objective other than monetary value.

Not, they're not. What he is saying is that Raimi's films were not films that made money but got panned by critics. They were well enjoyed films as well as huge moneymakers, and that these 2 things are facts you can't argue. Argue the films quality all you want. That's your opinion. But you can't use critics and such to point at the quality of TASM (which I see you do all the time) while saying it is meaningless that SM1 and SM2 scored higher on both and made more money (without even adjusting for inflation).

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Agreed. TASM isn't on most people's top 20 lists that are not comic fans, either. The fact Raimi's movies might not be is meaningless and doesn't change the fact that SM1 and SM2 are well loved films, made money, and critics liked them

"Well loved" yet disposable and forgettable.

"Made money" like Bayformers and Spider-man 3.

"Critics liked them" which is simply a fact based on something subjective used to prove something subjective.

 

[Spider-Fan]

"Well loved" yet disposable and forgettable.

"Made money" like Bayformers and Spider-man 3.

"Critics liked them" which is simply a fact based on something subjective used to prove something subjective.

And how is this any different for TASM? You constantly make these arguments, and use critics and such as evidence as to how popular the movie is, but somehow that same evidence (which is more so even) in Raimi's corner is subjective and meaningless? Once again, I don't see the logic.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Not, they're not. What he is saying is that Raimi's films were not films that made money but got panned by critics. They were well enjoyed films as well as huge moneymakers, and that these 2 things are facts you can't argue. Argue the films quality all you want. That's your opinion. But you can't use critics and such to point at the quality of TASM (which I see you do all the time) while saying it is meaningless that SM1 and SM2 scored higher on both and made more money (without even adjusting for inflation).

Critics are a minority. They are not an indication of popularity or THe Artist could be considered on the most popular movies from 2011.

Moneymaking is a fact but a completely irrelevant fact to this thread since that form of popularity doesn't indicate quality.

I never used critics or argued anyone's opinion was objective. I referenced one of the few, widely used measurements for public sentiment towards movies. But some how it's wrong to use hundreds of thousand of people's opinion. Instead we have to focus on box office that would indicate Bayformers is a great movie or the microscopic amount of critics (less than 0.0000001% of the public) as an indication of popularity or objective quality.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And how is this any different for TASM? You constantly make these arguments, and use critics and such as evidence as to how popular the movie is, but somehow that same evidence (which is more so even) in Raimi's corner is subjective and meaningless? Once again, I don't see the logic.

I don't use money or critics.

I use votes from the public simply to counter claims that the general audience appreciated the Raimi movies over ASM.

Just because a movie sold more tickets doesn't mean it's appreciated more.

and critics can't be used to measure public sentiment since they are just a small group of people who's opinion cann't prove anything more than how their small group feels.

 

[DACrowe]

Gwen is very different from Mary Jane. She's nerdy and has a sharp wit. Her father was heavily involved in the story.

The fallen father figure involved in a bad science experiment is true to the comics. It's not Webb's fault, Raimi made Dr. Ock a father figure too. The Lizard was the most logical choice for the next villain and Dr. Connor's was always a sympathetic character and mentor to Peter.

The re-done origin was constantly attacked by Raimi fans and critics alike. It probably hurt the movie more than anything else.

It is mostly cosmetic though. She is still the girl next door love interest who becomes his confidant (in one movie instead of two) and needs saving in the third act (sure the Lizard ends up leaving her alone, but it is the same story beat when Spidey rushes off to her aide). Honestly I think they both played warped combinations of M/Gwen from the comics and Stone just came off better at doing it.


As for Lizard. He was not the next natural choice. They could use any villain. And as a Lizard fan growing up, I can say if they felt compelled to do him why did they have to suck at it so much? Removing his son or the fact that he experimented on himself for his family and not just his own personal ambition removes much of the pathos for the character (and on a minor note, they FUBAR'd the look with that face and removing the coat).

I wouldn't say audiences were "blown away" by SM1 or SM2. Those films made alot of money for the same reasons Phantom Menace and Attack of Clones made alot of money. They benefited from decades built up anticipation. The anticipation and hype for the Raimi's Spider-man movies weakened with film.

Spider-man 2 always makes plenty of fanboys top twenty all-time movie list but rarely anyone from the general public.

Spider-man 1 wouldn't even make most people's top 40. People were "blown away" by Star Wars A New Hope and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those movies consistently make the general movie goer's top ten, no matter how much time goes by.

Since when does blown away mean best movie of all time? Because in all honesty no fanboy movie in the last 20 years deserves a high ranking in the top 50 films of all time. Maybe LOTR and TDK in the top 100, but even that is stretching it. Most people do not obsess over any of these like fanboys, you are right....(though they certainly did more so than TASM)...

However, they were all welcomed with near unanimous praise. Both featured over 90% good reviews upon release, ravenous WOM and huge box office. They were so well received that the hype for SM3, with ever so popular Venom in the trailer, was astronomical. The reason the hype was so high for the letdown that was SM3 is because it was the sequel to such well received good films. Kind of like POTC1 was clearly so well liked by the fact that it's immediate sequel was one of the biggest movies of the decade. But after that movie sucked POTC3 made significantly less and POTC4, much like TASM, couldn't even crack $300 million domestic. Why? Because audiences were not impressed by POTC2-4 like they were with the first. Arguably SM3 affected TASM, but I'd add that TASM did not impress audiences like SM1 and SM2 did.

And no, none of them are the greatest films of all time. But very few are. Even so, the upside down kiss and final swing in SM1 will be remembered as iconic moments of the superhero genre for as long as people think about these films in the decades to come. I do not think anything in the Webb film will be recalled as fondly or at all.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't use money or critics.

I use votes from the public simply to counter claims that the general audience appreciated the Raimi movies over ASM.

Just because a movie sold more tickets doesn't mean it's appreciated more.

and critics can't be used to measure public sentiment since they are just a small group of people who's opinion cann't prove anything more than how their small group feels.

I've seen you several times use the critics (especially when they were releasing the reviews for TASM) as an indication. The flaw in your overall argument is that you constantly try to limit the debate to the few metrics or sites that prove your point, while ignoring the plethora of other metrics that support Raimi's films. I'm sorry, but the RT general public tomato meter is not a more trustworthy metric than any other metric (critics, etc) provided in this thread. You simply choose to focus on those because they prove your point. It's human to want to be right, but it doesn't enhance your argument.

 

[Donnie Darko]

"Well loved" yet disposable and forgettable.

Spider-Man 2 is disposable and forgettable? Is that why, almost a decade after its release, it is still winning this poll by a landslide?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Donnie, this isn't the RT general public ranking. Thus, we don't apparently matter.

 

[Donnie Darko]

No voting system is going to be perfect. It looks like the same percentage of audience members "liked" SM2 and ASM, with SM2 having a much larger voting pool. ASM's rating is slightly better (4 vs. 3.5). We could take it over to IMDB, where they have a very similar number of votes/ratings, and SM2 is slightly ahead (7.4 vs 7.2).

 

[Spider-Fan]

Also, most people who are not people like us who watch movies normally don't vote on RT, IMDB, RT, SHH, etc. All these sites/polls are mostly for people into films, ie people like us. To assume places like RT give you a proper sample size I think is unwise. Truthfully, all these sites are flawed, like you said. But, so many people try to use one metric as the end all be all metric and at the same time discredit all conflicting information. I think much of this is useless, and people should stop trying to manipulate numbers until they get their desired opinion validated through faulty voting systems.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I don't understand what I'm reading right now....what's the fuss about so far in this thread?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Spider-Man 2 is disposable and forgettable? Is that why, almost a decade after its release, it is still winning this poll by a landslide?

We were referring to public sentiment, not just fanboys.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Also, most people who are not people like us who watch movies normally don't vote on RT, IMDB, RT, SHH, etc. All these sites/polls are mostly for people into films, ie people like us. To assume places like RT give you a proper sample size I think is unwise. Truthfully, all these sites are flawed, like you said. But, so many people try to use one metric as the end all be all metric and at the same time discredit all conflicting information. I think much of this is useless, and people should stop trying to manipulate numbers until they get their desired opinion validated through faulty voting systems.

You can't validate your opinion using box office or critic reviews either.

Box office doesn't equal quality and critic reviews are nothing more than subjective and biased opinions, they are not infallible truth laid down by gods.

The whole reason this tangent got started was the claim that somehow the ticket buying habits and critical praise is somehow objective and relevant proof of which movie is better.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Arguably SM3 affected TASM, but I'd add that TASM did not impress audiences like SM1 and SM2 did.

And no, none of them are the greatest films of all time. But very few are. Even so, the upside down kiss and final swing in SM1 will be remembered as iconic moments of the superhero genre for as long as people think about these films in the decades to come. I do not think anything in the Webb film will be recalled as fondly or at all.

It's impossible to say exactly why ASM failed to cross 300 m. There are alot of factors: competition from TDKR/Ted, older franchise with weaker anticipation than the first movie, reboots are always a tough sell initially, a divided fanbase before the release, Avengers stealing everyone's thunder, etc.

SM1 and SM2 didn't have any of those obstacles. If they did, they might of had trouble reaching 300 m.

and yes the upside down kiss was well known. Almost every movie with decades of anticipation has a moment the public latches on to. It doesn't take much. Superman the Movie had the helicopter catch/save, Batman (89) had "I'm Batman" and Avengers had the Loki beatdown. That's the joy of being the first in a highly anticipated franchise. It's easier to make it into the cultural memory.

 

[DACrowe]

You can't validate your opinion using box office or critic reviews either.

Box office doesn't equal quality and critic reviews are nothing more than subjective and biased opinions, they are not infallible truth laid down by gods.

The whole reason this tangent got started was the claim that somehow the ticket buying habits and critical praise is somehow objective and relevant proof of which movie is better.

I think I used that to show that Raimi's films, at least the first two, were better received critically and by the mainstream than TASM. You are correct that that does not objectively mean they are better or you can't prefer TASM. It just means one was technically better received by the overall public than the other.

 

[DACrowe]

It's impossible to say exactly why ASM failed to cross 300 m. There are alot of factors: competition from TDKR/Ted, older franchise with weaker anticipation than the first movie, reboots are always a tough sell initially, a divided fanbase before the release, Avengers stealing everyone's thunder, etc.

SM1 and SM2 didn't have any of those obstacles. If they did, they might of had trouble reaching 300 m.

and yes the upside down kiss was well known. Almost every movie with decades of anticipation has a moment the public latches on to. It doesn't take much. Superman the Movie had the helicopter catch/save, Batman (89) had "I'm Batman" and Avengers had the Loki beatdown. That's the joy of being the first in a highly anticipated franchise. It's easier to make it into the cultural memory.

True. But I would argue that each of Nolan's films achieved that to varying effect, especially the sequels, despite being films 5-7 in the Batman franchise. Similarly, Skyfall, if for nothing more than the song and the "proposition" scene between Bardem and Bond, seems to have left a lasting cultural impression.

TASM did not. To me that is very telling, because the best movies in the genre tend to have some sort of pop culture impact. Beyond Internet Geek culture, I do not believe that TASM did. Just an observation.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

True. But I would argue that each of Nolan's films achieved that to varying effect, especially the sequels, despite being films 5-7 in the Batman franchise. Similarly, Skyfall, if for nothing more than the song and the "proposition" scene between Bardem and Bond, seems to have left a lasting cultural impression.

TASM did not. To me that is very telling, because the best movies in the genre tend to have some sort of pop culture impact. Beyond Internet Geek culture, I do not believe that TASM did. Just an observation.

Most reboots don't have any major cultural impact because, quite frankly, they don't have as massive the audience as event movies that are highly anticipated. If your going to compare Webb to Nolan then you have to use Batman Begins which was Nolan's introduction reboot film like ASM was and you'll notice BB didn't really stay in the cultural memory like TDK or SM1 either.

But both those movies had some of the biggest arch enemies with built up anticipation. Of course they'll make more cultural impact than The Lizard or Ras Al Ghul in a reboot film.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think I used that to show that Raimi's films, at least the first two, were better received critically and by the mainstream than TASM. You are correct that that does not objectively mean they are better or you can't prefer TASM. It just means one was technically better received by the overall public than the other.

Unless you measure the public sentiment who watched both SM1 and ASM you can't say SM1 was technically better received by the overall audience.

Technically it was was received by more people. That much is true. But it doesn't mean everyone who say both movies preferred SM1/SM2 to ASM.

and critics don't speak for the general audience. They represent the opinion of of dozens of random bloggers and critics.