Flagship Character Reboot Battle(TASM vs MoS)

[Shikamaru]

As much of a Spider-Man as I am and as much as I liked TASM, I am going to have to go with MOS on this one.

Both have issues I have with them but overall, MOS falls in the "great" category for me while TASM falls more in the "good" category for me. However, I also think that future sequels to TASM have far more potential than future sequels to MOS (at least so far). One thing that hurts TASM a bit but benefits its sequels is the fact that TASM was more of a setup film. MOS was also a setup film but not to the same extent.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, I am a huge fan of both Spiderman and Superman, but in this case I found MOS to be a much better movie. TASM i was dissapointed with at first but have grown to like it over repeat viewings, but MOS I have loved from the start. TASM isnt as good as Spiderman 1 or 2, not by a long-shot.

MOS is one of the best Superman movies though IMO.

 

[Tony Stark]

Let's be clear, I don't like either movie. Having said that, the writing, and the characters in TASM was far more compelling than Goyer's crappy script. I also thought the action sequences were better handled in TASM, as MoS was nothing but a knock off of Transformers disaster porn.

TASM was a poor film in that it just rehashed many of the things, that didn't need rehashed, but then again, so did Man of Steel, so they are even in that category.

As far as characterization, pacing, script writing, TASM was far superior to MoS.

To be fair, MoS script has some of the same groan worthy moments that marred Rami's 2002 Spider-man, the problem is MoS has no humor or charisma to offset the shoddy script writing.

 

[Visualiza]

Had to go with the last choice. For me, there comes a point where some movies are so awful that musing on which of the two is better is little more than splitting hairs. A polished turd is still a turd, as they say. Both films featured awful romance subplots, questionable(or in the case of MoS, next to none) character development, unexplored themes, uninteresting dialogue, and downright bad storytelling. I've observed that some fans of either film are quick to deride Transformers or other action driven blockbusters, but the action was the only redeeming quality of either of these movies. Problem with that is, that action without context, proper buildup, or characters one cares about(in a good or bad way) falls completely flat, no matter how dazzling the choreography or jazzed up the SFX may be.

Both franchises have a lot to make up for with their sequels.

 

[Tony Stark]

Both franchises have a lot to make up for with their sequels.

100% agree with that one.

 

[flickchick85]

I think the fact that so many people on both sides seem so convinced of one's "obvious" superiority over the other, may actually be evidence that neither is as bad as many make them out to be. If that makes any sense, lol.

 

[psylockolussus]

Well Man of Steel is still new, it could be the reason why its leading this poll.

Last year, there was a thread on which is the best Spider-Man movie and TASM was leading, and now look at the reaction from the posters of this board about it.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think the fact that so many people on both sides seem so convinced of one's "obvious" superiority over the other, may actually be evidence that neither is as bad as many make them out to be. If that makes any sense, lol.

I don't think there's any "obvious" superiority, I think they are both pretty shoddy films. I did think that Garfield was a far better Peter Parker than Cavil was Superman, but that was mostly because of the shoddy script. The secondary characters in TASM were all better written than anyone else in MoS. But this only gives a slight edge to TASM. As I said, they are both poor movies IMO. I do think that MoS has a bigger hole to fill the sequel than TASM.

 

[Juicy J]

The Amazing Spider-Man is better.

Man of Steel is like the superhero film counterpart of the Transformers movies.

Agreed.
I've said this elsewhere, MoS is inherently and inarguably flawed. On a technical level it's just a poor made film.
ASM was far from perfect but it was head and shoulders better than MoS.

 

[Visualiza]

I don't think there's any "obvious" superiority, I think they are both pretty shoddy films. I did think that Garfield was a far better Peter Parker than Cavil was Superman, but that was mostly because of the shoddy script. The secondary characters in TASM were all better written than anyone else in MoS. But this only gives a slight edge to TASM. As I said, they are both poor movies IMO. I do think that MoS has a bigger hole to fill the sequel than TASM.

That's about the only edge I can give TASM, if anything at all.

For as bad as TASM was, Garfield was given a great deal to work with. Compare that to Cavill, who hadn't even uttered ten lines by the time he put the suit on. We didn't even know who he was when he became 'Superman', nor did we by the end of the movie, for that matter. Who the Hell was Clark Kent? If the movie wasn't called Man of Steel, would the content of his character be at all recognizable? I think that's a key difference between Man of Steel and most other superhero origins; he wasn't developed enough to stand on his own without the mythos or iconography backing him.

Although I found him jarring and obnoxious throughout the film, I knew who Peter Parker was, even if the Spider-Man mythology was stripped bare. Man of Steel's protagonist was a hollow shell of a man; a sounding board for endless, flat, and contradictory exposition with no personality or convictions of his own. Quite possibly the worst origin film I've seen in the genre, for how simultaneously(and paradoxically) bloated and empty it was.

 

[Tony Stark]

That's about the only edge I can give TASM, if anything at all.

For as bad as TASM was, Garfield was given a great deal to work with. Compare that to Cavill, who hadn't even uttered ten lines by the time he put the suit on. We didn't even know who he was when he became 'Superman', nor did we by the end of the movie, for that matter. Who the Hell was Clark Kent? If the movie wasn't called Man of Steel, would the content of his character be at all recognizable? I think that's a key difference between Man of Steel and most other superhero origins; he wasn't developed enough to stand on his own without the mythos or iconography backing him.

Although I found him jarring and obnoxious throughout the film, I knew who Peter Parker was, even if the Spider-Man mythology was stripped bare. Man of Steel's protagonist was a hollow shell of a man; a sounding board for endless, flat, and contradictory exposition with no personality or convictions of his own. Quite possibly the worst origin film I've seen in the genre, for how simultaneously(and paradoxically) bloated and empty it was.

That was the strangest thing about MoS. There is ZERO character development anywhere in the film. Having Clark be the silent loner type was the biggest disservice to the film. Only to have crappy dialoge like "Mom, I found out who my real parents were!" only to be followed up by Oscar award winning dialogue like "that's nice Clark."

TASM failed in that the previews went around talking about "the real origin of Spider-man" alluding to his parents and what happened. In the end, he was bitten by a spider in a lab experiment, his uncle gets shot, with great power comes great responsibility, rinse repeat.

But yes, this shell of a character in Clark who is simply running around reacting to what's happening around him. They even threw in a total knock off of the Spider-man with Clark telling Jonathan Kent, he didn't understand his problems, and he wasn't his real father, only to have the "Uncle Ben" moment a few frames later. Compare how weak that was handled to the simplicity of the Donner film, where Clark is frustrated about not being able to use his powers, and his adoptive father telling him that he was here for a reason, and that he would find out soon enough, and his death happened by something that Clark never could have prevented with his powers.

If I had to compare MoS to another movie, it would be ID4, without the humor. Style over substance, where the spectacle undermines the characters in the film.

 

[flickchick85]

I don't think there's any "obvious" superiority, I think they are both pretty shoddy films.

Then you're not one of the people I was referring to with that statement.

For the record, I don't think there's any obvious superiority, either. I was simply making an observation based on the varied collection of responses in this thread.

 

[Snow Queen]

Man of Steel. Though I really like TASM (especially with most of the deleted scenes put back in) too.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Man of Steel. Though I really like TASM (especially with most of the deleted scenes put back in) too.

I like the deleted scenes too. Depending on what we see in ASM2 regarding Ratha and the Burglar I may just end up considering them canon.

My favorite is probably Connors coming to the Parker house to console Peter about Ben.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

This thread makes me sad because I love both movies and they are both my favourites in their respective franchises.

All movies are inarguably flawed.

And a lot of people like the first Transformers movie so I would hardly call that a bad thing.

However, the poll results make me smile.

 

[Green Goblin]

TASM by far

 

[Green Goblin]

Well Man of Steel is still new, it could be the reason why its leading this poll.

Last year, there was a thread on which is the best Spider-Man movie and TASM was leading, and now look at the reaction from the posters of this board about it.

Moves to 2nd place but yea you should wait untill MOS finnishes it's theatrical run

 

[Green Goblin]

That's about the only edge I can give TASM, if anything at all.

For as bad as TASM was, Garfield was given a great deal to work with. Compare that to Cavill, who hadn't even uttered ten lines by the time he put the suit on. We didn't even know who he was when he became 'Superman', nor did we by the end of the movie, for that matter. Who the Hell was Clark Kent? If the movie wasn't called Man of Steel, would the content of his character be at all recognizable? I think that's a key difference between Man of Steel and most other superhero origins; he wasn't developed enough to stand on his own without the mythos or iconography backing him.

Although I found him jarring and obnoxious throughout the film, I knew who Peter Parker was, even if the Spider-Man mythology was stripped bare. Man of Steel's protagonist was a hollow shell of a man; a sounding board for endless, flat, and contradictory exposition with no personality or convictions of his own. Quite possibly the worst origin film I've seen in the genre, for how simultaneously(and paradoxically) bloated and empty it was.

Were you not the same person who said you trusted RAMI with SM4?

 

[Tec15]

Man of Steel by far. ASM's terrible villain makes it dead in the water.

 

[Visualiza]

Were you not the same person who said you trusted RAMI with SM4?

Red herring. Ask me something relevant to the topic at hand and we can have a discussion. I don't have a clue what you're getting at.

 

[ares834]

MoS by far.

MoS has a lot of glaring flaws but the movie is still enjoyable and manages to transcend those flaws. TASM, however, was utterly boring. Not to mention the crane scene remains one of the most cringe worthy scenes in comic book film history.

 

[chiefchirpa]

TASM, because there will be TASM 2 and TASM 3. They got plan for Sinister 6 or the greater Spidey rogues. There is a real solo franchise.

MOS franchise, on the other hand, is dead by adding in Batman.

 

[kedrell]

It could be argued that Sony has more faith in Spidey than WB has in Supes. Granted, Sony doesn't have any other characters other than Ghost Rider to be used but they are pushing forward with several TASM sequels. That spells confidence. WB on the other hand seems to think they need Batman to come in and pinch hit to ensure MoS2 is a success. It tells us they have less confidence. But both companies(and FOX) are being reactionary to what MS/Disney is doing. As are other non-superhero movies. It's pretty clear that expanded continuity universes are the new trend in film making and everybody wants to get on the bandwagon.

 

[Lord]

The Man of Steel? For Adults? Yeah right.

Better movie: Amazing Spider-Man
Better Reboot: The Man of Steel

 

[Steamteck]

I far preferred MOS. Its actually my favorite superman movie ever and Superman is my favorite Superhero.

TASM was good but it some issues that bothered my disproportionately like not just saying "with great power comes great responsibility" and the fight scenes while nice for some reason left me frustrated.