Heavyweight Battle: Spider-Man 2 vs The Dark Knight

[Spider-Jay]

Spider-Man 2 was my all-time favourite movie.

Then on July 18th that changed.

TDK for me.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Spider-Man 2 was my all-time favourite movie.

Then on July 18th that changed.

LOL

 

[Chris Wallace]

Well I apologize for that. I'm just sick of seing the Batman fanboys praising there film and with every chance they get compare it to other films. That's why i went off like that.

Sorry about that. I think I was just blinded by my sickening of their praises and such.

But I'm cool with everyone else's opinions.

See-you did what I was doing; going by the remarks you were accustomed to rather than the ones actually being made here.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I still say SM3 gets way too much hate.

The majority of which either seems like nitpicking, (He danced! In a club! Where they had a dancefloor! Oh, the humanity!) stems from the limited Venom exposure, or is the result of Sony trying to end the franchise/give everybody what they want, which fanboys keep pushing the studios to do & then wonder why the 3rd installment feels overcrowded.

 

[The Joker]

See-you did what I was doing; going by the remarks you were accustomed to rather than the ones actually being made here.

It's called tainting everyone with the same brush. Not nice.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's definitely TDK for me.

I actually never liked SM2 that much, SM1 was, and still is, my favorite Spidey film to date. SM2, while having amazing visuals, introduced the things that have bothered me about the franchise, (they were just emphasized more heavily in SM3).

Both movies made changes to their source material that I wasn't fond of, but Nolan's tended to be more visual (Batsuit, non Perma-white Joker) while Raimi's tended to be to how the characters acted (MJ not acting like MJ at all, Spider-man having no personality, Ock being a good guy at the heart of things..) and to me, those kind of changes are much worse then the visual changes Nolan made.

Overall, I think Nolan understands the character of Batman more then Raimi does, which is why I think he made a better movie.

 

[Red Mask]

Nolan understands that Batman can be a sell out? Oh wait, he did become addicted to Venom. My bad.

 

[gwynplaine]

Molina used to be my favourite comic book film villain, but now that title belongs to Heath (maybe best movie villain ever period, certainly right up there with Vader, Bates, Hannibal, Don Logan and reverend Harry Powell imo).

 

[Red Mask]

Don Logan? Jesus, that guy was in a class all of his own!

 

[Chris Wallace]

Molina used to be my favourite comic book film villain, but now that title belongs to Heath (maybe best movie villain ever period, certainly right up there with Vader, Bates, Hannibal, Don Logan and reverend Harry Powell imo).

Those last 2 ring no bells.

 

[itsthebatman]

Those last 2 ring no bells.

Don Logan is Ben Kingsley's character in Sexy Beast, and Harry Powell is played by Robert Mitchum in The Night of the Hunter. Both great villains.

For me, it's TDK, the only film I've seen three times in the cinema. SM2 is a great film, though, with a great villain and good story.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

WOW!! That poll is ridiculously one sided!!

Don't get me wrong, I voted TDK, it's one of my favourite movies ever. But in terms of entertainment value Spiderman 2 does give it a run for it's money.

Spiderman 2 is more explosive and entertaining in the traditional sense. TDK is just gut wrenching and makes you think. You have to be quite clever to understand everything that is going on.

Therefore i don't think you can accurately compare which is the better film.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Spiderman 2 is more explosive and entertaining in the traditional sense. TDK is just gut wrenching and makes you think. You have to be quite clever to understand everything that is going on.

Therefore i don't think you can accurately compare which is the better film.

You have to be clever, not really because they explain everything to you. The movie talks down to you

 

[Obi-Ron]

Still haven't bothered seeing Dark Knight so my vote is for Spidey.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

You have to be clever, not really because they explain everything to you. The movie talks down to you

It talks down to you? Errrr.....not really. It just doesn't spoon feed you plot points and stuff like that. It leaves room so the viewer can interpret things themselves.

 

[LexCorp]

The Dark Knight was a much more heavy film. While Spiderman 2 got more serious with it's main character as well it was still light hearted.

I really enjoy the Spiderman movies all three of them make a great set but so far Batmans new movie stories are superior in that they pull you much deeper into the world it takes place in. Plus the Joker is a hard one to beat performance wise.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

So I lost my internet and just fot it back, that's why it took so long for a reply, so I'll understand if you don't reply.

Huh? Gordon's ending monologue didn't explain the whole movie's plot. It explained why Batman took the blame for Harvey's crimes.

No, it explains the purpose of the film. A good film will let you work that out for yourself, not have a guy basically break the forth wall.

If the D.A. is revealed as mentally unbalanced or corrupt, how can his judgements and convictions be trusted? Criminals could appeal based on that.

Because he uses evidence, collected by the police to try a case. He doesn't need to be trusted because he can prove it.

Lau wasn't on trial. He was used to squeeze info out of about the mob. He was their banker.

Gordon: "We're going after the mob's life savings. Things will get ugly"

He was on trail and he give information on his clients to get off. But he should have been able to get off by saying " Hi, I was kidnapped by batman, in front of my police force, surely that is illegal."

Why did Doc Ock throw a car at Peter if he wanted him alive?

Who says he wanted him alive? He got what he wanted by kidnapping MJ, which was a change in plans because he did not know she was with him.

How did Harry know where Doc Ock's lair was?

Yeah that's a plot hole, not a "I faked my death" plot hole though. The difference being that Harry not knowing where Ock was is something that can slip through the net, a mistake that can happen. When you fake a death you know you have to cover it.

No growth? He fights for the City he believes in, and then loses everything he cares for. He felt the people he thought he could trust let him down.

That's not growth, that's a change. Growth happens over a large period of time, going from a good guy to a guy willing to murder a innocent child should take a lot of growth. Instead it happens over one scene.

Really?

Is that why after Aunt May's big monologue to him about being a hero, and how much the little kid Henry Jackson needs Spider-Man, and that you have to give up your dreams to do what is right prompts him to be Spider-Man again?

Please. Spider-Man 2 is every bit as guilty of it.

First he is guilty that he walks past a mugging, then MJ says "You are different." Then he sees the headline in the paper about crime rate, then he runs into the fire, then he finds out someone died in that fire, then he thins "Why can't I have what I want? What I need? What am I supposed to do?" Then he has cake with the girl, then he has the scene with Aunt May and Jackson. After the "Raindrops" montage his growth to become Spider-Man again begins and doesn't end until MJ is kidnapped. That's a growth over about 30 minutes. TDK is one scene.

What do you mean it comes out of nowhere? How should he bring that up in conversation unless it's relevant to what they're discussing?

In the comic books, whether it's pre or post crisis, Alfred was not a butler all his life. When he retired from whatever he was doing, he took a job working for the Wayne family.

Good for the comics. In the films we have known this character in Batman Begins and 1/2 of The dark Knight, and before that moment we are given no inclination that he had lived that kind of a life. In film you have to set something like that up, after 3 1/2 hours of film you don't just throw that stuff out.

Because his father knew him and trusted him. Not to mention Lucius gives the distinct impression he's a good guy. "Mr Wayne, the way I see it, all this stuff is yours anyway", "Mr Wayne, if you don't want to tell me exactly what you're doing, when I'm asked I don't have to lie".
He doesn't pry into what Bruce is doing. He doesn't press him for info. He lets Bruce know he'll help him whether he's in the know or not.

How does he know his father worked with him? Because Fox told him. How smart a man can Bruce Wayne be if he is basically telling someone he's Batman based on the strenght of one meeting? Would you give out senstive information to a man you just met?

This I agree with. The Rachel character is flimsy, and I never got the impression Bruce was ever in love with her in Begins.

But still, Rachel comes off alot better than Dunst's MJ ever does. She is nothing but a little tramp who has a two guy quota minimum per movie. She throws her feminine wiles around like ninja stars in the movies. She throws hissy fits over a publicity kiss, but doesn't have a problem using other guys to fill a void in her life. She obviously isn't interested in Harry, but goes with him anyway. She kisses Spider-Man when she's with Harry. Not a meaningless publicity kiss, but a real passionate kiss. She obviously doesn't love John, but she agrees to marry him, and then jilts him at the flamin' altar. She kisses Harry after she has a fight with Peter. She's terrible.

And it's made even worse by the fact that Peter's story is "All about a girl". Gwen needs to become the main love interest. MJ is a terrible character in the movies.

That's a personal choice, and that was not what my point was about. In Spider-Man Peter's relationship with MJ is developed, we know that he loves her because we see it in their scenes together. In BB and TDK wedon't see Wayne or Dent with Rachel enough to see their love. Whether Rachel is a girl to love or not is just opinion.

 

[LexCorp]

That's a personal choice, and that was not what my point was about. In Spider-Man Peter's relationship with MJ is developed, we know that he loves her because we see it in their scenes together. In BB and TDK wedon't see Wayne or Dent with Rachel enough to see their love. Whether Rachel is a girl to love or not is just opinion.

I agree with that - BB and TDK leave no room for any real romantic feelings to show in detail between Dent or Wayne, it is just something assumed that we are told and must believe.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but even if Bruces romantic feelings for Rachel are hard to believe, they have been friends since they were children, we see that in BB. That shows enough to know that he is emotionally attached to her.

I find it funny when people say Bruce didn't show enough emotion after Rachels death. It's BRUCE WAYNE for fricks sake, he has always bottled up his emotions. He only shows them when he becomes Batman. Do people want him to be blubbin his eyes out out something?

 

[LexCorp]

Yea but even if Bruces romantic feelings for Rachel are hard to believe, they have been friends since they were children, we see that in BB. That shows enough to know that he is emotionally attached to her.

I find it funny when people say Bruce didn't show enough emotion after Rachels death. It's BRUCE WAYNE for fricks sake, he has always bottled up his emotions. He only shows them when he becomes Batman. Do people want him to be blubbin his eyes out out something?

Yes romantic feelings still are hard to believe - a decent friendship of course is something else. That is very much in the movie.

I am not sure who those people are who say that. Bruce does not so much bottle up emotions as apose to control and manipulate what "Bruce" does when viewed by the public.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes romantic feelings still are hard to believe - a decent friendship of course is something else. That is very much in the movie.

I am not sure who those people are who say that. Bruce does not so much bottle up emotions as apose to control and manipulate what "Bruce" does when viewed by the public.

Yea but i'm talking about when he was just with Alfred. He did look completely devestated and was about to cry. But he knows there is work to be done, he hasn't got time to dwell on his loss of Rachel. Some people didn't get that.

 

[LexCorp]

Yea but i'm talking about when he was just with Alfred. He did look completely devestated and was about to cry. But he knows there is work to be done, he hasn't got time to dwell on his loss of Rachel. Some people didn't get that.

Indeed, I thought they made it very clear that Bruce always had to sacrifice his life and that hurts him. Being the "drunk" at his own party, being the playboy with hot girls in restaurants etc.....

 

[Obi-Ron]

Being the "drunk" at his own party, being the playboy with hot girls in restaurants etc.....

Yeah your heart really goes out to the guy.

 

[LexCorp]

Yeah your heart really goes out to the guy.

Yeah but in the big picture all the hot girls and money don't make him happy. But I guess if I was Bats I would want to unwind with the Victoria Secrect girls....right.

 

[The Joker]

No, it explains the purpose of the film. A good film will let you work that out for yourself, not have a guy basically break the forth wall.

And TDK did that by showing Batman placing his faith in Harvey Dent as a man who could be a symbol of hope that Batman couldn't be. They showed that in numerous scenes like the dinner scene between Bruce, Rachel, and Harvey. Bruce throwing the fundraiser for Harvey and giving the speech about how he believes in Harvey. Telling Rachel how Harvey locked up half of the city's criminals without wearing a mask. When he catches Harvey threatening the thug with the gun etc

It was hammered into the audience all thru the movie. That's why he took the blame for Harvey's crimes at the end. He didn't want the city to lose that hope.

If you only got the purpose of the movie at the end, then you were not paying attention.

Because he uses evidence, collected by the police to try a case. He doesn't need to be trusted because he can prove it.

Harvey was the one who gathered the evidence. If he was exposed as a criminal, murderer, unbalanced etc. Then the criminals could appeal based on various grounds like they could say the so called evidence was faked, doctored, by Harvey. That Lau was in collusion with Harvey. Anything.

There would be grounds for doubt, suspicion etc. Not to mention the public scandal.

He was on trail and he give information on his clients to get off. But he should have been able to get off by saying " Hi, I was kidnapped by batman, in front of my police force, surely that is illegal."

Wrong. He was not on trial. He was there as a witness against the mob. He was getting immunity from prosecution and a chartered plane back to Hong Kong in exchange for testifying against them.

It was said in plain simple terms in the interrogation room scene with Rachel.

Who says he wanted him alive? He got what he wanted by kidnapping MJ, which was a change in plans because he did not know she was with him.

Harry: "Bring Spider-Man to me alive"
Ock: "How do I find him?"
Harry: "Peter Parker"
Ock: "Parker?"
Harry: "He takes pictures of Spider-Man for the Bugle. Make him tell you where he is"

Last time I checked, a corpse can't talk

Also in the actual scene where Ock accosted Peter in the cafe:

Ock: "I want you to find your friend, Spider-Man. Tell him to meet me at the west side tower at 3 O'Clock".

He wanted Peter alive. How else could Peter find Spidey to deliver his message? Again, I don't know how you miss these obvious points, mate.

Yeah that's a plot hole, not a "I faked my death" plot hole though. The difference being that Harry not knowing where Ock was is something that can slip through the net, a mistake that can happen. When you fake a death you know you have to cover it.

And what's your beef with it? You think just because Gordon didn't tell his family or Dent that he couldn't cover it with the help of people who were not his friends or family?

That's not growth, that's a change. Growth happens over a large period of time, going from a good guy to a guy willing to murder a innocent child should take a lot of growth. Instead it happens over one scene.

What are you talking about? We saw Harvey willing to kill a criminal because they had named his beloved Rachel as the Joker's next target.

Are you seriously trying to say that having the love of your life brutally killed, and having yourself horribly disfigured in the process wouldn't push someone over the edge like that?

Alot less have caused people to snap. Harvey's fall from grace was extremely well done. "Tell your boy he's going to be ok, Gordon. Lie, like I lied".

Chillingly brilliant.

First he is guilty that he walks past a mugging, then MJ says "You are different." Then he sees the headline in the paper about crime rate, then he runs into the fire, then he finds out someone died in that fire, then he thins "Why can't I have what I want? What I need? What am I supposed to do?" Then he has cake with the girl, then he has the scene with Aunt May and Jackson. After the "Raindrops" montage his growth to become Spider-Man again begins and doesn't end until MJ is kidnapped. That's a growth over about 30 minutes.

And yet he had not come to any decision about being Spider-Man again when he went to see Aunt May. That was shown with the little kid, Henry:

Henry: "Spider-Man will be back, right?"
Peter: "I don't know"

Even when he went and tried to jump the rooftop, his powers had no returned because he didn't really want to be Spider-Man, and he fell flat on his ass like a fool. "Strong focus on what I want". And the powers didn't return.

It took MJ being kidnapped to make them return.

TDK is one scene.

One scene where Alfred tells him about some men who are not looking for anything logical. Whoop de doo.

Batman is still in the early years of his career, and he has not met anyone like the Joker before. How dare he not know what kind of a man he is.

Good for the comics. In the films we have known this character in Batman Begins and 1/2 of The dark Knight, and before that moment we are given no inclination that he had lived that kind of a life.

So what?

Does a characters past have to be spelled out to you in order for you to believe they've had a life previous to the situation they're in now?

No offence, Jack, but you sound like the kind of viewer who needs everything spoon fed to them in a movie in order to get it or believe it. Was it such a big leap for your imagination to believe Alfred was not a butler his whole life lol?

In film you have to set something like that up, after 3 1/2 hours of film you don't just throw that stuff out.

Why not? Did you find it so hard to believe Alfred's past?

How does he know his father worked with him? Because Fox told him. How smart a man can Bruce Wayne be if he is basically telling someone he's Batman based on the strenght of one meeting?

Why the hell would he lie to him? He's a lowly employee working in a basement by himself for years. What does he have to gain by saying he knew Bruce's father? Bruce had no control over Wayne Enterprises at that point. He could hardly be accused of sucking up to the boss by saying he knew his father.

Would you give out senstive information to a man you just met?

If I trusted him, yes. But then Batman doesn't take his mask off in front of crowds of strangers on a train, does he?

That's a personal choice, and that was not what my point was about. In Spider-Man Peter's relationship with MJ is developed, we know that he loves her because we see it in their scenes together. In BB and TDK wedon't see Wayne or Dent with Rachel enough to see their love. Whether Rachel is a girl to love or not is just opinion.

Yeah, I said I agree about the Bruce/Rachel thing.

But then the Batman movies are not "All about a girl".