Heavyweight Battle: Spider-Man 2 vs The Dark Knight

[spider-neil]

I think TDK is the better movie overall but spider-man 2 is a better SUPERHERO movie. difficult to explain but that's my opinion.

 

[mclay18]

Why isn't there an option for "Both"? There's so much I love about both films that I just really can't pick one or the other. SM-2 has the heart and emotion, while TDK is more punchier and grittier.

I do think the two share several things in common, particularly a theme where both Bruce and Peter debate whether to continue on fighting crime or stop and live their own life and that both endings promise bigger and better things to come.

If I had to pick one, it would be TDK by a small fraction.

 

[Kmack]

Both films are brilliant, but I chose Spidey 2.

 

[Shuley]

I don't really think of The Dark Knight is really a "comic book movie" It's a great crime film more than anything.

 

[Fathom Me]

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



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.



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"



Why did Doc Ock throw a car at Peter if he wanted him alive? How did Harry know where Doc Ock's lair was?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Well you explained that very well lol.

 

[Fathom Me]

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



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.



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"



Why did Doc Ock throw a car at Peter if he wanted him alive? How did Harry know where Doc Ock's lair was?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

I also agree I don't like how they portray MJ in the movies I don't ever remember her being so needy and whiny in the comics.

 

[Changeling]

The Dark Knight owns.

 

[jimmylace]

Spider-Man 2 is alot more faithful to the source material than The Dark Knight. I like Nolans Batman, but I do think hes taking alot of liberties to make the films good (by removing as many elements from the comic book as he can get away with)

 

[Fathom Me]

I think it's hard to compare the 2 if you think about it story wise they are 2 totally different types of superheros. spiderman is all about being a roll model and batman is doesn't care what people think and is a vigilante. But film wise Dark Night was bad a$$

 

[Infinity9999x]

Spider-Man 2 is alot more faithful to the source material than The Dark Knight. I like Nolans Batman, but I do think hes taking alot of liberties to make the films good (by removing as many elements from the comic book as he can get away with)

I'd have to disagree. While Nolan does make changes, they're mostly what I call "secondary" changes. Usually, they're changes to visual aspects. (Joker's makeup, Batman's suit). He very rarely changes a character, and when he does they usually weren't a very big character to begin with (Flass).

Raimi has changes that I find much more detrimental. MJ doesn't act like MJ at all. She's basically a completely different girl with the same name and similar looks. Spider-man barely talks in costume, which is completely against his character, and something that shows me that Raimi really doesn't get the theme of duality with the character at all. Doc Ock is portrayed to be a "good guy" at heart, which is ridiculous. You already have a perfect good guy turned freak story in the Lizard, he didn't need to do that to Ock.

Raimi has just as many changes, though many of his changes I find worse then Nolans.

 

[Mutagen]

The Dark Knight...By a lot...

Yeeeeah...I'm gonna have to go with The Dark Knight as well.

 

[Mutagen]

I'd have to disagree. While Nolan does make changes, they're mostly what I call "secondary" changes. Usually, they're changes to visual aspects. (Joker's makeup, Batman's suit). He very rarely changes a character, and when he does they usually weren't a very big character to begin with (Flass).

Raimi has changes that I find much more detrimental. MJ doesn't act like MJ at all. She's basically a completely different girl with the same name and similar looks. Spider-man barely talks in costume, which is completely against his character, and something that shows me that Raimi really doesn't get the theme of duality with the character at all. Doc Ock is portrayed to be a "good guy" at heart, which is ridiculous. You already have a perfect good guy turned freak story in the Lizard, he didn't need to do that to Ock.

Raimi has just as many changes, though many of his changes I find worse then Nolans.

One of the many problems I find with Spider-man 2, I like the character that was used, but why do it to a character that already has a deep and fascinating story to begin with. Why change it I ask!

 

[I'm Old Greg]

I loath the spider man franchise....that is not Spider Man...

Dark Knight at least stayed true to its characters and had the leading women no one liked blown the hell up

 

[protocida]

Double Post. OH NOES!!!1!

 

[protocida]

Doc Ock could've found the tridium all by himself. He just did what Harry ordered because it would be easier for him, and he could have revenge on Spidey, that beat him some days earlier. But if Peter died, then, he'd problably kill Harry and demolish his mansion until he found the Tridium.

 

[p4poetic]

Spider-Man 3 had a lot of potential to surpass Spider-Man 2, if that's even possible.

how many times is this thread going to be
made

LOL.

 

[roach]

I'd have to disagree. While Nolan does make changes, they're mostly what I call "secondary" changes. Usually, they're changes to visual aspects. (Joker's makeup, Batman's suit). He very rarely changes a character, and when he does they usually weren't a very big character to begin with (Flass).

Raimi has changes that I find much more detrimental. MJ doesn't act like MJ at all. She's basically a completely different girl with the same name and similar looks. Spider-man barely talks in costume, which is completely against his character, and something that shows me that Raimi really doesn't get the theme of duality with the character at all. Doc Ock is portrayed to be a "good guy" at heart, which is ridiculous. You already have a perfect good guy turned freak story in the Lizard, he didn't need to do that to Ock.

Raimi has just as many changes, though many of his changes I find worse then Nolans.

im gonna have to disagree with you on this one. There is a reason why the new Batman films are labeled as the Nolanverse films because it's his version on how Batman should be. When I see these films I think about the stuff that I like about Batman that cant be a part of this hyper realistic world. When I watch the Spiderfilms to me they are movie versions of the comicbook

 

[roach]

Doc Ock could've found the tridium all by himself. He just did what Harry ordered because it would be easier for him, and he could have revenge on Spidey, that beat him some days earlier. But if Peter died, then, he'd problably kill Harry and demolish his mansion until he found the Tridium.

I just watched this the other day and apparently Oscorp had the only supply of Tridium.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

im gonna have to disagree with you on this one. There is a reason why the new Batman films are labeled as the Nolanverse films because it's his version on how Batman should be. When I see these films I think about the stuff that I like about Batman that cant be a part of this hyper realistic world. When I watch the Spiderfilms to me they are movie versions of the comicbook

I have to disagree. Apart from the first Spidey film, the others weren't comic book accurate IMO. Raimi did make needless, stupid changes. Why change characters that have been loved for years and years? Doc Ock a villain you can relate to? HAHA Do me a favour! He is one of the most evil villains in the whole M.U. As for Sandman? Why? WHY?!!?!?

 

[roach]

I have to disagree. Apart from the first Spidey film, the others weren't comic book accurate IMO. Raimi did make needless, stupid changes. Why change characters that have been loved for years and years? Doc Ock a villain you can relate to? HAHA Do me a favour! He is one of the most evil villains in the whole M.U. As for Sandman? Why? WHY?!!?!?

I cant answer for Doc Ock but Sandman was a good guy for several years and I believe he was an Avenger as sometime.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but I'm talking about making him Uncle Ben's killer. Raimi just seems to love making all the villains personal to Peter. Why? Yea with guys like Green Goblin and Venom you have to, but why Doc Ock and Sandman? As someone else mentioned, if he wants to make the villains personal to Peter, why not just use Lizard? He wouldn't have to be changed at all.

 

[roach]

Yea but I'm talking about making him Uncle Ben's killer. Raimi just seems to love making all the villains personal to Peter. Why? Yea with guys like Green Goblin and Venom you have to, but why Doc Ock and Sandman? As someone else mentioned, if he wants to make the villains personal to Peter, why not just use Lizard? He wouldn't have to be changed at all.

Yet you are fine with Ra's al Ghul being ultimately responsible for the Wayne's death and training Bruce to be a ninja????
or that Bruce outsourced his Battech to Wayne Industries and his great injection to his war on crime was to paint everything black?
or that the worlds greatest detective left all the evidence that he was Batman laying around so a lowly accountant could find it???

 

[Ace of Knaves]

How was Ra's responsible for his parents death?

And his origin is actually very accurate. He used the Bat as a symbol to strike fear into those who prey on the fearful. That is exactly how it is in the comics. I remember there was a page where a Bat flies in the window and it hits him "Use the Bat as a symbol!" That's pretty much what happened in B.B. Except the Bat was fluttering around the room instead of flying in the window.


All them changes make sense in the world Nolan created, he didn't just change them for NO REASON WHATSOEVER like Raimi.

 

[roach]

did he learn to be a ninja in the comics from Ra's al Ghul???

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No, but the reason Ra's was used in that way is because he was helping Bruce deal with the guilt of his parents death, not JUST training him in combat. He was acting as the Father to Bruce. All the changes to the characters have a purpose in Nolan's films, not so much in Raimi's.