Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy vs Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

[The Batman]

The only two comic book trilogies to have every installment directed by one guy

Both trilogies have played a major role in shaping both comic book movies and blockbusters in the 21st Century.

Which saga did you enjoy more? Which Director do you think was more effective for you? Who had the superior leading man, and which villains gripped you more?

Did you dislike Mary Jane less than Rachel, more than Rachel, or did you want both characters to leap off of a cliff?

 

[The Batman]

Leading Man: Bale and Maguire do good jobs portraying their respective characters, but they never become the character in a way Chris Reeve did with Superman. For Batman, things were lost in Nolan’s desire to make him more “human”, and Maguire’s Spider-Man famously lacked the persona of Peter in his Spider-Man guise. I’ll give this one to Bale due to the material he got to work with, as well as the fact that he capture more of Bruce Wayne than Maguire did Peter Parker.

Love Interest: Technically, Bruce had two main love interests, but this will be a comparison between Mary Jane and Rachel. Ultimately, both were unlikable characters, but the edge goes to the Spider-Man trilogy because Dunst was kinda tolerable at some points in SM1 and 2. If I count Selina, her one movie performance was better than all three of Dunst’s.

Supporting Cast: Have to go with the Batman Trilogy. You just can’t beat Oldman as Gordon, Caine as Alfred, and Freeman as fox. The only supporting character from the Spider-Man franchise on their level is Simmons as JJ.

Villains: Once again, Batman. I don’t have say anything about Heath Ledger’s Joker, but in addition to him, Tom Hardy’s Bane has also entered the Pop Culture lexicon. And then you have excellent villain performances from Liam Neeson, Anne Hathaway, and Aaron Eckhart.

Action: Spider-Man, hands down. Nolan’s fight scenes were mediocre at best, and when you’re best fight is your main hero getting his ass kicked, that’s a problem. Nolan did not really deliver when it came to capturing Batman’s fighting ability. On the other hand, Raimi gave us the Spidey/Doc Ock fight, easily one of, if not the best superhero film brawl yet. Raimi also deserves props for the tag team fight at the end of SM3, one of the few reasons I bother watching that film.

Costumes: This one goes to Spidey just for the Spidey suit alone.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Tough one, and maybe a little unfair since Raimi had well documented interference from the studio on his 3rd movie, were as Nolan was pretty much free to do what he wanted with his, so its hard to vote really.

But, as a big Spidey fan who loves Raimi's Spidey movies, it pains me to give this to Batman, overall the trilogy is better as they are just 3 great movies. For me BB is the best comic book origin movie we have had, with TDK just beating out Spidey 2 and X2 as best sequel. But TDKR is much better than Spidey 3, despite the fact I am one of the few who liked that movie.

Action wise though is were Raimi's trilogy wins, hands down, no contest there, with leads would have to give the edge to Bale, same with the supporting casts.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-Man stomps all over Batman in the action department.

But I give the edge to Batman in all the other areas.

 

[titansupes]

Batman in every way.

 

[Drizzle]

While I do love both trilogies (I even enjoy a great deal of Spider-Man 3), Batman is the clear winner here. It's almost unfair to compare them.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson and Katie Holmes/Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes were horribly-written love interests, but Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy still has the upper hand. Better villains in all three films(Ra's al Ghul, Joker, Two-Face, Bane) compared to one really great villain(Doc Ock) and two good villains(Green Goblin, "New Goblin" ). Plus, the main thing of all between the two trilogies: Bruce Wayne's story arc throughout the entire trilogy is one of the best stories ever told in cinema.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Nolan for sure! However, I do love the S-M Trilogy (even 3).

 

[Anno_Domini]

Spidey now has some love!

 

[Baramos]

It's just going to come down to which character you like the most, though I think anyone can objectively say that the third Batman movie was superior to the third Spider-Man movie. The tone and everything else though is wildly different between them. The quality of the productions is the same.

I say Batman because I like Batman. I don't know that I can say that The Dark Knight is superior to Spider-Man 2 because they are working in totally different tonalities and goals.

 

[kedrell]

Well, Nolan's Batman does have the best single movie(BB). But that's one very good movie out of 3 and the rest are meh(TDKR) and OMG, give me my money back, you basterds!(TDK).

Were Raimi's Spider-man has a so-so film(SM1), an on the whole, decently good film(SM2), and a pretty lousy film(SM3).

This is a tough one but I think over-all I'll give Raimi the nod. But just by a smidge.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of either character.

 

[Snow Queen]

The Dark Knight Trilogy in every category.

 

[Union Jack]

hmm...both suffer from a crappy third installment IMO
If i had to Pick i'd say spidey as it was much fun and rewatchable..
both had great 2nd installments and the villains in number 2 were both great..dock ock was brilliant and ledgers joker won the film.
the first film suffer from a crappy baddie really...ra's was dull and scarecrow kind of useless just a means to an end..whereas green goblin was a stupid costume but norman osborn was fantastic.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Nolan's Batman trilogy...

 

[S. Grundy]

Raimi he cared more for the character. Nolan was more interested in making a crime film playing out his James Bond fantasy, than making Batman Batman. That said while The Dark Knight is a good movie, Spider-Man 2 is better.

 

[Squaremaster316]

Nolan trilogy, and it's not even remotely close. Nolan's characters had more depth, the screenplays had infinitely less stupidity, the acting was better, the villains were better, the love interest was better (MJ was terrible, nothing more than the token love interest and constant, and I mean CONSTANT, damsel in distress, without a single proactive or strong-willed bone in her body, shocking when you consider that this was the same guy who gave us Xena, Rachel was better pretty much by default).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's just going to come down to which character you like the most, though I think anyone can objectively say that the third Batman movie was superior to the third Spider-Man movie. The tone and everything else though is wildly different between them. The quality of the productions is the same.

I say Batman because I like Batman. I don't know that I can say that The Dark Knight is superior to Spider-Man 2 because they are working in totally different tonalities and goals.

I'm a much bigger Spiderman fan than a Batman fan yet I voted for Nolan's bat-trilogy, I dont think love for the character makes a difference here.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I'm much more of a Batman fan than Spider-Man(my favorite Marvel hero is Captain America), but if Spider-Man 3 ended up being phenomenal, I don't think I could choose Nolan's trilogy right away as I just LOVE Spider-Man 1 + 2.

It does make me wonder how I'd feel about a Batman reboot though as I can be very harsh with TAS-M simply because of how I feel about Raimi's two Spidey films.

 

[Victarion]

No contest for me; Nolan's Batman trilogy. I felt like I could connect to Bruce moreso than I could Peter. This was especially true for TDKR; I was genuinely happy for Bruce. That said, Spider-Man 2 is still a good film and my favorite from Raimi's trilogy. Harry's downward spiral and the scenes with Peter and Aunt May put it above Raimi's other two Spider-Man films.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

As much as I love SM2, I have to say Batman all the way though the fight scenes in the Spidey films are better.

 

[Venom75]

Batman was more deep,dark and complex,while Spidey was more fun,entertaining and epic. I really enjoyed Batman Begins and I really loved Dark Knight. But,with the exception of Hathway's performance,I found Dark Knight rises to be just ok. But,to be honest I love Spidey more. Those films were so much fun to watch and the fight scenes(esp. in part 2)were some of the greatest ever. Part 1 was a great origin story,part 2 was one of the greatest(if not the greatest)superhero film ever and although part 3 had alot of flaws I still liked it and had alot of fun watching it.
Spidey wins.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Batman was more deep,dark and complex,while Spidey was more fun,entertaining and epic. I really enjoyed Batman Begins and I really loved Dark Knight. But,with the exception of Hathway's performance,I found Dark Knight rises to be just ok. But,to be honest I love Spidey more. Those films were so much fun to watch and the fight scenes(esp. in part 2)were some of the greatest ever. Part 1 was a great origin story,part 2 was one of the greatest(if not the greatest)superhero film ever and although part 3 had alot of flaws I still liked it and had alot of fun watching it.
Spidey wins.

An epic film is an epic genre that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale. Epics are more ambitious in scope than other film genres, and their ambitious nature helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film.

How is the Spidey trilogy epic to you and not Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? Lol.

 

[Venom75]

How is the Spidey trilogy epic to you and not Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? Lol.

It's just with me,but the Nolan films almost seem to have a independent film vibe to them,because they are so dark and complex. Spidey is more exciting,colorful and seems to be on a bigger scope. The music,the action scenes...they all just seems more,I don't know...grandiose? That doesn't take anything away from Nolans series. But,again,it's just my opinion on both series.

 

[S. Grundy]

Neither films are really epic. Though Nolan's feel especially small, when you consider Bruce was only Batman for like a year from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, and then they jump ahead 8 years in The Dark Knight Returns. It just makes the world feel a lot smaller.

 

[titansupes]

Neither films are really epic. Though Nolan's feel especially small, when you consider Bruce was only Batman for like a year from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, and then they jump ahead 8 years in The Dark Knight Returns. It just makes the world feel a lot smaller.

Wow. Could not disagree more. Even the trilogies detractors would disagree. Hell, a lot of them complain that it was too big.