The Amazing Spider-Man So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

[Shikamaru]

The problem with saying AMS is a better movie is you really need to be a big fan of Spider-Man to appreciate it. Like I've said it was a solid Spider-Man adventure but it was all over the place. A movie should have a solid theme that carries it beginning to end. Web did a good job directing Peter and it's a different take from the Raimi films, but it's just so weak as a stand alone film. It's not bad, it's definitely Captain America good, but this is Spider-Man it's not hard to make a really meaningful and emotional Spider-Man movie.

Most of the people I saw TASM with said they liked it more than the Raimi films and most of them never touched a Spider-Man comic in their life. One of my friends even said it was the first Spider-Man movie she liked. I wouldn't say it's all over the place or a weak stand alone film. It is a good coming of age film and a good origin story, though I do think it yells "Sequel continuation!" a bit.

One thing we are in agreement on is that Spider-Man's films should not be on the same level of quality as Captain America's films. Nothing against Cap. His movie was good but Spidey should definitely be up there with Batman when it comes to quality films.

Its like saying Ledger's Joker wasnt perfect because he didnt fall into pit of chemicals

The Joker's "falling into a pit of chemicals" origin was never canon to begin with. That is just one story - one of the many myths - of how the Joker came to be. No one really knows who or what created the Joker. He kinda just popped out of nowhere. The Red Hood origin in which he fell into a vat of chemicals is just one of the many theories that characters in the DC universe have about the Joker's origin (including the Joker himself) but that is just one of the many possibilities. The Joker himself remembers his origin in a different way each time and says in the comics "I don't exactly remember what happened to me. Somedays I remember it one way, somedays another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" So technically, Nolan stayed true to the Joker's character by not giving him a definitive origin, having him just pop out of nowhere with no explanation to where he comes from, and having him remember his origin in a different way each time. It's not a deviation from the comics.

It was released in 2002,ofcourse the CGI would be of that level.Plus raimi had limited funds

The CGI in the movie was not that great even for the CGI available in 2002. The movie looks really dated for a movie just 10 years old.

Overall,Best origin movie ever,without a shadow of a doubt

I would argue that The Amazing Spider-Man, Superman I, Batman Begins, and Iron Man 1 outclass it by far. SM1 is not that good of an origin movie. It quickly rushed through the origin and once the origin is finished, the rest of the movie feels like a completely different film. TASM and the rest of the movies I brought up don't really have that problem for the most part with the exception of maybe Superman I. And even then, it kinda worked in that movie.

 

[Shikamaru]

ASM is more like the Ultimate comics. SM1 is more like the original comics. Since I was never much of a fan of the Ultimate comics (and I really disliked their spin on the "burglar runs past Peter" scene which was the basis for ASM's), I tend to come down on the other side of the "closer to the comics" opinion.

Actually, TASM is a lot more like the Amazing comics than SM1 is due to character portrayals, tone, fight scenes and the way Spidey moves, the characters and events that take place in order (ex: Gwen before MJ, not skipping the high school years), the movie having an ongoing storyline and subplots that continue in future sequels like the stories in the comics, easter eggs, adapting stories straight from the comics (ex: the Lizard's plan is a story straight from the comics and the Death of Gwen Stacy will obviously get done in future sequels), setting up better building blocks, and staying more faithful in terms of iconic objects and images (ex: webshooters and Spidey's shots respectively).

That's not to say TASM doesn't take anything from the Ultimate comics. It took elements from both comics but it took more elements from Amazing than from Ultimate.

In any event, I know of no Peter Parker in any prior interpretation who revealed his secret ID to a girl he barely knows just so he can score a makeout session with her. That was my tipping point for the film; I just couldn't buy it after that.

He doesn't reveal his identity to her to score a makeout session with her. He reveals it to her because he loves her or at least believes to be in love with her. There are incarnations of Peter (good ones included) where he has done that. He's gotten to know her well enough by that time in the movie, to the point where she would personally invite him to have dinner with her family. I can't think of any relationship where the people in it barely knew each other and then one of them invited the other one to have dinner with his/her family.


Speaking of Peter revealing his secret ID, I recently watched the RiffTrax version of SM1 and realized a major problem in the wrestling scene. Unlike the comics where Peter is seen fully masked by everyone at the wrestling centre and just challenges Crusher with no ID, Peter is seen unmasked by the manager there and even signs a contract to fight against Bonesaw. Doesn't this mean that they can find out Peter Parker is Spider-Man? You're telling me no police officer can trace the appearance of Spider-Man back to the wrestling place where a guy with the same name that also spun webs and ask for Peter's name? Meanwhile, Andrew's Peter puts his name on the only camera he has (which he presumably had to save up a lot of money for or got it as a birthday/Christmas gift) and he is a complete out-of-character idiot for taking it with him once in the sewers to take some pictures when he didn't even know he was going to get attacked. Yet no one brings up Peter's actions during the whole wrestling scene.

The more time passes by and the more arguments I hear against TASM, the more I see my theory of SM1's success getting truer and truer. For those who haven't heard me say this before, I believe the main reason why SM1 is praised so much is not just due to nostalgia but due to the fact that it was the first Spider-Man movie, one of the first superhero movies, and thus nothing else was similar to it when it came out. I noticed that a lot of the times when I point out the major flaws the movie has, people say to me "Yeah it does have those flaws but it was the first Spider-Man movie and did a lot for the comic book movies", basically using the time the film came out as an excuse. For the people that love the movie and hold it up as one of the greatest CBM's of all time, I would like to hear your answers to my following question. Is SM1 came out now in 2012, in this post-Nolan and post-MCU world of comic book movies, do you think it would've held up just as much as you think it does now? I'm not talking about special effects and CGI (those would've obviously been updated). I'm talking about story, characters, action, etc. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions on this.

I also admit that I may be a bit hypocritical in this theory. Maybe 20 years down the road, people will say the only reason Avengers was so well liked in 2012 was because it was the first big crossover done and that if it would've came out in 2040 instead, no one would've thought it was that good. So maybe my theory is just a product theory of the time. Only time will tell that.

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

Very true, very true. Now Shikamaru, Do you agree with me on this? I felt that one thing that connected it to the comics and yet really threw me off was the "teen" factor in the movie. I felt that the majority of the scenes being Peter scenes were often too easy to relate to. At the end I felt like putting my hoodie on rather than thwipping away. I felt my inner teen, not my inner Spidey.

 

[Shikamaru]

Nolan's trilogy was never going to be faithful to the comics, therefore it's ridiculous to call it flawed because of its unfaithfulness.

Not necessarily true. The Nolan trilogy, with the exception of TDKR which I thought sucked, was faithful to the comics for the most part.

The thing about Batman is that he there are so many different versions and takes on him that it's difficult to say that Batman product X is faithful to the comics while Batman product Y is not. There is a basic set of rules you have to follow when adapting Batman (he's a hero, he doesn't kill people, dresses like a bat, martial arts expert, very intelligent in many fields, lost his parents, is dark (Silver Age adaptations being an exception to this), acts like a playboy in public, has a batcave, etc.). However, past those basic set of rules, you can do whatever you want. Some writers write a pulp comic with Batman and focus mostly on his detective skills. Others write a grounded in reality crime drama and focus more on his martial arts skills than his detective skills. Others write a more sci-fi and less brooding story with the characters. Others portray him as "The Goddamn Batman" - the man who is capable of doing anything and can take down anyone with prep time - while others portray him as a more humanized character with certain limits.

The same logic applies to the Nolan films. You have to compare the Nolan films with whatever parts of the comics they were based on. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were for the most part influenced by the stories that take place in Batman's very early career as a crimefighter, specifically Year One and The Long Halloween. If you compare those stories with BB and TDK, they're not that different from each other in terms of tone, characters, etc. Even the realism from the Nolan films is not that big of a deviation from those books because Year One and Long Halloween, as well as the rest of the stories that take place in Batman's very early career, were all grounded in reality for the most part with Year One being even more grounded in reality than Batman Begins was. Even Batman's skills and experiences in BB and TDK are not that different from his skills and experiences in YO and LH. As adaptations of early Batman stories (and early as in continuity years and not publication years), BB and TDK are very good Batman movies.

Very true, very true. Now Shikamaru, Do you agree with me on this? I felt that one thing that connected it to the comics and yet really threw me off was the "teen" factor in the movie. I felt that the majority of the scenes being Peter scenes were often too easy to relate to. At the end I felt like putting my hoodie on rather than thwipping away. I felt my inner teen, not my inner Spidey.

Yes and no. I also found a lot of the Peter scenes very easy to relate to (which I liked and made me realize that I related to him a lot more than I ever thought) but at the same time, I also feel that there should've been more high school scenes. Peter's classmates never get much screen time overall other than Gwen. Even Flash only has like 3 scenes in the movie and they're all not that long either. I feel as if they should've added more high school characters in the movie and show more of Peter's high school life. I know Sally Avril and some other girl were originally cast for the movie but they got cut out. I really want to see more of Peter's social life and classmates in the sequels. Spidey has in my opinion the best supporting cast out of all the superheroes and that should show more.

 

[Human Torch]

Yeah, it was. He looked like a life sized plastic action figure.

He resembeld the character enough to be recognisable.I was fearing an Ultimate version.

Because Harry wasn't written as a Goblin. He wasn't even called a Goblin in the movie except when Peter mockingly called him Goblin junior. If it wasn't for the pumpkin bombs and razor bats you wouldn't even know he was affiliated with the Goblin legacy. He didn't even have a glider. He had a hoverboard.

He looked way too generic.After taking the formula and using all of Norman's tools,he should've been in goblin-inspired armor.

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

I think it was a marktting scheme. They couldn't use the same armor; They have to sell toys of the new one!

 

[Anno_Domini]

Not necessarily true. The Nolan trilogy, with the exception of TDKR which I thought sucked, was faithful to the comics for the most part.

The thing about Batman is that he there are so many different versions and takes on him that it's difficult to say that Batman product X is faithful to the comics while Batman product Y is not. There is a basic set of rules you have to follow when adapting Batman (he's a hero, he doesn't kill people, dresses like a bat, martial arts expert, very intelligent in many fields, lost his parents, is dark (Silver Age adaptations being an exception to this), acts like a playboy in public, has a batcave, etc.). However, past those basic set of rules, you can do whatever you want. Some writers write a pulp comic with Batman and focus mostly on his detective skills. Others write a grounded in reality crime drama and focus more on his martial arts skills than his detective skills. Others write a more sci-fi and less brooding story with the characters. Others portray him as "The Goddamn Batman" - the man who is capable of doing anything and can take down anyone with prep time - while others portray him as a more humanized character with certain limits.

The same logic applies to the Nolan films. You have to compare the Nolan films with whatever parts of the comics they were based on. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were for the most part influenced by the stories that take place in Batman's very early career as a crimefighter, specifically Year One and The Long Halloween. If you compare those stories with BB and TDK, they're not that different from each other in terms of tone, characters, etc. Even the realism from the Nolan films is not that big of a deviation from those books because Year One and Long Halloween, as well as the rest of the stories that take place in Batman's very early career, were all grounded in reality for the most part with Year One being even more grounded in reality than Batman Begins was. Even Batman's skills and experiences in BB and TDK are not that different from his skills and experiences in YO and LH. As adaptations of early Batman stories (and early as in continuity years and not publication years), BB and TDK are very good Batman movies.

Imo, the storylines definitely are faithful to the mythology of Batman(as well as TDKR...take a look at Knightfall, No Man's Land, The Dark Knight Returns, Bane of the Demon, Legacy), but when speaking on faithfulness, I am talking about the looks of the villains where Raimi's films are stronger in that area than The Dark Knight Trilogy.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Imo, the storylines definitely are faithful to the mythology of Batman(as well as TDKR...take a look at Knightfall, No Man's Land, The Dark Knight Returns, Bane of the Demon, Legacy), but when speaking on faithfulness, I am talking about the looks of the villains where Raimi's films are stronger in that area than The Dark Knight Trilogy.

I'd say about the same really. Both made some pretty substancial changes, while still staying true to the spirit of the characters...for the most part.

Raimi actually deviated the most from the spirit of the villain with Ock. Doc Ock has never, ever, been portrayed as a "good guy at heart." That was completely off from the spirit of the character. He was Doc Ock smashed together with Curt Connors.

In that respect, I think Nolan remained truer to the spirit of all his villains then Raimi did.

 

[Shikamaru]

Imo, the storylines definitely are faithful to the mythology of Batman(as well as TDKR...take a look at Knightfall, No Man's Land, The Dark Knight Returns, Bane of the Demon, Legacy), but when speaking on faithfulness, I am talking about the looks of the villains where Raimi's films are stronger in that area than The Dark Knight Trilogy.

I see what you mean then. In that case, then yes I do agree with you but the difference is very little. Both of them deviated around an equal amount when it comes to the looks of the villains (which wasn't a bad or good thing).

Also, yes it's true that TDKR is the most like the comics when it comes to the story but I was talking about the film overall.

I'd say about the same really. Both made some pretty substancial changes, while still staying true to the spirit of the characters...for the most part.

Raimi actually deviated the most from the spirit of the villain with Ock. Doc Ock has never, ever, been portrayed as a "good guy at heart." That was completely off from the spirit of the character. He was Doc Ock smashed together with Curt Connors.

In that respect, I think Nolan remained truer to the spirit of all his villains then Raimi did.

Well said about Doc Ock. I still think he was the best villain in the Raimi films but I always disliked that they made him a good guy at heart and that whole "the arms made me do it!" thing.

Oh, and Anno_Domini, I remember you asking me a while back on this thread to explain why I like TSSM's Doc Ock more than SM2's Doc Ock but I never got a chance to give you an answer and since someone brought up the SM2 Doc Ock again, I'll answer your question now. I like both versions but I prefer the TSSM version by far because, as I just said, I disliked the idea of making him a good guy at heart and the whole "arms made me do it" thing. This doesn't mean that I hated Doc Ock but those 2 things really did hurt him from an adaptation point of view IMO. That and I like how he did more stuff from the comics like leading the Sinister Six and the Master Planner arc.

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

This is a tough thread because equally I like parts in both. Obviously, I missed not being able to see Uncle Ben's death retold like the Raimi films, but I like the differences between Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, and what Webb did with it.

I'm still not sold on Sally Field as Aunt May. I feel Rosemary Harris did a better job with the role, but I'm willing to give Field a chance in future sequels.

My only real complaints with the reboot was the lack of characterization of Dr. Connors and Dr. Ratha. I also felt Webb could've maybe had a little more than just teasing us with Norman Osborne as a background character slipping his way in and out through dialogue (and a possible jail cell appearance). I think you could've maybe shown the physical signs of Norman's failing condition ala a shot of his hand: ghastly pain--- borderline anaemic or shortness of breath with his speech, or maybe even hacking up blood inside of a handkerchief. Visible signs that he was weak and wanting to fix himself would've been nice.

I think everything else works and I found myself liking Andrew and Emma more than Toby and Kirsten. I still think "SPIDER-MAN 2" is the best of all the webhead's movies, but "AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" comes in second for its daringness to be the new kid on the block and break from conventionalism and try something new. It also feels like Sony recognized their mistakes and said, "Ok, fans, we've heard you and we're going to try our best to please you."

 

[Spiderdevil]

Once again you just underestimate any Nolan Batfilm. It's like you try so hard to take away what Nolan has done to Batman and what Nolan has done to the genre as a whole.

Once again you are assuming I am underestimating
I call TDK best comic book ever,above SM2 and TA.How is that underestimating?

I gave my reason about why BB doesnt score more than IM and SM1 for me
As for changing the Genre,I believe SM made the genre famous in the modern era to start with,The reason why CBM are coming in from everywhere nowadays is because SM made people realize that CBM can earn huge money and can be enjoyable for people apart from kids

Haven't you already said the trilogy is flawed everytime you underestimate it?

I've never said that

Like I said, apples and oranges man. Nolan's trilogy was never going to be faithful to the comics, therefore it's ridiculous to call it flawed because of its unfaithfulness, but Raimi's trilogy WAS supposed to be faithful. It wasn't with the Goblins for the most part.

I seriously dont get you man
Goblin's terrible because he didnt resemble his CB look to much but scarecrow was fine because Nolan's movies apparently werent following the comics?
The irony is,you were arguing in the exact opposite when I said that TDKR didnt feel like a comic book movie some months ago

My Final point,if you say Goblin was flawed because of non-resemblance,I would say the whole Nolan trilogy was flawed by that logic.

Just because Raimi was following CBs doesnt mean he cant take liberties when he wants,he hasnt sworn anywhere to follow CBs at everthing.FFS he created Organic webbing and MJ as the first love interest,he completely changed DocOck's personality and Sandman's origin aswell,he wanted to create the Vultress,there's your faithfulness.

He was as unfaithful to CBs as was Nolan

 

[Spiderdevil]

He basically had them on 24/7 once he had created them. It's kinda like a condom...better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

And if he hi-fives someone?

 

[Spiderdevil]

The Joker's "falling into a pit of chemicals" origin was never canon to begin with. That is just one story - one of the many myths - of how the Joker came to be. No one really knows who or what created the Joker. He kinda just popped out of nowhere. The Red Hood origin in which he fell into a vat of chemicals is just one of the many theories that characters in the DC universe have about the Joker's origin (including the Joker himself) but that is just one of the many possibilities. The Joker himself remembers his origin in a different way each time and says in the comics "I don't exactly remember what happened to me. Somedays I remember it one way, somedays another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" So technically, Nolan stayed true to the Joker's character by not giving him a definitive origin, having him just pop out of nowhere with no explanation to where he comes from, and having him remember his origin in a different way each time. It's not a deviation from the comics.

What about two-face or Doc-Ock? Are they flawed because they arent exactly as in the comics?
Because by Anno's logic they are

I would argue that The Amazing Spider-Man, Superman I, Batman Begins, and Iron Man 1 outclass it by far. SM1 is not that good of an origin movie. It quickly rushed through the origin and once the origin is finished, the rest of the movie feels like a completely different film. TASM and the rest of the movies I brought up don't really have that problem for the most part with the exception of maybe Superman I. And even then, it kinda worked in that movie.

To be fair,that wasnt a time when Superhero movies especially concentrated on the origin.They thought of making individual movies and the first movie had a rushed origin most of the time to get to the point

Nowadays the trend has changed.The first movie is entirely dedicated to an origin and they try to work with the trilogy as a whole instead of trying to make individual movies as they come

Just see X-men(2000) and X-Men:First Class(2010)
Clear cut difference in terms of narration of the Origin

 

[Spiderdevil]

but when speaking on faithfulness, I am talking about the looks of the villains where Raimi's films are stronger in that area than The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Not exactly

In Raimi's Universe,looks wise Goblin,and Goblin Junior didnt resemble the comics while DocOck,Venom and Sandman did
In Nolan's Universe,Scarecrow and Bane didnt resemble while Joker,Two-Face,Catwomen,Ra's did.

Its equal as you can see

 

[Tacit Ronin]

What about two-face or Doc-Ock? Are they flawed because they arent exactly as in the comics?

Two Face was closer to the comics than Doc Ock.

 

[spider-neil]

If you could mix and match elements of the Raimi Spider-Man movie (the first one) and TASM

* ASM Cast (all of them)
* ASM origin
* SM death of UB (including UB talk in car and wrestling scene)
* SM villian
* SM climax

For me that would be the perfect Spider-Man movie
Simply put, I prefer the first 2 acts of ASM and I prefer the 3rd act of SM.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Once again you are assuming I am underestimating
I call TDK best comic book ever,above SM2 and TA.How is that underestimating?

TDK is the only Nolan film you do underestimate(which really surprises me), but when it comes to BB or TDKR, you seem to just take away any positive thing these two films bring into the genre.

I gave my reason about why BB doesnt score more than IM and SM1 for me
As for changing the Genre,I believe SM made the genre famous in the modern era to start with,The reason why CBM are coming in from everywhere nowadays is because SM made people realize that CBM can earn huge money and can be enjoyable for people apart from kids

Spider-Man only made the genre "famous" by revitalizing CBMs for the 21st century, but here again, you underestimate BB by not giving the film its due as it revitalized CBMs in its own way as well or perhaps for other films as well such as Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek by being "famous" for creating the reboot, and successful ones at that.

I've never said that

You didn't take the context right. I meant it as how you make it seemed flawed when you don't give the trilogy as a whole its due.

I seriously dont get you man
Goblin's terrible because he didnt resemble his CB look to much but scarecrow was fine because Nolan's movies apparently werent following the comics?
The irony is,you were arguing in the exact opposite when I said that TDKR didnt feel like a comic book movie some months ago

My Final point,if you say Goblin was flawed because of non-resemblance,I would say the whole Nolan trilogy was flawed by that logic.

Just because Raimi was following CBs doesnt mean he cant take liberties when he wants,he hasnt sworn anywhere to follow CBs at everthing.FFS he created Organic webbing and MJ as the first love interest,he completely changed DocOck's personality and Sandman's origin aswell,he wanted to create the Vultress,there's your faithfulness.

He was as unfaithful to CBs as was Nolan

Once again, apples and oranges. Nolan's tale is of a regular, normal guy becoming a hero and retiring at the end. It's the most unconventional CBM trilogy we've had, so I don't complain much about the look of Nolan's Batvillains because of this unconventional take. It's "hyper-realism" on the looks of the villains and Nolan's own take while still being faithful with certain storylines/arcs with the Batman mythos, whereas Raimi's trilogy isn't something unconventional.

What about two-face or Doc-Ock? Are they flawed because they arent exactly as in the comics?
Because by Anno's logic they are

My logic? Lol, my logic is that Raimi didn't try to make anything new or ambitious. He made a trilogy on Spider-Man that should have had Green Goblin more like the comics.

Not exactly

In Raimi's Universe,looks wise Goblin,and Goblin Junior didnt resemble the comics while DocOck,Venom and Sandman did
In Nolan's Universe,Scarecrow and Bane didnt resemble while Joker,Two-Face,Catwomen,Ra's did.

Its equal as you can see

And as I said, Raimi had failed with the Goblins, which I acknowledged already.

Plus...Catwoman was definitely akin to Catwoman in Adam West's series, but that's it. There were changes to Nolan's Catwoman most definitely and Ra's al Ghul gets no pass of looking like his comic counterpart as he simply doesn't. The fake Ra's looks more like the comic counterpart. Don't know where you got that from.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Spoiler

The Joker's "falling into a pit of chemicals" origin was never canon to begin with. That is just one story - one of the many myths - of how the Joker came to be. No one really knows who or what created the Joker. He kinda just popped out of nowhere. The Red Hood origin in which he fell into a vat of chemicals is just one of the many theories that characters in the DC universe have about the Joker's origin (including the Joker himself) but that is just one of the many possibilities. The Joker himself remembers his origin in a different way each time and says in the comics "I don't exactly remember what happened to me. Somedays I remember it one way, somedays another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" So technically, Nolan stayed true to the Joker's character by not giving him a definitive origin, having him just pop out of nowhere with no explanation to where he comes from, and having him remember his origin in a different way each time. It's not a deviation from the comics.

In the Golden Age story introducing the Red Hood it was explained Red Hood jumped in the chemical vat to escape Batman, and he was the Red Hood

I'm going with that idea since Joker is a tough fighter

 

[Spiderdevil]

TDK is the only Nolan film you do underestimate(which really surprises me), but when it comes to BB or TDKR, you seem to just take away any positive thing these two films bring into the genre.

Nope
Memento,Inception,Prestige.All really good films
BB doesnt compare to Sm1 in my opinion or even IM2,its just my opinion.Maybe because Spider-man is my favouraite character and it was Iron Man's debut on the big screen
About TDKR,it just felt a bit stale to me.Most probably because I immediately compared it to TDK
Its my theory that people wont think of SM3 to be so bad if SM1 and SM2 werent so good.You get the point.But I still said TDKR was better than TASM didnt I?

Spider-Man only made the genre "famous" by revitalizing CBMs for the 21st century, but here again, you underestimate BB by not giving the film its due as it revitalized CBMs in its own way as well or perhaps for other films as well such as Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek by being "famous" for creating the reboot, and successful ones at that.

Most definitely
It made the reboot concept acceptable and also explored a dark tone relatively unexplored in CB Universe.I give it that credit
But Spider-man 1 made the genre famous again.If there was no SM1,CBM wont be coming out like this and earning so much.10+ years ago nobody though a 'kids' genre would be capable of crossing the billion mark and that too multiple times.

You didn't take the context right. I meant it as how you make it seemed flawed when you don't give the trilogy as a whole its due.

I always do,its just when you make outlandish statements like 'If there wasnt no BB,there wont be TASM' or 'The difference in quality between Nolan's Trilogy and Raimi's trilogy is huge' that I start giving it lesser credit

Once again, apples and oranges. Nolan's tale is of a regular, normal guy becoming a hero and retiring at the end. It's the most unconventional CBM trilogy we've had, so I don't complain much about the look of Nolan's Batvillains because of this unconventional take. It's "hyper-realism" on the looks of the villains and Nolan's own take while still being faithful with certain storylines/arcs with the Batman mythos, whereas Raimi's trilogy isn't something unconventional.

Does that mean Nolan gets the right to mess around with villians and Raimi doesnt?

Lol, my logic is that Raimi didn't try to make anything new or ambitious. He made a trilogy on Spider-Man that should have had Green Goblin more like the comics.

Your both statements contradict each other
So now trying to make the Villian more modernised and realistic is flawed and apping him exactly from the comics is 'New and ambitious'

And before you say I dont,I do agree with that logic and that is why I am a big fan of how Nolan handles his Villians instead of being limited by Comic books.Its why I like how Raimi handled Green Goblin and DocOck and didnt let himself be limited to the comics or how Iron Monger was used in IM.That being ambitious

And as I said, Raimi had failed with the Goblins, which I acknowledged already.

Plus...Catwoman was definitely akin to Catwoman in Adam West's series, but that's it. There were changes to Nolan's Catwoman most definitely and Ra's al Ghul gets no pass of looking like his comic counterpart as he simply doesn't. The fake Ra's looks more like the comic counterpart. Don't know where you got that from.

http://intergalacticdragon.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ras.jpg
The similarity is right there,he even wore coats

 

[Anno_Domini]

Nope
Memento,Inception,Prestige.All really good films
BB doesnt compare to Sm1 in my opinion or even IM2,its just my opinion.Maybe because Spider-man is my favouraite character and it was Iron Man's debut on the big screen
About TDKR,it just felt a bit stale to me.Most probably because I immediately compared it to TDK
Its my theory that people wont think of SM3 to be so bad if SM1 and SM2 werent so good.You get the point.But I still said TDKR was better than TASM didnt I?

Didn't say anything about you not liking Nolan's films, did I? I am talking about Nolan's Batfilms.

Most definitely
It made the reboot concept acceptable and also explored a dark tone relatively unexplored in CB Universe.I give it that credit
But Spider-man 1 made the genre famous again.If there was no SM1,CBM wont be coming out like this and earning so much.10+ years ago nobody though a 'kids' genre would be capable of crossing the billion mark and that too multiple times.

Spider-Man didn't help the films that made more than it did in the box office years later such as TDK, Avengers, TDKR. S-M 1 revitalized the concept of CBMs, yes, but there's really no relevance that proves that the three films I mentioned wouldn't have made as much cash as they did without Raimi's participation with Spidey. That point, I don't get. But glad you did give BB credit.

I always do,its just when you make outlandish statements like 'If there wasnt no BB,there wont be TASM' or 'The difference in quality between Nolan's Trilogy and Raimi's trilogy is huge' that I start giving it lesser credit

When I start speaking the truth? You just said without Raimi's film, there wouldn't have been so many other popular CBMs towards kids, but I can't state the FACT that without a reboot like BB, there would've been no reboot as "dark" or "gritty" as TAS-M?

Does that mean Nolan gets the right to mess around with villians and Raimi doesnt?

When Raimi isn't trying to do something so revolutionary, yes.

Your both statements contradict each other
So now trying to make the Villian more modernised and realistic is flawed and apping him exactly from the comics is 'New and ambitious'

And before you say I dont,I do agree with that logic and that is why I am a big fan of how Nolan handles his Villians instead of being limited by Comic books.Its why I like how Raimi handled Green Goblin and DocOck and didnt let himself be limited to the comics or how Iron Monger was used in IM.That being ambitious

More modernized? Lol, certain origins can be modernized such as how Otto became Doc Ock, but the looks do not have to be modernized as the looks of every villain in Raimi's trilogy didn't have to be radically changed because they didn't look as comic-booky as guys like Electro(which I hope does not sport a yellow star fish mask).

The difference with Raimi's trilogy and Nolan's is the tone. You can get off by having a goblin suit on Osborn and not even look silly, but a luchador mask in TDKR with the tone Nolan created would look silly. You're not understanding my point here.

http://intergalacticdragon.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ras.jpg
The similarity is right there,he even wore coats

And this

looked more like comic book Ra's than the real Ra's. And wearing coats is not a similarity, haha.

 

[OcStat]

Seriously what are you two going on about?? This is a thread to discuss Spider-Man and the Amazing Spider-Man.

Not Nolan vs. Raimi.

 

[OcStat]

So to get back to the subject at hand:

I watched Spider-Man the other day. The film still holds up pretty well, better than I had expected. It was my first time watching it after seeing Amazing. I am going to pick up The Amazing Spider-Man on BR today and give it another viewing to really see the 2 origin films comparatively.

Both movies take interpretive liberties, and both films have jarring and blatant differences from the source material. That doesn't bother me at all, because it usually serves to tell a story unique to the film, and not something we have seen before in the comic.

I never liked "Like any story worth telling this one's all about a girl"; the movie drops the ball in the first 5 minutes thanks to that narration.

I always felt we never really got to see Peter's relationship with Uncle Ben. The only conversation they have is the scene in the car. Yeah Pete is preoccupied and I guess that is typical teenage behavior to blow off your parentals, but we never really see his bond with his Uncle. This has become apparent to me more with repeated viewings. But on the other hand Peter's negligence to make time for his Uncle amidst the chaos he's going through surely adds to his guilt.

And going back to my first time seeing it in the theater at 14, I never understood how Peter seems to be walking down a random street at night and it just so happens to be the same block Uncle Ben was left to die on.

But anyway, those are nitpicks. I am not gonna say what the film could've or should've done. It did what it did, so let's take it at that and move the discussion along. I mean after all, this movie is the first time we got to see Spidey on the big screen in all his glory.

The action still holds up incredibly. Especially the last fight, still might be the best climax battle as some have mentioned. Gobbie's beat down on Spider-Man is brutal. And when I first saw that bomb go off in Spidey's face it dropped my jaw. The CGI only really flounders during the car chase, the wrestling sweats and Peter's face look like wax or something.

I also enjoy James Franco in this movie. He almost steals the show. You can see his resentment towards Peter build through out the film, as Pete gets more attention and praise from Norman.

I think I'll stop there. After I watch Amazing Spider-Man again I shall continue!

 

[Shikamaru]

What about two-face or Doc-Ock? Are they flawed because they arent exactly as in the comics?
Because by Anno's logic they are

I can't speak for Anno. I can only speak for myself.

Two-Face was faithful to the comics. I admit that I prefer the split personality version of Two-Face over the dark side/fallen corrupt "chance-believer" version of Two-Face (for lack of better term lol) but he's been written both ways before in the comics so neither version is wrong. Plus, the version of Two-Face they based the movie version on fits better with the movie's plot than the split personality version. So I don't see why that would be an issue.

As for Doc Ock, he was a well done character. I wouldn't say he is flawed just because he is not like the comics but as a fan of the comics, I would say that I would've liked to see a more faithful Doc Ock not just because I love Doc Ock as a character but because I believe you can tell more interesting stories with the evil unsympathetic Doc Ock from the comics as opposed to the stories you can do with Raimi's "good guy at heart" take on Doc Ock. I would say that one of Raimi's rejected ideas is evidence of this. Raimi wanted to do the Sinister Six down the line if the franchise would've continued, which could've been great. The problem is that even if that would've happened, you couldn't use Doc Ock due to him being a good guy at heart in the Raimi continuity and due to not having any reason after SM2's ending (if he was still alive) to go after Spider-Man. Had Doc Ock been truly evil from the beginning, that wouldn't have been a problem down the line if the Raimi franchise continued to a point where you could've done the Six in live-action.

To be fair,that wasnt a time when Superhero movies especially concentrated on the origin.They thought of making individual movies and the first movie had a rushed origin most of the time to get to the point

Nowadays the trend has changed.The first movie is entirely dedicated to an origin and they try to work with the trilogy as a whole instead of trying to make individual movies as they come

Just see X-men(2000) and X-Men:First Class(2010)
Clear cut difference in terms of narration of the Origin

X-Men was not intended to be an origin film though. It jumped straight in with Xavier's school already established.

I would argue comic book movies are starting to move away from the "first movie is a whole origin" trend. But anyways, to address your point that they thought of doing individual films and rushed the origin to get to the point, I have 2 arguments to counter that.

1) The big problem is not so much rushing through the origin but making it blatantly obvious you're trying to get it out of the way. As I said before, after Ben's death, the whole movie feels like a different movie altogether with a whole new story. There are ways you can "rush" the origin and still making the rest of the movie's story feel more consistent. In my opinion, the first Superman movie does do the origin pretty quickly but once you get to Metropolis, it doesn't feel like a whole different film starts (at least not to me).

2) Doing the origin =/= not having an individual film with a unique story and a story with no point. I can name comic book movies that were origin films that had strong and good stories with the "point" still being there (Batman Begins and Iron Man are good examples). The origin is not by any means something that "drags" or that just simply shows how the hero came to be and nothing else (though that is the case with a good chunk of superheroes) and this applies especially in Spider-Man's case, who has one of the greatest origins out there. The origin story itself is a great Spidey story to begin with.

 

[Shikamaru]

In the Golden Age story introducing the Red Hood it was explained Red Hood jumped in the chemical vat to escape Batman, and he was the Red Hood

I'm going with that idea since Joker is a tough fighter

That story was actually in the Silver Age (early 1950's to be exact) and was retconned many years ago. In Post-Crisis continuity, including the new 52, the Joker has no canon origin. The "falling into a vat of chemicals" is just one of the many origins the Joker had in the comics and is only a myth or a theory on how the Joker came to be just like all of his other origins.

I personally prefer it this way. It gives him a very unique mysterious vibe that no other villain has .

 

[Spiderdevil]

Didn't say anything about you not liking Nolan's films, did I? I am talking about Nolan's Batfilms.

I dont think I underrate them.
I rate them as they deserve.Very very few people actually think TDKR is better than TDK so how is that underrating?

Spider-Man didn't help the films that made more than it did in the box office years later such as TDK, Avengers, TDKR.

Thats like saying BB didnt influence movies because they made more than it

S-M 1 revitalized the concept of CBMs, yes, but there's really no relevance that proves that the three films I mentioned wouldn't have made as much cash as they did without Raimi's participation with Spidey. That point, I don't get. But glad you did give BB credit.

Because Spider-man reignited people's interest in the genre,its success influenced studios to invest money in Superhero movies

When I start speaking the truth? You just said without Raimi's film, there wouldn't have been so many other popular CBMs towards kids, but I can't state the FACT that without a reboot like BB, there would've been no reboot as "dark" or "gritty" as TAS-M?

Saying that is alright but saying 'If there was no BB there would be no TASM' is being ridiculous,Spider-man movies will keep coming
Maybe a different and maybe better TASM would be there but spidey movies will keep coming

When Raimi isn't trying to do something so revolutionary, yes.

I dont see how changing the look of Bane or Scarecrow was 'revolutionary'.You are sounding like an Apple employee
It was same as changing GG's look

More modernized? Lol, certain origins can be modernized such as how Otto became Doc Ock, but the looks do not have to be modernized as the looks of every villain in Raimi's trilogy didn't have to be radically changed because they didn't look as comic-booky as guys like Electro(which I hope does not sport a yellow star fish mask).

Everything about that green and yellow costume looks comic booky to me.

The difference with Raimi's trilogy and Nolan's is the tone. You can get off by having a goblin suit on Osborn and not even look silly, but a luchador mask in TDKR with the tone Nolan created would look silly. You're not understanding my point here.

Its my belief it would look ridiculous in Raimi's movie aswell
That type of Costume would look ridiculous in any movie.(It would only work if they show an eccentric or insane Norman with an obsession with Folklore,and Raimi wasnt going that way,he wanted to portray Norman as a Hardworking,self-sacrifing industrialist)
Avengers had a fun tone,still they didnt use a costume for Hawk eye.It gives you an idea