I dont think SM1 has any big flaws
Maybe little ones here and there but I give them a pass because if someone decides to make a CB origin movie today,he has this whole bunch of successful origin movies to look up to and take influence from,look at their mistakes and learn from them,improved technology and a already famous genre which guarantees easy money if the movie is decent
Raimi had none of that in 2002,he had on shot at making the character a success,he went all out at it(used the best villians and all) and passed with flying colours imo
The fact that it still holds pretty well against origin movies like BB,IM1 and TASM despite it being 10 years old already and the comparison being unfair for the reasons I meantioned is a testimonial to the fact that how good it is
It has major flaws as an adaptation. As just a movie on its own, it is ok but the dialogue makes it really cringeworthy to watch in many places.
I give older comic book movies a pass on certain things depending on the time circumstances. For example, I would look at a comic book movie from 1978 (let's say Superman I) and I would ask myself "Is this the best thing they could've done with Superman for the late 1970's?" If the answer is yes, then I would give certain things a pass like the special effects and the whole spinning-around-the-earth-turns-back-time thing (because it was surprisingly an actual scientific theory believed by many people in the 70's). If the answer is no, then I consider the movie to be either good but having much more potential to be better even for its time, ok, or plain bad (it depends on the movie at hand).
I would apply the same thing to SM1 and I do believe they could've made a far better movie even for 2002. Some easy things that could've improved the movie are actors that can actually portray at least the lead characters properly (Peter & MJ), a wisecracking Spidey, a less silly and more threatening Goblin even if just by little, and a few other things here and there. Also, the special effects could've looked good even for 2002. There are certain times during SM1 where I can tell they're using a green screen. So even for its time, SM1 could've been a lot better which is why I can't give it a pass on many things. Accurate character portrayal is not limited to time.
A movie holding up to another movie is an opinion. You would argue that it holds up just like how I would argue that it doesn't thus it is a flawed circular logic to say "the reason it holds up so well these days is a testimonial fact that it's good". You may say that the majority's opinion of it holding up is a testimonial fact of SM1's quality but in that case, many people including myself would argue there are reasons to why the majority thinks it holds up. Like I said before, I believe the only reason people believe it to hold up is due to nostalgia and due to the fact that it's the first Spider-Man film and one of the first comic book movies.
Nolan's films I agree but you are giving too much credit to MCU movies
Except IM1 and TA,the rest are servicable at best.
2/6,thats not a record I would be proud of.
Even Movies like Daredevil and Fantastic 4 are true to the source material
I would slightly disagree on that. I would argue what I said earlier about the MCU films applies to 3/6 (IM1, TA, and TIH) while the other 3 are either just good or alright movies. However, the remaining 3 are by no means bad movies. They could've been better IMO but they're not exactly bad either and don't butcher the characters. I would say that's a record to be proud of IMO - 3 great and 3 not bad.
Daredevil Director's Cut was great. The main problems with Fantastic Four wasn't the source material but everything else. The story, character arcs, and the plot holes it had (specifically the second movie).
Interesting question
I am not prasing SM1 becuase of Nostalgia,I am praising it because of its impressive quality
I enjoy it more than TASM and thats very surprising since I was anticipating TASM so much
I never said everyone would feel the same way I do about SM1 if it came out today. I said I believe
most people would. I have no problem with your opinions on SM1 and TASM though.
If SM1 would come out today,it would be even better and have better CGI with the technology of 2012 and have a better plot with better ideas looking at so many CBMs as an example and inturn be even better recieved
Raimi would obviously decrease the cheesyness looking at how audience expected more realistic stuff,maybe introduce Web shooters realizing how audience adored being realistic in today's world,get a better actor for Peter Parker,get a bigger budget from Sony and have a better CGI and action sequences
You should look at both sides of the coin
That doesn't really answer my question because that would be a different movie altogether. I'm asking if SM1 - exactly how it was in 2002 but with better and more updated 2012 special effects - came out today, would it be anywhere as critically praised as it was in 2002 by most people? In my opinion, no.
And I think you are giving too much credit to MCU,for all their 'being true to source material' only 2/6 are great movies.
Already addressed.
With all due respect,they are not to mentioned in the same line as Raimi's Spidey or Nolan's Batman
I respect your opinion. Though I do find it funny that Anno says (or at least that you think Anno says this; I'm not really keeping up with your discussion) that you underrate the Nolan Batman films when you clearly do not.
Overrated trailers like Thor,Incredible Hulk and CapAm:the first avenger,do not deserve to be inspiration for Spider-man or considered the pinnacle of CB movie making like you making them out to be
Like I said, I would argue TA, IM1, and TIH do. Although the rest are not exactly to be considered the "pinnacle" of CB movies, they're still good movies IMO. MS has yet to make a bad movie IMO.
10 years from now,when a new rebooted Avengers or Rebooted Batman comes in,I am sure people will find the same number of flaws with movies like TDK and TA.Just that take away the fact that they are excellent movies?
People will start bashing Nolan's Batman,because he isnt a martial artist,or a detective and master tactitian or versatile genius,or creating a love interest out of thin air like you are bashing Raimi's Spidey because of Web Shooters and not enough wise cracking
You may have a point. Only time will tell. But like I said above, I judge comic book movies by how good they could've been in the time period they were made. I would say TDK and the Avengers were good enough for 2008 and 2012 respectively, whereas I had problems with the Raimi films for years now. The first time I can remember when I rewatched all the Raimi films and I was dissapointed with them was in 2007 shortly after SM3 came out. That was before TDK and the MCU movies even came out.
As for Nolan's Batman not having the things you brought up, I would argue he does but that's a topic for another time.
Also, just to clear things up, I don't completely hate the Raimi films minus SM3. I don't like them as adaptations. As just movies, I think the 1st one is just ok (except that the dialogue is really cringeworthy at times) and I think SM2 is a good movie.
).
