Spider-Man 1 vs Man of Steel

[Lantern Venom]

As much as I love Man of Steel and find it criminally underrated. Spider-Man 1 takes this for me.

I'll co-sign this. MOS is the Superman movie that I'd always wanted to see, and it gets better with each viewing. However, seeing a faithful adaptation of a legendary hero taking on his #1 baddie is something that is unforgettable. Spidey vs Gobby-- 'Nuff said.

 

[henzINNIT]

Spider-Man > Man Of Steel
Spider-Man 2 > Man Of Steel
Spider-Man 3 > Man Of Steel

*flicks fringe, claps, humps the air and struts away*

 

[Neil McCauley]

Spider Man 3 is not better than MOS, in any way, shape or form.

 

[MCU King]

Spider Man 3 is not better than MOS, in any way, shape or form.

There's a fair argument to make that Spider-Man 3 was better than MOS.

- SM3 fared better with Critics, overall.

- SM3 had better box office than MOS, with better Wom, and ROI (return on investment).

I always look at the larger metrics, because at the end of the day.. we are just 10 guys on a superhero forum.

 

[Neil McCauley]

There's a fair argument to make that Spider-Man 3 was better than MOS.

- SM3 fared better with Critics, overall.

- SM3 had better box office than MOS, with better Wom, and ROI (return on investment).

I always look at the larger metrics, because at the end of the day.. we are just 10 guys on a superhero forum.

Box office doesn't mean anything, by that logic Transformers > Civil War and TDKR?

Also, both weren't really appreciated with critics.

MOS was coming from Superman Returns, a massive failure and was the first movie or the franchise meanwhile SM3 had help from SM2 which was loved..

Let's look at the movies:

Villains: I don't think anyone would argue that Venom and Sandman are better than Faora and Zod.

Action: Smallville fight, world engine, Zod vs Superman, opening scene are all better than any SM3 action scene.

Lead: An argument can be totally made in SM1 and 2, but 3rd movie had laughably bad acting from maguire in the scenes with MJ and the emo scenes.

Cavill did a good job and wasn't as cringe as the latter for sure.

Plot: Both have their issues sure but SM3 has a bunch of sub-plots that lead to nowhere, like the Gwen one, Sandman ret-con, MJ and Harry, Harry wanting to kill Spidey, Venom wanting revenge from Peter, Peter being a dick to Harry

Acting: Not even a big contest. SM3 has the worst acting out the trilogy by far.

MOS while not being perfect, has Russel Crowe, Shannon, Cavill and Faora's / Lois' actress which did a good job.

cinematography; the visuals in MOS are notably better. From the first flight, the world engine and the opening scene.

Soundtrack: again, SM3 had the weakest soundtrack of the trilogy and recycled a lot of songs.

Hans Zimmer's work in MOS is great.

Directing: Tie, while Raimi is a better director than Snyder and still did a good job in SM3.

MOS doesn't have the BvS neither JL problems in editing and on action scenes.

—

I’d take SM1 in a close fight with MOS

Their villains are even but SM1 is more fun, and has a better story and character development.

Not a big fan of SM2 btw so can't say for that.

 

[MCU King]

Box office doesn't mean anything, by that logic Transformers > Civil War and TDKR?

Box office means a lot, but it isn't the only factor to determine the success of a big budget tentpole.

It comes down to Box Office, Audience turnout and Word of Mouth, and Critical reaction.

Those are the best objective metrics to determine 'better' when it comes to films of these .

The rest of your post is just personal opinion about what is 'better'

Also, both weren't really appreciated with critics.

True but SM3 did slightly better overall.

They were both disappointing films no doubt.

 

[Web-Head]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

MoS. Beyond finding MoS to be a better film, Spider-Man also has three better origin flicks. Which is a sad indictment of the first Spider-Man flick imo.

 

[Herofan]

Villains: I don't think anyone would argue that Venom and Sandman are better than Faora and Zod.

Harry, however, was much better than either and there wasn't much to Faora.

Action: Smallville fight, world engine, Zod vs Superman, opening scene are all better than any SM3 action scene.

I thought Spider-Man 3 had, aside from Venom in the climax being underwhelming, very good action, lesser than the greatness of in Spider-Man 2 but still a pretty worthy follow-up.

Plot: Both have their issues sure but SM3 has a bunch of sub-plots that lead to nowhere, like the Gwen one, Sandman ret-con, MJ and Harry, Harry wanting to kill Spidey, Venom wanting revenge from Peter, Peter being a dick to Harry

I didn't see much wrong with Harry's or Eddie's motivations though again Eddie overall was underwhelming.

 

[Frodo]

I'd say Spiderman 1 over MOS.

Even though I liked MOS, and defended it after its release, Spiderman 1 is ultimately the better film imo.

At the same time, Spiderman had the luxury of being the first big screen adaptation of the character and his myths , and was thus able to define who Peter Parker was, who MJ was, The tragedy of Uncle Ben, the origins of the Osborn family etc, to a general audience.

The character had been around 40 years by the time the first film came out, but I don't think his mythology was as engrained in the public then, as it as now.

MOS , on the other hand, was trying to do something different with a property that everyone knows and a mythology that's as well know as Snow White.

Superman had been in tv , movies, films, cartoons, toys, etc, for decades. Thus, everyone had an idea or felt they had an idea , of what Superman should or shouldn't be.

Alot of people considered MOS a "Hot take" on Superman, while Spiderman 2002 was almost an introduction to the characters mythology and back story to the GA.

They're very different films , with very different objectives, made in very different contexts, a decade apart.

I think the better examination and comparison would actually be Amazing Spiderman 1 vs Man Of Steel. They were both made around the same time and both were made in the context of darker, more grounded reboots in the early twenty tens.

 

[henzINNIT]

Box office doesn't mean anything, by that logic Transformers > Civil War and TDKR?

Also, both weren't really appreciated with critics.

MOS was coming from Superman Returns, a massive failure and was the first movie or the franchise meanwhile SM3 had help from SM2 which was loved..

Let's look at the movies:

Villains: I don't think anyone would argue that Venom and Sandman are better than Faora and Zod.

Action: Smallville fight, world engine, Zod vs Superman, opening scene are all better than any SM3 action scene.

Lead: An argument can be totally made in SM1 and 2, but 3rd movie had laughably bad acting from maguire in the scenes with MJ and the emo scenes.

Cavill did a good job and wasn't as cringe as the latter for sure.

Plot: Both have their issues sure but SM3 has a bunch of sub-plots that lead to nowhere, like the Gwen one, Sandman ret-con, MJ and Harry, Harry wanting to kill Spidey, Venom wanting revenge from Peter, Peter being a dick to Harry

Acting: Not even a big contest. SM3 has the worst acting out the trilogy by far.

MOS while not being perfect, has Russel Crowe, Shannon, Cavill and Faora's / Lois' actress which did a good job.

cinematography; the visuals in MOS are notably better. From the first flight, the world engine and the opening scene.

Soundtrack: again, SM3 had the weakest soundtrack of the trilogy and recycled a lot of songs.

Hans Zimmer's work in MOS is great.

Directing: Tie, while Raimi is a better director than Snyder and still did a good job in SM3.

MOS doesn't have the BvS neither JL problems in editing and on action scenes.

—

I’d take SM1 in a close fight with MOS

Their villains are even but SM1 is more fun, and has a better story and character development.

Not a big fan of SM2 btw so can't say for that.

Superman Returns > Man of Steel as well while I'm at it.

 

[Neil McCauley]

Box office means a lot, but it isn't the only factor to determine the success of a big budget tentpole.

It comes down to Box Office, Audience turnout and Word of Mouth, and Critical reaction.

Those are the best objective metrics to determine 'better' when it comes to films of these .

The rest of your post is just personal opinion about what is 'better'



True but SM3 did slightly better overall.

They were both disappointing films no doubt.

Not exactly, according to that logic then The Dark Knight Rises would be better than Logan or Joker, and I think many people on this site and others disagreed with this.

Superman Returns > Man of Steel as well while I'm at it.

Returns isn't that bad and just a bit better than SM3 imo.

Harry, however, was much better than either and there wasn't much to Faora.



I thought Spider-Man 3 had, aside from Venom in the climax being underwhelming, very good action, lesser than the greatness of in Spider-Man 2 but still a pretty worthy follow-up.



I didn't see much wrong with Harry's or Eddie's motivations though again Eddie overall was underwhelming.

Harry was better based on what? With his laughable bad acting, the rushed butler scene, the dumb thing about him losing his memory and terrible fights?

Zod had a solid motivation, and had a great fight.

Do you think the garbage fight where MJ screams for the 3rd movie in a row, is better than Superman vs Zod fight? Lol.

It's just rushed, and an insult to the first two films imo.

 

[fan4stic]

Let's look at the movies:

Villains: I don't think anyone would argue that Venom and Sandman are better than Faora and Zod.

Action: Smallville fight, world engine, Zod vs Superman, opening scene are all better than any SM3 action scene.

Lead: An argument can be totally made in SM1 and 2, but 3rd movie had laughably bad acting from maguire in the scenes with MJ and the emo scenes.

Cavill did a good job and wasn't as cringe as the latter for sure.

Plot: Both have their issues sure but SM3 has a bunch of sub-plots that lead to nowhere, like the Gwen one, Sandman ret-con, MJ and Harry, Harry wanting to kill Spidey, Venom wanting revenge from Peter, Peter being a dick to Harry

Acting: Not even a big contest. SM3 has the worst acting out the trilogy by far.

MOS while not being perfect, has Russel Crowe, Shannon, Cavill and Faora's / Lois' actress which did a good job.

cinematography; the visuals in MOS are notably better. From the first flight, the world engine and the opening scene.

Soundtrack: again, SM3 had the weakest soundtrack of the trilogy and recycled a lot of songs.

Hans Zimmer's work in MOS is great.

Directing: Tie, while Raimi is a better director than Snyder and still did a good job in SM3.

MOS doesn't have the BvS neither JL problems in editing and on action scenes.

I may not hate the MOS villains, but character-wise, I think the SM3 villains are more developed characters.

I don't agree. I think there's more engagement in the SM3 fights, to me.

I may find some aspects of the performances lacking in SM3, but I think the characters emotional connective tissue and development is more there than MOS, for both MJ and Peter, over MOS'. I think what you may be talking about, in at least some cases, isn't the actor, as much, but is more in the style of Raimi's more cheesy and/or corny approach in.

I think Cavill's performance isn't much, to me. Whether that's a writing, directing and/or acting issue is another story.

The Gwen plot is apart of what led to Eddie's fueling anger at Peter (though I've read that would've led to her being kidnapped, but tht got changed when Bryce Dallas Howard found out she was pregnant). Sandman retcon is connected to Peter's story of forgiveness. MJ and Harry fuels Harry's character. I think Harry wanting to kill Peter is connected to a forgiveness theme. Venom wanting revenge on Peter came to a head at the end. Peter being like that to Harry, I think also speaks to the forgiveness theme aat the end of the day and shows Peter letting the suit's effects mess with him, to me.

I think Zod's performance doesn't have alot of engagement, to me. Faora, sure. Cavill, I think isn't much. I think Amy Adam's wasn't that strong in this. I actually think both her and Cavill give more engaged performances in BvS, to me. Crowe isn't bad, to me, but it's also not a lot, to me.

I prefer SM3's look.

I prefer SM3's score.

Harry was better based on what? With his laughable bad acting, the rushed butler scene, the dumb thing about him losing his memory and terrible fights?

Zod had a solid motivation, and had a great fight.

Do you think the garbage fight where MJ screams for the 3rd movie in a row, is better than Superman vs Zod fight? Lol.

It's just rushed, and an insult to the first two films imo.

I think the Harry character has a more engaging performance, stronger constructed development and personal character connections.

I think Zod's motive wasn't that strong.

I think that. I think Clark/Zod fight isn't much of anything, and is more action for it's sake. I don't care about MJ screaming or not.

I think it's a stronger movie than MOS.

 

[MCU King]

Not exactly, according to that logic then The Dark Knight Rises would be better than Logan or Joker, and I think many people on this site and others disagreed with this.
.

Lol. This site again is like 20 people or so voting. We are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, and not reflective of the majority movie goers.

However, it's a fair to say Joker could be considered better than Dark Knight Rises, based on the 3 factors I outlined earlier. When I said 'critical praise', that also includes Awards. Logan is in a similar boat.

The other thing about Joker is it was a lower budget R rated film at 55m, that managed to do over a billion. It may have been the most profitable film in this genre...ever.

That's an incredible indication of quality, very positive word of mouth and legs. So box office has it's place as a metric for quality, along with audience wom, and critical reaction.

 

[metaphysician]

IMO, there really is only one solid writing error that drags down Spider-man 3, and keeps it from being a perfectly good sequel: letting Sandman go in the ending. In a movie that was, up to that point, all about power and responsibility, and specifically the harm that comes from power wielded without responsibility. . . they make the thematic climax of the movie Peter. . . letting someone go away without taking any responsibility. It just was a tone deaf screwup, and especially grating after Harry literally dies a hero in balance for his own prior mistakes and wrongdoings. Its an off note that hurts an otherwise solid narrative ( if an overstuffed and clunky one ).

Which is to say, as a story, Spider-man 3 is still *massively* better than Man of Steel, because it actually *has* a coherent story, as opposed to a random pile of impressions and scenes sloppily welded together into a shape that can fool people into thinking its a story in bad lighting.

 

[Neil McCauley]

Lol. This site again is like 20 people or so voting. We are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, and not reflective of the majority movie goers.

However, it's a fair to say Joker could be considered better than Dark Knight Rises, based on the 3 factors I outlined earlier. When I said 'critical praise', that also includes Awards. Logan is in a similar boat.

The other thing about Joker is it was a lower budget R rated film at 55m, that managed to do over a billion. It may have been the most profitable film in this genre...ever.

That's an incredible indication of quality, very positive word of mouth and legs. So box office has it's place as a metric for quality, along with audience wom, and critical reaction.

Fair enough. I can agree with some stuff here.

 

[Neil McCauley]

IMO, there really is only one solid writing error that drags down Spider-man 3, and keeps it from being a perfectly good sequel: letting Sandman go in the ending. In a movie that was, up to that point, all about power and responsibility, and specifically the harm that comes from power wielded without responsibility. . . they make the thematic climax of the movie Peter. . . letting someone go away without taking any responsibility. It just was a tone deaf screwup, and especially grating after Harry literally dies a hero in balance for his own prior mistakes and wrongdoings. Its an off note that hurts an otherwise solid narrative ( if an overstuffed and clunky one ).

Which is to say, as a story, Spider-man 3 is still *massively* better than Man of Steel, because it actually *has* a coherent story, as opposed to a random pile of impressions and scenes sloppily welded together into a shape that can fool people into thinking its a story in bad lighting.

Yeah, a very coherent story with subplots, plot holes, rushed characters, bad acting and retconning Uncle Ben's death.

 

[Herofan]

I very much think having a little too much story and plotting is better than having too little, especially if the movie with too little story and plotting is still as long or longer ...

Both making Sandman Uncle Ben's killer and yes his conclusion were weak parts of the film. OTOH Zod's and his minion's motivation felt pretty weak, pretty much just wanting evil and destruction/tyranny for their own sake.

One thing I found really annoying in Man of Steel was that Jor-El was so much for Clark becoming a Superman, gave him the suit and basically told him to do it, that it would be good, and with all that encouragement and chance he still didn't debut until Zod debuted first, seemingly just so that the public would be more suspicious of Superman.

 

[Frodo]

Since the thread has turned into a Spiderman 3 vs MOS debate, I'll put in my two cents.

Both films have there flaws , and at the end of the day , its a question how much of the flaws ultimately sink the respective films.

For me , the flaws of Spiderman 3 outweigh the flaws of MOS if we're talking about them as films overall.

I'd say Shannon's Zod is a much stronger villain than all 3 of the Spiderman 3 villains put together.

That doesn't mean Zod was the best villain ,nor had the best motivation or backstory, but if we're talking comparisons , Zod was clearly the more threatening, lethal, motivated villain.

To me there's no contest if we're talking Zod vs the Spiderman 3 villains. The Spiderman 3 villains are pretty cartoony , and while Shannon's Zod maybe be one note in alot of respects, he still has a presence and menace that Spiderman 3's villains lack.

If we're talking about the Hero's themselves and their portrayals, I'd give that edge to Maguire. Even though his character is unlikable for most of the film , and he acts fool for several infamous scenes, Maguire is the better actor ,and has more to work with than Cavill does.

Maguire gets to chew up the scenery while Cavill is mostly stolid, with a couple moments of his charisma coming through.

If we're talking Love interests, neither film does the best with its female leads, though Amy Adams gets a much better shake than Kirsten Dunst if we're talking the script department.

If we're talking action sequences and fights, I'd maybe give the edge to Spiderman 3.

Most of the fight scenes in SM3 have some personal dynamic behind it and its one on one, which I prefer to city blocks, small towns, and buildings being taken out by several characters flying all over the place at a fast speed.

Neither of the final fights in MOS or SM3 really work for me , so they're tied for me in that respect.

If its a question of which film I would watch if its on cable, i'd probably say SM3, just because its lighter , dumb, camp.

While I think MOS is better, its too dreary for me at times .

 

[Neil McCauley]

I may not hate the MOS villains, but character-wise, I think the SM3 villains are more developed characters.

I don't agree. I think there's more engagement in the SM3 fights, to me.

I may find some aspects of the performances lacking in SM3, but I think the characters emotional connective tissue and development is more there than MOS, for both MJ and Peter, over MOS'. I think what you may be talking about, in at least some cases, isn't the actor, as much, but is more in the style of Raimi's more cheesy and/or corny approach in.

I think Cavill's performance isn't much, to me. Whether that's a writing, directing and/or acting issue is another story.

The Gwen plot is apart of what led to Eddie's fueling anger at Peter (though I've read that would've led to her being kidnapped, but tht got changed when Bryce Dallas Howard found out she was pregnant). Sandman retcon is connected to Peter's story of forgiveness. MJ and Harry fuels Harry's character. I think Harry wanting to kill Peter is connected to a forgiveness theme. Venom wanting revenge on Peter came to a head at the end. Peter being like that to Harry, I think also speaks to the forgiveness theme aat the end of the day and shows Peter letting the suit's effects mess with him, to me.

I think Zod's performance doesn't have alot of engagement, to me. Faora, sure. Cavill, I think isn't much. I think Amy Adam's wasn't that strong in this. I actually think both her and Cavill give more engaged performances in BvS, to me. Crowe isn't bad, to me, but it's also not a lot, to me.

I prefer SM3's look.

I prefer SM3's score.I think the Harry character has a more engaging performance, stronger constructed development and personal character connections.

I think Zod's motive wasn't that strong.

I think that. I think Clark/Zod fight isn't much of anything, and is more action for it's sake. I don't care about MJ screaming or not.

I think it's a stronger movie than MOS.

Ok man, you're forgetting all SM3's flaws and a movie that was hated versus a divisive movie which has ok ratings from the audience.

MOS is much better for me but you are allowed to your own opinion.

Superman (1978) is also much better.

 

[B]

Spider-Man 3 is more comparable with Batman vs Superman than Man of Steel.. that's how poorly SM3 was received by the general public. Dare I say it I think BvS was actually better received than SM3, people forget just how poor that 3rd film was.

The whole film is a giant meme.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

No, I think Spider-Man 3 vs. Man of Steel is a far better comparison. There are memes about SM3, but it was nowhere near as hated as BvS. I do like MoS better as a whole. I find SM3 too cluttered. But there is still some good stuff in SM3, and I don't think the films are that far apart in terms of quality. They are both in that sort of okay-to-mediocre range.

 

[fan4stic]

Ok man, you're forgetting all SM3's flaws and a movie that was hated versus a divisive movie which has ok ratings from the audience.

MOS is much better for me but you are allowed to your own opinion.

Superman (1978) is also much better.

I don't care whether or not it was hated more. I've not really been of the mind of siding with those perceptions, as a whole. I think the highs of SM3 are higher than MOS. Irregardless of it's flaws, I think, to me, MOS is weaker movie, with weaker characters, story, and such, than SM3.

You told me I was forgetting all the movie's flaws.

 

[Frodo]

The interesting thing is , is that SM3 was actually polarizing among fans when it was first released , and the critics didn't universally pan it.

Even on these boards, there was a split on the film initially at least.

It didn't take long however, for a consensus to take hold that it wasn't a very good film in general.

I think the better comparison with Man of Steel is The Amazing Spiderman 1, than Spiderman 3 is really.

ASM and MOS had a similar divided reaction in their fanbases , though MOS's polarization was more intense.

I think Amazing Spiderman 2 is more comparable to BvS in the sense that they were both made to kick off cinematic universes, both through everything and the kitchen sink in order to branch off into spin off films, both got a negative reactions from the critics, and both ultimately led to the development of reboots , though ASM universe has been closed... for now at least, while the Snyder-verse is alive and well.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I liked SM3 better than ASM1, but I agree that ASM2 and BvS is the proper comparison. Now that would be one where I would really have to step back and think for a bit as to which one I liked better, or more accurately, hated less.