Spider-man 1 vs Spider-man 2

They're both flimsy films that entertain audiences first time but crumble under repeat viewing. I thought Spidey 2 was a huge improvement when I saw it at the cinema, but I find it hard to watch now. They only resemble the comicbook superficially. The only genuinely effective moment in either film is the train fight, but even that is ruined by Raimi's appaling lack of taste and subtlety when Spidey saves the train.
 
CConn said:
If you look at all of the superhero movies made, nailing a character's psychology has never been a strong suit for the industry, sadly. Nearly every superhero movie has missed a part of its main character's personality. Superman and Batman Begins being the only true exceptions.

As bad as F4 was, many would argue that Johnny Storm's character was spot on.
 
spencer6891 said:
Correct. They turned Peter Parker into an emo pansy. The film was just a giant emo fest. Even the music. I almost expected Peter Parker sit down at his computer and blog about his woes on Myspace. They could have replaced the chocolate cake girl scene with that and it would have been more appropriate.

Perhaps the only reason Pete didn't slash his wrists was that he was afraid of messing up his webshooters.

:mad:

Yeah Peter did seem just a tad too emo in this one.

I like the first Spider-Man just a bit more. I thought the love story was handled well in the first one but it got too lame in the second one. MJ getting married? Isn't she supposed to be like 20? As far as villains go Green Goblin was a lot more menacing.
 
Those are hard choices. I guess I'll vote for Spider-Man. I liked them both the same, but Green Goblin was always my favorite villain, and I also like Doc Ock, but I like Green Goblin just a bit more. So Spider-Man gets my vote.:spidey:
 
Odin's Lapdog said:
first one was definitely better.

better watch, better lessons learned, better ending, better final battle, better love relationship, better finale swinging scenes, better nostalgia rush, better costume, better ability for spidey to actually keep his mask on, better villain portrayal, better set up for sequel, better relations to aunt may and uncle ben, better parker portrayal, less over the top jameson and everyone knows the tension in the tram scene was better than a cliche ridden train stopping exercise (constipated face unfortunately included).

They are both far from perfect, but i think there is far less wrong with spidey one, especially things that could have been easily rectified, such as goblin's costume (which would have done leaps and bounds to impress more for minimal effort).

there's far too much unnecessary scenes in part two i think, and ock doesn't come across well and neither does parker. The fight scenes although great don't reflect well on the characters, and shouldn't be how those two would actually scrap, which is unfortunate and makes doc ock seem a little less dangerous than he actually should be. Especially with the talking tentacles phenomenon.

I tried to watch spidey 2 on sunday and i physically couldn't do it all the way through, far too many things bug me about it, it's an uncomfortable watch.

i'm not saying part one is an easy ride, but i think it's far less jumping and rewards far more in the end then 2 does (stronger film ending in the original after last fight scene)
Im agreeing with you 110 % there!!...SM was simply superior in every standard,yes even the CGI.The CGI in 2002's SM was fresh and different and captivated everyone and for that time was AMAZING but the CGI in SM2 was "been there done that" and 2 months later there were films with much better CGI.
 
I liked both movies, Both had their good and bad, but I htink just because it had been such a long wait, I liked the first one better, it was more of a fun likeable movie, the 2nd one may have tried to get a lil too deep even. And I dont think either one did a great job with the normal Spidey dialogue, he needs to have more dialogue during battle. Looking forward to #3 tho, and hoping its an all out action romp!!
 
Did anyone notice there was more action in SM1 than in SM2. It also had more quips.
 
Batman begins lol just playin I liked part one better, at least if he was a little emotional you could understand , his life changed alot with getting bit, uncle ben dying ,the guilt he felt but you would think in part 2 he would be able to cope with things a little better, instead there is one part were he is just sitting on his bed and looks so sad, I expected him to rap his lips around a revolver and blow his head off
 
I really enjoyed Spider-Man, but ultimately I think Spider-Man 2 was just a tad better than the original.
 
That a problem?
 
I liked the original Spiderman more. It could be because I had high expectations for the sequel, and not so high for the first, but I'm sticking with SM!:spidey:
 
My vote goes for Spider-Man 2, I think it had a better story with better evolved characters
 
Loved Spidey 2, and I think Spidey 1 is overrated (I think it's kind of the average action flick, unlike Spidey 2). I do prefer the action scenes in Spidey 1 though, where it isn't so CG.

I'm surprised to see so many Spider-Man 2 supporters here... I remember people complaining during its release that it was boring, not 'actiony' enough, etc.
 
I can't imagine watching a movie with some of the people that posted here.
 
I liked Spiderman 1. In my opinion, it was perfect. Good actors, good visuals, excellent plot. I loved it. It is my favorite comic book movie.
 
TheFlyinRussian said:
I can't imagine watching a movie with some of the people that posted here.

Are you Spidey 1 or Spidey 2? Just wondering
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,574
Messages
21,763,933
Members
45,596
Latest member
iamjonahlobe
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"