Superman: TM vs. Spider-man (2002)

kguillou

Avenger
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
26,992
Reaction score
25,742
Points
103
Two of the most seminal superhero movies ever made, two gamechangers for the genre and two films that I feel are very similar in tone, story and themes. Two coming of age stories of timid, kind hearted young men growing up to become icons. Which movie does it better for you?

Fight! :woot:
 
Oh that is tough. That is a fight.

While my nostalgia growing up wants me to say Spider-Man... if I am being honest, it's Superman: The Movie which I did have growing up (though not in theaters). It is just a wonderful piece of moviemaking.

Both are classics though with good acting (and some not so good acting), wonderful direction and cinematography, amazing scores, and so on. But even on that score ( :hehe: ), Elfman is no Williams. Yeah, Superman it is.
 
Both are movies that treat the superhero cheese with reverence and embrace that tone lovingly by making the characters feel grounded and likable despite all the fantastical elements. I really like the approach of both of them for those reasons, they're earnest and easy to like. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are pretty heavily influenced by Superman and Superman 2, I think. Both have big impact for their own respective times but my personal preference (if that's what we're going by) is to Spider-Man.
 
Superman.

It created the mold for how superhero movies should be made.
 
Never felt much towards STM, even though I tried to rewatch it several times over the years. I guess I don't like Superman.

So... Spider-Man. I felt it was "alright" when it came out, but then I rewatched it not long ago and it surprised me in more ways than I expected.
 
*Gene Hackman hamming it up as Lex Luthor vs. Willem Dafoe's truly nasty Green Goblin

*Margot Kidder's clueless, bumbling Lois Lane vs. Kirsten Dunst's complex Mary Jane Watson.

*Reversing the Earth's rotation :whatever: vs. a heated battle between the hero and his archnemesis.

Just three of the many reasons that this is a Spider-man curbstomp.
 
Spider-Man.

Superman has a good first half, but at the end it just becomes a montage of him saving people and then the whole turning the earth back on itself isn't great at all. Spider-Man has a much better 3rd act, and Spidey is fighting an actual villain.

If Superman had the first half of the movie with the second half of Superman 2, then it would be a much stronger film all round.
 
*Gene Hackman hamming it up as Lex Luthor vs. Willem Dafoe's truly nasty Green Goblin

*Margot Kidder's clueless, bumbling Lois Lane vs. Kirsten Dunst's complex Mary Jane Watson.

*Reversing the Earth's rotation :whatever: vs. a heated battle between the hero and his archnemesis.

Just three of the many reasons that this is a Spider-man curbstomp.

You're kidding, right? Look, I couldn't pick between these two, but Dunst's Mary Jane is hardly all that complex.
 
Hmmm.

Both were groundbreaking for the superhero genre. Both showed that colorful, optimistic superheroes were relevant. You'd have to break it down piece by piece.

Christopher Reeve vs. Tobey Maguire: I feel like both actors embodied their respective characters perfectly. But we've now seen three actors on the big screen portray Spidey and all three have been received fairly well (I know everyone hates the ASM movies but Garfield himself has received a good share of praise), while Reeve is still the definitive Superman (and I say that as someone who really likes Henry Cavill). So I have to give the edge to Reeve.

Margot Kidder vs. Kirsten Dunst: Really no competition here. Kidder was a perfect Lois Lane in Superman. Yeah, the chain smoking was gross and the "Can you read my mind?" scene was cheesy as hell but she still nailed it. Dunst was okay and looked like the perfect MJ (at least in the first movie) but I always found her performance kinda flat.

Gene Hackman vs. Willem Dafoe: This is a tough one. I have issues with both villains; Hackman's Lex, while certainly more threatening and ruthless here than in the sequels, was nevertheless still campy. I especially had a problem with the stupid wigs. Seriously Gene; you've always had bad hair anyway. It wouldn't have killed you to shave your head for a role. And Dafoe, at least as the Goblin, always came off a little TOO corny with that stupid laugh. He was better in the scenes where he was just Norman Osborn though. But then there's that awful Power Rangers costume they gave him. If they had gone the prosthetic makeup route instead, it would have been so much better, IMO. Especially since Dafoe practically looks like the Goblin in real life. I'll call this one a draw.

Costume: No question here; Spidey wins hands down. But the technology to create an amazing suit was there in 2002; not so much in 1978. Still, that suit was a thing of beauty and it's still my favorite Spider-Man suit.

Script: Both have fairly simple, straightforward origin stories. But the Pa Kent death and funeral scenes in Superman actually made me cry so I have to give the edge to Superman.

Score: John Williams' themes are powerful, moving and iconic. Elfman's score... just felt like Batman/Edward Scissorhands/Everything else he's ever done. Superman wins this easily.

Direction: Another tough call; Richard Donner created the template for the modern superhero film, while Sam Raimi revitalized the genre. But I have to give a slight edge to Donner.

So all in all, Superman wins it for me. But Spidey is also really good. Now, if we were talking Superman II versus Spider-Man 2, Spidey would win hands down.
 
Dang it... this is hard. I'd have to say Superman because of what it started while Spider-Man may have ushered in this superhero film craze along with Blade and X-Men too.

However, the legacy with Superman the Movie is one that has yet to be toppled so it with a grudging smile that I give this match to Superman.
 
Superman is more iconic and important, Spider-Man is more watchable. Superman The Movie didn't age very well for me.
 
If it wasn't for the turn the world backwards ending Superman: TM would be a perfect film to me and the clear winner. That ending upsets me every time as it negates the entire prior twenty minutes of the film.

So, Spider-man for the win.
 
Superman.

While it would be easy to claim Spider-Man's better because it conforms to more modern filmmaking styles, Superman has a better story and a better lead. It has a level of grandeur that is lacking in both Spider-Man and most modern CBMs. And lets not even mention the score, because STM easily wins that battle.

Superman is a truly classic film. Spider-Man, while good, doesn't quite measure up.
 
Without Superman, there'd be no Spider-Man. That being said however, I do think Spider-Man is better paced and has a much better villain (Sorry, Gene).
 
Hmmm.

Both were groundbreaking for the superhero genre. Both showed that colorful, optimistic superheroes were relevant. You'd have to break it down piece by piece.

Christopher Reeve vs. Tobey Maguire: I feel like both actors embodied their respective characters perfectly. But we've now seen three actors on the big screen portray Spidey and all three have been received fairly well (I know everyone hates the ASM movies but Garfield himself has received a good share of praise), while Reeve is still the definitive Superman (and I say that as someone who really likes Henry Cavill). So I have to give the edge to Reeve.

Margot Kidder vs. Kirsten Dunst: Really no competition here. Kidder was a perfect Lois Lane in Superman. Yeah, the chain smoking was gross and the "Can you read my mind?" scene was cheesy as hell but she still nailed it. Dunst was okay and looked like the perfect MJ (at least in the first movie) but I always found her performance kinda flat.

Gene Hackman vs. Willem Dafoe: This is a tough one. I have issues with both villains; Hackman's Lex, while certainly more threatening and ruthless here than in the sequels, was nevertheless still campy. I especially had a problem with the stupid wigs. Seriously Gene; you've always had bad hair anyway. It wouldn't have killed you to shave your head for a role. And Dafoe, at least as the Goblin, always came off a little TOO corny with that stupid laugh. He was better in the scenes where he was just Norman Osborn though. But then there's that awful Power Rangers costume they gave him. If they had gone the prosthetic makeup route instead, it would have been so much better, IMO. Especially since Dafoe practically looks like the Goblin in real life. I'll call this one a draw.

Costume: No question here; Spidey wins hands down. But the technology to create an amazing suit was there in 2002; not so much in 1978. Still, that suit was a thing of beauty and it's still my favorite Spider-Man suit.

Script: Both have fairly simple, straightforward origin stories. But the Pa Kent death and funeral scenes in Superman actually made me cry so I have to give the edge to Superman.

Score: John Williams' themes are powerful, moving and iconic. Elfman's score... just felt like Batman/Edward Scissorhands/Everything else he's ever done. Superman wins this easily.

Direction: Another tough call; Richard Donner created the template for the modern superhero film, while Sam Raimi revitalized the genre. But I have to give a slight edge to Donner.

So all in all, Superman wins it for me. But Spidey is also really good. Now, if we were talking Superman II versus Spider-Man 2, Spidey would win hands down.

I agree with all of that. Superman wins, which does not take anything away from Spider-Man.

For me the single biggest factor is Reeve, no matter how terrible the movies got, he was always great. Superman the movie has the single worst deus ex machina ending, possibly in any movie in history. However, Reeve sells it and makes us just shrug and accept it. I remember as an 8 year old thinking how dumb the turning back time was, but I still walked out of that cinema loving the movie and feeling like I could fly. And the score - love Elfman but Williams' Superman theme is the best superhero theme ever IMO.
 
I agree with all of that. Superman wins, which does not take anything away from Spider-Man.

For me the single biggest factor is Reeve, no matter how terrible the movies got, he was always great. Superman the movie has the single worst deus ex machina ending, possibly in any movie in history. However, Reeve sells it and makes us just shrug and accept it. I remember as an 8 year old thinking how dumb the turning back time was, but I still walked out of that cinema loving the movie and feeling like I could fly. And the score - love Elfman but Williams' Superman theme is the best superhero theme ever IMO.

I don't know how much people just accepted that ending. After all, it was a derogatory meme for a long time, even still today for those that still remember it.
 
I agree with all of that. Superman wins, which does not take anything away from Spider-Man.

For me the single biggest factor is Reeve, no matter how terrible the movies got, he was always great. Superman the movie has the single worst deus ex machina ending, possibly in any movie in history. However, Reeve sells it and makes us just shrug and accept it. I remember as an 8 year old thinking how dumb the turning back time was, but I still walked out of that cinema loving the movie and feeling like I could fly. And the score - love Elfman but Williams' Superman theme is the best superhero theme ever IMO.

Yeah. The ending is silly but I don't even mind because Reeve brings such heartache and fury with that scene right before it when he realizes Lois is dead. That man was lightning in a bottle.
 
Superman: TM and Spider-Man are basically a tie for me. They are both wonderful films that tell excellent superhero origin stories. I'm very fond of them both, particularly because both Christopher Reeve and Tobey Maguire really sell their roles to the audience and make us understand and care about Clark/Superman and Peter/Spider-Man.
 
Superman : The Movie, will for me, trump ANY CBM it's up against, it's my number one and will always be.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"