The Amazing Spider-Man vs Man of Steel vs Spider-Man: Homecoming

Herofan

Sidekick
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
507
Points
73
All three of these films had the dilemma of trying to restart or at least be the first film in a new series when their protagonist had already had a highly-regarded previous film series, including an origin movie, and were already known and liked from those films and other adaptations. They especially had the issue of modernizing or otherwise differentiating the character and the tone of the new series without being too different that it would alienate big fans of what had come before.

Which reboot film succeeded the best given those issues?
 
Given the reputation of all three movies it's unfair to the other two to compare them to Homecoming, one which is fairly recent and a lot of fans have no issue including it as one of the best films in the superhero genre. Heck, one critic said this movie is the cure for superhero film fatigue, which was another critic said about the first Kick-Ass when it was new: "Finally, a superhero movie for those sick and tired of superhero movies".
 
Homecoming. The main reason is because it had a compelling, likeable, and understandable main hero while the other two had a dull, boring, block of wood and an obnoxious jerk. The most important thing about establishing these franchises is to get the main character right. HC was the only one of the three that did.
 
Man of Steel, of course. Homecoming is overrated (can't stand Holland) and ASM is irrelevant.

So where's Batman Begins?
 
Homecoming is a much better restart of the Spider-Man franchise than TASM was. I still consider MoS a character assassination of the Kent family.
 
Homecoming easily. But I would rate MoS over TASM

Me too. I actually think MoS is a fun movie with some excellent action. It is specifically the portrayal of Superman (and the Kents) that I don't like. ASM doesn't have as much going for it.
 
Not gonna vote yet, but SMH might be the best (objectively speaking), even though I enjoyed ASM a hell of a lot more. I’d have to watch the latter again to make up my mind between the two.

MOS, as usual, is at the bottom.
 
Haven’t seen ASM but between Homecoming and MOS it’s easily HC. I have issues with it but at least it had a ton of personality which is something MOS is sorely lacking.
 
Easily Homecoming. MoS might have stood a chance if Snyder’s worst excesses had been reined in, but as it stands, Homecoming is the better movie. ASM is bland ****.
 
It is early days, but I am surprised that ASM does not have any votes. I seen it beat SM2 in a very large poll before, and based on all the evidence that I am aware of, Andrew Garfield was quite popular, despite the franchise failing in the end.
 
It is early days, but I am surprised that ASM does not have any votes. I seen it beat SM2 in a very large poll before, and based on all the evidence that I am aware of, Andrew Garfield was quite popular, despite the franchise failing in the end.
It came out after half the fans were raging over terrible they perceived Spider-Man 3 to be, to some of them the flaws of the last Raimi/Maguire entry was shattering to the entire story. Then came the Amazing Spider-Man 2 and every person who loved the first entry decided that both entries are terrible and Peter is a complete tool in them, some people realized that Spider-Man 3 was unfairly underrated, others were reminded how much good feelings the two movies prior generate and appreciated them more, particularly Spider-Man 2. There are those who decided Spider-Man 3 is still a fall from grace following Spider-Man 2, the first of a line of turdy flicks before the character was salvaged by the MCU.
 
I go with Man of Steel. Its Clark Kent is too dull or at least a little too bland but he still has decent, understandable strengths, flaws and doubts and gets off to a fine start, it was a fine overall story for him despite some parts being weak, while to me the Garfield and Holland Peter Parkers seemed, despite a few moments of decency, too much like obnoxious jerks who didn't learn, change or grow enough in the story, they were made a lot more flawed than the previous version and they grew a little or very little and acted as if they changed a lot but, especially in Homecoming, it was only a little and the films didn't even really try real hard to claim it was a lot.

The tone felt true enough to the past while believably having more angst & conflict and OTOH also some more closeness, the different relationships with the government and Lois pretty natural and nice, while TASM felt a little too darker & cooler for the sake of just being somewhat different and SMH too trying to be to funnier and overly-youthful likewise. Also the MoS action scenes were not mindblowing but were fairly impressive while those of the other two (especially TASM) felt OK but more like more of what we had seen before.

So where's Batman Begins?

I don't think it's comparable to the other three as the previous Batman film series didn't (really) have an origin movie (some parts of the animated MotP aside), not at all like Superman 78 and Spider-Man 02 were.
 
Last edited:
Homecoming, no competition. Liked (but didn't love) the Amazing Spider-Man movies, and found Man of Steel average.
 
I love MOS, but I'm realistic about its faults. Homecoming is good fun, and the first film to portray Peter as a teenager convincingly. ASM has some good points, but it's not as original as MOS or as charming as Homecoming .
For me Homecoming is the best of these by a reAsonable margin.
 
Homecoming is the best one as a movie and ideas around the character, but it is my least favorite of these three films. I liked it when I did my MCU marathon last year, really warmed up to big chunks of it, but there are still things I do not like about it.

Man of Steel is mediocre, nothing more, nothing less, but it is my favorite of this bunch.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a better made movie than Man of Steel, but I enjoy it a bit less.
 
Homecoming and I never thought of MOS vs. TASM, although I feel the final battle in MOS minus the neck snap was better than the TASM final battle.
 
I do have to wonder, was/is there a double standard in that it's OK for Spider-Man in Homecoming to be portrayed as real young, bumbling and not mature because he'll grow over next films and it'll be great to see him grow over time but it's not OK for Superman in Man of Steel to start out really doubtful and reluctant and otherwise flawed, especially reckless-even though he was really starting out and could (fans argued) grow to be more like the traditional version in later films?

Was Holland Peter's youth a better explanation for the difference than Cavill Superman's lack of experience? Or is the difference due to that the Maguire films are a lot more recent than the Reeve films (and yet the Reeve films/version are even more iconic and definitive)?
 
Spider-Man Homecoming by a country mile. TASM is a textbook example of a movie that never needed to happen.

I don't hate Man of Steel but it's very problematic as a Superman movie.
 
Peter is in high school, and isn't Clark in his 20s when he starts travelling and by the time he puts on the suit he's already in his early 30s?
 
I do have to wonder, was/is there a double standard in that it's OK for Spider-Man in Homecoming to be portrayed as real young, bumbling and not mature because he'll grow over next films and it'll be great to see him grow over time but it's not OK for Superman in Man of Steel to start out really doubtful and reluctant and otherwise flawed, especially reckless-even though he was really starting out and could (fans argued) grow to be more like the traditional version in later films?

Was Holland Peter's youth a better explanation for the difference than Cavill Superman's lack of experience? Or is the difference due to that the Maguire films are a lot more recent than the Reeve films (and yet the Reeve films/version are even more iconic and definitive)?

Superman being young and inexperienced wasn't the issue with him. The issue was that he was dry and boring. Character flaws are fine, but we need to have some reason to care. A dull, monotonous near-mute is hard to get behind. Cavill's Superman is the superhero equivalent of Ben Stein's character from Ferris Bueller.
 
Man of Steel
The Amazng Spiderman
Homecoming
 
The Amazing Spider-Man stuck too closely to the formula of 2002's Spider-Man, but on the other hand, it was more realistic, and finally put the talkative, wise-cracking Spider-Man on the screen. It's not over-sentimental like the Raimi movie either, is wonderfully shot and scored, and Andrew Garfield is the best Peter Parker. Tom Holland's over-excited, desperate-to-impress Peter Parker is nothing like the comic version.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"