You haven't really proven anything to be honest. And why is the RT score being used as if it was the definitive means of determining whether or not a movie is good or bad? Its just an RT score.
Seeing as how the topic at hand is subjective, the RT score is one of the more solid thinsg one can look to as to what the general consensus on the films quality is.
ASM (a movie I actually enjoyed) is at a 73, which is lower than all but one of Marvel Studios movies.
Logically one would assume that, given their track record, they would have cranked out a movie higher than a 73 (since that's what they
typically do) especially considering that Spider-man is their crown jewel. They would have gone all out for Spider-man, no doubt in my mind.
Until you refute that and show me why that's faulty logic, I feel that my point still remains despite claims to the contrary.
Spider-Man - 89% and 65%
Spider-Man 2 - 93% and 81%
Spider-Man 3 - 63% and 54%
The Amazing Spider-Man - 73% and 81%
The Spider-Man movies all have fresh reviews, too (with the exception of SM3's audience rating). SM1 has a low audience score, but look at how many ratings it has: over 32 million from over the past 10 years. Its critic score was 91% a few years ago as well, but went down as time went on. Spider-Man 3 was so hyped up, and faced huge disappointment, so I'd imagine the score would be higher if it weren't for that.
Yes, overall the Raimi films were quality. No one's doubting that. Sony did a good job with the first trilogy despite a few bumps in the road. But seeing as how Sony has rebooted the franchise, it's more germane to the discussion at hand to bring up how they have handled the character and the new direction they're taking him in.
TASM would also be much higher, but many of the negative reviews are really cheap, which refer to it as the same movie as SM1, or being a reboot that was too soon. If it was the first Spider-Man movie, the score would probably be much higher.
Unfortunately we're not dealing in hypotheticals. It wasn't the first Spider-man movie so there's no use in belaboring that point any further. People, myself included, weren't stoked to sit through the origin again. It was a poor move because overall it was
extremely similar to the first Raimi film. You can't negate someone's review or call it 'cheap' because they don't want to sit through a movie that they feel they've seen already, no matter how good you think that movie may be. Their decision to retell the same story with a few differences was a poor choice, a choice that I say with confidence that Marvel probably would not have made seeing as how they handled TIH.
I'm not hailing TIH as a fantastic movie or anything, just bringing it up as an example of how Marvel handles reboots to demonstrate that they would not have made the same mistake Sony did.
The movie just didn't carry itself. SHIELD had about 9 minutes of screen time, according to you, but its presence felt much bigger in the film. They helped Iron Man create a new element to save him, Black Widow was introduced and had more screen time than she needed, Captain America's shield made an appearance, and it was just full of more easter eggs that reference the MCU. Everything that happened in the movie was so bland, from the villain, to fight scenes (or lack there of fight scenes), dialogue, etc. I don't understand how it has a higher rating than The Amazing Spider-Man.
Now, this is all subjective. I can't sit here and tell you you're wrong on this, even though I disagree. My only point is that it was in no way a two hour advertisement for the Avengers. Those claims are greatly exaggerated.
So you are using RT scores as facts?
As I said I'm using them to demonstrate the consensus on a film's quality, which is what it's there for. So it's definitely worth bringing up in a discussion like this.
Outside of the Avengers and the Iron Man movies, they have a good track record. Not a GREAT one. IM2 made as much as it did due to the success of the first film.
So omitting their two best movies (which don't count for some reason?) their track record is, according to you, good.
So with the two movies that we omitted for no reason added back in does that bring their track record back to great? So does my original point still remain?
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Sidenote real quick: it's a breathe of fresh air to have a discussion like this on these forums without it getting heated or immature. I remember having similar debates here with people a few months ago and it always resorted to name calling or passive aggressive tension. Glad people like that aren't around anymore, or if they are I'm glad I have yet to encounter them. I always appreciate a thoughtful discussion.
t:
