Spider-Man Film Debate

Sam Raimi's trilogy, or Mark Webb's new series. Which do you prefer? What are the good parts and the bad parts of each film?

There will probably be spoilers in here, if it wasn't obvious.

I'm going to see The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tomorrow, and I already have low expectations after seeing the first of the reboot series. I personally love Sam Raimi's first two films for the hero, Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, with the second being one of my favorite superhero films of all time. I even enjoy a few parts of Spider-Man 3, even if it has a ton of flaws, as has already been stated for years. The original trilogy is inspiring to watch at moments, and really encapsulates lot of the struggle between what Peter wants personally and what he needs to do with the powers he gains by chance. I also far prefer Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker, though Andrew Garfield does much better scenes in the suit.

But I've been rewatching The Amazing Spider-Man, and I feel like so many of the changes in the new films were for the worse. I don't give a damn if it's closer to the source material; I hate that Peter's parents actually played a role in creating Spider-Man, at least in his powers. Also, I really dislike the idea that the genetically modified spider, the webbing, Curt Connors, and Gwen Stacy are all connected to Oscorp (with the last making such little sense to me. What exactly does she do there?) Ben Parker's death also was really lacking in my opinion, as it felt a lot less like Peter actually made a bad decision and more like he just was being apathetic.

I've got a lot more to say about all of these films. What do you guys think?

 

Spider-Man: bretty gud. Optimistic in comparison to what the 90's did to everything comic related, William Dafoe is one kickass Goblin. Some don't like Tobey's performance but I think he fits the bill as the incredibly lame and nerdy nerd that Parker is

Spider-Man 2: Even better. Really liked what they did with the Doctor Octopus and still has that overall optimistic tone that Sam Raimi seems to love. Some bits are a tad corny (you know the scene I'm talking about).

Spider-Man 3: Kinda bad. Pretty bad in fact. Once again I think a lot of the acting was done well, James Franco, Thomas Church, Topher Grace, all great roles. I liked what they did with Sandman and the scene where he BECOMES Sandman is ****ing kickass. But the movie is really ****ing jumbled. The actress who played Mary Jane(look I don't even remember her name) was laughably boring. Too little Venom for my liking and to be honest the whole "3 villains in one movie" thing is a really delicate process and leads to a lot of structure issues and it shows in this movie. Also THAT scene went on for way too long. Their were better and more subtle ways to show that Peter was becoming a dickbag.

Amazing Spider-Man: Mediocre. The movie screams "cash-in", you can tell that they're just trying to hold on to the Spider-Man license at this point. Acrobatic and web slinging scenes are sweet as hell. Origin story DESTROYS the entire point that Peter Parker was a completely average person turned into a super spider freak thing guy by complete chance. None of the actors really stood out for me but I give them the benefit of the doubt since a lot of them are budding actors anyway. I've gotten FAR too old for teeny bop romances obviously since Peter and Gwen's relationship didn't interest me one bit. The Lizard has 0 presence in the movie and is just kinda there for Spidey to have someone to fight. His goals don't even make any sense.

Amazing Spider-Man 2: Better then the first. The movie STILL screams "cash-in" but the main difference this time being it's basically one big commercial for the next movie. I liked Electro and he had a lot of presence in the movie, I dunno if it was the design or the voice but it just really meshed well with me. Despite that though I will admit he did seem kind of pointless to the overall movie. Like the Lizard in the first movie he's just sorta there for Spidey to have one big spectacular fight with (which was an amazing fight I must say). Once again I'm snoring at the teenybop romance that takes up alot of the film and the origin story once again upsets me and leaves me not caring about it. And to be honest the movie doesn't really make much sense structurally speaking. Things just sorta happen, sometimes it's about Peter and Gwen boning, sometimes it's about Peter figuring out things about his father, sometimes it's about Harry wanting Spiderman's blood to cure him of his bullshit, the movie just jumps all over the place.

 

Spoder Man sucked
Spoder Man 2 sucked
Spoder Man 3 was hilariously bad
New Spoder Man was pretty good
Haven't seen New Spoder Man 2 yet

 

Oh, you.

 

Marc Webb's
I don't want you to think I don't have reasons or that I don't like Raimi's as well (2 being one of my favorite movies period), but this is a topic I'm really tired of arguing so I'm not going to. I'll just leave it at this. Neither are perfect, in fact Spider-Man seems to keep getting screwed in media, but Marc Webb's franchise seems to have a better handle on the feel of Spider-Man and his amazing supporting cast overall, and all of the characters feel like real people. The casting is top-notch and there's no Kirsten Dunst. There are more reasons of course, but this is the big one.

 

spiderman 3 is best sopiderman

 

But I just really wanna know more about why some people prefer the new films. I don't want to call you wrong or anything, it's the whole reason I made this thread lol. Many of my friends go for one or the other. I just like to actually talk about why ._.

 

Fair.
I just saw the title and huge post and thought "ugh this again?" I don't like comparing the two because I love them both and both seem to get undeserved hate.

 

The Sam Raimi trilogy has no aged well in my opinion. Though the second movie is the best of the three (followed by the first then the third). As for the new movies well the first one was okay, but it sequel is not as good. Not that I think it is bad but the first is better.

 

It's funny how when it comes to Spider-Man, "close to the source material" is something everyone doesn't care for, but god forbid someone makes a movie about a book and changes something.

 

Novels tend to be self contained stories made by one writer
Spiders-Man has had a gazillion drillion million different writers over the 52 years he's been around so liberties are always to be expected.

However of course there's still key focal points that should always be contained even in Spidey's stories. You don't make Uncle Ben actually be a villain or something and THEN die, that's just ******ed.

 

When Marvel hires me to write the next Spiderman, you can bet Count Uncle Ben of the Mini Bowl Empire will be the first big bad.

 

I prefer the new one. I'm not sure why, I just do. Could be because the Garfield Spider-man is closer to Peter Parker personality-wise. Mostly for the actually joking with his enemies while he fights. Although, he was sleeping in class... I don't know. Maguire Spider-man was closer appearance-wise. He actually looked like a nerd.

 

I really don't think Spider-man 3 is as bad as people make it. It isn't good, but far from the worst.

I think this video does a good job at explaining why.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9143-You-Are-Wrong-About-Spider-Man-3

 

Oh dear god no

 

Hey I can get over all the absurd conveniences if it's all in good fun.
I can maybe put up with revisiting the origin.
I can also maybe put up the worst villain team-up ever, for literally no reason other than "hey we both hate the same guy lets be friends".
And if I'm feeling generous I can maybe look the other way when Harry gets absolutely screwed in this film.

But what I can't put up with is Mary Jane's petty, incessant bullshit, and how offensively bad her relationship with Peter is handled.
It's so bad that I can't even watch the movie.

 

While The Amazing Spider-man series was simply created so Sony could keep the rights, that doesn't mean that some good doesn't come out of it. I saw TASM2 and I really enjoyed the hell out of it, and that takes play into what I like about both series as a whole. Prior to these movies, the only experience I have with this character is the 90's cartoon, so I'm not someone whose going to be "this is what Spider-man should be like blah blah blah".

I like Peter in Rami's trilogy because I feel he better understands what it means to be a hero, and he clearly lives with the consequences of his actions. Spider-man himself I like better in TASM because he's just a better hero; he helps out the people of the city, and really plays into the idea of "hope" that's spoken through a lot in the second film. I also like Gwen Stacy a lot better than Mary Jane. Gwen, while sometimes a damsel in distress, plays an active part in all of the action, and is a great foundation for Peter to be grounded on.

The enemies in Rami's trilogy I feel are a lot more fleshed out. You clearly see some of these people being well intentioned, which makes them sympathetic later on. I'm sorry, but I didn't care for The Lizard in TASM, and the sequel is not really all that different. The Rhino is a cameo at best and Harry Osborne is just dull and whiny (which sucks because the actor for the role could've done so much more if the script had given him so much more). It seemed that they tried to make Electo sympathetic, which really works when you first see him. However, all the sympathy is lost when you go into his apartment and see that all the bad things that happened to him are sort of his own fault. Instead of trying to find a way to stand out, he hides in his room where he allows his delusions to run wild. It's really sad because they set up what could've been a great character.

 

I prefer the newer Spider-Man movies because it's closer to the source material, and it works. Story-wise, it's okay at best. Raimi's Spider-Man 2 did a much better job with story than TASM2 did, but you can't have everything the other rendition had, I suppose.

But overall,
The Amazing Spider-Man >The Amazing Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3

 

I don't really see how being forced to do a dangerous job and then dropping into a vat of eels is exactly his fault.