Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and why
- Thread starter Cingular
- Start date
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
The first, because of its themes of emotion of loss, particularly regarding the death of Cliff Robertson's Uncle Ben.
The second, because of a better-acted villain than Dafoe's Green Goblin.......and particularly the strong continued conviction of the story with New Yorkers looking after their own. 200 subway riders know what Spider-Man looks like and they're not saying a word.
The THIRD????? Please!!! God, what horrible dancing....
The 3-D trailer for Four looks amazing. Putting Gwen Stacy at the forefront is a good idea because I got sick of seeing Mary Jane falling and screaming from great heights after the eighth time. Obviously, I've only seen the trailer, not the film itself.
The first, because of its themes of emotion of loss, particularly regarding the death of Cliff Robertson's Uncle Ben.
The second, because of a better-acted villain than Dafoe's Green Goblin.......and particularly the strong continued conviction of the story with New Yorkers looking after their own. 200 subway riders know what Spider-Man looks like and they're not saying a word.
The THIRD????? Please!!! God, what horrible dancing....
The 3-D trailer for Four looks amazing. Putting Gwen Stacy at the forefront is a good idea because I got sick of seeing Mary Jane falling and screaming from great heights after the eighth time. Obviously, I've only seen the trailer, not the film itself.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
Isn't the question a bit premature? The fourth movie isn't even out yet.
It's not a remake of that movie. Spider-Man is a character with half a century's worth of story material to draw on. Even though the first and upcoming movies both draw on the classic Spider-Man origin story, they're clearly very different from each other in most respects, focusing on wildly different facets of the Spider-Man mythos. The new movie has Gwen instead of MJ, George Stacy instead of J. Jonah Jameson, a focus on Peter's parents who were never even mentioned in the previous trilogy, the Lizard as the villain instead of the Green Goblin, a Spider-Man who uses mechanical webshooters and actually talks while in costume, a focus on the police manhunt for Spidey as opposed to the previous trilogy that made him a popular hero, etc. And it looks like even the origin portions may be handled rather differently, judging from some of the things hinted at in the trailer. This looks like it's going to be a very fresh and different take on Spider-Man, and I'm really looking forward to it.
Isn't the question a bit premature? The fourth movie isn't even out yet.
It's not a remake of that movie. Spider-Man is a character with half a century's worth of story material to draw on. Even though the first and upcoming movies both draw on the classic Spider-Man origin story, they're clearly very different from each other in most respects, focusing on wildly different facets of the Spider-Man mythos. The new movie has Gwen instead of MJ, George Stacy instead of J. Jonah Jameson, a focus on Peter's parents who were never even mentioned in the previous trilogy, the Lizard as the villain instead of the Green Goblin, a Spider-Man who uses mechanical webshooters and actually talks while in costume, a focus on the police manhunt for Spidey as opposed to the previous trilogy that made him a popular hero, etc. And it looks like even the origin portions may be handled rather differently, judging from some of the things hinted at in the trailer. This looks like it's going to be a very fresh and different take on Spider-Man, and I'm really looking forward to it.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
I liked all three of the movies, especially the one with Doc Ock.
Not going to see the new one. It's senseless to just hash over the same origin story as we've already seen. There are comic book characters far more deserving of screen time than Spidey. He's a good character but three movies is enough. The only worthwhile thing left to do with him, is to bring back Toby Maguire and integrate him into Avengers movies (and yeah I know there are corporate BS reasons why that can't happen.)
Speaking of corporate BS, that's the real reason behind this stupid remake - to hang onto the movie rights to the character. That is not a sufficient reason for any movie to exist.
I liked all three of the movies, especially the one with Doc Ock.
Not going to see the new one. It's senseless to just hash over the same origin story as we've already seen. There are comic book characters far more deserving of screen time than Spidey. He's a good character but three movies is enough. The only worthwhile thing left to do with him, is to bring back Toby Maguire and integrate him into Avengers movies (and yeah I know there are corporate BS reasons why that can't happen.)
Speaking of corporate BS, that's the real reason behind this stupid remake - to hang onto the movie rights to the character. That is not a sufficient reason for any movie to exist.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
That attitude seems so unlike you, Temis. "To make money" is really the only reason anyone needs to make a movie.
That attitude seems so unlike you, Temis. "To make money" is really the only reason anyone needs to make a movie.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
Of course the studio commissioned the movie to hold onto the rights, but that doesn't say anything about the decisions the writers and director made. What I'm seeing in the trailers and promos looks like it has the potential to be a damn good Spider-Man movie, in a different way than the (first two) Sam Raimi films were damn good Spider-Man movies.
And although there is a lot to like about the Raimi films, I didn't care for the organic webshooters, and they totally dropped the ball by having Spidey rarely talk while in costume, which is tantamount to having Superman not fly. I'm really thrilled to see a Spidey movie with mechanical webshooters and nonstop Spidey wisecracks. And one that starts with Gwen Stacy as Peter's first major romantic interest instead of tacking her on as an afterthought (particularly since that means we may actually get a chance to see one of Spidey's most iconic and tragic tales brought to the screen at last). So far this film is getting right everything that I felt the Raimi films got wrong.
See, that's why it doesn't make sense to dismiss this as more of the same. Spider-Man's history is very, very rich, and any movie adaptation, even a trilogy, can only scratch the surface of what's there. So it's very easy for two different versions to be as different as night and day, simply by drawing on different facets of the abundant source material. Look how different William Dozier's, Tim Burton's, and Christopher Nolan's screen interpretations of Batman have been, all drawing on different facets of the same source. Personally I'm glad to see another interpretation of Spider-Man so soon, because it looks like it's intentionally complementing Raimi's version, focusing on the things Raimi skipped or overlooked and avoiding the things Raimi emphasized, and going for a radically different tone and approach. So between the two of them, they'll do a better job capturing the range of Spider-Man's comics history than either one will alone.
Of course the studio commissioned the movie to hold onto the rights, but that doesn't say anything about the decisions the writers and director made. What I'm seeing in the trailers and promos looks like it has the potential to be a damn good Spider-Man movie, in a different way than the (first two) Sam Raimi films were damn good Spider-Man movies.
And although there is a lot to like about the Raimi films, I didn't care for the organic webshooters, and they totally dropped the ball by having Spidey rarely talk while in costume, which is tantamount to having Superman not fly. I'm really thrilled to see a Spidey movie with mechanical webshooters and nonstop Spidey wisecracks. And one that starts with Gwen Stacy as Peter's first major romantic interest instead of tacking her on as an afterthought (particularly since that means we may actually get a chance to see one of Spidey's most iconic and tragic tales brought to the screen at last). So far this film is getting right everything that I felt the Raimi films got wrong.
See, that's why it doesn't make sense to dismiss this as more of the same. Spider-Man's history is very, very rich, and any movie adaptation, even a trilogy, can only scratch the surface of what's there. So it's very easy for two different versions to be as different as night and day, simply by drawing on different facets of the abundant source material. Look how different William Dozier's, Tim Burton's, and Christopher Nolan's screen interpretations of Batman have been, all drawing on different facets of the same source. Personally I'm glad to see another interpretation of Spider-Man so soon, because it looks like it's intentionally complementing Raimi's version, focusing on the things Raimi skipped or overlooked and avoiding the things Raimi emphasized, and going for a radically different tone and approach. So between the two of them, they'll do a better job capturing the range of Spider-Man's comics history than either one will alone.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
In other words, like most remakes they made a few changes to the basic story. Still a remake.
In other words, like most remakes they made a few changes to the basic story. Still a remake.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
I liked the first two. They took some liberties, but they were decent movies, and based a lot of shots on familiar if not classic panels of the comic.
The third movie was actually pretty good for twenty minutes to a half hour before it started to fall apart for me. The dance number was too much. Nail in the coffin, so to speak.
Haven't seen the new one. I'm sure I'll see it at some point. While, I appreciate the film makers are going with an angle for Gwen Stacy, the mystery of Peter's parents, the Lizard (finally), and Spider-Man being a bit of a wise ass, I just find it hard to get excited for this one. Like The Simpsons twenty years in, it's just glaringly obvious to me that this film is made for someone other than me. Hope the kiddies like it.
I liked the first two. They took some liberties, but they were decent movies, and based a lot of shots on familiar if not classic panels of the comic.
The third movie was actually pretty good for twenty minutes to a half hour before it started to fall apart for me. The dance number was too much. Nail in the coffin, so to speak.
Haven't seen the new one. I'm sure I'll see it at some point. While, I appreciate the film makers are going with an angle for Gwen Stacy, the mystery of Peter's parents, the Lizard (finally), and Spider-Man being a bit of a wise ass, I just find it hard to get excited for this one. Like The Simpsons twenty years in, it's just glaringly obvious to me that this film is made for someone other than me. Hope the kiddies like it.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
The first movie was pretty great; enjoyed that quite a lot.
The second was a good action movie with some funny bits, but I can take it or leave it. I agree with MOTW above that the 3rd started off OK, but then it became a mind-numbing mess.
I wish the fourth would just plunge straight into the action rather than bothering with an origin story. Yeah, I know one origin story isn't necessarily the same as the next one but really, I'm just not that interested in another take on that topic. However, since I never go to theatres these days and just wait for films on TV, my opinion is not drawn from a relevant demographic; again, as MOTW hints, there will always be a new generation out there who may be receptive to a new take on the subject.
On the whole, Spider-Man isn't really my favourite superhero anyway...
The first movie was pretty great; enjoyed that quite a lot.
The second was a good action movie with some funny bits, but I can take it or leave it. I agree with MOTW above that the 3rd started off OK, but then it became a mind-numbing mess.
I wish the fourth would just plunge straight into the action rather than bothering with an origin story. Yeah, I know one origin story isn't necessarily the same as the next one but really, I'm just not that interested in another take on that topic. However, since I never go to theatres these days and just wait for films on TV, my opinion is not drawn from a relevant demographic; again, as MOTW hints, there will always be a new generation out there who may be receptive to a new take on the subject.
On the whole, Spider-Man isn't really my favourite superhero anyway...
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
And those other words are wrong. First off, to all indications the differences hugely outweigh the similarities. Second, no, it is not a remake, because that implies that the 2002 movie was the original. It wasn't. It was a screen adaptation of several Spider-Man comic-book stories, including his 1962 origin story, parts of the early issues where Peter became a photographer for the Daily Bugle, bits and pieces of various Green Goblin issues from years later, etc., combined with a number of new elements original to the film, such as a relationship with Mary Jane Watson that's rather unlike anything that was in the comics. In order for this film to be a remake of the 2002 film, it would have to be based on that specific screenplay by David Koepp and on its specific storyline revolving around MJ, the Green Goblin, Harry Osborn, etc. And that is not the case. None of those elements are in this film. The new film is not based on the screenplay or plot of the 2002 film, and therefore it is not a remake of that film. Rather, it and the 2002 film are separate adaptations of a common source -- and aside from both drawing on the 1962 origin story, they're obviously adapting radically different portions of the source.
And those other words are wrong. First off, to all indications the differences hugely outweigh the similarities. Second, no, it is not a remake, because that implies that the 2002 movie was the original. It wasn't. It was a screen adaptation of several Spider-Man comic-book stories, including his 1962 origin story, parts of the early issues where Peter became a photographer for the Daily Bugle, bits and pieces of various Green Goblin issues from years later, etc., combined with a number of new elements original to the film, such as a relationship with Mary Jane Watson that's rather unlike anything that was in the comics. In order for this film to be a remake of the 2002 film, it would have to be based on that specific screenplay by David Koepp and on its specific storyline revolving around MJ, the Green Goblin, Harry Osborn, etc. And that is not the case. None of those elements are in this film. The new film is not based on the screenplay or plot of the 2002 film, and therefore it is not a remake of that film. Rather, it and the 2002 film are separate adaptations of a common source -- and aside from both drawing on the 1962 origin story, they're obviously adapting radically different portions of the source.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
I probably need to re-watch Spider-Man 2 sometime, as I've never understood the love for it. I also don't dislike Spider-Man 3 the way most do.... but, yes, that dance IS gawdawful!
Unquestionably, my favorite is the first film.
I probably need to re-watch Spider-Man 2 sometime, as I've never understood the love for it. I also don't dislike Spider-Man 3 the way most do.... but, yes, that dance IS gawdawful!
Unquestionably, my favorite is the first film.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
Definetly the first two films for me. Not only do they bring me back to my high-school days (nostalgia at its finest!)but they were just alot of fun. It does seem that people have started to turn on the films with time. I remember alot of people feeling like the films were awesome back in the day but today people think of them as cheesy trash.
The third film had potential but it just wasn't cohesive. It should have focused on either the Sandman or Venom. Tackling both was too much.
Definetly the first two films for me. Not only do they bring me back to my high-school days (nostalgia at its finest!)but they were just alot of fun. It does seem that people have started to turn on the films with time. I remember alot of people feeling like the films were awesome back in the day but today people think of them as cheesy trash.
The third film had potential but it just wasn't cohesive. It should have focused on either the Sandman or Venom. Tackling both was too much.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
Indeed. It also makes me wonder, of the Spider-Man film franchise's fans, what the percentages are out of which of the two should villains have been left out of the picture.
Indeed. It also makes me wonder, of the Spider-Man film franchise's fans, what the percentages are out of which of the two should villains have been left out of the picture.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
I think it worked having two villains in Spider-Man 3, because it was a necessary catalyst for bringing Peter and Harry together at the end. Certainly there were some awkward aspects to it, but I can forgive them because of the aspects that work well.
I think it worked having two villains in Spider-Man 3, because it was a necessary catalyst for bringing Peter and Harry together at the end. Certainly there were some awkward aspects to it, but I can forgive them because of the aspects that work well.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
When Venom was forced on Raimi by the studio, he should have just dropped the Sandman.
When Venom was forced on Raimi by the studio, he should have just dropped the Sandman.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
^No, because the Sandman served as the target for Peter's rage when the alien costume took him over. While I think Venom is rather silly, the alien costume story (as interpreted by the '90s animated series, whose lead the movie followed) was effective, and it fit the story Raimi wanted to tell about where Peter Parker was at this point in his life -- having achieved success, he's prone to overconfidence, and the symbiote amplifies his arrogance, making him crave the "power" part and neglect the "responsibility" part. And the story needed to give him someone he'd want to hurt and punish to show how dangerous he'd become, and the somewhat sympathetic Sandman filled that purpose.
So I think having two villains worked reasonably well from a structural standpoint. There was a purpose to having them both. The movie had its faults, but that wasn't one of them.
^No, because the Sandman served as the target for Peter's rage when the alien costume took him over. While I think Venom is rather silly, the alien costume story (as interpreted by the '90s animated series, whose lead the movie followed) was effective, and it fit the story Raimi wanted to tell about where Peter Parker was at this point in his life -- having achieved success, he's prone to overconfidence, and the symbiote amplifies his arrogance, making him crave the "power" part and neglect the "responsibility" part. And the story needed to give him someone he'd want to hurt and punish to show how dangerous he'd become, and the somewhat sympathetic Sandman filled that purpose.
So I think having two villains worked reasonably well from a structural standpoint. There was a purpose to having them both. The movie had its faults, but that wasn't one of them.
Re: Of the 4 Spider-Man films made so far,what 2 are your favorite and
Yeah, I have to agree. I haven't seen it yet (might go see it Tuesday), but it down right has to be the best of the bunch at least in my eyes. I wasn't really a fan of any of the original trilogy. Just too many miscastings in important roles (I.E. Peter and MJ) and too many changes from the comics where certain characters (MJ, Eddie Brock, Sandman, Gwen). And at the end of the day, I just didn't find them entertaining.
From everything I've seen from the new movie, it looks really good, especially the casting.
Yeah, I have to agree. I haven't seen it yet (might go see it Tuesday), but it down right has to be the best of the bunch at least in my eyes. I wasn't really a fan of any of the original trilogy. Just too many miscastings in important roles (I.E. Peter and MJ) and too many changes from the comics where certain characters (MJ, Eddie Brock, Sandman, Gwen). And at the end of the day, I just didn't find them entertaining.
From everything I've seen from the new movie, it looks really good, especially the casting.
Similar threads
