Is Iron Man better than Spiderman?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think so, I think it's the best best comic adaptation ever!, Sorry Superman. What do you think?

I think so - it simply hangs together better as a well-constructed story and with respect to the performances, and the effects are a great deal more persuasive throughout the film than in most other superhero movies.

Now, Paltrow versus Dunst is likely to be a wash in the opinion of many since the actors involved apparently both are reviled by a fair contingent of fans on the Internet. I liked them both in their respective roles, though, and I'm a big fan of Paltrow's.

And yeah, it may be the best superhero film ever. It beat down my nostalgic fondness for the first Reeve "Superman" movie, which is nowhere near as sophisticated or well-conceived/well-written a film (and outside of Reeve himself, not nearly as impressive in terms of the performances).

 

[Chess Piece Face]

Iron Man is the best superhero movie ever made. I can say this, even though I like Batman, Superman and Spider-man better as characters because THEY FOLLOWED THE FRIGGING BOOK when they made Iron Man.

That's all there is to it.

There is no power ranger green goblin in Iron Man. There is no cheesy Bat Pod or Rachel Dawes bullshit in Iron Man. There is no Super Kid and Stalker Super Dad in Iron Man. Tony Stark acts like Tony Stark, Iron Man looks like Iron Man and the movie is well acted, well written and well done all around from start to finish with no CHEESY BULLSHIT.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I can say this, even though I like Batman, Superman and Spider-man better as characters because THEY FOLLOWED THE FRIGGING BOOK when they made Iron Man.

That doesn't make a movie good or bad - and since superhero comics are full of "cheesy bullshit" the absence of such in this movie isn't a reflection of its attention to the comic but of the taste of the filmmakers.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I liked it better. I actually haven't felt like that about something superhero realted since I was a kid.

 

[Sephiroth]

tony stark is an un-identifyable jackass, which actually gives him more depth than most other charaters

 

[The Nth Doctor]

But he's a likable jackass (Robert Downey Jr.'s own words).

 

[rafterman1701]

First of all, it's Spider-Man. It's not Spiderman. It's not a name like Goldman. That aside, it's better than the first and third Spider-Man films and about on par with the second.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

tony stark is an un-identifyable jackass...

Yep, same as James Bond.

 

[stj]

The 1989 Batman had a more creative, orginal style, I think. And the first X-Men movie had more thematic weight. But Iron Man is just a better movie than practically every other superhero movie.

 

[Captain Craig]

tony stark is an un-identifyable jackass...

Yep, same as James Bond.

You know RDJr as Bond could've worked. First American actor as a Bond?

 

[TheArsenal]

I liked it better, yes. It was a movie which moved along and at no point during it was I second guessing the decisions which made it to the screen. Also, I never was a fan of Dunst and I thought Paltrow was far stronger (until this thread I didn't realize there was even a Paltrow backlash of any sort). Important since she spends a great deal of time on screen.

 

[M'Sharak]

tony stark is an un-identifyable jackass...

Yep, same as James Bond.

You know RDJr as Bond could've worked. First American actor as a Bond?

No, he wouldn't be the first. Not by a long shot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310853/

 

[ktanner3]

I saw it on Friday night. Was pretty cool. Superman for me though is still the best Comic Adaptation, and they didn't need CGI or anything.

Spiderman was okay but Ironman was better than that.

Pretty much my opinion on the subject. Superman was the first great comic adaption for the big screen and it still works. None of the newer movies have the same impact IMO. Batman Begins was awesome, but I still have a fondness for Superman.

 

[Smiley]

To answer the original question, Spider-Man is a much better movie than Iron Man. I liked IM, but I don't care if I see it again. In contrast, I watched Spider-Man three times in theaters and several times on DVD.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

I can say this, even though I like Batman, Superman and Spider-man better as characters because THEY FOLLOWED THE FRIGGING BOOK when they made Iron Man.

That doesn't make a movie good or bad - and since superhero comics are full of "cheesy bullshit" the absence of such in this movie isn't a reflection of its attention to the comic but of the taste of the filmmakers.

Wrong.

The cheesy stuff in comics is in context with the rest of the universe they set up. So, when you go to see Spider-Man and suddenly you see a plastic power ranger Green Goblin it appears to come from out of nowhere...it is out an out of context choice. We are conditioned to believe that in the Spidey universe, the "cool" Goblin is not like this.

It'd be like, if in the Star Trek suddenly Kirk acted timid and shy around women. The writers might be thinking it would be cool to make him angsty and like a modern teen, but we would be going "hey, that's not Kirk."

I'll tell you what, all you have to do is make a list of Superhero movies. Now, look at that list and the ones that follow the book the closest are without a doubt highest up on the list.

At the bottom you have things like League of Extrodianry Gentlemen, Catwoman, Batman and Robin, Superman Returns, etc. At the top you'll see Iron Man, Spider-Man, etc.

It's simple. When they follow the book it's good. When they don't, it usually sucks.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The cheesy stuff in comics is in context with the rest of the universe they set up. So, when you go to see Spider-Man and suddenly you see a plastic power ranger Green Goblin it appears to come from out of nowhere...it is out an out of context choice. We are conditioned to believe that in the Spidey universe, the "cool" Goblin is not like this.

Wrong.

The changes aren't "out of context" for the movie, which is all that matters. Just because fans of the original comics don't like the changes has no impact on the quality of a movie.

Most people who've seen "Spider-Man" movies have never read the comic. Same goes double for "Iron Man" (the only comic book character who might arguably have had the audience reach, over seventy years, to approach the exposure that such characters get in a medium like commercial film might - might - be Superman). So using fidelity to a comic book as a metric of a film's quality is a non-starter.

 

[Lookingglassman]

Nope. I liked the movie, but I enjoyed Spiderman more.

 

[Mitty]

Oh, and Batman Begins was Better than the Michael Keaton Batman. And Christian Bale is Smokin' Hot!

 

[stj]

The standard of writing in movies is so erratic---to put it politely---that fidelity to a comic book can be a guide to quality! Or it might not.

 

[DanTheGrey]

Iron Man over Spider-Man any day, especially the 3rd. I have to agree with the earlier poster who said that it compares favourably with the 2nd Spider-Man, but I feel Iron Man delivered a lot more than any of the 3 Spidey movies.