Both are fair but it's hard to not take into account the previous one when they're made a short time apart by some of the same producers and writers.
Spider Man ('02) vs. The Amazing Spider-Man ('12): VOTE
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Both are fair but it's hard to not take into account the previous one when they're made a short time apart by some of the same producers and writers.
Regarding the leads, Garfield's Peter Parker is more an awkward hipster than a chemistry-textbook-carrying nerd, but I guess they were aiming for an updated version of the "high school outsider" theme. And he's got more of the characteristic wisecracking going on.
Storywise, ASM's one big weakness I thought was setting up this piece of backstory about the disappearance of Parker's parents... then just dropping it halfway through. I assume a sequel is going to revisit that?
Obverall, not sure which I like more. As far as Superhero movie adpatations go, did we as fans really want a reboot of a trilogy that ended less than 10 years earlier and wasn't all that different in style? But, on most counts, I'd say ASM is a better-done movie.
Storywise, ASM's one big weakness I thought was setting up this piece of backstory about the disappearance of Parker's parents... then just dropping it halfway through. I assume a sequel is going to revisit that?
Obverall, not sure which I like more. As far as Superhero movie adpatations go, did we as fans really want a reboot of a trilogy that ended less than 10 years earlier and wasn't all that different in style? But, on most counts, I'd say ASM is a better-done movie.
Last edited:
Yup.
Mileages vary. Maybe it's the theater guy in me, who's completely used to seeing the same scripts recast and re-interpreted every few years, but the ten-year gap between these origin story movies never once struck me as too short.
From what I've heard, yes.
Spiderman, across the board.
TAS bored me to tears, and I didn't like the change from organic web slingers to mechanical. Without those the rest of his abilities don't seem as possibe. He's just a vigilante in a spider suit.
Granted we're only one film in so I have hopes for improvement.
TAS bored me to tears, and I didn't like the change from organic web slingers to mechanical. Without those the rest of his abilities don't seem as possibe. He's just a vigilante in a spider suit.
Granted we're only one film in so I have hopes for improvement.
^ You do know that they were mechanical slingers in the original comic, don't you? I remember there being some controversy when they decided to go with organic webbing for the 02 movie (inspired in part by the Ultimate Spider-man comics).
And they remained mechanical in the Sixties cartoons and the Seventies live-action series with Nicholas Hammond. In the cartoons, Peter was forever messing with his home chemistry set to tweak the formula for his webbing.
Except both Ultimate Spider-Men used mechanical webshooters.
Spider-Man 2099 was the organic webshooter guy.
^Oh, right, I didn't realise that! I'm strictly old school!
I wasn't allowed comics but yeah, that's perfectly fine with me. I have no beef whatsoever with the comic way of doing it. I just got spoiled on the films doing it the organic way.
This could be fun! Like I said, I am holding out hope for TAS improving in upcoming installments.
That's one thing that I really didn't like about ASM: the producers and writer's really did not put a decent spin on the origin story. There wasn't that much of a difference in the story from the 02 movie to the origin story of 10 years later (unfortunately, even the newer Spider-Man cartoons, such as The Spectacular Spider-Man have done pretty poor, and boring interpretations of the origin story---either that or that one story has just been done so much recently that it is not that memorable anymore), but then when I think of the cartoons such as the 1960's and the 1994 TV series and how they put their own unique spin on the origin story (the 60's cartoon had a whole episode and, that whole scene with Peter Parker driving down the street on his motorcycle to the docks all while wondering to himself what was going on, while the 94 cartoon had Spider-Man telling the story in a flashback to the girl), ASM just had a generic origin story.
No it doesn't.
As for ASM2, I haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailers on TV are not making me want to see it. Actually, the trailers are showing me a movie with low-quality CGI.
It wasn't logic, it was business. Sony had to the keep the lights on in the Spider-Man movie department every three years lest Marvel gets the character back. Once SM4 fell through creatively, a reboot was their only choice.
These two statements, not in complete and total agreement, they are.
Maybe not. I haven't watched 2002's Spider-Man in a while. I'm only going by memory. Although I do remember feeling very underwhelmed by The Amazing Spider-Man so there's that as well.
Well, that's just about the most subjective standard possible by which to rate a movie. I myself don't think the Transformers concept merits the existence any movies at all, but who's asking me? (Note to all: don't answer that.) I enjoy ASM1 a hell of a lot more than SM1, so for me, that's enough existence-validation in of itself.
There's also an interesting philosophical question there, namely: is it really fair to judge one movie against a prior adaptation? Isn't it equally fair to judge movies as if they were the only ones of their kind? Marc Webb's commentary for ASM1 convinced me that he genuinely cares for the characters and franchise. Raimi didn't invent Spider-Man - I'm not sure he really invented anything significant to do with SM1 - but because he happened to have been born first, and got the opportunity to make his movie first, some people act as though Webb is less necessarily less creative for having gone second.
Well, to be fair, it seems like the entire purpose of this thread is to ask people what movie they liked more: 2002's Spider-Man or 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man. With that premise, you are inviting and asking for comparison which is inevitable.
I don't think my main problem with The Amazing Spider-Man is that it is a remake or a second attempt. I've seen plenty of remakes which I think it is either a very valid and solid movie or in some ways even better than the original. For example, I love Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead and this is coming from someone who considers the original a classic. I thought Snyder and screenwriter James Gunn took the basic premise of the original and expanded upon it so the new version still felt new and compelling without feeling like a retread.
The problem with The Amazing Spider-Man is that it stays too closely to the formula and structure of 2002's Spider-Man. It tries to add new elements - such as the concept of Peter Parker's parents, but even that plot element is abandoned mid-way through the movie. I remember reading press for the film and seeing the advertisements - it was describing this "Untold Story" that was suppose to separate this movie from 2002's version - but the movie we eventually got completely abandoned that in favor of telling an origin story that felt very familiar and rehashed. If you're going to try and do something new, then go all out - don't half-ass it or lose faith. I've actually read some articles that go into detail about how Sony & Columbia re-structured the movie as it got close to release for fear that the movie might alienate fans, so maybe it isn't entirely the fault of Marc Webb and the filmmakers. Regardless, though, the final product just felt very pedestrian and unnecessary to me. If you're going to remake something, might as well add something so it feels remotely fresh.
I've been hearing mediocre reviews for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 so far, which concerns me as well. It makes me think maybe my problem with these movies is more on the story & execution rather than it being a retread of what came before. The sequel will have a clean slate - since the origin story is behind us - so there won't be any preconceptions going into it. However, I had many problems with The Amazing Spider-Man on both a story & filmmaking level - for example, I thought The Lizard was a dull & uninteresting villain, a lot of the action sequences felt unexciting without much sense of momentum or pacing and there definitely felt like huge gaps in the story. There's a character called Mr. Rafta, for example, who works for Oscorp. He vanishes during the bridge sequence and is never seen or heard of again. Now, this is another example of story & character elements that got truncated or edited out during post-production - this article by Devin Faraci goes into great detail about how the film was re-structured close to release and many plot elements were removed or altered, creating weird gaps in the story. It made the film feel uneven, disjointed and even incomplete.
I am looking forward to the sequel, though, so I am curious if Marc Webb and his team can make an enjoyable & entertaining film without the 2002 movie hanging over their heads. I'm cautiously optimistic given my tepid feelings over the first movie and the lukewarm-to-mediocre reviews so far, but I plan to go into the movie with an open mind. So we'll see.
I judge every superhero movie by comparing it to what I've read and seen in comics.
In the comics Spidey is a supernerd as Peter Parker and a wise ass as Spider Man. Maguire managed the nerd part was always so serious as spidey. Garfield got both parts right.
Mary Jane Watson is supposed to be the girl you want Peter to end up with, but Kirsten Dunst spent half her time making her annoying. Gwen Stacy is supposed to be the tragic love of Peter's life, and Emma Stone's working hard on making that so.
Willem DeFoe was a moustache twirling E-vil businessman, and the fight between Green goblin and spider-man looked like one between Ivan Ooze and the Red Ranger. Curt Conners is supposed to be a brilliant man overtaken by his own invention, and Rhys Ifans owns that role, and the fights between Spdiey and Lizard look like they used the comics themselves as a storyboard.
Martin Sheen is a better actor than Cliff Robertson.
I never even heard of What's her name before she played Aunt May in Spider Man 02. Sally Field is SALLY FIELD.
Denis Leary has proven time and time again that he's as good an actor as he is a comedian.
And James Franco can't emote to save his dick.
And as the ones who put both films together, Webb beats Raimi, six-zip.
I stand by my original statement. There is no competition here. The real competition will be between SM2 (when Raimi started getting things right) and ASM2.
I remember the mechanical web shooters very well from the 60's comics. Two things annoyed me about them; when Spidey ran out of fluid in the middle of a battle, and the thought that the person who invented that fluid would be struggling for money.
When I read that Raimi had decided to make the web fluid organic I thought, that's perfect. All of Spidey's other powers were organic so why wouldn't his web fluid be also? I think AS going back to the mechanical web shooters is a step backward in more ways than one. Just because it's old doesn't mean necessarily that it's better.
