FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
So now that two movies have been released in the Amazing Spider-Man universe, which two do you think were better, Sam Raimi's or Marc Webb's?
Spider-Man 1/2 vs Amazing Spider-Man 1/2
- Thread starter FUNKNOWN iXi
- Start date
- Status
heliosRAzi
Banned
One and done.
brandonh83
Banned
Webb's. They just fit the type of Spider-man aesthetic that I like, and Gwen is way better than Mary Jane.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
While we're at it.
What about Schumacher's Batman films versus the Dark Knight trilogy?
What about Schumacher's Batman films versus the Dark Knight trilogy?
angular graphics
Banned
Aye.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Everything other than Spider-Man/Peter, the love interest and the action is better in the Raimi films.
I haven't seen ASM2 yet so I can't judge. However, just going off of ASM1, even though I think ASM1's script/story is pretty weak what made up for it (IMO) was that Webb's version really acted a lot more like Spidey than Raimi's version ever did.
This is a much more legit discussion
This is a much more legit discussion
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Don't forget Star Wars OT vs. Star Wars Prequels.
Blackstarhat
Member
i like the amazing spiderman movies better.
DoktorEvil
Banned
YUP, but the better spiderman is the amazing series.
If ASM3 is terrible, we'll call it a wash.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Spider-Man: 8/10
Spider-Man 2: 9/10
Amazing Spider-Man: 5/10
Amazing Spider-Man 2: 4/10
Spider-Man 2: 9/10
Amazing Spider-Man: 5/10
Amazing Spider-Man 2: 4/10
BattleMonkey
Member
Raimi's
Raimi's Spiderman, no contest. Those films were a product of a singular director with a vision.
ASM felt completely hollow and designed by a committee, lacking any personality or lasting impression whatsoever. Though I have to admit that the action is very well done in both ASM films -- by far the only part of the movies where it was evident that truly creative people ever touched them.
ASM felt completely hollow and designed by a committee, lacking any personality or lasting impression whatsoever. Though I have to admit that the action is very well done in both ASM films -- by far the only part of the movies where it was evident that truly creative people ever touched them.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Rigged poll. I'd be willing to bet many of the responders will have been 6-12 years old when Spider-Man 2 came out.
Grover Cleveland
Member
SM2>>>>>SM1>TASM1>>>TASM2
So I'll have to go with Raimi's
So I'll have to go with Raimi's
Nothing rigged about it, they're better films.
Most superhero movies out the past five years still aren't as good as Spider-Man 2.
TheCowboyPoet
Member
I didn't really like ASM2 that much, but the Raimi films are awful, so the Amazing films win off the strength of the first ASM.
PeskyToaster
Member
Upon a rewatch I found the Rami Spidermans to be pretty cheesy and lame. Don't really hold up for me at all. I loved them as a kid though.
The only thing good about them is the casting of J. K Simmons.
brandonh83
Banned
I would say that about 1, and well there's no need to go into 3, but 2 is legit.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Watching both recently, I have come to the conclusion 2 has not help up at all, in fact a lot of the problems I have with 3 are found in 2, just to a lesser extent.
I always hated Toby as peter. He's just a little emo bastard the whole time, someone you want to punch in the face.
Garfield is actually a believeable peter and spiderman. He's immature, makes lots of bad choices, but has a good heart and good intentions. He's tragic, and it shows.
So IMO ASM 1&2 >>> SM1&2. I hate hate HATE the direction of the first 2 spiderman films, Campy for the sake of being campy (and ugly at the same time). Spiderman 2's action is nice, but nothing compared to ASM2.
Garfield >>>> Toby
Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *infinity* >>>>> Dunst
As was stated below, these 2 makes the films better, as when you dont give a damn about the terrible performance from Toby and Dunst, why would you connect with the characters? The only thing the first 2 films had over ASM is a wicked good supporting cast the fits the roles PERFECTLY.
I always hated Toby as peter. He's just a little emo bastard the whole time, someone you want to punch in the face.
Garfield is actually a believeable peter and spiderman. He's immature, makes lots of bad choices, but has a good heart and good intentions. He's tragic, and it shows.
So IMO ASM 1&2 >>> SM1&2. I hate hate HATE the direction of the first 2 spiderman films, Campy for the sake of being campy (and ugly at the same time). Spiderman 2's action is nice, but nothing compared to ASM2.
Garfield >>>> Toby
Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *infinity* >>>>> Dunst
As was stated below, these 2 makes the films better, as when you dont give a damn about the terrible performance from Toby and Dunst, why would you connect with the characters? The only thing the first 2 films had over ASM is a wicked good supporting cast the fits the roles PERFECTLY.
BattleMonkey
Member
Yea they are cheesy, which to me is why they are so good. They are emulating so well the old comic books before super hero movies became so serious grim dark explosion fests
Webb's are VASTLY better.
1) Spider-Man - Garfield is far better. Surely there is no contest here? The quips, the fun, the fights are infinitely more Spider-Man (and just plain more enjoyable).
2) Peter - Garfield's relationship with Stone is very impressive. Genuinely a great chemistry and both are great actors. Surely there is no way that anybody can argue that Peter/MJ in the Raimi films was in any way superior? MJ was dull, and a weird boring plot device, like she had no agency.
Those are the key elements of any Spider-Man film, and ASM does them far better. Objectively better. So much of Raimi's is really weird and hammy when you go back.
The villains are probably more of a mixed bag - but I don't think that it is necessarily a huge win to Raimi. That Green Goblin final fight in Raimi 1 was rather cheesy, and I think that Electro in ASM2 was superior to that. Doc Oc, fair enough is pretty good - but I also really quite liked some aspects of Electro and Harry.
1) Spider-Man - Garfield is far better. Surely there is no contest here? The quips, the fun, the fights are infinitely more Spider-Man (and just plain more enjoyable).
2) Peter - Garfield's relationship with Stone is very impressive. Genuinely a great chemistry and both are great actors. Surely there is no way that anybody can argue that Peter/MJ in the Raimi films was in any way superior? MJ was dull, and a weird boring plot device, like she had no agency.
Those are the key elements of any Spider-Man film, and ASM does them far better. Objectively better. So much of Raimi's is really weird and hammy when you go back.
The villains are probably more of a mixed bag - but I don't think that it is necessarily a huge win to Raimi. That Green Goblin final fight in Raimi 1 was rather cheesy, and I think that Electro in ASM2 was superior to that. Doc Oc, fair enough is pretty good - but I also really quite liked some aspects of Electro and Harry.
Seems about right.
brandonh83
Banned
haha what the fuck.
They were weird and hammy when they came out, I liked that part of it.
Really?
So, no proper character development, lack of a good story with consequences, and unnecessary characters and sub-plots are what makes these movies objectively better?
Nintendoga
Member
Spiderman 1 > the dark and gritty Nolan inspired ASM1.
Spiderman 2 and ASM2 are equal for me. Loved them both.
Spiderman 2 and ASM2 are equal for me. Loved them both.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Amazing Spider Man is better than Spider Man 1 and it's not close. Haven't seen ASM2.
Lostconfused
Member
Raimi's movies are better movies. I can say that much.
- Status