Spider-Man 1/2 vs Amazing Spider-Man 1/2
- Thread starter FUNKNOWN iXi
- Start date
- Status
DoktorEvil
Banned
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.
Schweinehund
Member
Action Scenes/Effects: ASM 1/2
Everything Else: SM 1/2
Electro was the best part of ASM2. I just love lightning.
Everything Else: SM 1/2
Electro was the best part of ASM2. I just love lightning.
The Raimi trilogy absolutely trumps the Webb duo when it comes to cornball scenes.
Better representation of the female lead: Webb
Better origin story for love interest: Webb
How the hell is Mary Jane Peter's first love, and the audacity to sneak Gwen into the third film? That alone should knock Raimi out of contention.
GitarooMan
Member
I prefer the new movies (ASM1/2), though I don't think the Raimi movies are bad (except portions of SM3). I think Garfield/Stone is way better than Tobey/Dunst and I think the portrayal of Spider-Man in the suit is much better. Side note: I also think the score in ASM1 is vastly underrated and is better than anything Elfman did for Raimi's versions (ASM2 score is good too, not as good as Horner's stuff).
DoktorEvil
Banned
Dunst was probably set to play Gwen, but because of continuity and cartoon popularity, they went with MJ and dyed her hair. Dunst would've been a much better Gwen Stacy than MJ.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Spider-Man is better in the Webb movies and Stone is a better Gwen then Dunst was an MJ. Pretty much everything else was better in the Raimi movies.
Raimi's does camp well, though. You can't help but watch some of those scenes in the Raimi trilogy (the first two moreso than the third, obviously) and have a giant shit-eating grin on your face. it's a comic book movie. it's got heart. it's fun.
Webb's is just tonally all over the place.
Webb's is just tonally all over the place.
Difference being Raimi's cornball scenes are enjoyable for the most part.
Webb doesn't understand humor and plot structure.
Absolutely. All anyone could think was 'Hey that's Martin Sheen and the old lady from SMokey and the Bandit who looked old back in the 80s.' And took you out of the movie. And all the parent storyline did was completely suck out the impact of Ben's death. Spoiler.
Pretty much the only thing I liked about ASM was Spider-Man playing on his phone while he waited.
This is basically the biggest thing I took away from watching all the Spiderman films. The fight scenes in ASM were faaaantastic. But good actors can't make much of a impact if they're put in a nonsensically written movie. It was constantly undermining every good performance the actors were putting out.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Watch ASM1 and then SM1. Incredibly similar on paper, but ASM1 fucks up all the same emotional beats, mainly by treating the viewer like an idiot.
Compare ASM1's near domestic violence scene when peter blows off may and ben to SM1's michelangelo sticky note. Same concept, one drilled into your head while managing to make ben, may and peter seem like assholes, the other seeming like an actual family that understands one another.
Compare ASM1's near domestic violence scene when peter blows off may and ben to SM1's michelangelo sticky note. Same concept, one drilled into your head while managing to make ben, may and peter seem like assholes, the other seeming like an actual family that understands one another.
Spider-Man 2 is the bomb, there is no denying. Especially since Spider-Man 1 was so lame.
Amazing 1 is the better origin and has the better Parker. Amazing 2 was a mess with enjoyable moments.
Spider-Man 3 exists, so we know it's right back to mediocre with Rami. If Amazing 3 continues like Amazing 2, Rami wins. If it ends up good then we have a solid, if unspectacular trilogy vs one with a really excellent second movie.
We're neck and neck right now.
Amazing 1 is the better origin and has the better Parker. Amazing 2 was a mess with enjoyable moments.
Spider-Man 3 exists, so we know it's right back to mediocre with Rami. If Amazing 3 continues like Amazing 2, Rami wins. If it ends up good then we have a solid, if unspectacular trilogy vs one with a really excellent second movie.
We're neck and neck right now.
The Raimi films are head over heels better than the new Webb/Sony committee ones. I don't think they're even close to competition unless you want to do ASM 1 versus S-M1 because ASM1 feels like a movie retreading over the first S-M while actively trying to not be it as hard as possible. Every important scene ASM has in common (i.e. Uncle Ben's death, becoming Spider-Man, etc) were never done better or even close to as well as the original movie. I've done this enough times though so I will just leave a few choice quotes from Roger Ebert's Spider-Man 2 review back in 2004.
"Now this is what a superhero movie should be. 'Spider-Man 2' believes in its story in the same way serious comic readers believe, when the adventures on the page express their own dreams and wishes. It's not camp and it's not nostalgia, it's not wall-to-wall special effects and it's not pickled in angst. It's simply and poignantly a realization that being Spider-Man is a burden that Peter Parker is not entirely willing to bear."
"There are moviegoers who make a point of missing superhero movies, and I can't blame them, although I confess to a weakness for the genre. I liked both of the "Crow" movies, and "Daredevil," "Hulk" and "X2: X-Men United," but not enough to recommend them to friends who don't like or understand comic books. "Spider-Man 2" is in another category: It's a real movie, full-blooded and smart, with qualities even for those who have no idea who Stan Lee is. It's a superhero movie for people who don't go to superhero movies, and for those who do, it's the one they've been yearning for."
The amazing series has web shooters, bigger eyes on the costume, and more wisecracks. If all those superficial surface value Spider-Man traits are important to you, maybe you'll put up with the glaring flaws of the new series more than others. As far as "accuracy" goes, you probably are also willing to ignore the horrible costume from the first ASM as well ;P
"Now this is what a superhero movie should be. 'Spider-Man 2' believes in its story in the same way serious comic readers believe, when the adventures on the page express their own dreams and wishes. It's not camp and it's not nostalgia, it's not wall-to-wall special effects and it's not pickled in angst. It's simply and poignantly a realization that being Spider-Man is a burden that Peter Parker is not entirely willing to bear."
"There are moviegoers who make a point of missing superhero movies, and I can't blame them, although I confess to a weakness for the genre. I liked both of the "Crow" movies, and "Daredevil," "Hulk" and "X2: X-Men United," but not enough to recommend them to friends who don't like or understand comic books. "Spider-Man 2" is in another category: It's a real movie, full-blooded and smart, with qualities even for those who have no idea who Stan Lee is. It's a superhero movie for people who don't go to superhero movies, and for those who do, it's the one they've been yearning for."
The amazing series has web shooters, bigger eyes on the costume, and more wisecracks. If all those superficial surface value Spider-Man traits are important to you, maybe you'll put up with the glaring flaws of the new series more than others. As far as "accuracy" goes, you probably are also willing to ignore the horrible costume from the first ASM as well ;P
Statue of Limitation
Member
I haven't seen ASM2 yet but the first one was just dreadful - he didn't seem to get out of the rookie scrub phase the whole movie e.g he never felt like Spiderman.
No idea where you guys get the idea he played the quippy part better either. There was the one scene where he faces the car jacker (and that comes across as horrible like he's trying to be gangsta') and that's literally all I remember.
No idea where you guys get the idea he played the quippy part better either. There was the one scene where he faces the car jacker (and that comes across as horrible like he's trying to be gangsta') and that's literally all I remember.
Pretty much this
Host Samurai
Member
I have only seen ASM 1 out of the notsoamazing series. And it was not only an awful Spiderman flick, but one of the worst/most boring movies I have seen in recent memory. I couldn't wait to leave the theater. Would rather watch Batman Forever 3X in a row than sit and watch the pile of crap
Webbs are superiror. They capture the tone of the comics far better and Garfield is an infinitely better Parker/Spidey than Maguire. The amazing films have their flaws but they understand Spidey so much more. Amazing spiderman 2 is in my top 3 comicbook films ever because it captured evrything I loved about spiderman when I was reading the comics growing up. It was absoloutly phenomenal.
Ebert is just a comic book mark anyways. I remember Siskel always just going all in on him about Spawn and Crow
I'm over 25 and have been reading Spidey comics for years and I vastly prefer Webbs so thats bollox.
Mr. Ebert also wrote a pretty positive review on TASM which I never thought was abysmal to begin with. I'm sure he would have shat on TASM2 though. Minus its superficially qualities (which you listed above), it misses the mark on a lot of things.
For me, Raimi's movies, no contest.
They had a more coherent, visually unique and charming world, Jonah was actually a part of the story, a better, more sympathetic and less obnoxious Peter Parker, and better villains/character arcs. Peter Parker is just as much of a reason why fans flock to Spider-Man issues month in and month out as Spider-Man web-slinging and punching bad guys in the face. If you don't get Peter right, you have a hard time getting the rest right. Raimi understood that Peter is the heart of the story, and Spider-Man is the burden Peter bears, despite enjoying it from time to time.
Webb's had a better Spider-Man (attitude and visual effects), and a better love interest (Emma Stones Gwen Stacy blows Kirsten Dunsts Mary Jane out of the water).
I'm not going to go on a tirade about how disappointed I've been with Webb's movies, but at the end of the day, I still prefer Raimis by a huge margin. Spider-Man 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time, not just favorite superhero movie.
They had a more coherent, visually unique and charming world, Jonah was actually a part of the story, a better, more sympathetic and less obnoxious Peter Parker, and better villains/character arcs. Peter Parker is just as much of a reason why fans flock to Spider-Man issues month in and month out as Spider-Man web-slinging and punching bad guys in the face. If you don't get Peter right, you have a hard time getting the rest right. Raimi understood that Peter is the heart of the story, and Spider-Man is the burden Peter bears, despite enjoying it from time to time.
Webb's had a better Spider-Man (attitude and visual effects), and a better love interest (Emma Stones Gwen Stacy blows Kirsten Dunsts Mary Jane out of the water).
I'm not going to go on a tirade about how disappointed I've been with Webb's movies, but at the end of the day, I still prefer Raimis by a huge margin. Spider-Man 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time, not just favorite superhero movie.
Yes I can. Despite the fact I absolutely adore the Garfield and Stone scenes like everyone else, it doesn't beat out the rest of the problems this film series has so far. The story simply isn't there.
Spoilers for TASM2 follows.
The Gwen death scene was done well, I even loved the web-hand, but could you imagine that if these two were properly developed as individuals throughout the two films instead and with Harry given proper motivation to kill her? I wanted to know more about Gwen and what she wanted in these films beyond "Oxford". What does she strive for? What does she want in life?
Mary Jane in the Raimi trilogy was a damsel in distress, oh yes, but she gave herself a goal to strive for throughout and it eventually took toll on her and Peter. Never really got to see something to that effect in the film beyond the Oxford stuff, and once it does happen, instead of Peter recognizing she may have her own path and needs to stay in New York to keep her father's promise, he just wants to follow her.
Mary Jane in the Raimi trilogy was a damsel in distress, oh yes, but she gave herself a goal to strive for throughout and it eventually took toll on her and Peter. Never really got to see something to that effect in the film beyond the Oxford stuff, and once it does happen, instead of Peter recognizing she may have her own path and needs to stay in New York to keep her father's promise, he just wants to follow her.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Nope. I've seen all five Spiderman movies, and I just recently re-watched Raimi's SM1 & SM2 again, and I still like Raimi's movies far, FAR more than the new ones. It all comes down to enjoyability. I just have more fun and enjoy seeing Raimi's movies more than the new ones. I thought TASM1 was okay but it felt too "Nolan"-esque to me, like it wanted to be too dark and serious. TASM2 just felt like a disheveled mess of storytelling to me, whoever wrote that movie needs to have a team of co-writers editing them. Yeah Toby came off a bit too emo at times, and yeah Dunst wasn't the best choice for Mary Jane, but despite those facts Raimi's movies are far more fun to me. Even though they aren't true Marvel films per say they still have that modern Marvel movie fun factor, that light heartedness that just makes them fun to watch. The newer TASM movies don't give me that feeling at all, I just don't like them.
Oh, and I'm 41 years old, so that age survey from earlier might be on to something...
Not only is that stupid, but it opens the door for plenty of stupid arguments lol.
Pretty much this.
SoldnerKei
Member
this... they are ok movies, but nothing at Watchmen level adaptation(thou it's not perfect either)... but then again they aren't Batman & Robin... thou Spiderman 3 came pretty close to it
Spider man 2 is a great movie and it is better than amazing but just barely amazing Spider-Man 1& 2 are great movies with how they treat Spider-Man. Since its comparing both sets of movies amazing Spider-Man wins handily.
The first spiderman movie wasn't very good even though the second was great doesn't help them in the long run.
The first spiderman movie wasn't very good even though the second was great doesn't help them in the long run.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Webb has the better Spider-Man, but the worse Parker.
Dark_AnNiaLatOr
Member
ASM2 is the best of them all. The electro fight and choreography is just so badass. The music is hype!!
Yeah Ebert did like ASM 1, I felt like he was just into the idea of making things more grounded and relevant in the modern era. Kind of like what Batman Begins did [they also share similar plot threads]. I'm not sure he would feel the same way given where things ended up.
I really want to know what the dude thinks of modern comic movies
Like Man of Steel or Cap 2 sure, but also stuff like The Wolverine or GOTGgutter_trash
Banned
overall Raimi's are better
but Garfield it the better Spidey/Peter
in a perfect world, we would have the supporting cast and villains from the Raimi flicks with Garfield as Spidey
but Garfield it the better Spidey/Peter
in a perfect world, we would have the supporting cast and villains from the Raimi flicks with Garfield as Spidey
FUBAR McDangles
Member
Amazing Spider Man is better in pretty much every way. I like those far more than the Raimi films.
Coffee Dog
Banned
I really don't get this at all unless you are solely interested in action scenes. Just about everything else in ASM2 is done better in the Raimi films, whether it's villain plots, Harry, or Peter's arc.
Yup. Not even close.
sketchsanchez
Member
I wrote this in the spoiler thread but this is why I prefer the first two Raimi films over this sereis (even if I enjoy them)
It lacking the "Parker Luck" is a major negative to me.
It lacking the "Parker Luck" is a major negative to me.
EightBitNate
Member
SM1: 6/10
SM2: 9/10
ASM: 7/10
ASM2: 6/10
SM3: 3
/10
SM2: 9/10
ASM: 7/10
ASM2: 6/10
SM3: 3
villians
After rewatching the Raimi films, Toby Maguire kind of ruins them a bit for me. Every attempt at romance just made me feel awkward. The part when he's reading poetry to MJ to try and get her to love him even though she's getting married and her actually going for him in the end was pretty cringeworthy. Maguire aside though, I think Spiderman 2 is the best of the bunch. Most consistent storyline and character development, Doc fucking Ock was great and Harry was so good.
But I did really enjoy TASM2 as well. There were a lot of plotlines that seemed to just be there to set up the next movie, but the action sequences and visuals were fantastic and Andrew Garfield was a great Spiderman. I can't remember how well TASM1 holds up. I just remember that I liked it but Lizard looked like ass. Meh.
But I did really enjoy TASM2 as well. There were a lot of plotlines that seemed to just be there to set up the next movie, but the action sequences and visuals were fantastic and Andrew Garfield was a great Spiderman. I can't remember how well TASM1 holds up. I just remember that I liked it but Lizard looked like ass. Meh.
- Status