The Amazing Spider-Man v.s The Sami Raimi "Spider-Man Films"

I

ImLife

New Member
Which do you prefer more. I like the Sami Raimi movies better because to me it is more memorable than the amazing spider-man. And I like how it wasn't all comic based.. because sometimes Raimi wanted to think outside the box. I personally liked Tobey Mcguire much more better then andrew garfield as peter parker. And I loved spiderman 1-2.. 3 was flawwed but it was good... (could have been better if they took out one of the villain.)
 
If by "Outside the box" you mean "Completely made things up for no reason other than to seemingly to destroy an otherwise decent timeline" then maybe.

Spiderman 1 was OKAY, two was bad, and three was just terrible. Tobey Mcguire is a terrible actor. Plain and simple. He must have had a hell of an audition to get the role for the first movie. After that, they were pretty much stuck with him.

The Amazing Spiderman was at least a step closer to the comics. The inital thing that made spiderman a draw was that he was a TEENAGE superhero. What made marvel's heroes great in the beginning is that they all had real life problems... they were real people. (Later DC followed suit). What drew people... specifically teens... to spiderman is that he was relatible to them.

The other aspect of Peter Parker that was completely overlooked in the "Sami Raimi" spiderman "Films" as you call them (they're not films...but, I digress) is his intelligence. Peter Parker was a nerd... that's what drew a lot of people to him as well. He was a nerdy high school student who got super powers. The thing that was probably the biggest middle finger to Peter Parker's intellegence was the inclusion of webbing that is a part of him... I've always thought that webbing cartridges were kind of what helped define the character, as it was not only him using his superpowers, but him using his mind.

In short: I disagree. Now go watch spiderman in an elevator for 3 hours.
 
Simply Put, Spiderman 3 was such a terrible movie that it remains the only movie to this date to make me leave a cinema during screening. In short, It's horseshit.

In other words, I concur with Crane.
 
26879048116
 
NewspaperCrane said:
If by "Outside the box" you mean "Completely made things up for no reason other than to seemingly to destroy an otherwise decent timeline" then maybe.

Spiderman 1 was OKAY, two was bad, and three was just terrible. Tobey Mcguire is a terrible actor. Plain and simple. He must have had a hell of an audition to get the role for the first movie. After that, they were pretty much stuck with him.

The Amazing Spiderman was at least a step closer to the comics. The inital thing that made spiderman a draw was that he was a TEENAGE superhero. What made marvel's heroes great in the beginning is that they all had real life problems... they were real people. (Later DC followed suit). What drew people... specifically teens... to spiderman is that he was relatible to them.

The other aspect of Peter Parker that was completely overlooked in the "Sami Raimi" spiderman "Films" as you call them (they're not films...but, I digress) is his intelligence. Peter Parker was a nerd... that's what drew a lot of people to him as well. He was a nerdy high school student who got super powers. The thing that was probably the biggest middle finger to Peter Parker's intellegence was the inclusion of webbing that is a part of him... I've always thought that webbing cartridges were kind of what helped define the character, as it was not only him using his superpowers, but him using his mind.

In short: I disagree. Now go watch spiderman in an elevator for 3 hours.
Click to expand...


/thread.
 
NewspaperCrane said:
If by "Outside the box" you mean "Completely made things up for no reason other than to seemingly to destroy an otherwise decent timeline" then maybe.

Spiderman 1 was OKAY, two was bad, and three was just terrible. Tobey Mcguire is a terrible actor. Plain and simple. He must have had a hell of an audition to get the role for the first movie. After that, they were pretty much stuck with him.

The Amazing Spiderman was at least a step closer to the comics. The inital thing that made spiderman a draw was that he was a TEENAGE superhero. What made marvel's heroes great in the beginning is that they all had real life problems... they were real people. (Later DC followed suit). What drew people... specifically teens... to spiderman is that he was relatible to them.

The other aspect of Peter Parker that was completely overlooked in the "Sami Raimi" spiderman "Films" as you call them (they're not films...but, I digress) is his intelligence. Peter Parker was a nerd... that's what drew a lot of people to him as well. He was a nerdy high school student who got super powers. The thing that was probably the biggest middle finger to Peter Parker's intellegence was the inclusion of webbing that is a part of him... I've always thought that webbing cartridges were kind of what helped define the character, as it was not only him using his superpowers, but him using his mind.

In short: I disagree. Now go watch spiderman in an elevator for 3 hours.
Click to expand...
Well we have our opinions.... you like "The Amazing Spider-man" and I liked the Sami's Spiderman, So what big whoop... But just remember spiderman 1 was related to the comics as well (not that much related to the comics but somewhat related.) .... but I understand if you liked the amazing spiderman better then the first spiderman. But The first 2 spiderman films were my childhood and the 3rd one wasn't as great. (if they removed "emo" parker and the dancing scene and venom being in the movie longer then it wouldn't have been as bad.)

And I agree... they could have choosen a better peter parker, I laughed when tobey cried in spiderman 3 because it was so bad... but they could have also choosen a better peter parker for the amazing spiderman as well. andrew's portrayal of peter parker pissed me off... he was more like a jerk and I think he became friends with flash tompson(Correct me if I'm wrong.) and that pissed me off too, Peter was acting more like a tough guy... instead of a nerd. if you have read "The amazing fantasy" (Where spiderman was first featured. and some of the comics after that.) peter parker was indeed a nerd, end of story. I just didn't like The Amazing Spiderman's Peter Parker.. It made me hate the character. Peter in the comics was a loveable character, but The Amazing Spiderman Peter Parker was an asshole... That was the my main concern about this film. You can't blame Andrew for that... we can only blame the writers.

But please understand that I wasn't bashing on The amazing spiderman... I was just directly stated my opinion on which spiderman movie is better... and you can point out every single reason why Sami's Spiderman movies are bad, but that won't change my opinion. I liked The amazing spiderman... but for some reason... I didn't get the same feeling for the film as I did in the other spiderman movies... Maybe that will change when I watch the Amazing spiderman 2.

EDIT: Please don't reply to this.... I didn't want this to be a flame war... I just wanted to hear people's opinions about this.
 
Io_Reign said:
My favorite part of spiderman 3 was when Toby Mcguire had himself a pity party and the movie turned into an awkward goth musical for about 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
I hated that dancing scene so much now that everytime I watch spiderman 3 ... I always skipped that scene, It felt like I was watching "jersey boys".
 
ImLife said:
Well we have our opinions.... you like "The Amazing Spider-man" and I liked the Sami's Spiderman, So what big whoop... But just remember spiderman 1 was related to the comics as well (not that much related to the comics but somewhat related.) .... but I understand if you liked the amazing spiderman better then the first spiderman. But The first 2 spiderman films were my childhood and the 3rd one wasn't as great. (if they removed "emo" parker and the dancing scene and venom being in the movie longer then it wouldn't have been as bad.)

And I agree... they could have choosen a better peter parker, I laughed when tobey cried in spiderman 3 because it was so bad... but they could have also choosen a better peter parker for the amazing spiderman as well. andrew's portrayal of peter parker pissed me off... he was more like a jerk and I think he became friends with flash tompson(Correct me if I'm wrong.) and that pissed me off too, Peter was acting more like a tough guy... instead of a nerd. if you have read "The amazing fantasy" (Where spiderman was first featured. and some of the comics after that.) peter parker was indeed a nerd, end of story. I just didn't like The Amazing Spiderman's Peter Parker.. It made me hate the character. Peter in the comics was a loveable character, but The Amazing Spiderman Peter Parker was an asshole... That was the my main concern about this film. You can't blame Andrew for that... we can only blame the writers.

But please understand that I wasn't bashing on The amazing spiderman... I was just directly stated my opinion on which spiderman movie is better... and you can point out every single reason why Sami's Spiderman movies are bad, but that won't change my opinion. I liked The amazing spiderman... but for some reason... I didn't get the same feeling for the film as I did in the other spiderman movies... Maybe that will change when I watch the Amazing spiderman 2.

EDIT: Please don't reply to this.... I didn't want this to be a flame war... I just wanted to hear people's opinions about this.
Click to expand...
Why did you even start this thread? If you're just going to get defensive and then tell me that you're going to completely avoid this conversation because we disagree.

It's fine if you like the older spiderman movies. I'm not going to fault you as a person (Too much) for that. The point here was to have a civil conversation. You're allowed to have your own opinion, even others disagree with you, no matter how handsome and dashing those individuals may be.

The new spider man movie wasn't waithout it's faults. In fact, a good bit of it was downright campy, however I think it's a step in the right direction.

I can't wait until 20th Century fox will... if they ever will... sell the rights for spiderman, xmen... etc... back to Marvel so he can be in a damn avengers movie.
 
IT'S "SAM" RAIMI

GET IT RIGHT

SO ANGRY

FUCKING MAGUIRE AND GARFIELD ARE SHITCUNTS THOUGH
BOTH SUCKED
ONLY THING THAT WAS GOOD ABOUT ANY OF THE SPIDERMAN MOVIES WAS THE CHICKS
KIRSTEN DUNST AND EMMA STONE ARE BABES

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
 
Vorsprung said:
IT'S "SAM" RAIMI

GET IT RIGHT

SO ANGRY

FUCKING MAGUIRE AND GARFIELD ARE SHITCUNTS THOUGH
BOTH SUCKED
ONLY THING THAT WAS GOOD ABOUT ANY OF THE SPIDERMAN MOVIES WAS THE CHICKS
KIRSTEN DUNST AND EMMA STONE ARE BABES

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
Click to expand...
Lol I always thought It was sami..... because of my confusion between the last name and the first name, and I don't blame you for liking the movie just to see the babes. I have to admit, Emma and Kirsten are both good looking.
 
NewspaperCrane said:
Why did you even start this thread? If you're just going to get defensive and then tell me that you're going to completely avoid this conversation because we disagree.

It's fine if you like the older spiderman movies. I'm not going to fault you as a person (Too much) for that. The point here was to have a civil conversation. You're allowed to have your own opinion, even others disagree with you, no matter how handsome and dashing those individuals may be.

The new spider man movie wasn't waithout it's faults. In fact, a good bit of it was downright campy, however I think it's a step in the right direction.

I can't wait until 20th Century fox will... if they ever will... sell the rights for spiderman, xmen... etc... back to Marvel so he can be in a damn avengers movie.
Click to expand...
I just didn't want to deal with a flame war.... that's why I told you not to reply. (I just generally hate flame wars, like the xbox vs ps3 bullshit I just wanted to hear peoples opinions on each movie.) And the new spiderman movie was going in the right direction. I just pray that the producers of the amazing spiderman don't make the same mistake in 2007 and make a re-copy of spiderman 3. (Lets Pray that Webb doesn't a copy of spiderman 3. because if they do... I'm gonna cry. )

And I can't wait for the amazing spiderman 2. (Because green goblin is in it.)

and one more thing... The Amazing Spiderman is not made by Marvel... :O I honestly thought it was
 
I was wrong before, the movie rights for spiderman are owned by Sony, not by Fox.

Still not owned by Marvel though.

X-men is the franchise that's owned by Fox.
 
ImLife said:
I just didn't want to deal with a flame war.... that's why I told you not to reply. (I just generally hate flame wars, like the xbox vs ps3 bullshit I just wanted to hear peoples opinions on each movie.) And the new spiderman movie was going in the right direction. I just pray that the producers of the amazing spiderman don't make the same mistake in 2007 and make a re-copy of spiderman 3. (Lets Pray that Webb doesn't a copy of spiderman 3. because if they do... I'm gonna cry. )

And I can't wait for the amazing spiderman 2. (Because green goblin is in it.)

and one more thing... The Amazing Spiderman is not made by Marvel... :O I honestly thought it was
Click to expand...
I'm reading through this thread and I have to side with NewspaperCrane. I know this thread is a few days old, but this really irks me. You asked for peoples' opinions, and you act almost offended when you receive an opinion that is not on par with yours. Sure, Crane did not respectfully disagree, but you can't always ask for one when asking for /all/ opinions. He is correct that you shouldn't really make threads about opinions if you cannot really accept a different one than yours without labeling it as "flaming".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top