Poll: Comparing Spiderman 1 to Spiderman Reboot (Spoilers)

[Zixxilon Kellidar]

I decided that comparing these 2 would give me a better idea of if the Reboot exceeded the 1st movie in being the best, or at least the better origin story. So, without further ado:

Acting: The Reboot Wins. The characters feel less like they're in a midday soap opera, and more like they're actual people, so point goes to the reboot.

Graphics: Reboot Wins because it's newer and has access to better graphics technology. Point for the Reboot.

Girlfriend: Gwen Stacy is far more likeable and hot than Mary Jane. Point for the Reboot

Storyline: The 1st and the 2nd for the most part share similar storylines, with the main difference being that the 1st movie villain was directly related to the hero and indirectly related with the cause, whereas Connors shared 2 in-depth scenes with Parker and was directly affected by Peter's actions. I say the storylines are both about as good. Tie here.

Logic/Reasoning: The 1st movie, surprisingly, wins this one. Even though the acting was worse, the reasoning behind everyone's actions were more logical and less impulsive. Allow me to compare some of the scenes.

- In the 1st movie, Flash Thompson is pretty much always a jerk, and basically gets angry at Peter Parker for rightfully humiliating him in the lunchroom (even though it was an accident). In the 2nd movie, he's a complete douchebag who starts shit with him, basically beating his ass to the ground for simply telling him to stop picking on someone, and then after one scene where Parker humiliates him in basketball, he suddenly becomes a docile lamb? And on top of that, in the first movie, the Uncle rightfully gets mad at Peter for fighting, whereas the Uncle in the 2nd movie is simply pissed off because he had to change shifts to come check on Peter, even though noone was hurt and it was all in good fun.

- Also, I hated the empty hook that was the Peter Parker parents story. Sure, you get a fairly blunt idea of what happened to his parents, but that's it. Why use it as a story angle when you're just going to disjoint it and throw it in when YOU feel it's appropriate?

-And that mysterious villain at the end, who looks nothing like any other villain in the fucking Spiderman franchise, AND he can appear and disappear at will? Fuck you Marvel. Next time, don't be so goddamn vague.

- Oh, and the scene of "It's not my problem!"? Handled well in the first movie. Handled like an amateur in this film. Peter getting angry at the promoter for not paying him his well-earned $200? Understandable. Getting angry over $2.07 worth of milk? Fucking idiot.

- Uncle Ben's death in the 1st movie was done with grace, a final goodbye to Peter before he died, and a proper funeral. The new movie basically said, "He's dead, now let's leave him rotting in the street." Real classy.

- Peter's reasoning for becoming Spiderman evolved better in the 1st film. In the 2nd film, he was a selfish asshole who only cared about his own personal motivations, and only gave a shit when he realized how badly he fucked up. He was basically acting as if he had the REAL black suit as normal suit Spiderman. I really didn't like the new Spiderman's personality as the Parker self. Again, he did things without so much as a word, doing whatever the fuck he wanted, keeping secrets, and... yeah, just being a douchebag all over the place. Not the actor's fault, I blame the writers.

Spiderman Himself: The new actor was a much better "Spiderman", but a much worse Parker in terms of behavior, whereas Tobey Macguire was better for the Parker scenes but not so much for the Spiderman scenes where his overly nerdy voice didn't fit Spiderman as well. However, Peter suddenly being smart in the reboot made no sense. It was just thrown in there that he was a very smart student, but not until you saw Connors in his house and Peter writing the formula was this ever honestly hinted, whereas with Peter from the first movie, it was extremely obvious that he was intelligent, and it played very well and evident into his character. Neither of them are jockish at the beginning either. Overall, I give this to the 1st movie.

Villains: This ties in with the storyline. They were both done well, tie here.

New York Interaction: I felt like I got to know New York better in the 1st Movie. In this movie, it makes no attempt to connect you to the city, only certain areas. 1st movie wins here.

Aunt/Uncle: I feel like Peter's adoptive parents in the reboot randomly said tidbits of wisdom, and they felt forced or rushed, and they did almost nothing to curb Peter's aggressively evasive tendencies, whereas in the 1st movie, they did a much better job of the relationship between Peter and his aunt/uncle and having them be important to the film other than people who are shown worrying about Peter but doing almost nothing of any note to stop him or truly question him. Point goes to the 1st movie.

Humor: Not so sure on this. Will have to watch both back to back to get back to you.

Final Fight Scene: 1st movie takes this by far. I thought the final fight scene in 1 was absoluely epic, and awesome. In the 2nd movie, they made the Lizard out to be this indestructible god that Spiderman couldn't do jackshit against. I honestly felt like Lizard was out of Spiderman's league, and Spiderman only won because he was quick-thinking, but otherwise he felt useless. Point goes to 1st movie.

So my honest opinion? Despite the few ties and points the reboot got, I honestly thought the 1st movie was far better. simply because the little details that counted towards interaction and logic were a really big case for what made the movie truly enjoyable. Agree, or disagree? Let me know. But that's my say on the matter.

 

[TT Kairen]

Acting: The Reboot Wins. The characters feel less like they're in a midday soap opera, and more like they're actual people, so point goes to the reboot.

Agreed. The acting was far superior by pretty much the entire cast, with special mentions to Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Denis Leary.

Graphics: Reboot Wins because it's newer and has access to better graphics technology. Point for the Reboot.

Lizard's face looked like hokey CG, but other then that, yeah.

Girlfriend: Gwen Stacy is far more likeable and hot than Mary Jane. Point for the Reboot

Entirely subjective, so can't really comment.

Storyline: The 1st and the 2nd for the most part share similar storylines, with the main difference being that the 1st movie villain was directly related to the hero and indirectly related with the cause, whereas Connors shared 2 in-depth scenes with Parker and was directly affected by Peter's actions. I say the storylines are both about as good. Tie here.

Logic/Reasoning: The 1st movie, surprisingly, wins this one. Even though the acting was worse, the reasoning behind everyone's actions were more logical and less impulsive. Allow me to compare some of the scenes.

- In the 1st movie, Flash Thompson is pretty much always a jerk, and basically gets angry at Peter Parker for rightfully humiliating him in the lunchroom (even though it was an accident). In the 2nd movie, he's a complete douchebag who starts shit with him, basically beating his ass to the ground for simply telling him to stop picking on someone, and then after one scene where Parker humiliates him in basketball, he suddenly becomes a docile lamb? And on top of that, in the first movie, the Uncle rightfully gets mad at Peter for fighting, whereas the Uncle in the 2nd movie is simply pissed off because he had to change shifts to come check on Peter, even though noone was hurt and it was all in good fun.

Okay, tell me how often bullies back down from someone who stands up to them if they KNOW they can win the fight? Bullying is a power play. Having that power threatened is generally unfavorable to them, so obviously he would want to prove his "manhood" in the face of the skinny Parker telling him to back off. However, if someone comes along who CAN stand up to them and MAKE them back down, then yes, bullies DO become docile lambs. They're cowards.

As for Uncle Ben being angry, he wasn't angry just because he had to come down there, he was angry because he LEFT HIS ELDERLY DEFENSELESS AUNT TO FEND FOR HERSELF. IN THE NEW YORK SUBWAY. I'd say that's a pretty good reason to tell him what's what, and Martin Sheen pulled that off beautifully.

- Also, I hated the empty hook that was the Peter Parker parents story. Sure, you get a fairly blunt idea of what happened to his parents, but that's it. Why use it as a story angle when you're just going to disjoint it and throw it in when YOU feel it's appropriate?

I can't really agree or disagree, it wasn't touched upon much. I have a feeling it'll be addressed in a sequel.

-And that mysterious villain at the end, who looks nothing like any other villain in the fucking Spiderman franchise, AND he can appear and disappear at will? Fuck you Marvel. Next time, don't be so goddamn vague.

I'd assume it's Norman Osborne, and that "appear/disappear" trope is used constantly, why get mad at it here?

- Oh, and the scene of "It's not my problem!"? Handled well in the first movie. Handled like an amateur in this film. Peter getting angry at the promoter for not paying him his well-earned $200? Understandable. Getting angry over $2.07 worth of milk? Fucking idiot.

He wasn't angry over $2.07 of milk. He was angry at the guy being an inconsiderate prick. 99.99999% of clerks will overlook idiotic amounts of small change, because lots of people LEAVE idiotic amounts of small change, and it goes into that little bin that the guy wouldn't let him take from. I wouldn't help someone so petty.

- Uncle Ben's death in the 1st movie was done with grace, a final goodbye to Peter before he died, and a proper funeral. The new movie basically said, "He's dead, now let's leave him rotting in the street." Real classy.

Uh, watch that first movie scene again. He says "Peter" twice and then croaks. In the street. And Peter LEAVES HIM THERE. Also them talking to police made more sense then a classy, expensive-looking funeral. Aunt May and Uncle Ben are modest people who don't have a lot of money. The fact that they afforded such a ceremony in the first movie was actually a little odd.

- Peter's reasoning for becoming Spiderman evolved better in the 1st film. In the 2nd film, he was a selfish asshole who only cared about his own personal motivations, and only gave a shit when he realized how badly he fucked up. He was basically acting as if he had the REAL black suit as normal suit Spiderman. I really didn't like the new Spiderman's personality as the Parker self. Again, he did things without so much as a word, doing whatever the fuck he wanted, keeping secrets, and... yeah, just being a douchebag all over the place. Not the actor's fault, I blame the writers.

Selfish asshole who only cared about his own personal motivations, by which I assume you mean finding the killer. You mean like he left Ben in the street to chase the killer in the first movie? Or how he used his powers to win a stupid wrestling match to get money for a car to impress M.J.? Which is what CAUSED UNCLE BEN'S DEATH? And then TobeyPeter only gave a shit after he fucked up?

The main differences here being that 1) He doesn't immediately (or ever) catch the killer in this version, and 2) He realizes that he's being a bit selfish and amateurish after the well-done debate with Denis Leary's Captain Stacy. The Captain puts into perspective how his own personal manhunt is getting in the way of him actually doing good for people, and changes his methods following this.

Spiderman

Doing whatever the fuck he wants, and keeping secrets

Let that sink in for a second.

Spiderman Himself: The new actor was a much better "Spiderman", but a much worse Parker in terms of behavior, whereas Tobey Macguire was better for the Parker scenes but not so much for the Spiderman scenes where his overly nerdy voice didn't fit Spiderman as well. However, Peter suddenly being smart in the reboot made no sense. It was just thrown in there that he was a very smart student, but not until you saw Connors in his house and Peter writing the formula was this ever honestly hinted, whereas with Peter from the first movie, it was extremely obvious that he was intelligent, and it played very well and evident into his character. Neither of them are jockish at the beginning either. Overall, I give this to the 1st movie.

Pay more attention. It was hinted at when he had remote locks on his doors that looked blatantly home-made, and again when Uncle Ben states that "He stopped being able to help with his homework when he was 10," and then blatantly stated when he spoke up during the tour of Dr. Connors' lab, and it's revealed that Gwen Stacy is an intern there, whom Peter shares classes with.

Villains: This ties in with the storyline. They were both done well, tie here.

I agree, though Green Goblin was a bit corny to me.

New York Interaction: I felt like I got to know New York better in the 1st Movie. In this movie, it makes no attempt to connect you to the city, only certain areas. 1st movie wins here.

No real preference. It's New York. New York is New York.

Aunt/Uncle: I feel like Peter's adoptive parents in the reboot randomly said tidbits of wisdom, and they felt forced or rushed, and they did almost nothing to curb Peter's aggressively evasive tendencies, whereas in the 1st movie, they did a much better job of the relationship between Peter and his aunt/uncle and having them be important to the film other than people who are shown worrying about Peter but doing almost nothing of any note to stop him or truly question him. Point goes to the 1st movie.

Odd, because I felt that they were far too understanding of everything he did in the first film, never having the ability to put their foot down at anything, and leaving him to his business far too readily. They felt much more organic as parents here, with Uncle Ben especially realizing that Peter is a good kid but still requires a firm hand now and again. After his death, Aunt May became distressed at what to do with Peter's secrecy, as she relied on Ben to be the one to sit Peter down and give him a talking to. With him gone, she lacks the willpower to truly stop him. It was quite realistic, and well done to me.

Humor: Not so sure on this. Will have to watch both back to back to get back to you.

Definitely better in the second. While they were about equally funny, the first was funny because Tobey acted like an inept idiot, whereas Andrew more realistically had to get used to his newfound super-strength, as well as his more true-to-the-comic quips in-suit.

Final Fight Scene: 1st movie takes this by far. I thought the final fight scene in 1 was absoluely epic, and awesome. In the 2nd movie, they made the Lizard out to be this indestructible god that Spiderman couldn't do jackshit against. I honestly felt like Lizard was out of Spiderman's league, and Spiderman only won because he was quick-thinking, but otherwise he felt useless. Point goes to 1st movie.

The fights in the first film looked like cheesy Power Ranger's fights to me, I don't see how anyone could think they're good. They looked awful. Also, with Spider-Man being able to fight the villain so readily, it reduced the dramatic tension. Lizard felt far more powerful, and his regenerative capabilities were a large part of his danger. Spider-Man has NEVER been able to simply overpower his opponents like he did the Goblin in the first film. Here, he has to use his ingenuity and superior mobility to his advantage. Also, they were fighting on Lizard's terms here. Notice in prior fights on neutral ground, Spider-Man had a much more even fight on his hands, even if he was still a tad outmatched.

In closing, I have to say I largely disagree with most things you said here. Hope I was able to point out why.

 

[gorfias]

Some of this may look like spoilers, so...

Spoiler

I don't buy the new guy as a nerd, but I think they did a better job of showing his genius. Neither movie really make me think a normal person would have a once in a lifetime experience of getting bitten by a radio active spider and get super powers.
I agree with T.K.: Gobby looked like a power rangers villain. The end was not epic.
Spidey himself looked terrific, better than in the old days
I was happily surprised in a number of ways:
The Lizard: I wondered if they could make him a compelling villain. They kept most scenes with him in close quarters and he came across as very dangerous. Could he have looked better? Sure, but he looked good enough for the story.
New York: that did not feel like a tacked on attempt at the types of emotions we got in the train scene in Spidey 2. They worked well enough for me.
Gwen was good enough
They do get in a line about power and responsibility
I buy the convenience store scene. He even accepts milk from the guy.
His emotions seem heartfelt over the uncle
BUT
Aunt May: kid's coming home with a bullet in him, and you aren't insisting upon truth!?!?
Pete can store hundred's of meters of fluid. That doesn't sound like enough. I wish the devices channeled his web, but that it originated organically from the back of his neck.

Over all, I like Spidey 1. But when I saw it, I found that it followed the original stories so closely I felt like there was never anything new and surprising. As it is, I enjoyed this version better than Spidey 1. Genuinely fresh and exciting.

EDIT: Funny enough, Ebert gives is, 2 best, then this, then Raimi's first, then third.

 

[Haefulz]

I agree with your point about New York. The first movie did a much better job of establishing a "home" for Spiderman, while the NYC in the reboot just felt like a thrown-in backdrop to what Spiderman was doing.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

Where's the option for 'neither'? There's a grand total of four Spiderman films now that suck with a passion... is it too late to stop making them? I promise to still not suffer them if they promise not to make anymore... seriously, save the film reels! stop making Spiderman films.quote]

No they can't. Marvel gave sony the rights to spider-man movies. A move now I think they regret. They can only get spider-man back if sony goes so long without making one. Which is why they had to throw out this crap so fast after avengers. 1. To fool non geeks into throwing away their money thinking that any other comic book movie would be just as good as the last one they saw. and 2. Making sure they can keep their toy away from marvel to use him properlly.

This was a passionless adventure because this wasn't a movie or a story or a great character. This was them (sony) keeping their toy and using them however they want and rubbing it in marvels and every other comic book fans face. That why they can even fuck up uncle bens angle and not give a damn.

Edit: How the heck is the poll tied? *sigh*

 

[lapan]

Red Letter Media had a pretty good review of the reboot and i mostly agree with them. The dark realistic spin just doesn't work with Spiderman.

 

[ImSkeletor]

This movie was so painfully souless that it was unwatchable. I'll take the Raimi movies any day.

 

[gorfias]

Just rewatched Raimi 1. It was sillier than I recalled, but there were some really terrific things in it too. But in the end, the Lizard was a much more exciting villain than Green Goblin (no disrespect to Willem DeFoe, who was very good! But the villain itself was out of the Power Rangers!)

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Girlfriend: Gwen Stacy is far more likeable and hot than Mary Jane. Point for the Reboot

I really have no idea which film is the better one to me, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But I really have to agree that Gwen is better than Mary Jane, mainly because she isn't just some hapless damsel with the personality of beans. She actually helps cure the Lizard's mutagen, and even attempts to set him on fire! If Mary Jane had been in this situation, she would have just stood there and screamed.

...Though I guess MJ tried to hit Doc Ock with a plank. Mercy points for that, I guess.

 

[lapan]

No female character in spiderman beats Aunt May though

 

[WolfThomas]

No they can't. Marvel gave sony the rights to spider-man movies. A move now I think they regret.

It wasn't really "gave", more like sold or leased. Back in the 90s Marvel went bankrupt (part of the comic collapse that killed companies like Valiant). Those movies deals were one of the few things that saved Marvel. That said Sony is more likely than FOX to sell back their rights due to their finiancial situation.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

No they can't. Marvel gave sony the rights to spider-man movies. A move now I think they regret.

It wasn't really "gave", more like sold or leased. Back in the 90s Marvel went bankrupt (part of the comic collapse that killed companies like Valiant). Those movies deals were one of the few things that saved Marvel. That said Sony is more likely than FOX to sell back their rights due to their finiancial situation.

Yes, perhaps "gave" wasn't the best term. Yes, they got money from it of course, I was trying to say that comparative to what they could have made with spider-man in their own movies now, i'm betting that money they got from SONY looks pretty tiny now. Espically for a main event character like spider-man. I can understand selling blade, and ghost rider and such because as much as I personally like them, they are still on the middle card of superheros. Where as Spider-man is always a main event character.

 

[Ldude893]

No female character in spiderman beats Aunt May though

And now I'll never see Aunt May in the same way ever again.

I watched the movie yesterday, and it was pretty good. It's nice to see a heroine in a Spiderman movie who's not a goddamn idiot, and I actually like the actor who plays Peter Parker.

The villain's sympathetic and at least not one-dimensional, but I wished they fleshed out the dual-personality aspect of his character a bit more. Plus, parts of the movie seemed so rushed, and it doesn't have that sense of scale as the first Spiderman films. I guess they were trying to go for a 'realistic' portrayal of Spiderman, but they did the same with Batman in the Christopher Nolan films and at least they had a sense of epicness to them.

Also, one other nitpick:

Spoiler

During the climax, there's a very forced part where construction workers from the new World Trade Center move cranes so that an injured Spiderman could swing to the Oscorp building faster. Look, I know New York and 9/11 and all and I know they did the same thing in the first Spiderman films, but back then it was excusable then since it was right after the attacks. In a reboot 11 years later, it's pretty blatant.

Ah well, it was only one moment and it really wasn't that bad.

Oh yeah, the Stan Lee cameo was fun.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

No female character in spiderman beats Aunt May though

....Aunt May murdered someone? The fuck?

 

[lapan]

No female character in spiderman beats Aunt May though

....Aunt May murdered someone? The fuck?

It's the chameleon, he would have killed her otherwise.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

No female character in spiderman beats Aunt May though

....Aunt May murdered someone? The fuck?

It's the chameleon, he would have killed her otherwise.

In the real world I would be all "Right on" but in the world of superheroes I don't like any of them to have a bodycount.

 

[Attercap]

There were a few things I liked about "Amazing" (especially the better use of the webs), but it had more going against it than it had going for it. Raimi's first 2 Spider-Man movies, on the other hand, were fantastic and I think captured what I wanted out of the comics more than the reboot.

 

[Khala Harvey]

i dont think that we should compare the movies to eachoth, because that getsus nowhere. compare the movies to the comics. the reeboot is more like the comics than the last movie trilogy, which makes it more interesting, since the comics are good already and we didnt get any of the comic book storyline from the first spiderman. i alsoliked that peter parker had more of a reason to become spiderman in the reeboot. he was looking for his uncle's killer, instead of just becoming a hero. put yourself in peters shoes: would you honestly start going after bad guys for no reason? i woulddnt, honestly, because a) i dont care if i can lift a house an throw it in the ocean, its still dangerous to go after random bad people. reeboot had it right though. i would go after the killer of a loved one. the acting was great, as both peter and spidey, the casting was great, the villian at the end brings a whole lot of mystery as to the next movie, everything was, really, amazing.

 

[Khala Harvey]

besides, the green goblin looked like something out of power rangers, not really a villian i can take seriously.