Poll: Which Spider-Man movie series do you prefer?

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
The right answer is "Tobey Maguire", if only because the reboot is hideous, but I never liked Tobey's movies to begin with. I think he's a horrid actor. And the movies themselves are kinda cheesy.
Agreed, though kinda cheesy is an understatement. Actually, the first Spiderman had it's moments... when they weren't talking.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
I'll be one of the few who actually liked the new one it seems. Now I did like the older trilogy with the third one being the weaker of the series. However I don't think he really fit my image of Spider-man which is from that cartoon that ran in the 90's (I think). The new one actually made him more witty which really is the way I would imagine him rather than always being quiet and moping about something. I also liked that they moved the focus away from Mary Jane for once.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
I like the Japanese TV series. If it wasn't for Spider-Man doing it, it may not have become a thing...you know, that thing wherein a hero in a spandex suit pilots a giant robot to fight a giant monster.

As for the movies, I like the Tobey McGuire movies more than the Andrew Garfield one. I'm eventually going to see the next Spider-Man movie but the last one just had no idea what to do with The Lizard. The McGuire movies were goofy but at least the bad guys were memorable and mostly awesome, peaks including Sand-Man and, Doctor Octopus whereas the vallies were Venom and, Green Goblin. So far Lizard has been a valley and strictly going on visuals, Electro is a deeper gulch compared to the visual ditch Goblin turned out to be.

The most important thing to keep in mind though: out of the 4 (soon to be 5) Spider-Man movies, none of them are as good as either of The Punisher movies.
 

Daveman

has tits and is on fire
Jan 8, 2009
4,202
0
0
Yeah, the Raimi ones I enjoyed. Except for the last one but that was more of an intentional disaster wasn't it...

The new one was just terrible. Emma Stone will remain in my good books because I can't help but love her for just being in Superbad, a tremendously underrated movie in my opinion, but everyone else involved in that movie should be ashamed of themselves. ESPECIALLY Martin Sheen. WTF were you thinking?!
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
I'm kinda "eh" about both of them. The first trilogy was good but I still don't think Toby Maguire was a good Spider-Man. He's supposed to be sarcastic and snarky not all this:


As for Garfield's movies, they were fun but mostly because they were laughably stupid. Its a shame cause I think he could have done a pretty good job as Spider-Man if it wasn't one of the most half-assed movies of the year
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
Daveman said:
ESPECIALLY Martin Sheen. WTF were you thinking?!
He makes the movie more fun because you can listen to his voice and pretend he's the Illusive Man and Spider-Man is actually Commader Shepard
 

Crispee

New member
Nov 18, 2009
462
0
0
Sam Raimi's films are superior, he clearly understands the character and the tone of the comics better than Mark Webb. Plus the fact that literally the only reason they made Amazing Spider-Man is so they Marvel couldn't include him in the Avengers Film Universe, and honestly, I'd prefer having that chance rather than ASM.

Amazing Spider-Man did a few things right, I kind of prefer Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man, even the horrible "broken promises are the best kind" line at the end is unfortunately very in-character for Peter Parker too. Not to mention Gwen Stacy was a bit more likable than Mary Jane. And the fight scenes were actually kind of cool, such as his fight with The Lizard in the school where he crawls around the ceiling feels very much pulled from the comic.

Still prefer Sam Raimi's though, his dialogue choices have a cheesy, comic book-ish feel about them which a lot of comic adaptations seem to find beneath them, all the fights are very cool to watch and just generally cheer me up.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
Neither. Spider-Man has been a horrendously mismanaged movie franchise.

Capthca: butler did it?
Sadly, yeah.

The Raimi movies are superior (by my count) simply because of the Uncle Ben death scene. The moment I watched it unfold in the Webb movie, I immediately lost ALL respect for that film. It was done so hamfistedly horrible and with such a lack of care or respect for the character or franchise, I just decided to say, "Fuck this film. Fuck Mark Webb. Fuck anyone involved with this movie, even though I really do like Jamie Foxx." Will I still watch them? Yes, a week after they are released and the numbers matter a hell of a lot less and if the reviews don't utterly bomb it first. Hell, for as garbage as the third SpiderMan movie was, I will GLADLY take it over the reboot. Yeah, it was shit in so many ways, but it was bad in ways that are actually laughable whereas the reboot was just so fucking boring and uncommitted to doing anything remotely interesting or worthwhile.

But, overall, the films have lacked something that the animated shows (at least before the newest shit "Ultimate Spiderman") managed to catch so well. The 90's run and Spectacular Spiderman were both great examples of respecting the character and franchise well.
 

DrunkenMonkey

New member
Sep 17, 2012
256
0
0
HardkorSB said:
The Enquirer said:
For me I prefer the older ones.
You mean these?

Duuuuuude That soundtrack is amazing..........

OT: I like the Raimi movies, nostalgia is the factor since it was the very first movie I saw in the U.S. when I was a kid.
 

redmoretrout

New member
Oct 27, 2011
293
0
0
I thought Raimi's movies were complete crap, terrible cheesy dialogue that kept insisting that the movies were emotional. The action was lame and none of the actors were charismatic enough to make the poorly written dialogue work. In short, there isn't a single redeeming quality in the trilogy.


While the Amazing Spider-man was simply mediocre. Somewhat generic and forgettable, but not quite the steaming pile of manure Raimi's movies were. It's the better of the two, but that is not much of an accomplishment.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,454
1,789
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
PoolCleaningRobot said:
I'm kinda "eh" about both of them. The first trilogy was good but I still don't think Toby Maguire was a good Spider-Man. He's supposed to be sarcastic and snarky not all this:


As for Garfield's movies, they were fun but mostly because they were laughably stupid. Its a shame cause I think he could have done a pretty good job as Spider-Man if it wasn't one of the most half-assed movies of the year
I found a time traveler who has seen the rest of the Garfield movie series!

On topic: The Raimi ones were better. Where they perfect? No, but they were pretty alright (except for the third one), and entertaining for the most part, which is more than I can say for the new Garfield one.
 

Drummodino

Can't Stop the Bop
Jan 2, 2011
2,862
0
0
Sam Raimi's Spiderman easily. Didn't like Webb's very much, it just wasn't very good.

On a tangent, am I the only one who preferred Spiderman 1 over 2? I thought Willem Defoe was a great villain.
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
PoolCleaningRobot said:
I'm kinda "eh" about both of them. The first trilogy was good but I still don't think Toby Maguire was a good Spider-Man. He's supposed to be sarcastic and snarky not all this:


As for Garfield's movies, they were fun but mostly because they were laughably stupid. Its a shame cause I think he could have done a pretty good job as Spider-Man if it wasn't one of the most half-assed movies of the year
I found a time traveler who has seen the rest of the Garfield movie series!
Oh shit, I've been found out! You saw nothing!

 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Tobey MacGuire has 3 movies, while Andrew Garfield only has one. Therefore, MacGuire auto-wins on the "best series". To be fair, though, I'll break down, in my opinion, the pros and cons of each.

+ memorable villains (I'm ignoring the utterly wasted Venom)
+ good casting choices (again, ignoring Venom here)
+ follows the comics decently in regards to origin and Green Goblin mythos
+/- cheesy (good cheesy in the first two, bad cheesy in the third)
- disappointing third film
- constant rehashing of the MJ/Parker dynamic
- Emo Parker
- way too many Parker being sad scenes

+ great effects
+ decent casting
+ updated the origin (let's be honest, if they hadn't changed the origin, everyone would have just complained about it being the same)
+ snarky Spidey
- somewhat unlikeable Peter Parker (he is acting like the average high schooler, but still)
- forgettable villain
- way too long
- that ending line

I think that about sums up my feeling on the movies. I don't think Amazing is a disaster like everyone else. I just take it as a stand-alone movie, not really a comic book adaptation. We got that with Spider-Man.
 

CelticPred

New member
Jul 23, 2013
1
0
0
I prefer Sam Raimi's series. I do really like The Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2 (saw the second one on Friday), but I just prefer the simplicity of Sam Raimi's.
Producers (for superhero films) are getting way too obsessed with backstory and complicated plots in everything at the moment.

It used to be:
Hero's private life, usually not that great (this sometimes comes after second point, if sequel).
Hero created (or if a sequel, already exists and fighting crime).
Villain created (often due to some kind of science experiment gone wrong, if Marvel).
Villain kills a few people, and/or terrorizes a large mass of people outside.
Hero meets Villain, but villain escapes.
Some backstory, or extended plot on the hero's life.
Villain attacks directly, causing big fight, and dies, or goes to prison.

Now it is:
Hero's private life + extended Backstory (this sometimes comes after second point, if sequel).
Hero created (or if a sequel, already exists and fighting crime).
Villain created (often due to some kind of science experiment gone wrong, if Marvel).
Backstory
Villain kills a few people, and/or terrorizes a large mass of people outside.
Backstory
Hero meets Villain, but villain escapes.
Backstory and extended plot on the hero's life. And don't forget the easter eggs of the franchsie and hints for sequels.
Villain attacks directly, causing big fight, and dies, or goes to prison.
Post-credit scene revealling another villain.

I kind of forgot most of what I was going to point out half way through writing this, so some of this is probably wrong or incomplete, or overcomplicated but I'd spent too much time to delete it all. So please correct anything.
 

PlatinumRenegade

New member
May 2, 2011
101
0
0
I like the original trilogy better than the first one because Toby Maguire is just better and playing a really nerdy Peter Parker and I found the cast to be more likeable in my opinion (Kirsten Dunst and James Franco were both really good)

Not to say that the new trilogy isn't good but it's just not as good especially with the new one being cluttered with too many villains.

Oh and Emo Peter from Spider Man 3? Just no.