so let me get this straight

People actually think that the new Spiderman movies aren't as good as the old ones?

cmon guys seriously

 

They shit on the Tobey Maguire ones tbh

 

They laugh in Tobey Maguire's general direction.

 

to be fair, everyone does

 

The new spiderman movies are defintely better, but the first spiderman movies had its merits too. They had that comic book feel (cheesy one liners, over the top scenarios). Amazing Spiderman does look more like a comic book though (dem colors)

 

The newest Spiderman movie was literally a 2 hour trailer for the next movie.
Also the Origin story of "NO PETER PARKER! YOU WERE SUPPOSE TO BECOME SPIDER-MAN THIS WHOLE TIME! EVERYONE YOU'VE MET AND FOUGHT WAS PRE-DETERMINED" is the single laziest piece of writing any filmmaker can come up with.


Is it better then 3? Maybe
Better then 1 and 2? pffft
Better the Amazing Spider Man 1? Yep

But all in all the worst crime the movie commits is the sin of sloth. It's just an incredibly lazy movie slapped together to tell us how cool the next movie is gonna be.
I will defend that the movie looks great though.

 

ugh. this again.

 

Yes, as Fork said. It's the campy appeal. I haven't met anyone however who has gone out on statement and said the previous trilogy was objectively good (notice I omitted the usage of the word "better"), excluding perhaps our dear @Ars Nova Then again, he did say he "preferred" it-- which is generally the gist of most fans' argument, it boils down to preference. At least I can laugh at the Maguire films.

 

Exactly. Like I said, I do prefer the new trilogy but the only one is good in my opinion, just for the fact that it feels so campy. Mary Jane's character can go die though.

Also, as...controversial as Spiderman 3 was, the birth of Sandman is one of the best things ever.

 

it's more than that. they're trying to build their own ongoing movie series like x men. there's a sinister six movie coming before the 3rd and more after the 3rd. this is why it doesn't bother me that the 2nd is so much setup. the first one is the origin story, the second is reaching a status quo of sorts for the future of the franchise. and really the new franchise does characters so well, which is the absolute most important thing in spider-man, where the old one did them so poorly that there's no comparison imo.

 

you know what i meant
I know it's not supposed to be a trilogy (what with sinister six and everything else)

 

NO I DONT
WHY AM I EXPECTED TO KNOW EVERYTHING???!?!!

 

because you're our comic book guy ;_;

 

awh im flattered
although im p sure there are people here who know more than i do. im just the most obnoxious in your face about it.

 

i thought that was bueno​

 

WHO THE FUCK SUMMONED ME

Oh. Hey Larlar c:

Let's get this one on the record: I like ALL the Spiderman movies. But I guess some people would call me soft. There are a lot of things I forgive when I watch a film, because as a simple prose/world writer I'm just awed by the whole process of making a film, putting all the errant parts together, creating something with all senses and potentially hundreds of acting crew members at play. I recognize the first three were campy and the last two aren't the most sound-of-plot, but all in all people who trash them so viciously need to chill. Especially since they're probably comparing them to the comics which are, by and large, not as immaculate as they're made out to be. The Spiderman franchise could rank a LOT worse among superhero films, much less films in general.

tl;dr refer to my last post on the topic:

 

How the hell is a movie objectively good?

 

Sorry, that was poorly worded. Objectively... well-written? Complete objectivity is unattainable, but "well-written" productions are usually universally recognized (see: the award ceremonies). It also matters whether the film portrays what it intended to portray and didn't sway off the mark, e.g. I am willing to be somewhat lenient with the previous Spider-Man trilogy because the source material it was pulling from wasn't (as Sforzato mentioned) chronologically "immaculate."

Although, I suppose if you are releasing a film to general moviegoers it deserves to be revamped for that purpose. This once again falls back to whether the trilogy benefits from retaining those campy elements from the comics (and now we have come full circle).

 

So how about the Spiderman shows?

 

NOT AGAIN GUYS I MADE A THREAD AND IT'S JUST OPINIONS :\

Oh yeah mine is that the Amazing films are just eh. First sucks, second has some great moments mixed with shite ones. I'll take the first two Raimi films anyday. Spider-Man 2 wins.