Are Spiderman Movies Better Than Both Superman N Batman Films?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



dami wilson
ALRIGHT GUYS N GALS, here's your chance to vote for the best superhero film adaptation! Is spiderman the best super hero film you've seen or based on it's sales alone can you argue that spiderman film is the number one comic book film.
1: biggest sales......makes superman look like kids play
2: most believable storyline and special effects
3: most appealing to adults since comics are supposed to be for kids
4: best adaptation of superhero comic book adaptation
5: most likely to burst future movie sales (even though DC will now
make their films more serious)
6: spiderman gave the Xmen it's appeal to audiences because it became
the biggest film ever (I think) but it still knocked star wars off the no.1
7: The upcoming Superman and Batman films next year will not come
near the sales made by both Spidey films.
8: Can anyother super hero film beat Spidey's appeal! DD and Hulk
couldn't. smokin' rolling on floor laughing laughing out loud laughing eek! mad cool
9: WOULD HERO VS HERO films be made?

Thank you for your time and input!

Endenkton
Both Superman films? There was more than 2 Superman movies.

And to answer your question NO,No they are not better.

dami wilson
aw shucks. Ok, superman two was the best cus it pitted superman againts three of his kind and he had the love dilemma with wanting to be able to get married. SUperman two was tops but in terms of sales, it doesnt' compare with Spiderman.
Three was yuck! Then it dried off and I'm hoping they surprise us all in the next Superman film. It should be better with more visual effects and stunts!

Mr Parker
thats a question thats suppose to be funny right? laughing superman rules as the best comicbook movie ever made still to this day.Batman and man-spider are horrible comicbook adaptations.

Dazzler619
I can't say that the Spider-man movies were better then the Superman and Batman movies.Superman 1 and 2 and Batman 1 and 3 were pretty good.The rest of the Superman/Batman movies sucked.

Mr Parker
Im glad you at least agree with me that batman 3 was much better than batman 2. big grin the batman and superman movies just dont have the magic that superman had.I hope someday they remake the spiderman movies and do it correctly next time like they did with the punisher and get john williams to do the musical score for spiderman like he did superman.I guarantee it would be a magical movie if john williams did the musical score.

jango fatt
Yes by far!

bakerboy
Superman 1 is a great movie. Superman 2 is a good movie. Superman 3 and 4 and the rest of the batdwarf and man spider movies sucked. Plain and simple.

42Bardock
I like Spidey but its not better than Superman Movies. <The Batman Franchise kind of sucked they had a few good paerts but I like the Spidey Movies more, The next Batman movie is gonna whoop his ass though (I hope)

Alpha Centauri
I think the first Batman movie is one of the best, if not THE best comic book movie ever.

-AC

vaya_the_elf
First off I don't care for superman. Second the first batman movie was good. Second was good only because of catwomen, but the penguin did suck in it. Third was ok. Riddler was done well. The fourth I will pretend did not happen

Now the new spiderman movies. They great.

So I think the spiderman movies are doing pretty well. The first batman movie was good to.

Now the x-men movies are not doing to bad either.

Mr Parker
Now the new spiderman movies. They great.


you ARE trying to be funny right?
laughing laughing

Paola
stop it Mr Parker...

dami wilson
hmm, well well well, let the games begin. Mr Parker , why do you call yourself Mr. Parker whne you know Peter Parker wont find your comments funny? You cant say that cos it's broken records in terms of film success of all time movies? How can you beat that. It did it twice. Broke Star Wars off the 1st list place and drew more adults and non comic book readers to Super Hero films. Duh that says alot!

Man spider? I guess that's the directors fault for trying to make things different! Atleast Spiderman didn't look too childish like Batman films where the Penguin and Joker characters just looked =too goofy or Disney like!

Alpha how can Batman beat Superman films? WAS THERE A BATMAN 4 N 5?

Mr Parker
LoL.I love that old laughable logic that just because it made so much money at the box office its a great movie.By the way,hate to burst your bubble here but whoever told you man-spider made more money than star wars did box office wise has misinformed you or lied to you because if you do your research you will see that star wars still holds the record as the number one box office hit of all time.man-spider is only like 6th or 7th. According to that absurd logic that its a great movie because it made so much money,then according to you,Empire Strikes Back-which most star wars fans consider to be the best star wars film of them all is the worst of the bunch and the Phamtom Menace is the best star wars film after A New Hope since it made so much more money at the box office than Empire did.very weak argument.man-spider only made so much money because spider-man is such a popular character that it did not matter how god awful the movies were.same with the batman movies.

Hate to tell you this but there have been many many great documentary films made before over the years that bombed at the box office and horrible films like the phantom menace for instance,that were smash hits at the box office.Your crippling your arguments here dude. Uh yes,the green goblin costume=laughable and goofy looking. as far as being stuck with the character of man-spider on screen instead of spider-man,its actually Sony to blame more than anything else.After they heard James Camerons idea -who was originally suppose to direct spider-man for him to have organics in the movie,because Cameron is a well respected director in hollywood,sony insisted on his lame ass idea of spidey having organics and Raim being the yes man he is pretty much went along with what sony wanted unfortunately.

Alpha Centauri
People like the movies Parker, you don't. Deal with it.

Stop acting like a kid with a broken bicycle wheel.

-AC

pr1983
1. sales dont say how great a movie is... you've seen titanic right?

2. storyline? no, effects, thats to be expected due to the fact its a good 14 years more advanced technology wise.

3. u watched batman 89 right? yeah... really for kids...

4. superman is better imo...

5. its a proven fact that more people visit cinemas then ever before... for thosde of us who remember and watched the original supes and bats we cant wait for the new ones.

6. xmen is as big a comic as spidey is to most... look at comic sales... while its true that spidey made comic movies popular again, xmen probably wold have made a decent return anyhow...

7. sure they won't... thats what my crystal ball says, what about yours?

8. superman and batman, more well known than spiderman to most...

9. what does that have to do with the movies? spidey has only fought villains in these movies... i seem to remember hulk fighting thor in the old hulk movies...

Alpha Centauri
"Can anyother super hero film beat Spidey's appeal! DD and Hulk
couldn't."

"Hulk" appealed to me more than "Spider-Man".


-AC

bakerboy
First of all, NOT EVERYBODY LIKES THE MAN SPIDER MOVIES. Stop with that nonsense because is false, many, many people hate those movies.

Second of all, the box office of a movie DOESNT MEAN QUALITY. remember phantom menace? remember atack of the clones? remember scooby doo? remember american pie? To say that is stupid and funny in the same way.

And the last for the moment, The first two superman have more positive things than the batman and the man spider movies together. The four batman movies and the two man spider movies are just bad movies.

Red Superfly
Not necessarily. OK, I will totally agree with you that the Batman movies so far have NOT been completely loyal to the character, but Burtons movies are good films in their own right. They aren't truly Batman in the comic sense, but I think they are a brilliant adaptation of the tale, like I have said before, a very expensive and well-written fan fic. That's all. Still watch the movies. I still watch Batman Forever, with mixed thoughts. It can be good in places, it can be crap in places. Batman & Robin I have banished from mind altogether.

Superman was great. It just did the safe thing and just made an epic comic book movie and didn't p*ss off anybody by making any changes.

Spider-Man I still love. Like Burtons Batman movies, I understand the changes, and despite my love of the webshooters, I have always been glad that Spidey had organics. It divided opinion on the movies like no other (right bakerboy/mr parker?). Like I said, it didn't bother me, as it was an adaptation. It, like the Superman movies, got the essence and values of the character spot-on though, which redeemed and justified the changes, and that matters to me more than re-creating the damn comic as it was printed.

Oh well, all ya can do is have an opinion. Watch the films then make up your own mind, never listen to me or anyone else for that matter.

bakerboy
Ok, red superfly. Agree about the superman movies, not about the batman and man spider movies. We have talked many times about the man spider movies. But about the batman movies, i really think that they were bad movies, the four ones. Sure, there are some good things in the first three, but still bad movies. Bad scripts, corny lines, some good performances, etc. Visually, Burton is a genius, but in storytelling , he is very poor at times. In this issue, the batman movies are two of his worst works.

Alpha Centauri
Do you not understand that just because you don't like the Spider-Man movies, doesn't mean everyone else does?

-AC

bakerboy
Have you understanding problems? Because i havent never said that. What im talking about it just the opposite, that if you liked the movie, doesnt mean than all the people liked it.

bakerboy
In fact i know a lot of people in my country, comic fans and not comic fans, movie fans, critics, and some friends of mine who disliked the movie a lot.

Alpha Centauri
Good for you. I respect that, but don't keep trying to make fun of people who like it.

-AC

Mr Parker
8. superman and batman, more well known than spiderman to most...


BATMAN and MAN-SPIDER only did so well at the box office though because of their extreme popularity.tickets prices have increased immensely since 1978 when superman was made plus you have many more theaters,same goes for batman,inflation and more movie theaters.they may be more well known,but people have not been waiting forever for a spiderman movie to be made,both comic fans and non comic fans- movie goers alike had been waiting forever for a spiderman movie to be made.there was never any doubt in my mind both movies-spidey and bats came out, when they first came out,would make so much money box office wise because in both cases,with batman 89 and the manspider movies,I talked to many many dozens of adults in 89 and in 2002 for those movies who said they went back to the theaters many many times with their familys only because their kids wanted to see bats and spidey on the screen,not because THEY wanted to.that would be exrtremely naive to say that didnt happen around the country as well.even though batman 89 did not make people wait anynear as long to come to the theaters as spiderman did,that was a movie that was suppose to be made and released back around in 85 as well but it also got delayed for many years.Now if spiderman was made back in 89 or so like they were hoping,now way does it make near as much at the box offixe as it does.movie goers were just finally glad to see spiderman on the screen finally after all these years that they dont bother to see how horrible these films really are.all the batman movies and man-spider movies are not qulity films like the first two superman movies are,thats a no brainer.

pr1983
i wrote one line... u wrote too many... your opinion is your own and your entitled to it... these movies were crtitically and publically acclaimed... maybe thats why so many people saw them...

Mr Parker
errr dont think so.In both cases since we are talking critical acclaim,then you got to remember that they only got 3 stars in their reviews in most newspapers nationwide,where superman 1 and two got 4 stars and thats because unlike batman and manspider,they are magical movies. big grin

Alpha Centauri
And this is a guy who says I don't respect the people who disagree with me.

Hypocrite.

-AC

pr1983
first of all... i prefer bats and supes movies to spidey... or didnt u understand my post parker? and i know lots of papers that gave spidey at least 8 out of ten or 4 out of 5...

Red Superfly
Most reviews I read, by film critics of all calibre, from your lowly local newspaper reporter, to the big dogs on TV reviews and respected magazines, all gave Spider-Man, Batman and Superman roughly the same score. Superman was the more critically acclaimed, but only by a little. Batman I remember won at least one Academy Award.

Batman and Superman were amazingly well recieved. Spider-Man would probably be the weakest in terms of critical acclaim. Batman and Superman would be your five star blockbusters while Spider-Man would regularly pick up 4/5, with the odd 5/5 here and there.

All three were critically acclaimed. Only difference being that Spider-Man 2 was much better than the first, and it was only until 2 came out that it recieved as much recognition as the first Batman and Superman movies.

To say any one of those three films were slated by critics is just wrong. The majority of reviews out there class them as brilliant movies.

I'm just glad the 3 most famous superheroes didn't end up getting the treatment that The Punisher, Hulk and poor Elektra recieved. Now they were critically despised.

42Bardock
Well at least The Hulk was a ****ing bad movie though, same for Daredevil

Alpha Centauri
I think "Hulk" was always gonna get slammed just coz of the character. There were some people who were never gonna be pleased. I liked that movie though, I thought it was more of a movie than the others.

I loved the first "Batman".

-AC

pr1983
i liked hulk... the only problems imo were the cg and the panels, other than that i really enjoyed it...

Red Superfly
Reviews of Spider-Man

Proof that Spider-Man 2 was well recieved by MANY

Review of Batman (the bad ones obviously have no idea what they are talking about - see for yourself)

Batman Returns reviews

Now lets have a look at Batman Forever - NOSE DIVE

Batman & Robin - rock bottom

Superman reviews - nothing bad here

OK. So it seems like Burtons movies are better than "Forever" and "& Robin" while Superman is probably the most critcally acclaimed one out of all these reviews. Fair enough, but it backs up my point exactly, Superman was so accessable and light hearted anyway, it wasn't really hard to screw up. Spider-Man and Batman have particular tones that need to be addressed and judging by the reviews, is what makes up their mind about them Superman has always been universal, because THE COMIC was, whereas Spider-Man and Batman aren't as understood and have very different takes on the superhero lifestyle comparred to the more traditional Superman style that everyone knows and is accustomed to. But there are the reviews and it seems as though they aren't much different at all.

dami wilson
WELL, I NEVER SAW ANY REVIEWS BUT I THINK THEY ALL DID BETTER THAN DD AND HULK. Spiderman 1 n 2 had more CG effects but the story line wasn't that great. Spidey's wise cracks was thrown out but in terms of seriousness, it went well. X Men 1 n 2 were cool too and are the first superhero film with more than one superhero so it was more extreme. It still made a hit. I prefer Xmen two and it left alot to the imagination.. wanting you to want to see more. Now thats a first!

Hulk was a cool film but the size made it look strange. I laughed alot in it but it was too long before HULK showed up. Let the comic books rule!
Now we can see more superhero films come to live. As long as they dont make them too childish that it becomes unbelievable!

I just wish the new Batman film is more uthentic and dramatic with good fighting sequences. I do wonder how a guy with a cape can fight and not get entangled with the cape flying all over him. They can make Batman more like James Bond, special gadets superhero with billionaire power and an austin power aura! It needs to be more scary and have loads of bats in it that can sort of communicate with him. So making Batman like some form of Dracula or Blade! Suprman has to make Matrix 3 look like child's play cus that's who Keano Reeves was imitating,
fighting all those guys at once and flying aroung like a speeding bullet gone astray. If Superman looks anything like Matrix Three in terms of effects, then it would sell! It's got to be all action and no play. The return of man wonder has to leave the Earth feeling like some alien has attacked it! Stunts like never been seen before but believable stunts that sort of blow the mind! Then I'd give it a plus over Spiderman.

Mr Parker
Well Im not going to argue with you on this because I know from my own personal research of looking at national newspapers such as The kansas city star,st louis post,arizona republic,ect,that superman 1 and two got 4 stars when they came out and was much better critically acclaimed and those same newspapers only gave batman and spiderman 3 stars so it makes no difference to me what you want to think I know what I saw.The only thing your correct on here about is that spiderman 2 WAS much more critically acclaimed than the first one,THAT you are correct on.Cant blame them for that sense it at least was not pure dog doo like the first one.The first one looked like it was wriiten by a 5 year old,the second one at least had script writers that knew something about what they were doing with much better dialouge in in.The second one was halfway decent in the fact that it was much better critically acclaimed and at least not dog doo like the first film.The second one I will acknowledge at least had more positives than negatives where the first film,the negatives far outweighed the positives.the first one was so horribly written it was a joke,the second one again was at least halfway decent so its not surprising to me that it was much more crtically acclaimed since it was not anywhere near as horrible a film as the first was.

Mr Parker
OK. So it seems like Burtons movies are better than "Forever" and "& Robin" while Superman is probably the most critcally acclaimed one out of all these reviews. Fair enough, but it backs up my point exactly, Superman was so accessable and light hearted anyway, it wasn't really hard to screw up. Spider-Man and Batman have particular tones that need to be addressed and judging by the reviews, is what makes up their mind about them Superman has always been universal, because THE COMIC was, whereas Spider-Man and Batman aren't as understood and have very different takes on the superhero lifestyle comparred to the more traditional Superman style that everyone knows and is accustomed to. But there are the reviews and it seems as though they aren't much different at all.

Well Ive gone into it dozens of times before on threads over in the batman section that can be found on "WHY" BATMAN FOREVER is by far the better Batman movie than Burtons films are despite what many batman fans and reviewers think,why its a much better written screenplay than Burtons are so you can just go over there and read those for yourself on that.Thats just beating a deadhorse so I dont want to get into that here.I would just be repeating my criticisems of it that I have given on it time and time again in the batman section.Get tired of addresing that same issue.Now BATMAN AND ROBIN? no argument there,that movie is definetely a horrible film just like burtons batmans films are.no question about that.Burton HAS made some good films before,but BATMAN isnt one of them. Most those reviews of those reviewers that they showed are a complet joke and cannot be at all taken seriously accept for that one guy who said that the movie wont stand the test of time as a great film-which superman HAS BUT BATMAN other than die hard keaton and burton lovers,hasnt by the way. big grin thats why batman begins is getting restarted over again because of how so many people were dissapointed with all the batman films.

Now as far as spiderman,those are just the opinions of people just like me and you so what THEY say doesnt mean diddly,what DOES mean diddly is how many stars they got and again batman 89 and spiderman 2002 only recieved 3 stars by most major newpapers when they came out where superman one received 4 stars.I noticed how you did not show those statisitcs. Some of those reviwers are obviously like many people over here in the spiderman section who will accept any kind of spiderman movie no matter how awful it is and just be happy that a spiderman movie is made.I mean look at the absurd comments-Raimi and his team couldnt have done any better bringing the story of spider-man to the screen? Even YOU have said they could be better and have said they have their shortcomings.that reviewer is clueless what he is talking about and cannot and should not be taken seriously.Or the guy saying this movie was faithful to his roots? He obviously never read a comicbook before in his life because he if he had,he would know this movie was not at all faithful to his roots. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Alpha Centauri
The Spider-Man was faithful.

Spider-Man in comics: Born in Forest Hills, Queens. Parents passed away. Living with May and Ben Parker. Bitten by Radioactive Spider. Uses mechanical webshooters.

Spider-Man Movie: Exactly the ****ing same except with organic webbing.

That's 4/5 things dead on with the comics. The 5th is something they changed but did well anyway. Almost EVERY movie could be done better than it was. There is no perfect movie.

-AC

who?-kid
Criticizing is the easiest thing in the world, as we all can see here on the forum.

If anyone complains about Spider-Man (who was by the way a great movie, not a masterpiece but certainly entertaining. And indeed faithful with only a few unimportant changes), let them make their own movie and show us their talents.

I really want to pay to see the result... laughing

Red Superfly
Heehee, Parker will pull you up on something eventually so I may as well point it out - Spider-Man was bitten by a genetically engineered spider. They tinkerred with his origin a bit.

That was probably the one thing that bugged (no pun intended) me the most. The fact that EVERYONE AND THEIR DOG knows that SPider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider. We've see that origin spoofed and parodied all the time. Spider-Mans radioactive spider bite is possibly the most famous superhero origin of them all. So why the hell was he bitten by a non-radioactive super-spider, one of fifteen in fact. I've gone over a million times as to why I think this is plain stupid (the fact that there was more than one of them and it bit him out of spite rather than it dying of radiation - meaning there should be a few Spider-Men and Spider-Women scientists swinging around I think). It's insiginificant to the character, but I seriously don't know why they thought changing the origin was a good idea, especially since the original origin, however ridiculous it was, was more realistic than the supposedly "more realistic" movie alternative. The spider bit him in the comics for a reason, in the movie, it was just an aggressive SOB, and it didn't die - surely it would just carry on biting, and biting and biting more people?

That's me being nit-picky, mainly because it is a legitimate plot-hole more than betraying any comic. I wouldn't have minded the change if it made sense. Yeah, I know it's a movie, but its a bit of a blooper.

Mr Parker
put richard donner and the scriptwriting team of the first two superman movies with john williams doing the musical scroe in charge and I guarantee you a good spider-man movie WILL get made.

Mr Parker
The spider bit him in the comics for a reason, in the movie, it was just an aggressive SOB, and it didn't die - surely it would just carry on biting, and biting and biting more people?

That's me being nit-picky, mainly because it is a legitimate plot-hole more than betraying any comic. I wouldn't have minded the change if it made sense. Yeah, I know it's a movie, but its a bit of a blooper.

Actually its not nit picking at all,its a very good point you make.Thats just one of many many mistakes in that film that make it such a horrible film.There is no excuse for such horrible screenwriting like that.As I said,the second one didnt have anywhere near as many stupid bloopers in it as the first one did and not anywhere near as many cheesy lines thats why it was much more critically acclaimed.Now saying something like wolvie not wearing a mask in the xmen movies like I have seen a few people say before on a few occassions in the xmen section now THAT would be nitpicking because it makes no sense for HIM to have a mask and not the others,so that was a reasonable change.the spiderman movies,especially the first one,have so many stupid and unreasonable changes such as organics,and mj's character being 95% gwen stacy and only about 5% mj,that the spiderman movies are a joke.

BlackC@t
Not everybody likes the Spider-Man movies eh? compared to the amount that actually love them, very little hated them.

If the sequel raises millions at the box-office, then obviously it does mean quality.

I think the Spider-Man movies are best comic-book movies.

The reason why Wolvie should wear a mask is so Mutant-Haters don't know who he is.

Mr Parker: We get it, you hate the SPIDER-MAN movies, can you stop going on and on about it now?

BlackC@t
Not neccesarily. Perhaps you only aquire it's abilities if you have a certain type of DNA. Peter could be one of the few people in the world that would survive this spider-bite, the rest would die.

Jackie Malfoy
I would say Batman is the best.The Spiderman movie sucks.I did not care too much for the superman ones either.JM

dami wilson
I dont know why writers for films have to keep changing comic book characters. Its disloyal to the many comic book readers who have spent their hard earned cash to make the character a Brand name! They should stick to the original storyline and make the plots new! But the character's not their's so they should keep it real!

MR Parker, I hope that explains your anger at man spider films. Its trying to bring originality to an old stuff in a new format! Like when a song is redone by another artist five or ten years later. They did bring
spiderman down though cus the web shooters were a source of dnager, supposing it ran out when he was in mid air? Plus sticking to the original stuff keeps the dream alive.

jedi90
mr. parker, how can u say that? for someone who hates the spiderman movies cause of their lack of detail i would think you would hate superman with a passion. i mean, they gave superman new powers whenever the script demanded it, i.e. teleportation, eyebeams that can rebuild walls, ability to make holograms of himself, etc. i could go on. the fortress of solitude was one big ice cube with nothing but crystals, nothing like the comics and the action was somewhat dull. i respect your opinion on the spiderman movies but i think you need to look at the superman movies with the same fine tooth comb u took to the spiderman movies.

jedi90
i wonder, why do you go see these superhero movies if you come out of it so disappointed most of the time? i think you are like alot of starwar fans. they will talk to no end on how much the prequels suck but no matter what they will go see the new flick when it comes out.

BlackC@t
Dami wilson, the movies are only BASED on the comics. I see no reason to keep it exactly the same. If the comic fans don't like it, tough, deal with it.

pr1983
comics are like any book and deserve the same respect...

they have to be pretty accurate, its the nature of it, but a little atristic license isn't a bad thing, as long as it doesnt ruin the movie...

Mr Parker
Well to address your first post,thats because the changes they made in the superman movies were reasonable and not stupid like the changes they made in the spiderman movies.organic webshooters are on the same level as superman flying around on a jetpack,pointless and stupid with no logical justiifcation behind them other than that it was simply lazy film making which is inexcusable.To address THIS point,THATS the key right there,you said MOST of the time.I dont come out dissapointed ALL the time otherwise I wouldnt.I really enjoyed Daredevil and feel that its the first good comicbook film made since superman other than dick tracy.So as long as hollywood makes a good comicbook film once in a while like they did with Dick Tracy and Daredevil,I'll still go see comicbook films.Matter of fact,I havent seen it yet but I am really excited about Seeing Elecktra,that looks to be the best comicbook film made since Superman 2.Hope that answers your question satisfactorily? big grin

pr1983
no its not... organic webshooters are a minor thing(at least to me, if its good enough for stan lee its good enough for me)... superman with a jet pack IS a major thing...

K3VIL
Mr. Parkers opinions and judgments cannot be take seriously.
Why?
Cause someone that appreciate DAREDEVIL, and says it's the best comic book movie since SUPERMAN, it's like listening to a supporter of the worst team of the Major League saying the NY Giants is the worst Base-Ball team ever created.
DareDevil was 70% rubbish and 30% quite good.

DareDevil/Matt Murdock:
They choose Ben Affleck, did i need to say more?
He's only good interpretations were those in Armageddon, Dogma, Will Hunting, that's all.
Elektra:
Jennifer Garner can be Elektra only in a fanboy dream.She's blonde, she has light green eyes, she has white skin.
Elektra has BLACK hairs and eyes, she's greek, and her skin is more dark.Jennifer Garner also looks like she's acting into a mix of Dawson's Creek and Beautiful and not in a comic book movie.

Those two elements mixed are the 70% of rubbish of the movie.

BullsEye
A great Colin Farrel.He looks like he's really psycotic, sociopath killer, that has a perfect aim and likes to kill just cause he likes it.
Crap things with his character are the tatoo, the trenchcoat, the shurikens in the belt.

Kingpin
Ok the big K is white in comic books, but in real world they need to find someone that can pull out the role in a good manner and has the physical requirements.
M.C.D. is a hella big man, and with the outfit they give him he was able to reproduce a KingPin i like very much, the fight with DareDevil also shows is famous upper human limit strenght.

This are the only good things in DD movie.All the rest sucks very good ^^.

Mr. Parker you says the Sony's Spider-Man sucks, let me tell you, no offense, you don't understand even the 1% of what takes to create a movie, so you cannot appreciate Spider-Man.

Spider-Man/Peter Parker:
He lives in the Queens with his uncles, the actors that interpretate them were quite good.Tobey Maguire was very good.He was the perfect nerd, then the super-spider bite him, and his life becomes more troubled and hard than before, but also more fun and interesting.
The comic books origins of the Spider that bites him were revealed more after the release of the movie, so they cannot put in the movie that kind of thing.Also Spider-Man was more inspired to Ultimate Spider-Man than to the Classical Spider-Man.
In USM Peter is bited froma genetic alterated spider, in USM Osborn use on himself the serum that alterate the spider to grant himself superpowers.In the movie the spider is a result of genetic manipulation, and Osborn use on himself the supersoldier serum he create.
Back to Peter, he do the exact things he do in USM and normal SM, the death of uncle Ben was maked in a wonderful manner, the atmosphere makes the people in the cinema crying when i go watching it at the cinema.Then Peter change, after he defeat the thief, he become a vigilante, and hero, and his sense of responsability grow thanks to what uncle Ben says to him.His costume is practically = to that of the comics, the webs, the webs comes from his body, and from someone bited by an alterated Spider is "normal".

Goblin
Willem Dafoe, nearly perfect Osborn.
Yes he's not physically builted(Osborn is physically bigger than the Osborn in the movie), but he pick up the role and pull out a great Norman Osborn.The Goblin-Armor thing wasn't so good, i was waiting to see him dressing up with the outfit we all know, but they choose to give him a bulletproof armor.The Goblin-Glider have a new design, it shoots bullets and missiles it was very fun to watch.Goblin's weapons were all there, except for the electrical blasts from his gloves, which shoots sleeping gas.

J.J.J.
Bad, louder, bastardly fun.He was made perfect, the hair cut, outfit, except for the physical dimensions of the actor, it was very fun to see J.J.J. acting likes he does in the comics.

Robert Robertson
Very good too, but the actor can't pull out Robertson physically.Robbie has a good physical condition, the actor is too much big and little fat, but anyway good to see.

In the second movie, Doctor Octopus arrives in Peter's life, as a mentor before and has an enemy after.
Alfred Molina was perfect, the mechanical arms were perfect, all the movie was fun to watch.

But NOOOOOO, here comes Mr.Parker like a die hard Hulk Fanboy, with his own opinions, don't knowing what kind of work there is behind the 2 movies, and i say it cause i know it, cause in my highschool i study 3D Animation, Visual Effects, 2D Animation, Video Compositing, Motion Capture, and the hystory of the Cinema, and how it works and what kind of professions there are in.
So with my knowledge, i can tell you that all your ASSUMPTIONS, and all your hate is that of someone that probably hate the movies cause you are a nearly MANIAC fan of Spider-Man that wants things all done in his manner, how he likes them and when he wants them, or the movie is crap.
Go to the SONY headquarters, and ask them for 100Million Dollars, and show me if you can pull out a better Spider-Man or stop with your boring discussions and judgments.

crazy
Yea seriously parker do you ever shut up about the spiderman thing, can't read one of your posts without the same stupid point over and over again.

All I imagine is some little kid crying on the floor kicking his legs and repeating something about organic webbing while he accidentally pisses himself. Sorry for flaming, I do like this forum and I don't see as many flames on this forum which is why I joined but right now I think it's important to get this guy to stfu.

crazy
Btw the organics pissed me off too but I got over it, I really loved the web shooters, they are what kind of got me into spiderman in the first place. I really liked how his transition went and the grief he went through, the scene with him on the bed crying... I remembered why spidey is my fav superhero. Anyone read Madgoblin's review on spiderman movies?

BlackC@t
No, they don't. The filmakers make the movie how THEY want, if people don't like it to ****ing bad for them, deal with it and stop crying like a three year-old with a broken bike.

pr1983
wtf? excuse me? what in the hell did you find wrong with my statement?

movie studios make movies FOR the public, not for the good of their health...

i ENJOYED the spiderman movies, didn't you even bother to read my other posts?

bad form... seriously...

BlackC@t
My comment wasn't aimed towards you, don't worry. Yeah, movie companies make them for the public, but they do it thier way.

pr1983
true, but you quoted me, so i'm a bit confused...

and when i say books and comics i mean adapting them... that the characters personalities are brought to life, that spiderman wears a red and blue suit, not some dumb shit like web shooters...

i agree that they put their own spin on things, thats to be expected, but the core values i.e. aunt may bein old and sweet, peter being a nerd... the truly major parts need to be honoured...

BlackC@t
I got ya'.

pr1983
oki doki big grin

Next Venom_girl
Yes, Spider-man movies are better in every way. stick out tongue

BlackC@t
Ha! looks like BlackC@t's met her match in another female Spidey fan...

Mr Parker
Okay posts like these from people like K3vil are why I am getting sick of discussing this and why this is going to be my last post on this thread.first of all K3vil,you never read all my posts because I already pointed out HOW a great spiderman movie can be made and not pure crap like what HAS been made.Obviously you missed it where I said all it takes to make a great spiderman film and for it to be a magical movie experience like Superman 1 & 2 are is get Richard Donner to direct it,get the screenwriters from the first two superman movies to write the script,and have John Williams do the musical score.Presto a magical movie just like superman 1 & 2.simple solution got it? good because Im tired of repeating it and you guys not reading what I previously posted.you are misquoting me here as well which is why I am tired of these discussions because you also forgot to mention that I said that Dick Tracy is ANOTHER comicbook film besides Daredevil which was a good comicbook film since superman.somehow you conviently forgot to mention that one.

While Daredevil could have been better,it at least was much more loyal to the comicbook.Yes Elecktra was an assassion but they had to make that change though to make her a likeable character.I always thought they could have gotten someone who looked more like Elecktra than Jennifer Garner but she was good in that role.Hell of a lot better than Tobey Mcguire was as spidey.He was fine as Peter parker,no complaints there,but he sucked as spiderman because he sounded horrible as spiderman.the spidey from the 90's toon had an awesome voice and is what made that show so fun to watch.for a key character like spiderman,you should have an actor who has a great voice which mcguire does not have.

spidey in the comics and cartoons is constantly cracking wisecracks when he is fighting,even when his life is in danger.that was inexcusable for him to be so quiet in his fights with doc ock and green goblin.making very few wisecracks at all.

the only good thing about the spiderman movies is the special effects especially the second one with the scenes of doc ock in it.As I mentioned the second was better than the first but still a joke because of how they screwed up the character of doc ock making him mr nice guy in the beginning and then becoming good at the end and when peter took off his mask to doc ock.totally stupid,peter would NEVER reveal his identity to his greatest enemy.

William Defoe was a great Norman Osborn but his laughable and stupid looking costume ruined his amazing performance.People laughed at that costume watching him talk without moving his mouth.JK SIMMONS was also amazing as JJJ,he nailed the character.Him and defoe and the special effects are the only good things about the spiderman movies.thats it.I have already pointed out before why these films are so horribly wriiten especially the first one but you all just want to pleased with merely just seeing the name spiderman on the screen that you want to ignore all those valid points so I am done wasting my time on this thread since you ignore these points on why it was so horribly wriiten.

so what if you studied all those things. whats that prove? I have never said that the special effects were bad in these films.I have always said that is the best thing about the films and the main reason why its such a big money maker,that and because of what an extremely popular character spiderman is.If I was saying things like the speical effects were horrible-which again I never have,then you would have a reason to point that out,but I never have.I have just always maintained that the films were horribly wriiten especially the first film.If you had ever studied screenwriting before like I have then you would know how horribly written these movies are. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Daredevil while it has some flaws in it as well,was much more loyal to the comicbook and unlike the first manspider film,when you campare daredevil to the first film,daredevil has more positives than negatives. roll eyes (sarcastic)

for the last time.Making a spiderman film without the classic mechs is the same as making a superman film with him flying arounf on a jetpack.Inexcusable and stupid in both instances.the organics are a joke in the first place because there is no logical reason for him to be SHOOTING webs in the first place,spiders dont SHOOT webbing,they SPIN it. roll eyes (sarcastic) also he could never shoot the webbing far distannces like he does without rupturing many blood vessels and veins.again horrible screenwriting.again If I had been complaining all this time saying this movie was horrible because it had horrible special effects,then you would be able to back up your argument there that I dont know what I am talking about,but the fact is I have always said that is the best thing about these movies is the special effects but the screenwriting for these films is horrible and inexcusable,so dont start in anymore with this I have studied visual effescts,video composing,2d animation when none of that is relevent to the main issue here which is the script writing in these movies which just plain sucks in these films.

also its actually superman that is way better than the spiderman films in every way.

Next Venom_girl
Heh heh heh evil face
I wonder if they'll do a Spider-girl movie?

jedi90
yup, thanks for taking the time to do so. i understand where you are coming from. i'm a bigger superman fan than spiderman and when those superman movies came out i felt the same way you probably felt about spiderman. so i guess i can relate. big grin

pr1983
yes dick tracy was excellent, i loved it too.

but getting the crew you mentioned will not guarantee a great superhero movie (besides john williams, that guy rules). Donner's last good movie was Lethal Weapon 4. While he did a wonderful job with superman, you have to realise its the hardest superhero to mess up, its an incredibly simple premise, believe me i know (im a huge supes fan).



daredevil more loyal... how? elektras change was stupid imo... and i thought garner was terrible.

better than tobey? i don't think so... its unfair to compare them to tas voices, because tas will always be the best imo. maguires voice was good enough imo, but i was a bit angry he didnt wisecrack too.



molina was stunning imo... an excellent doc ock...

but yes he should have kept his mask on...



affleck and garner outweigh any positives imo...



bull... organic webs shouldnt be a big deal to anyone...



no its not, its actually quite decent imo...

BlackC@t
That is so long and silly I'm not going to bother reading it. It's pathetic to say you hate the movie because it 'Betray the comic,' just pretend it isn't based on your 'precious comic' and you'll have no problem with it.

BlackC@t
Me too evil face

Darth_Nefarus
Spider Man 1 and 2 tie with Batman 1 and 2
Spider Man 1 and 2 are superior to Batman 3 and 4
Spider Man 1 and 2 and Batman 1 and 2 are better than ALL Supermans
ALL Supermans are superior to Batman 3 and 4

dami wilson
Mr parker, calm down! Gees, it's just a chat line. I guess I see your point but hey, you got to admit, the effects carried the wieght and it kept you going till the end. I had problems with the part where Pete lost
his powers and was crashing down like a frog gone crazy and I thought that sucked like a bad watermelon!

In many ways they spoilt the movie with the rediculous changes they made but hey, the effacts made up for it! I wonder how they come up with these changes anyway? Do they get true comic readers or just some movie commercial geek? Anyway may the force be with us all! The word of God that is!

Red Superfly
Why? Because he wasn't doing the normal "OMG-Kill-teh-baddies!" thing?

It added to his conflictions. He was having trouble with accepting his role as a superhero, and therefore his sub-conscious was switching his powers off. It's like when an athlete can't run because he's lost the passion or the will to win - the same thing was happening to Spidey on the same level.

It was actually a really good part of the movie - it proved how much Peter Parker was a true grit hero, he knew how good his life could be if he gave it up - but he just couldn't. He was Spider-Man for life.

Also - it has been done in the comic books, so take it out on the source material, not the movie.

fatcat22
if you guys are arguing about spidey losing his powers, it couldn't have come from the comics cus he uses web shooters to spin his web so how can he afford to lose his powers to swing if he depended on his web shooters. Are you talking about his spider powers like clinging to walls?

dami wilson
doesn't matter, spiderman movies are going to be the best for a whole long time , you know why? The guys a good fellow kinda guy and real! I just wish they brought back his wise cracks like back in the good old days (70s, 80s and early 90s).

Spidey films for now have out sold Xmen, Hulk, DD, Cat woman and even Electra! Since Star wars is coming out again this year lets see how Batman returns and Superman forever or whatever does in knockiing it off the top draw! Its gonna be a tough year to be no. one!

The special effects trailer on Star wars 'the return of the Sith was devastating so lets see how the Bat fairs!

Spiderman_RJ
"Spider-Man I still love. Like Burtons Batman movies, I understand the changes, and despite my love of the webshooters, I have always been glad that Spidey had organics. It divided opinion on the movies like no other (right bakerboy/mr parker?). Like I said, it didn't bother me, as it was an adaptation. It, like the Superman movies, got the essence and values of the character spot-on though, which redeemed and justified the changes, and that matters to me more than re-creating the damn comic as it was printed"

very well said Red supes. i have the same thoughs

Spiderman_RJ
"I'm just glad the 3 most famous superheroes didn't end up getting the treatment that The Punisher, Hulk and poor Elektra recieved. Now they were critically despised"

hulk is nice i like for the exception of it getting bigger like a tree and the dog fight, the rest are fine, punisher was a cool movie but a bad adaptation, and poor electra? did u see that movie, it crap!!!!!, i hate remembered i wasted my money to see that , bad adaptation , worst movie ever.

superior
http://files.halomods.com/down load.php?id=32508 dang sad

Spiderman_RJ
wrong forum, dude?

bakerboy
Is this thread still here? Its sad what it can be said about those terrible movies about man spider.

#1Rupert_Lover
I think Spider-Man's the best movie adaption. true, it isn't too much like the comics, but neither are any other superhero movies. the superman and batman movies were okay, but they were nothing compared to Spider-Man. so are the Spider-Man comics. Personally, I find Marvel superheroes better than DC superheroes. I like it when it's more close to reality. you know, like living in a real city, that sort of thing. That's my opinion.

doctorstrongbad
Yes the 2 spiderman movies are better than the superman and batman movies. Superman 1 and 2 were good but 3 and 4 were box office bombs. Batman 1 was good but the other 3 were bad, badder and garbage.

Napalm
Actually spiderman is about the worst comicbook adaptation ever.Bakerboy and Mr Parker are right,we have only seen manspider on film,not spiderman.Superman is 10X better than those horrible manspider movies and those horrible tim burton batman movies as well.

pr1983
dc is way more realistic than marvel... but hey, i prefer batman and superman to spiderman comics wise, so i get what you mean...

the worst comic book adaptations imo are: daredevil, elektra, 80s punisher and batman and robin...

spiderman movies are far more faithful and just plain better made than those mentioned above...

bakerboy
Yes, they are so faithfull with organics webs, mary jane behaving like gwen , spidey not being funny, green goblin like a power ranger and doc ock being being a good guy at first and at last. And what a great script with all the people seeing peter powers in the school scene and all the people seeing who spidey is and losing his powers for not reason in the second. What two great and faithfull movies. laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud

pr1983
so you failed to mention the fact that maguire was an amazing parker, defoe played a great osborne... aunt may and jj were almost flawless... most changes made were for the better, molinas ock being a prime example, he gave the character depth...

sure it had its flaws, it wasnt perfect, but it was a whole lot better than the movies i mentioned earlier...

and stop going on about the organic webs, they were good enough for stan lee, so get over it. i'd call u a fanboy but that would be insulting fanboys...

bakerboy
Stop with that crap of fan boy, man. Im not a fanboy, im first a cinema lover and second a comic lover, so, i see if the material is good before if is a good adaptation. And the movies were bad movies. Im agree with you in the first three points: maguire was good, dafoe was great, simmons and harris were amazing, but the changes were unnessesary and stupid and for worse, and molina was a great doc ock, but a poor octavious because the terrible scripters changed his character with not reason at all. And not, stop with that lie that Stan Lee liked the orgaincs, he hated them. He only did good talking about them because he had to promote the movies.

pr1983
sure he did... they were holding a gun to his head... if he didn't like them he wouldn't have had cameos in them, or spent ages talking about them in that documentary with kevin smith...

i saw nothing wrong with octavius... he had the same motivations as the real one, they just expanded it slightly... to make it work on the screen...

the changes were not made for fun, they had reasons... why organic webbing? because peter parker was not a millionaire with an unlimited supply of artificial webbing... it helped to make him more like an everyman by giving him organic webbing... it worked too imo...

bakerboy
Surely, bad talk about the movie when it will be released would be an intelligent movement by stan. Its his creation, he couldnt damage a movie based in his most famous creation bad talking about it, even he think it. Have you ever seen a director or an actor bad talking about the movie that they are promoting? For example, Bob Kane said that batman and robin was the best batman movie when it was relased, some time after, he bad talking about the movie in interviews.

Octavious in the comics is a pompous prick , arrogant and unkind. Why change it? Why it wouldnt work in a movie? Only sony, sam raimi and the scripter know it.


Peter is a everyman not for the organics, he is a everyman for his problems. They only didnt translate it to the movies because they thought that it would be so incredible in a movie. What is a ridiculous excuse because we are talking about a movie based in a comic book, where all is possible,its a fantasy world, not a bio-pic.

pr1983
he was in the movie... actually on screen... if he didn't like it he wouldn't have done it...

octavious was arrogant and slightly pompous, he was too sure of himself in the experiment, the similarities i was talking about were how the loss of the loved one drove him to do bad things...

well d'uh... i never said it was due to the organics, we all know its his problems... even a fantasy world needs some sort of basis in reality... imagine how dumb it would have looked showing him in one scene struggling to hold a job, and then he goes home and takes out his very costly web shooters and fluid...

bakerboy
Oviulsly, the fact that he was on screen doesnt mean that he liked the organics. The wife of bob kane was on the last two batman movies and you know what was Kane's opinion.

That was very far of what the character is. The character shouldnt be only obsessed with his experiment, he should be a prick by himself. He was only a good guy controlled by his tentacles.

Well, a man controlled by four tentacles is kinda dumb too and is in the movie. That isnt a valid excuse.

#1Rupert_Lover
Wait a minute. you do know DC's the one with Superman and Batman, Right? Spider-Man is Marvel. Because that sentence confused me. I also think that Marvel's superheroes are more realistic because they don't live in cities like Metropolis (Which isn't a real city). they live in New York city, and places like that. and yeah, I like the flash, but he totally goes against the whole E=MC2 theory. and Marvel superheroes have some scientifics to them. But I do agree that organics for the movie does make it more believable. And Spider-Man is a little off, but it's still a better movie than Batman and Superman, which proves that creating a whole new story is better than making it as close to the comics as possible. because some things that were used for the comics won't work in a movie.

pr1983
if he hated it so much he'd have refused to do it, but he didn't...

he could have been crueler, but imo it made him more interesting character...

and they explained the tentacles properly, so it is a valid excuse...



batman is a human billionaire, yes with extraordinary talents, but a human nonetheless, superman is an alien, and his origin and powers are well documented... marvel has living planets, a man bitten by a radioactive spider, a guy who survived a gamma blast and instead of being killed turns into a big green monster, a guy who eats planets... i am a huge fan of both stables, but i know dc tries to be more plausable and gives a hell of a lot more detail than marvel...

bakerboy
No, they dont explained the tentacles properly. What is that explanation?

#1Rupert_Lover
I think the whole tentacles controlling octavious was a great idea. it had a strong story to it. I thought they did a great job with that storyline.

pr1983
the pins connected to his spinal column directly interfacing with his nervous system, thereby allowing him to control them with his thoughts... a complex ai program was used to give them intelligence, while the inhibitor chip dampened their influence on his brain...

bakerboy
I think that it was stupid and unnessesary. Why he cant be evil for himself? Plus, when the tentacles were like talking to him was kinda dumb and campy.

bakerboy
By the way, if it could be in a movie, the web shooters can.

pr1983
they could, but ock was rich, he could afford to build the arms with his oscorp grant...

parker dont have a grant... no web shooters

bakerboy
But peter is a tennager genious, he could make the web shooters with material not so expensive. Its more a talent issue than a money issue. He did that high-tech costume and he hadnt money too.

pr1983
come on? what would he use? and what about the fluid? that would cost money too...

#1Rupert_Lover
I agree with pr1983. and as for the tentacles talking to octavious, that is not dumb and campy. it gave more depth to the story. besides, he didn't start off evil in the comicbooks either. he went insane because of brain damage, and I personally think that it made more sense to make the tentacles take over instead, because it makes it more believable to do that, because i doubt brain damage would cause a man to become evil.

dami wilson
YOU'RE RIGHT DUDE! Tenacles talking to anybody must mean their mad and nothing else! Except if they meant subconsciously which still makes him plain stupid mad!

Sam R loves freaky stuff from doing evil dead and all those satanic crappy stuff from early in his old days. Hope the new film is better and hope walls dont start talking to people., that'd be freaky! Oh like goblins rocket motors which he uses to fly to start talking to Harry or Goblin himself.

doctorstrongbad
I think that we are a little bit off topic but thats cool. I would just like to state that spiderman has had 2 great movies making him 2-0. Superman had 2 good movies making him 2-2 and batman had 1 good movie making him 1-3. Bats na d Supes both have new movies coming out soon? Can they turn it around? BTW both "new" movies are actually from earlier in the movie series. The Batman movie is a prequell to part 1 the only good batman movie and the Supes movie is suppose to be after part 2 but before part 3.

bakerboy
I repeat, if peter created the high tech costume without money, he could create the web shooters. Also, is a fantasy movie, if the people can get superheroes and supervillains with fantastic powers, they could can get the web shooters easily.

doctorstrongbad
When did Spider man's costume become high tech? I though it was just a normal costume. That's why MJ or Aunt May is always sewing it up.

bakerboy
In the movie, is a high tech costume. See the lents or the desing of the web and the spider in his back and chest.

doctorstrongbad
Really wow, they sure made a lot of changes in the movies no wonder that one guy is always mad. he calls it man spider. lol

Max Spidey 24
How can they make web shooters. They originaly did make them for the movie but stoped it because people wont believe wb from like toothpaste and candy could shoot out of that and spidey doesnt have to refill every second in the movie, but yet the y make the toy . The movie seemed more about spiderman trying to bone marry jane than an spidey story. The comic book and movie are to different. Superman is way better because the movie and comic was like the same .

As for batman they havnt got him right yet , I think he is harder to do because the costume is different and shadow, not to mesion his attitude. It would be cool if Kevin Conroy was batman while in the suit and some other guy was bruce wayne

pr1983
the lenses are cheap frosted plastic, and the spider is probably vinyl... thats not hi tech...

doctorstrongbad
The movies should of had him make his web shooters. That way when he gets the venom suit, if this ever happens, he is like wow I don't need web shooters any more. smile

Mr Parker
Originally posted by doctorstrongbad
I think that we are a little bit off topic but thats cool. I would just like to state that spiderman has had 2 great movies making him 2-0. Superman had 2 good movies making him 2-2 and batman had 1 good movie making him 1-3.

okay I did not want to return to this thread but since someone felt the need to resurrect this dead old thread I got to correct you here.actually spiderman has had two crappy god awful movies making him 0-2 BATMAN has had NO good batman movies making him 0- 4,"that should change this year though with batman begins though." however you ARE correct that SUPERMAN has had two good movies making HIM 2-2.you at least got that part right. big grin

Mr Parker
so very well said,great post max.you are right that they did orif=ginally make them for the movie,but that was all just to try and shut up the fans and get them to be excited about the movie.huge mistake though because it just showed that Raimi and sony were liars saying they would be in the movie.

Robo-Chocobo
what is it with you and your bitching about organics. Get over it. if you had them in the movies the movies still would have been the same. complaining saying just one small thing ruined a whole movie is ludicrous

dami wilson
actually, that part was cool cus it didn't really matter as long as they came from his hand and made him swing! If we're on the same plain, how come spidey wasn't funny? No wise cracks? That was a discredit to Peter Parker cus that's what villains hated him for! Always making fun of them n their interlectual, so what give with that?

I just thought him losing his powers temporarily sucked cus what does that have to do with the omic. I support Mr Parker saying it was man spider! Maybe they should have turned him into a huge spider at the end like 'The Fly'!

doctorstrongbad
Um Thanks Mr. Parker at least I got the superman movies correct. I still think the Spiderman movies are better than Bats and Supes even if it just because they are more recent. 2000 vs. 90's and 80's

bakerboy
Ok, i will end it because two main reasons. One is that is very, very boring discuss the same thing over and over again and second, this is a topic about another issue, so we are all off of topic. In my opinion, the web shooters should be included in the movies, the movies were extremely bad, more the first one than the second one, and were infaithfull to the spirit of the comics in many aspects. End of discussion for me.

doctorstrongbad
Does that mean this thread is over with?

pr1983
finally... the incessant whining was doing my head in...

#1Rupert_Lover
Actually, i thought there were plenty of wise cracks.

doctorstrongbad
Okay i guess the thread continues

Endenkton
The Superman movies are waaaaaaaay better than the Man-Spider monstrosities.

#1Rupert_Lover
for goodness sake! he's called Spider-Man! And I personally think that the superman movies were kind of boring. Spider-Man was more enjoyable.

Alpha Centauri
You have to learn to get used to the people calling it Man-Spider, they're being extremely ignorant in blatantly ignoring the title and trying to make it seem as if they matter. When they don't.

Marvel are riding a pretty untouchable wave after the blockbusters that were the Spider-Man movies, adored by newbies and comic fans alike. A few malcontents on this forum probably aren't making Joe Quesada and Stan Lee lose any sleep.

-AC

BlackC@t
I think the Spider-Man movies were superior to the Superman movies too embarrasment

BlackC@t
It's not a fantasy movie, silly roll eyes (sarcastic)

Peter didn't make his costume. He got it for free from a costum-made tailor, seriously. The Flying Dutchman was praising him because he beat up Bone-Saw, and he told him his brother was a tailor and would do his costume for free.

I find it much more believable for a person to get superpowers then to create webshooters.

Besides, how do you know a person can't get spider-like powers from getting bitten by a genetically altered super-spider?

dami wilson
SPIDEY FILMS ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY BROKDE ALOT OF RECORDS AND SALES WERE AMAZING! End of story! Until supes films conquer no argument!

TWelling4Ever
ABSOLUTELY! I really think that the Spiderman movie was a really good adaptation and that it blew all the other movies away. raver rock big grin eek! cool

Mr Parker
boy you have a short term memory.I already said this earlier on this thread but looks like I got to repeat it again since your memory is short.That old lame argument that its better because they made so much money at the box office is so lame its laughable.the man-spider movies made so much money at the box office simply because spidey is an extremely popular character it did not matter how horrible the movies really were.them and the batman movies only made so much money at the box office because of the popularity of them.itwas mostly kids that got their parents to take the family back to the cinemas over and over again to make it so much money,not because the family wanted to.

I asked many familys both times when batman and the manspider movies came out if they saw the movies and they said yes they did several times only because their kids wanted them to see it.Its pretty safe to say that went on around the country as well.also come on,there are many more theaters today than there were back in 1978 and 1981 and ticket prices are a LOT higher so you cant say it made more money when they were made in such different times when inflation has come into hand. according to that laughable logic as I said earlier,by THAT LOGIC empire strikes back was not anywhere near as good a movie and the phantom menace is the best star wars movie ever even though many people hated the phantom menace. roll eyes (sarcastic) please enopugh with that laughable and lame logic that the manspider movies are better because of sales at the box office.that old argument has been shot down countless of times.they only made so much money at the box office because of the extreme popularity of the character.superman and batman are more well known than spiderman,but they are not near as popular.proof is in the pudding,spidey has his own comicstrip in national newspapers,batman and superman dont so spidey is obviously more popular with people even though supes and bats are more well known.the popularity of the character made spidey so much money at the box office.simple as that. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Mr Parker
Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
for goodness sake! he's called Spider-Man!

yeah but the character on the screen you saw was manspider,not spiderman because they turned him into a damn monster with organics. mad

doctorstrongbad
Wow this thread is causing a lot of controversy. Cool, keep up the good work.

bakerboy
Please , blackcat, dont insult me, ok?

Second, If for you a movie based in a comic book with a guy with the powers of a spider and another guy getting superhuman strenght and flying in a gilder isnt a fantasy movie, and a guy with superhuman powers by the bite of a spider is more believle than a guy creating a web fluid, surely we havent nothing to discuss about.

doctorstrongbad
Um ...If they make a manspider movie and it sucks... will they call it Spiderman?

#1Rupert_Lover
laughing out loud

doctorstrongbad
Yeah I was hoping to get a laugh with that one.

pr1983
laughing



utter bullshit... the films were critically and publically acclaimed by fans and newbs alike... we've had this argument before... just because they weren't perfect movies you whine and complain constantly... grow the f*ck up...

claiming people saw the movie purely on his popularity is ridiculous, a lot of people read revews, thats why we have critics, they can make or break a lot of movies...

and guess what, some people actually enjoyed these movies because... wait for it... they were well made comic nook adaptations...

#1Rupert_Lover
but seriously, I think some of you who don't like the spidey movies only hate it because he doesn't have webshooters. it isn't that big of a deal. they needed to make some alterations so that they could make the movie more believable. because people who've never read the comics before wouldn't understand how peter created the webshooters and figured out how to make web fluid when scientists are still trying to figure out what spider webs are made out of. plus, where would he get the chemicals without paying for it. so really, they had no other choice but to make them organic for the movies. so don't make such a big deal out of it, people! Superman's a good movie, but it still gets pretty boring. The only good Batman so far was the first one, and that one's old. (Though i hope this new batman coming up will be good.) Spider-Man films is probably the best superhero movies so far.

doctorstrongbad
Yeah I would have to agree with that.

Mr Parker
again the ONLY reason the manspider movies made so much money is because spidey is an extremely popular character,much more than batman and superman.thats why unlike them,he has his own comicstrip in national newspapers.the extreme popularity of his character is what made the movie so much money,nothing else.NOW you can say end of story dami wilson. big grin

Mr Parker
oh god not this old lame argument AGAIN.. roll eyes (sarcastic) Please we have pointed it out umpteen times on this thread that it was a LOT more than just organics that ruined the film and make it about the worst comicbook film ever.If you would bother to read the previous posts you would see that.according to THAT logic there never should have been a spiderman movie made because the whole thing of spiderman is unbeieveable and there are many things in that movie that are far more unbelieveable than that,plus a guy getting bit by a spider and gaining all those powers he gets is every bit as unbelieveable as what your saying. roll eyes (sarcastic) for the umpteenth time,he had the instinctive knowledge from the spiderbite to instintively know how to make thw webbing.he can easily get the chemicals from doc connors at the college.again there hasnt been a good batman movie made yet-he is o-4 and spiderman is o-2. its a HUGE deal for the die hard spidey fans because we want to see the character of spiderman on the screen NOT manspider which is who we are stuck with.

pr1983
bull... having your comic in a newpaper does not make you the most well known character in the world... superman and batman are way more popular...

what made this movie so much money is: being a well made comic adaptation...

#1Rupert_Lover
for goodness sake! not all spidey fans agree with you on that! what's the big deal if he didn't get bitten by a 'radioactive' spider! yeah, he got bitten by a 'genetically altered' spider. so what? it was probably something contained in the spider's venom that gave him his superpowers. when superheroes gain superpowers, they don't always need to make sense. it just happens! and if you didn't notice, he got his powers while he was still in high school! he didn't know Doc Conners 'til he got to college! and do you seriously think a guy could get that kind of knowledge after getting bitten by a radioactive spider in real life!? the audience watching the movie wouldn't believe that! they'd find getting bitten by a genetically altered spider and getting organic webbing more understandable. some stuff that was good in the comicbooks would not work in a live action movie. how many times do i have to say that!

#1Rupert_Lover
Wait a minute! Superman started off in a comicstrip for the newspaper! what are talking about "thats why unlike them,he has his own comicstrip in national newspapers." the spider-man movies got money because, unlike the Batman and Superman movies, it had a great storyline! The Batman movies were too dark, and the Superman movies were so slow and pointless. so don't tell me it was because he was popular! mad

dami wilson
interesting me boyo! Keep it up! Wait for part three then You'll see! Then you'll see!

Mr Parker
uh the superman movies were HARDLY slow and pointless.you just made my point for me,superman doesnt have his own comicstrip in newspapers anymore because his popularity has dwindled over the years,spiderman still does because of his immense popularity.Again THATS what made it so much money at the box office because he is much more popular than them.okay Im done.

pr1983
superman's popularity will never dwindle, he's the quintesssential superhero... he'll always be bigger...

and since when did having your strip in a newspaper make you the most popular?

it made money because it was a good movie, its not our fault you cant see it...

Mainstream
Superman is a big icon...almost as big as Batman.

Joker1237
Batman is suppose to be dark.

pr1983
superman is bigger than anyone... including batman... he iconic... very few heroes are even close to him...

doctorstrongbad
Lets not worry about the hero and get back to the focus the movies.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>