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.
__________________ The beatles, best group ever.
John Lennon, Musical genius of all time
Helen Mirren and Julie Christie , most lovely british actresses of all time.
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.
__________________ The beatles, best group ever.
John Lennon, Musical genius of all time
Helen Mirren and Julie Christie , most lovely british actresses of all time.
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.
__________________ The beatles, best group ever.
John Lennon, Musical genius of all time
Helen Mirren and Julie Christie , most lovely british actresses of all time.
Re: Re: Are Spiderman Movies Better Than Both Superman N Batman Films?
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Jan 21st, 2005 at 05:35 PM
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. [/B][/QUOTE]
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. 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.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Jan 21st, 2005 at 06:13 PM
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.
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...
__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 20th, 2005 09:07 PM
