Man spider 1 and 2 sucked and are just bad movie with bad filmanking and bad scripts. The best marvel movies are x men movies and daredevil, even the punisher was better than the man spider movies.
And once again, keaton was terrible as batman and bruce wayne because he wasnt credible in the role in any moment, AND FIRST RULE IN ACTING, CREDIBLITY.
first of all, the spiderman movies were well written, well acted and well made, just because you got your panties in a bunch because his webs are organic is ridiculous. its a lot more credible than having web shooters. the spiderman movies are probably the best marvel movies made so far.
credibility? keaton was more credible, easily more than kilmer or clooney.
Sure, a short ,fat, middle aged, lmost bald and asbtedminded guy as the play boy bruce wayne and the powerful batman. A ton of crediblity.
And if you say the scripts of man spider and man spider 2 are good, you dont know nothing about cinema or about scripts. Those scripts could be written by a 10 years old child.
And yes, web shooters couldnt be credible in a movie of superheroes and supervillans based in a comic book. Great arguments. 🙄 🙄 🙄
Sure, a short ,fat, middle aged, lmost bald and asbtedminded guy as the play boy bruce wayne and the powerful batman. A ton of crediblity.
wtf? not short, not fat, middle aged? i dont think so... and not nearly bald...
And if you say the scripts of man spider and man spider 2 are good, you dont know nothing about cinema or about scripts. Those scripts could be written by a 10 years old child.
ive read tons of spidey comics and plenty of scripts, they werent excellent, but they were faithful to the comics. and i seem to know more about cinema than you...
And yes, web shooters couldnt be credible in a movie of superheroes and supervillans based in a comic book. Great arguments.
i didnt say they couldnt... just that making them organic was a better option for some...
its no worse than web shooters...
how, your the one who claimed i didn't know anything...
only a little pudgy, which wasnt too bad, wig? didn't look bad to me...
and 40? nothing wrong with that... he was fit enough for the role imo. sure kilmer was fitter, still doesnt make him a better bruce than keaton imo.
Not, web shooters is much better because it could bring much more sub plots and it prooves the genious of peter parker.
The issue is that the character should be portrayed by a good actor in his mid thirties at much, full hair and athletic. That is because keaton was wrong for the character.
Im not a fan of kilmer batman, but he was the best of the three because he looked more the character, was a better fighter and his bruce wayne was closer to the character from the comics, althougth his performance was nothing special for me.
i just dont see why web shooters are such a big deal, and i'm as big a spidey fan as most... and there were a few decent references to peter's
intellect i thought.
but thats only physical... i agree kilmer looked better, but keaton fought just as well i think. keaton played the character emotionally and personally better imo, he had more darkness and depth to his character than kilmer imo, and keaton seemed to go from playboy to loner with relative ease, a feat kilmer did not. maybe he was the victim of bad writing, we'll never know...
Keaton wins, admit it. He was way more realistic and better suited for a dark, intelligent man.(I wish I could get a replica of the Batsuit from BATMAN. It looked awesome)Kilmer was ok. But more people seem to like Keaton better.(Why don't they just rename the thread, "Who's better, Kilmer or Keaton?"😉 Keaton of course.