Originally posted by ares834I'd still say Spiderman is ahead of Iron Man in terms of popularity. Iron Mans has the higher grossing movie (which is more thanks to Avengers than his previous movies since every Spiderman ever made has outdone all the Iron Mans except 3, and none of them have yet to surpass Spiderman 2 in terms of collective reviews; in fact, the only super hero movie ever made to even tie with Spiderman 2 in terms of quality is TDK), but he's still a more recent addition to the super hero table when compared to someone like Spidey who had the 90s show and set the bar for super hero movies for plenty of people growing up.
What do you mean by "on top right now?" Do you mean most popular? If so it's between Batman and Iron Man. But if you mean most recognizable it's easily Superman with Batman and Spiderman coming in second.
In terms of being the most recognizable, Spidey has always been up there with Supes and Batman. There's a reason he's marvels poster boy. As an icon, he and Supes are get top spot with Batman coming in second.
Funny how this thread has become which Superhero is better in the film dept?
Ironman was born to take the lead ahead of his counterparts.
He just needed an actor to play the part. And Marvel succeeded.
Spidey just needed a geek and a director that could visualise the character. They succeeded. Besides the third film which was a train wreck.
Batman needed a dark and edgy actor to portray the dark origin of the myth and they succeeded. With Christian Bale hot off his American Psycho fame.
Superman needed a clean-cut yet buff actor to play the role in an origin film. And it was a good choice. But the film was boring so.....
Thor was a success in my opinion. They grounded him but at the same time humanised him which was important to the role.
Originally posted by the ninjakEh, Spiderman isn't where he needs to be yet. The first one was good, but it's still missing something. It felt... off. I liked it, but not as much as I should have considering how big of a Spidey fan I am. Hopefully, the next one blows it away in terms of story and villains.
Funny how this thread has become which Superhero is better in the film dept?Ironman was born to take the lead ahead of his counterparts.
He just needed an actor to play the part. And Marvel succeeded.Spidey just needed a geek and a director that could visualise the character. They succeeded.
Batman needed a dark and edgy actor to portray the dark origin of the myth and they kinda succeeded.
Superman needed a clean-cut yet buff actor to play the role in an origin film. And it was a good choice. But the film was boring so.....
I thought they got the Batman movies almost perfect in terms of tone. Bale made a better Wayne than Batman though which is something they can improve on. I also liked the hyper realistic portrayal they went for, but that also crossed out certain villains like Freeze, Croc, or Poison Ivy being included which bugged me.
I also thought MoS was great. It had it's problems, but I don't think being boring was one of them. I thought the action in that movie was on another level.
Originally posted by Darth MartinBatman has had a lot more bandwagon fans since TDK. It's astounding how little people knew about him before Nolan. I do think he's an amazing hero, but he wasn't as recognizable before his movies as Superman or Spiderman were before theirs. I still remember the insane amount of hype before the first Spiderman came out (which went on to gross 821,708,551 and hold the record for highest grossing super hero movie for 5 years until that was taken by SM3, which rode the hype after SM2 and didn't deserve it), whereas Batman Begins was more of a sleeper hit (374,218,673, which is less than every individual Avenger characters movie with the exception of Hulk, who made 263,427,551) that didn't get its due until TDK started stirring hype with the Joker, despite being just as good (IMO, anyway).
Find this hard to believe.
Superman is the super hero. He's always been the top super hero icon in general, nevermind DC. Spiderman has always been close, even before his movies because of how much people could identify with the character (which is something most DC heroes lack). He's a fan favorite, had a big fan following before his movies, and has always been Marvels poster boy. As great as Batman is, he doesn't have the same iconic status as Supes or Spiderman. He just happened to be lucky enough to get an amazing director that made him huge.
😬
Batman was big before the Nolan movies. After all, he had a phenomenal TV series which is often considered the best animated series of all time and he had a few movies before the Nolan ones. One of which was very well received.
Ultimately, I don't think he is far more recognizable than Spiderman but I don't think Spiderman is far more recognizable as well. Both seem to be in the same ball park in that regard.
Originally posted by Arachnid1
1.Batman has had a lot more bandwagon fans since TDK. It's astounding how little people knew about him before Nolan.2.I still remember the insane amount of hype before the first Spiderman came out (which went on to gross 821,708,551 and hold the record for highest grossing super hero movie for 5 years until that was taken by SM3, which rode the hype after SM2 and didn't deserve it), whereas Batman Begins was more of a sleeper hit (374,218,673, which is less than every individual Avenger characters movie with the exception of Hulk, who made 263,427,551) that didn't get its due until TDK started stirring hype with the Joker, despite being just as good (IMO, anyway).
3.As great as Batman is, he doesn't have the same iconic status as Supes or Spiderman. He just happened to be lucky enough to get an amazing director that made him huge.
1.So we're just gonna ignore the success of the Anthonlogy quadrilogy, The Animated Series, the Adam West show, etc? I'm pretty sure everyone knew who Batman was before Nolan. Nolan just made him relevant again in the cinema. Batman was by far the most loved character on the Justice League cartoons as well.
2.Batman Begins success(or lack therof in this case) was due to the way the film was marketed. Warner Bros. didn't push it that hard. Many people didn't know about it around the time it released. Only fans knew, probably not the casual movie goer.
3.Claiming Nolan made Batman huge is sort of disrespectful. He was already huge. If anything, Batman made Nolan huge.
To me it's like the Godfather trilogy.
Batman Begins is like Godfather Part III. Obviously, it's a great movie in its own right but, to me, just doesn't stack up to the the other two in the trilogy.
TDK & TDKR would be like the first two Godfather entries.
So in a way they're backwards. I wouldn't even call BB a "weak link" like people often refer to Godfather Part III. Begins is great. But the sequels just cranked it up to an entirely different level.