Spiderman (2002) vs The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

[cinco]

but I don't know what else you could do though as the death of Uncle Ben is essential to telling the origin story.

They could just make a Spider-Man movie without letting the origin be a part of it.

[The Thompsons]

I know, but I guess this is a "reboot" so they wanted to try and put an ironic twist on it with Richard Parker's equations being indirectly responsible for making Peter Parker Spider Man.

[cinco]

And they promoted that whole stuff in trailers as if it would be a large part of this movie (the untold story) but in fact it's just hinted at and serves only as a teaser for the sequel.

[D4C]

Yeah the parent thing is important in Ultimate Spiderman but I'm guessing that's all this movie has in common with that series. Kind of a shame as I like it.

[The Thompsons]

This movie is actually very close to a comic I own. To celebrate Spider Man's 30th anniversary they brought back Peter's parents and he fought the Lizard. It would later be revealed several issues later that Peter's parents were impostors, cloned by the Red Skull and working for the Nazis.

[cinco]

I'm alone in this one, but I actually think Emma Stone was a bad casting choice. I would see her totally work as Lois Lane in a Superman movie though. She actually resembles Erica Durance and Kate Bosworth who played that role previously.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Spider-Man had his costume on for, what, 4 scenes?

[The Thompsons]

And has his mask on for two of those.

[cinco]

Well yeah, they want the face of their actor being visible.
It's not like they can let the eyes move sizes and forms for expression like in some versions of the character throughout the comics/animated series.

(still one of my many arguments that superheroes work way better in animated form: no live-action Batman ever looked like the definitive Batman for me)

[The Spruce Moose]

can I change my vote?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

in spirit, but not on the poll

[zach]

i'll switch with you, i voted wrong.

[Cartoonnetwork]

I thought Marc Webb maybe had some good choices- and not so many- but Garfield was awful, really. He was ok, in fact, pretty good in The Social Network but here he's terrible. I mean, Tobey Maguire was a little awkward and it is not my fave actor either, but he was awkward in a likeable way. Garfield was just awkward, as if he were uncapable of showing emotions and doing all kind of weird facial expressions and stupid movements. He looks seriously retarded, not nerdy.

I don't know a lot about Spiderman comics but I think the new movie really copies a lot from the first one. I guess some things come from the comics, but others were probably just copied from the previous film. I mean, the spider biting Peter, Uncle Ben dying and Peter finding his powers are a must, but Peter giving a sarcastic answer to the guy who was robbed by Uncle Ben's killer, Peter getting mad at his uncle and saying he's not his father before he dies and voices talking in the mind of the villain seem like things they copied directly from the first film. Even that scene with the cranes was kinda simmilar in spirit to that other scene where people throw things to the Green Goblin cause they love Spiderman.

What Marc Webb did right was some dialogues in the love story and a little more serious tone, though that was a flaw sometimes too cause you really need some balance. It's an entertainment movie and shouldn't be so serious. TDK can be dark, but Spiderman has always been a little more fun and light for the little I know about the comic book and animated series. But I'll give Webb that, some of the things that happened felt a little more relevant. I love the pulp tone of the Raimi's movies, but he sometimes overdo it. Gwen's character was well handled and acted overall. Rhys Ifans was also good as the doctor, but once he turned into the Lizard I hated the character-and not in a "loving to hate it" way. He looks fake, he doesn't scare anybody, it's simply an ugly design, and his evolution to madness was awfully done. The Green Goblin was a little campy, but at least he looked very evil sometimes thanks to Defoe's acting.

Overall the 2002 one is better cause it has the Daily Bugle characters and Peter's job which makes him more interesting, it has a lot more of Spiderman (Marc Webb is a decent Peter Parker movie, but hardly a Spiderman one), it's more fun and entertaining and the story is better told, especially in terms of Peter's reactions. In the 2002 movie Peter learned things in his adventure. In the new one is not so clear. In Raimi's one he is sorry that he got mad at Uncle Ben the last time he saw him alive, in the new one he never said it, in the old one he tries to comfort Aunt May, in the new one he almost doesn't talk to her, in the old one he learns that revenge is not an option, in the new one it's supposed he sorts of learn it but it's never shown, in Raimi's one he protects his identity and MJ even if he wants to be with her, in the new one he breaks his promise to Gwen's father...He's much more of a hero in the first movie IMO, now he's more of a nihilist teenager.

With another actor instead of Garfield, better effects and more interesting story for the Lizard, and introducing Daily Bugle (maybe with new actor for Jonah Jameson, even though J.K. Simmons was perfect) maybe the new one could have been better (some touches of the love story and Captain Stacy were well handled), but the way they are there's really no contest. The first one works much better overall.

[cinco]

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

What'd everyone think of Spider-Man 3?

[The Thompsons]

So much wasted potential, you would think that a movie dealing with the black costume/Venom saga would be a contender for the best of the trilogy but it fell short. I didn't care much for emo Peter either and I think they over emphasized the effects the black costume had on him personally. It's just kind of jarring being used to how he was in the comics when he had the black costume and seeing this walking hyperbole on the big screen. I guess they needed to do this to move the story along though, but nonetheless it is still the worst of the trilogy.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Video I recently watched brought up a good point. This thing clearly got a hold of Peter and the suit. Yet he can just take it off and for a little while be normal. Yet when he tries to force it off he must RIP it off like some goo again.

[The Thompsons]

The "thing" was the suit and near the end it did try to possess Peter. This was a long time ago but from what I remember it didn't affect his personality as much when he first started to wear it. But it is only a two hour movie so I can easily see why they went a bit overboard with it. Plus it did provide some comic relief. In the comics it took about four years for the effects of the suit to take hold and try to possess Peter.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

They should've also totally not have killed Eddie. He had huge potential if a fourth film (or that spin-off with Venom) were to be made.

[The Thompsons]

Just another thing I didn't like about the movie. Also the way they made Venom look like a stick man. He's supposed to have Spider Man's powers but only amplified and he looked physically similar to Spider Man.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

[The Thompsons]

"Let's do away with the wisecracks and make him into an akward ladies man".

[D DEBBS]

How about Spider-Pig vs. Spider-Man and the Amazing Spider-Man?