Better trilogy: Sam Raimi's Spider-Man or Nolan's Batman?

[HotTastyChili]

The Dark Knight is a pretty great film, but I find it odd that so many people are willing to ignore all the blatant problems that it undoubtedly has. Specifically with regards to the plot. We really should have seen the messy Dark Knight Rises coming.

The Raimi films aren't as technically "proficient", but they're a lot truer to the comic book origins. They're also much more fun, and a lot funnier. And not dull MCU smartass "humor", actual comedy. Spider-Man 3 is way too maligned. It's not that good, but it's not atrocious. I chose Raimi. His films also don't feel as self-important.

[AaronJ]

I feel sort of the same about Spidey 3 as I do about The Force Awakens: Nothing horrible or anything. But sort of dull and average. Neither film inspires any desire for a re-watch. But like I said, neither was un-watchable, or anything. Just pretty "blah" when it comes down to it.

[ben6543]

Spider-Man Trilogy always loved Raimi's take on the web crawler

[Samus Aran]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

"Too serious" is a criticism I'm pretty sure I will never understand.

And you'll never get an explanation either. They always leave it at that.

[DeadLikeMe]

Spider-man 3 makes it an overwhelming loss for the Spider-man trilogy. Love all the other five.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

And you'll never get an explanation either. They always leave it at that.

And it is an especially strange criticism to levy at films based on a comic book character. I read comics for years. Between individual issues, GNs, things like Absolute Editions, etc. I have thousands and thousands of issues. And yes, some are lots of fun, but then many are dark and/or grim. I mean, stories like "Batman: The Cult" or "Identity Crisis" aren't exactly fun walks in the park.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Oh, they’re completely different! Impossible to compare! One serious and gritty, the other fun and campy.

Nah, I can’t choose. But I’ll say that both are light years ahead of anything in the modern superhero era.

I have to agree here. I do enjoy some of the individual MCU movies but avengers does nothing for me and plenty of the MCU titles are just pointless crap like captain marvel and some others. Raimis spider man always gets the job done. It’s cast well, the performances are good, the way it unfolds is nicely done and it works as a trilogy despite the third film being a little dodgy. I don’t hate the third film I just find it not as good as the first two which are epic.

Nolan’s Batman series is the cream of the crop for super hero sagas, IMO. It’s not perfect but damn it’s really, really good.

I like both equally and find them better than anything super hero wise as of late.

[HotTastyChili]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

And you'll never get an explanation either. They always leave it at that.

While I don't really agree that the Nolan films are too serious, I would think that the argument is that Nolan's films seem self-important, pretentious, and dark for the sake of being dark, because that's what's hip right now. I think Nolan sort of kicked off that trend of everything being of life or death importance in films, with dark blue and black dominated cinematography. I think the criticism is that a man dressing himself up as a bat is taken to an operatic level of stone-faced intensity. The criticism is that Nolan wants people to think that his films are a lot deeper and more important than they really are. I like all three Nolan Batman films (the last one a lot less), but I can definitely see where the people who say they're too serious are coming from.

Being so serious works with Batman, but it's why I think Man of Steel was absolute shit. Superman isn't dark and depressing, he's supposed to be an endearingly campy distillation of patriotic hope. Him saying that "Do you bleed?" line in Justice League made me want to vomit. Totally contrived "edge". Which some people think Nolan's Batman films are.

[AaronJ]

I don't understand this argument that Superman isn't dark or is supposed to be campy, either. It always makes me wonder just how much Superman the person has read, and which stories and arcs. I mean, does this guy look like an "endearingly campy distillation of patriotic hope?"

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by HotTastyChili

While I don't really agree that the Nolan films are too serious, I would think that the argument is that Nolan's films seem self-important, pretentious, and dark for the sake of being dark, because that's what's hip right now. I think Nolan sort of kicked off that trend of everything being of life or death importance in films, with dark blue and black dominated cinematography. I think the criticism is that a man dressing himself up as a bat is taken to an operatic level of stone-faced intensity. The criticism is that Nolan wants people to think that his films are a lot deeper and more important than they really are. I like all three Nolan Batman films (the last one a lot less), but I can definitely see where the people who say they're too serious are coming from.

Being so serious works with Batman, but it's why I think Man of Steel was absolute shit. Superman isn't dark and depressing, he's supposed to be an endearingly campy distillation of patriotic hope. Him saying that "Do you bleed?" line in Justice League made me want to vomit. Totally contrived "edge". Which some people think Nolan's Batman films are.

Good points here - The Nolan films can feel a tad too serious at times but they are terrific nonetheless, IMO. He did start the "dark" thing with Superhero films. He made good movies, period, not just good *superhero* movies. Then, since those you have a slew of others trying to copy the darker tone and it pretty much doesnt work.

100% agree on the utter failure that the horrific Man of Steel film was. Superman isnt supposed to be miserable, brooding, depressed, etc. The Reeve films(first two only) capture the essence of how a Superman film SHOULD feel and thats why they are mostly loved to this day and considered classics. Perfect cast helps too. Man of Steel? Gawd.... its like an advertisement for Zoloft.

[Ray Jackson]

DK trilogy and it’s not even close imo.

...frankly I think the question is insulting.

[HotTastyChili]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I don't understand this argument that Superman isn't dark or is supposed to be campy, either. It always makes me wonder just how much Superman the person has read, and which stories and arcs. I mean, does this guy look like an "endearingly campy distillation of patriotic hope?"

Having an entire team full of mopey whiners is a bit disheartening. Superman fills the role of an uplifting presence pretty well. "Truth, justice, the American way." My understanding of the argument is that people are frustrated that having a good time and taking a film seriously are seen as mutually exclusive now, therefore all these DCEU movies are way too "edgy" for their own good.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

100% agree on the utter failure that the horrific Man of Steel film was. Superman isnt supposed to be miserable, brooding, depressed, etc. The Reeve films(first two only) capture the essence of how a Superman film SHOULD feel and thats why they are mostly loved to this day and considered classics. Perfect cast helps too. Man of Steel? Gawd.... its like an advertisement for Zoloft.

Agree with your assessment as well. Watchmen was really good, but everything else Snyder has touched has turned to poop.

[halloween5309]

sam r. trilogy is the best

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by HotTastyChili

Having an entire team full of mopey whiners is a bit disheartening. Superman fills the role of an uplifting presence pretty well. "Truth, justice, the American way." My understanding of the argument is that people are frustrated that having a good time and taking a film seriously are seen as mutually exclusive now, therefore all these DCEU movies are way too "edgy" for their own good.

But again, I wonder what stories and arcs you've read. Do you see the Christopher Reeve portrayal and stories from those films in the comics of the last 20-25 years? Really?

EDIT: Heck I wonder how much of those elements you see since 1986 and CoIE?

[rui no onna]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

But again, I wonder what stories and arcs you've read. Do you see the Christopher Reeve portrayal and stories from those films in the comics of the last 20-25 years? Really?

They kinda have recently with Rebirth. Although goodness knows DC continuity is a mess (except for Batsy).

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by rui no onna

They kinda have recently with Rebirth. Although goodness knows DC continuity is a mess (except for Batsy).

I will admit that I don't have an intimate knowledge of more recent stuff. So maybe my timeline isn't exactly up to snuff. But since CoIE the characters, stories, and arcs really changed. I think we can both agree on that much.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

100% agree on the utter failure that the horrific Man of Steel film was. Superman isnt supposed to be miserable, brooding, depressed, etc.

Yeah just look at this guy, how miserable, brooding and depressed he is...

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Arawn

Yeah just look at this guy, how miserable, brooding and depressed he is...

[Show spoiler]

Yeah, I'm not sure where that whole thing got started.

[HotTastyChili]

The screenshots are meaningless. It'd be like if I pulled a frame of Adam Sandler frowning in Billy Madison, and I tried to make the argument that it was a gripping drama about a young man trying to overcome his mental deficiencies in order to prevent his father's company from falling into the hands of a nefarious businessman.

Man of Steel is a dark unhappy movie. I didn't even think that was up for debate. It's quality certainly is.

[Kaiju]

Those 3 shots are literally the only moments I think he actually cracks a smile.