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

[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.