Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy

[dallywhitty]

As far as I'm concerned, Spider-Man 2 is still an excellent film. The original isn't far behind (it's got so many memorable moments) and for all its faults, Spider-Man 3 is an entertaining conclusion to the trilogy. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Raimi's odd sense of humour.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

COMPLETELY disagree! Venom shouldn't have been in the movie at all! The movie should have focused solely on Sandman as the villain and Peter dealing with his issue with Harry Osbourne and his "dark side."

True, really the three villians in it needed their own Spiderman movie. To much to develope each character in one movie.

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by L.J.

True, really the three villians in it needed their own Spiderman movie. To much to develope each character in one movie.

I find this to be the case with Amazing Spider-man 2.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Tony208

I find this to be the case with Amazing Spider-man 2.

Yea seeing the preview it looks like theirs to much going on.

[spanky87]

Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 2.1

What version is better? I remember watching 2.1 a lot because the train fight is longer but I didn't care for some of the additions like Jameson wearing the suit.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 2.1

What version is better? I remember watching 2.1 a lot because the train fight is longer but I didn't care for some of the additions like Jameson wearing the suit.

I prefer the theatrical cut. Not sure why, it's just the one I watch more.

[ultlife2013]

Spider-Man 3 did have an awesome looking Spider-man black suit in it.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 2.1

What version is better? I remember watching 2.1 a lot because the train fight is longer but I didn't care for some of the additions like Jameson wearing the suit.

2.1 for the train fight. Theatrical for everything else.

[Scarface32]

Raimi's Felicia was expected to become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess.

Regardless if he would actually go through with it or not, if he actually considered this for even one minute, it's good he left. His Spider-Man movies were wrong enough as it was. (Such as having Mary Jane being Peter's first love interest, instead of his second. And other things.)

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Pounder

Raimi's first two Spider Man movies are just better IMO than Webb's. Much more replay value and more entertaining. I do like Emma Stone over Dunst though.

Dunst doesn't know how to act. She was terrible as MJ

[B72]

I love Spider-Man 1

it's campy over the top fun
with great performances from Simmons and the lovely lady who plays Aunt May
but Defoe steals the show with or without the helmet
and the fight scenes are fast and kinda surreal
cool stuff

my only gripe would be Macy Gray
- what the heck ?

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by B72

I love Spider-Man 1

it's campy over the top fun
with great performances from Simmons and the lovely lady who plays Aunt May
but Defoe steals the show with or without the helmet
and the fight scenes are fast and kinda surreal
cool stuff

my only gripe would be Macy Gray
- what the heck ?

Oh I know. I just watched it last night and I forgot about that part. I was just thinking "why is this happening? I don't understand."

[Drewbee87]

Spider-Man & Spider-Man 3 are my top favs. I loved Spider-Man 2, but not as much as 1 & 3. Mostly because I'm not a huge fan of Doc Ock. And yeah, the Macy Gray cameo in the first was horrible...

[AmandaBanana]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

What is this I don't even

[DisneyBlu]

I love the Raimi trilogy. I love the Webb films. And, despite both series featuring Spider-Man, it's hard to compare the two.

The Raimi series is very much inspired by the Lee / Ditko / Romita comics. The spirit of those comics are infused in those films. That's partly why Venom doesn't work in Spider-Man 3. Those movies are very much influenced by the 60s and 70s era comics -- and I love them for it.

They're good-willed, warm, charming. They have their cheesy moments, sure. But I often get this goofy smile on my face while revisiting them, especially Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2.

The Webb series is more "modern" and that's partly why it's hard to compare series. It's like comparing Batman / Batman Returns / Batman Forever to the Nolan Batman films. They're so wildly different that it's hard to fairly compare them.

Spider-Man 2002 came out at a time where the superhero movie game was still in its crawling stages. The Amazing Spider-Man came out in a post Dark Knight, post Iron Man world -- and those two films changed the game forever. Ever since 2008, comic book films are taken more seriously than ever before, both by audiences and the studios. I don't think Spider-Man 4 -- which would have been released in 2011 -- would "fit in" after 2008. People consider Raimi's films "outdated," too kind-hearted, too soft, too childish, too corny, too... "old school."

They're kind of like Superman: The Movie. Charming, old school, a great movie... but a more updated, modern interpretation was needed, much in the way that Superman Returns was fine for 2006 -- but it wouldn't fit in after 2008. Man of Steel does fit in, though, because it's more serious, more violent, bigger, epic, darker -- what have you. That's where we're at right now, mostly. Man of Steel fits in in a post-Dark Knight world where the Donner films no longer have a place.

The same is true for The Amazing Spider-Man series. Despite having the title "The Amazing Spider-Man," it's more "Ultimate Spider-Man." Which is fine; it blends Ultimate with 616. People complained that The Amazing Spider-Man was "more of the same," or an unnecessary reboot, or a "remake" of Spider-Man... but they're so different.

I love all five Spidey films; yes, even Spider-Man 3. I didn't at first; I was let down. But once The Amazing Spider-Man came out, I loved it, I went back and revisited Spider-Man 3 and despite some obvious flaws, it's still a good movie. With some editing, there wouldn't be so many problems. It gets enough right where it doesn't deserve its "one of the worst ever" reputation it has.

They're just too different to compare - both in style and tone. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 took a direct storyline from the comics; a storyline from 1973 that defined Spider-Man for decades afterwards. But it was also infused with Ultimate; blue Electro, robot Rhino, etc. It took a classic silver age storyline and put it in a "modern" movie. For those unaware of what I mean, I'm talking about the

[Show spoiler]"The Night Gwen Stacy Died"

mini-arc. Would that arc have worked in the Raimi movies, despite their more "retro" feel and influence? Maybe, maybe not. Might have been too dark -- but it's right at home in the Webb series.

I don't agree the Raimi movies were "childish" -- just, like the Donner Superman, good-hearted, earnest, sweet. The Amazing Spider-Man series has more of an edge, but let's face it, like it or not -- it kind of has to have that these days. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also has moments rooted from the classic comics - like the pure romanticism of it all. Spider-Man has always focused on the romance. It was a soap opera with superheroes. Even John Romita came off of romance comics and overhauled the book, taking the Ditko characters and making everyone look more romantic, more beautiful, more handsome. And the romance was always a major part of those books. Look at Gwen and Peter in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and tell me that you don't "feel" the romance from those Lee / Romita comics.

It blends the old with the new and, for this lifelong Spidey fan, it works.

I still think Spider-Man 2 (2004) is among the best comic book films, ever. It took Spider-Man and explored Peter Parker and showed the weight of his responsibility and it is pure, classic Spidey. It's like you're watching a Lee / Romita comic. But I love both series. The Amazing Spider-Man series is awesome. Raimi's series is awesome. Spider-Man 3 tried to do too much, but studio influence lead to Venom being shoehorned in and he didn't fit. Raimi got the character. Webb gets the character. Andrew portrays Spider-Man brilliantly - he's pretty perfect as Peter, in my eyes. Yes, he's more of a slacker/cooler/hipster Spidey that's not exactly from the comics, but it works for me. Different interpretations, and all. It's true enough to the character where I don't go, "that's not Spider-Man," even though it's different. Emma Stone as Gwen is perfect casting, right up there with Heath Ledger as the Joker.

Both series have a welcome place with me, especially on my movie shelves.

[Booker Dewitt]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

has anyone actually watched SM3 recently? forget the villains and such... the real offense was the jazz dancing, the strutting and pointing, etc... I was embarrassed for Maguire it was so awful.

I think those scenes came from Raimi's dislike of Venom, or that's what it seems like to me. And while I enjoyed the dance scene when I saw it on tv a couple of days ago for it's camp, I gotta admit that I really appreciate it as a middle finger to the suits.

[Batman1980]

Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 5/5
Amazing Spider-Man - 4.5/5
Spider-Man 3 - 3.5/5
Spider-Man 2 - 4/5
Spider-Man - 3/5

[ultlife2013]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 5/5

Amazing Spider-Man - 4.5/5

Spider-Man 3 - 3.5/5

Spider-Man 2 - 4/5

Spider-Man - 3/5

:lol: those ratings are something else alright.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by B72

I love Spider-Man 1
...
my only gripe would be Macy Gray
- what the heck ?

Product placement basically. An appearance to add a song and help sell the soundtrack (not score). (though after her 15 minutes of fame was up, the appearance was quickly dated and obsolete)

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by AmandaBanana

What is this I don't even

I'll tell you what it is - it's one of the primary reasons these films arent as good as they could have been: Maguire. The other two reasons: Dunst and Franco.