|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 21, 2017 10:31:42 GMT
Spiderman 2 because it has stakes, an actual story, a great villain and some of the best action ever in a CBM. Ah yes, "stakes". Because the movie can't be good unless the world/city/Universe is on the verge of annihilation and we can't just enjoy the hero having a normal adventure. And unless they threaten to kill off the entire cast.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Oct 21, 2017 10:49:27 GMT
Funny, I just replied to someone about Spidey. the strongest film is Spiderman 2.
am sorry but the disney channel influence approach to homecoming takes it way down.the first spiderman films were far and apart better.
raimi movies was a great character study of spiderman,peter parker, his world and his loved ones.
Homecoming is sadly more marvel disney generic nonsense that has had zero impact on such an iconic marvel property like spiderman.
I wish disney had just fucking made their own 'kid' hero than turning spiderman into one. You know spiderman is in trouble when Spiderman TAS had more maturity than a live action movie and that cartoon was so censored.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 21, 2017 10:53:54 GMT
Spider-Man: Homecoming Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man 3
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 21, 2017 10:55:36 GMT
Funny, I just replied to someone about Spidey. the strongest film is Spiderman 2. am sorry but the disney channel influence approach to homecoming takes it way down.the first spiderman films were far and apart better. raimi movies was a great character study of spiderman,peter parker, his world and his loved ones. His Peter was pathetic, and the movies were loaded with too many coincidences. Except in being more true to his character and not being afraid to put him in a bigger Universe rather than pretend he's on his own. As always, you remain ashamed of the source material.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 21, 2017 11:31:00 GMT
Spiderman 2 because it has stakes, an actual story, a great villain and some of the best action ever in a CBM. Ah yes, "stakes". Because the movie can't be good unless the world/city/Universe is on the verge of annihilation and we can't just enjoy the hero having a normal adventure. And unless they threaten to kill off the entire cast. Its a superhero movie, so yes something grave has to be happening. But the main reason Spiderman 2 is better because its more mature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 11:51:06 GMT
For those that are curious. I chose Spider-Man 1 btw. In order of decreasing box office numbers. RT | BUDGET | BOX OFFICE | Spider-Man 3 (63%) | 258mil | 890mil | Spider-Man: Homecoming (92%) | 175 | 879+ | Spider-Man (89%) | 139 | 821 | Spider-Man 2 (94%) | 200 | 783 | TASpider-Man (72%) | 230 | 757 | TASpider-Man 2 (52%) | 200 | 709 |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 21, 2017 14:13:09 GMT
To be fair, they should have done something like that in BvS. Superman didn't need to die. Instead of giving us a completely unearned and forced death, it could have been avoided if he just gave the spear to Wonder Woman. 1st, Wonder Woman was holding the lasso that was tied around Doomsday. If she took the spear, then she couldn't hold the lasso and Superman was still too weak from the kryptonite to hold the lasso around Doomsday.
2nd, Doomsday was Kryptonian so Superman considered Doomsday to be a Kryptonian threat and thus it was his responsibility to make sure that Doomsday was neutralized. Superman wasn't going to pass off his responsibility to someone else (like the Avengers do - "that's below our pay grade") and have someone else risk their life to neutralize a Kryptonian threat.
Like I said though, Wonder Woman was taking a beating from Doomsday and seemed to not mind and could take it. I'm sure she could have easily found a way to stabilize him with the spear, hell, even her own sword. Superman's death was avoidable in so many ways
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 21, 2017 14:37:24 GMT
Ah yes, "stakes". Because the movie can't be good unless the world/city/Universe is on the verge of annihilation and we can't just enjoy the hero having a normal adventure. And unless they threaten to kill off the entire cast. Its a superhero movie, so yes something grave has to be happening. But the main reason Spiderman 2 is better because its more mature. That "raindrops" scene is more childish than anything in SMH.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 21, 2017 16:01:41 GMT
Spiderman 2 because it has stakes, an actual story, a great villain and some of the best action ever in a CBM. Homecoming had stakes, and actual story, and a great villain too. But yes, the train sequence in Spider-Man 2 is still one of the best sequences ever in a superhero movie.
|
|
tavaresmd
Sophomore
I Love Classic Monsters
@tavaresmd
Posts: 443
Likes: 124
|
Post by tavaresmd on Oct 21, 2017 18:32:02 GMT
Spider-Man Spider-Man 3 Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man: Homecoming The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 21:27:49 GMT
The only good Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie was the second one, and Spider-Man: Homecoming was the worst Spider-Man movie and it was kiddie. The Amazing Spider-Man series was the best Spider-Man series, the first one is the best Spider-Man movie ever. It was more dark and more mature. The second one has problems, but I'll take it over any of the crappy MCU movies. In fact, it's very MCU-like; the humor, the action, except it's done better here, and most importantly, it had stakes. Spider-Man should've never joined the MCU. Sony should've continued the Amazing Spider-Man series.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 21, 2017 21:29:15 GMT
I haven't seen Spider-Man 6/Homeocming. I would rank the others as follows:
Spider-Man (2002) Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man 3 Spider-Man 4 ("The Amazing Spider-Man") Spider-Man 5 ("The Amazing... 2")
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 21, 2017 21:38:31 GMT
To be fair, they should have done something like that in BvS. Superman didn't need to die. Instead of giving us a completely unearned and forced death, it could have been avoided if he just gave the spear to Wonder Woman. 1st, Wonder Woman was holding the lasso that was tied around Doomsday. If she took the spear, then she couldn't hold the lasso and Superman was still too weak from the kryptonite to hold the lasso around Doomsday.
2nd, Doomsday was Kryptonian so Superman considered Doomsday to be a Kryptonian threat and thus it was his responsibility to make sure that Doomsday was neutralized. Superman wasn't going to pass off his responsibility to someone else (like the Avengers do - "that's below our pay grade") and have someone else risk their life to neutralize a Kryptonian threat.
Diana's pretty fast and can hold her own against Doomsday, handing her the spear, letting go of the lasso and then getting the spear to Doomsday's chest shouldn't take any less than five seconds.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 21, 2017 21:39:56 GMT
The only good Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie was the second one, and Spider-Man: Homecoming was the worst Spider-Man movie and it was kiddie. The Amazing Spider-Man series was the best Spider-Man series, the first one is the best Spider-Man movie ever. It was more dark and more mature. The second one has problems, but I'll take it over any of the crappy MCU movies. In fact, it's very MCU-like; the humor, the action, except it's done better here, and most importantly, it had stakes. Spider-Man should've never joined the MCU. Sony should've continued the Amazing Spider-Man series. Dark and mature doesn't equal good, and Sony did have plans to continue The Amazing Spider-Man series but the second was too big a disappointment in various areas to go on.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 21, 2017 21:40:54 GMT
Ah yes, "stakes". Because the movie can't be good unless the world/city/Universe is on the verge of annihilation and we can't just enjoy the hero having a normal adventure. And unless they threaten to kill off the entire cast. Its a superhero movie, so yes something grave has to be happening. But the main reason Spiderman 2 is better because its more mature. Except Spider-Man 2 isn't more mature.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 21, 2017 22:23:22 GMT
Its a superhero movie, so yes something grave has to be happening. But the main reason Spiderman 2 is better because its more mature. Except Spider-Man 2 isn't more mature. Spiderman 2 deals with a Peter Parker who is in his late teens/early 20s. Hes got job, love, parental, college, career and dual identity problems. Thats by definition more mature than Tom Holland's whose only worry is getting a call back from Happy Hogan and getting a homecoming date. No comparison. One is very light hearted in nature, the other is more serious.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 21, 2017 22:25:26 GMT
Dark and mature doesn't equal good, It does if you're an adult who appreciates quality film making.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 22:34:23 GMT
Dark and mature doesn't equal good, It does if you're an adult who appreciates quality film making. Well Back to the Future had humor and wasn't too dark and it's a classic.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 21, 2017 22:37:19 GMT
Dark and mature doesn't equal good, It does if you're an adult who appreciates quality film making. Spider-Man 3 was more dark than Homecoming, you must think SM3 is better than Homecoming.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 21, 2017 22:38:29 GMT
It does if you're an adult who appreciates quality film making. Well Back to the Future had humor and wasn't too dark and it's a classic. There are exceptions but generally the best movies in any given genre are always more "mature".
|
|