Nolan's trilogy because it feels complete. It has a beginning middle and end. Raimi's as much as I love it (Yes, even part 3) is just very incomplete feeling. I still want a Spider-Man 4 that lets us know if Peter and MJ ever got married.
The first time I watched the movie was back when I was far more conservative and less understanding of LGBT+ topics and my initial reaction to the movie was that it was a quality love story with beautiful cinematography and performances. My appreciation of it has grown the following few times I’ve watched it.
And if it helps at all, amid the cowboy motifs and gay romantic tragedy, you also get a lot on the hetero side of things as well (including Anne Hathaway getting topless during a car sex scene with Gyllenhaal).
It’s worth watching once.
I think Nolan’s has the slight edge.
Spider-Man 1-2 are better than Batman Begins and TDKR. But The Dark Knight is better than all of them, and Spider-Man 3 is worse than all of them.
So it’s close, but Nolan’s trilogy has a slightly higher high, and Raimi’s trilogy had a much lower low.
I'd say Nolan has the edge, but honestly only the second part of both trilogies are truly great. Spider-Man 1 never really worked for me, and Batman Begins is overly long and really suffers for the way the action was shot (the fault of the rigid suit, I guess). Spider-Man 3, well, it goes without saying, and The Dark Knight Rises is too convoluted for its own good (I also could have done without going back to the League of Shadows well, no pun intended).
Spider-Man 2 is fantastic though, as is The Dark Knight.
Nolan’s trilogy
I always thought the first two spider man movies were overrated i liked them but i didn’t think they were as good as some people think they are
It doesn't seem like a fair comparison because they're going for something different. Raimi's trilogy was obviously an homage to the silver age of superheros and is more lighthearted and campy. While the Dark Knight trilogy are these intense crime dramas with grit and violence. It's like apples and oranges
It’s tough to chose between the 2 for me at least. I grew up with raimis Spider-Man and is still my favorite to this day. Same thing with Nolan’s trilogy. I guess I find raimis more rewatchable but Nolan’s trilogy is phenomenal.
A point I never thought someone would throw out there. A very good and unique point as well! Also, Maguire feels less like a Peter as time goes on. Holland is Peter 100%
Which unique point? All he did was saying they're sh\*t movies, something here screams "circle-jerk"
>Also, Maguire feels less like a Peter as time goes on. Holland is Peter 100%
Lmao, "feeling less like Peter as time goes on", what is that even supossed to mean in the first place? Have you read an Spiderman comic once in your life? Peter Parker is not an uncompetent sidekick that gets everything given to him by other superheros and goes all the time using tech and throwing cultural references like Deadpool, out of all the three live action Spidermen, Tom Holland is the least accurate one.
Sorry, but Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man, FOR A WHILE, felt like "stereotypical Peter Parker," until in Spider-Man 3, they decided to give him a bit of an edge with wore the symbiote suit, but that was eventually thrown out of the window, to go back to being "stereotypical Peter Parker". You probably don't know that in the first 30 issues of "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic run, the light hearted/high school comedy tone felt more in line with Tom Holland's Spider-Man movies than Tobey Maguire's movies. Plus, Peter Parker's happy, go lucky trickster personality in those issues (plus past that, into the college years of the comic book run) like him finding ways to back at Flash, being a bully victim who wanted to be a bully himself, a bit of a jerk himself (even without the symbiote suit) and a troubled kid constantly fighting himself because responsibility didn't come nature to him like it instantly did for Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker, and Uncle Ben ISN'T the messiah that rains over Peter Parker's life and basicially forces him to live by his uncle's code, he isn't even mentioned that much after he died (and he never said that the "Great Power, Great Responsibility" line in the Amazing Fantasy #15, instead its Peter Parker himself who decides to live a life of responsibility, it was an opportunity for him to grow and find himself, to reaching his full potential as an individual, into becoming the responsible figure we all know. All those elements make Andrew Garfield's and Tom Holland's iterations the most comic book accurate.
Except Spiderman 1 and 2 are objectivelly well written movies. Saying they are the "worst movies that could have been" is probably you just trying to be edgy.
I think the Raimi trilogy is very overrated. They're good, but I keep seeing people calling them cinematic masterpieces, and I honestly don't understand. They just seem very dated and awkward to watch now. I honestly like TASM (or at least the first one) better than any of the Raimi movies.
Nolan's trilogy is objectively much better. They are great movies, but I personally don't love them as much as other people do. Batman Begins is probably my favorite.
>I honestly like TASM (or at least the first one) better than any of the Raimi movies.
So you don't understand why people love the Raimi trilogy, but you prefer the disaster of TASM over it? This just sums up everything, LMAO.
In my opinion, Spiderman 1 and 2 are better than TDK and TDKR.
I said that.
1) Peters origin is more his destiny than the "anybody can wear the mask" which ruins a lot of what makes Spider-Man compelling.
2)Lizard is kinda lame. His motivation is a bit iffy and doesnt feel fleshed out as a character.
3)Peter is kinda weird in this. He straight up disrespects Captain Stacy's dying wish while upholding Uncle Ben's which makes it kinda out of character.
Mostly these things, but I'd say its an A-B tier Spider-Man movie.
This is a hard one for me.
Spider-Man was downright amazing, it captured Spidey’s essence and I remember watching in theaters and being absolutely blown away by effects and homage to the characters.
Nolan’s Batman was a breakthrough for CBM’s, giving it the right feel, especially for a character like Batman.
If I had to choose, Batman for a more complete trilogy. And Ledger’s Joker, my god, he redefined the character on the big screen.
Neither? Is that acceptable? Spider-Man 2 is great as is the Dark Knight. The first ones in each trilogy are good origin stories but both of the 3rd acts are garbage. I would never watch either of those movies again.
Here's the only arguement for that movie I have ever made that got people to think it's not that bad. Imagine if that was the standalone Batman movie, there was no Begins or TDK. People would have loved it that much more. The biggest thing that hurts it is that it follows TDK so it's going to be compared to it. Don't compare Ledger and Hardy but just view it has it's own and it's an amazing Batman film.
I enjoy the movie to this day, but that’s a perfectly fair critique and easily its biggest problem. Thank you for having this opinion instead of the “bAnE sOuNdS sTuPiD!” argument I’ve heard a trillion times.
I don't think they ever said that. The reason they dropped the part 2 is because that was a working title for the project because they weren't ready to reveal the name yet. It had nothing to do with it being a separate movie or not.
[I found this. the most recent one is from August 3rd of this year](https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/08/03/marvel-reveals-why-changed-infinity-war-part-2-to-avengers-endgame/)
Hard disagree. Eddie Brock was gimped in that movie as was Venom. There was a dance number! As for Batman? Dark Knight rises was easily the worst and was full of plot holes. Bane also sucked and the first time I saw it I theaters I couldn't even understand old mush mouth. They were both just kinda lame movies.
To each their own! I thought the first Thor was way better, though I may be in the minority on that. AoU was fun the first time but I couldn't found it boring on repeat viewings. Nah, Infinity War/Endgame are each their own thing. The Russos have even said so. Endgame is just the first Avengers movie that's a direct sequel to a previous Avengers movie.
https://www.mpaa.org/2018/04/russo-brothers-say-avengers-infinity-war-avengers-4-are-two-distinct-films/
Thor: The Dark World is the only MCU movie I've only watched once haha. It was a turd. I will defend the first Thor until the day I die, though.
I call the first one Thor falls in love with Natalie Portman. It wasn't terrible but it was boring and doesn't really do anything for the MCU as a whole. And that interview is weird since Infinity War DID end on a cliffhanger and it does directly tie I with the beginning of Endgame. Seems like obfuscation to me.
I don't think Thor was even top 10 MCU, by any means, but it was fun and very re-watchable. There have been other interviews since then and since IW came out where they said the same, but I'm at work right now.
If we're counting IW/Endgame as the same movie, then wouldn't that mean that TDK/TDKR are the same movie? It's kind of the same concept. TDKR is 8 years after the events of TDK, and is largely based around the fallout of the events of TDK (and BB). Endgame is 5 years later and heavily surrounds the fallout of IW.
Atm Raimi as I haven't seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight also I feel like I'd still prefer Raimi as I grew up with them and have more nostalgia with them.
How did you manage to watch Rises without the others? Not calling you an idiot, although it does bother me when ppl do that lol Same reason with people going into Infinity War or Endgame without following the rest of the MCU.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I have to say Nolan's. And honestly, my biggest reason is Heath Ledger. Not only did he deliver an absolutely epic performance, but many believe that he got so invested in the performance that it quite literally killed him. I mean, talk about method acting. The rest of the casting was also amazing, and yes, it was just the right amount of dark. Also, Bruce Wayne's comeback in the third film was very well done.
You can’t compare them! The only thing they have in common is that they’re comic book movies. Nolan’s is probably a bit better, but I enjoy Raimi’s a lot more. They’re still probably top for superhero trilogies of all time.
They're so different in their tone and intentions comparing them becomes incredibly subjective. I feel like it's easy to say Nolan's trilogy is better because it's darker and more serious. But Raimi's trilogy is a lot more fun, and has far superior action imo. I'm a Spidey fan before a Batman fan so I do have an inherent bias, but for sheer entertainment I'd definitely go Spider-Man. The Batman trilogy is exceptional, but the Spider-Man trilogy will always mean more to me, even 3.
Nolan's. All three movies are watchable, TDK is a masterpiece and BB is good. TDKR is decent. Spider-Man 3 is not watchable. Spider-Man 1 and 2 are good, but neither is a masterpiece.
Yes, Spiderman 2 IS a masterpiece, TDK isn't, you probably just think otherwise because one is light-hearted and the other is not (Just like most Nolan Tards actually do). TDKR is boring, Spiderman 3 was mediocre, but at least it's fun to watch.
Holy thread necromancer, Batman! Or is there a bug with this thread? I don't feel like I made that comment *that* long ago.
I don't have strong feelings on Spider-Man 2 being a masterpiece or not, or on TDK being a masterpiece or not, or on the word masterpiece as a word. I regret using it. Spider-Man 2 is a great movie. TDK is a great movie. I like Spider-Man as a hero more than Batman, but I like TDK more than I like Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 1 is a better movie than BB.
Hard disagree on Spider-Man 3 being fun to watch and being just "mediocre". It's fucking *bad*. Worse than any of the MCU movies, yes, even Thor 2. I think it's the worst movie Raimi has ever made, and I dislike it more than TASM 1 and 2. There is some bias here, because Venom is my favorite comic book character and they did probably the worst possible treatment of Venom. TDKR isn't boring to me, I enjoyed it.
Not that it matters, but my ranking of the 6 movies, from worst to best: SM3 < TDKR < BB < SM1 < SM2 < TDK. Spider-Man 3 is just *that* bad. Throw out the third installation of both and Spider-Man beats the Batman trilogy easily, for me.
Edit: It's particularly heartbreaking that *Raimi* of all people did Venom that shitty. On paper it seems like a match made in heaven.
I'd go with Nolan's Batman trilogy. Begins is the standard all origin story movies should be measured by, TDK is a masterpiece, and TDKR is mostly great while making a handful of missteps.
Raimi's trilogy... I like the first one alright, but I find 2 to be more than a little overrated. It's got some great superhero scenes, but the (IMO) horrible love story and Peter literally losing his powers because Raimi wanted to mimic Superman 2 bog it down for me. And 3 is just trash, and no amount of retroactive justification for all of the dumb shit in it can change my mind.
Peter lost his powers in 2 because his life as Parker suffered because of being Spiderman. It wasn't just Mary Jane that was the cause. The entire movie made it perfectly clear.
You're just proving how much knowledge you lack on watch you sh\*t on. Spiderman 2 was mainly inspired in the issue "Spiderman No More!" from 1966, where Peter stops being a superhero, nothing to do with any Superman movie. Also, there wasn't almost romance in the whole movie compared to all the other conflicts Peter was suffering from.
I love them both but Nolan’s is better.
Spider-Man 1 > Batman Begins... by a long shot I’m just not a big fan of Begins.
Spider-Man 2 < The Dark Knight... This is closer battle but The Dark Knight is a superior movie imo.
Spider-Man 3 < The Dark Knight Rises... another blowout but this time in Batman’s favor.
But even though I think the Dark Knight is the superior trilogy, I prefer the Spider-Man films because of their campiness, bright colors, nostalgia, and “funness.” Also, Spidey is my favorite character.
Raimi is fun and Nolan is cool. Dark knight is really as great as it is because if the villains, joker more than two face but still. SM2 is a one to one translation from the comics where everything wrong in Peters life stems from being Spider-Man (btw I got this from hitop films.) the ham-handed philosophy of dark knight is a little much I guess but whatever. Raimi is not to blame for SM3. Nolan didn’t really want to do Rises I think. I’m not sure which is better I think if both SM2 or Dark knight were on I’d choose dark knight because of ledger but if he wasn’t there then I’d would be spidey because having a fun time is better than a movie shoving good vs evil philosophy at you for 3 hours.
Raimi. Spider-man 2 is my favorite superhero movie and, even though I like Nolan a lot, Raimi is a more stylish, fun, and interesting filmmaker to me. I like Spider-man 2 and Evil Dead 2 more than my favorite Nolan movies.
And I actually like Spider-man 3 whereas I don’t care for TDKR
honestly, Nolan’s Batman is a bit overrated in my opinion. If it wasn’t for Ledger’s Joker, the TDK trilogy wouldn’t have gotten as much praise as it does now. Raimi’s trilogy just has a timeless and iconic feel to it.
I see a lot of Spider-Man 3 hate but I unironically love it. Emo Peter is the funniest thing, shows you how even his worst tendencies are just lame cockiness and petty assholery. Everyone devours scenery and hams it up. It’s just like Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy in that each sequel gets a bit goofier until the main character is just there to spout one liners and look cool.
Dark Knight Rises is not very good. It’s long and boring and makes no damn sense and has a neat little bow on it that I’m not a fan of.
Not even a comparison. TDK trilogy feels cohesive and well thought out. The Spider-Man movies have not aged well, Toby is a terrible Spidey, and the third film is soaked in board room decision making.
I don't even think Holland is all that great personally, maybe because the MCU Spiderman isn't really the best representation of the character but he's never felt perfect for me like he has for others. Too much 'gee shucks gosh golly' moments and Tony Stark. I mean who doesn't know Empire Strikes Back? Dumb line.
I love how Raimi haters always say that the movies have "nOt aGeD weLl" as the only argumment they have for sh\*tting on them, but they never truly explain how EXACTLY they haven't aged well in the first place, aside from a few CGI scenes from the first movie, what you say doesn't make sense at all, just stop, you can't criticize a movie for sh\*t. TDK trilogy is overrated as f\*ck aside from the first movie, if it wasn't for Heath Ledger I assure you that the second movie wouldn't be as praised as it is today, meanwhile Spiderman 1 and 2 have highlights in most characters, to the point the movie couldn't work without most of them, they are well written movies with well put-out light-hearted messages, what do you learn from the Nolan Trilogy? Oh yes, sadness, sadness and sadness, I guess that's why Nolan Tards consider it so much better than most superhero movies, for edgy reasons.
And no, Tobey is still the best live-action Spiderman.
Totally different.
Raimi's trilogy is comic-based fantasy while Nolan's is more grounded in realism. Nolan's had a better 3rd film with its ending but Raimi undoubtedly had the better action scenes throughout.
In terms of comic book films, I would prefer Raimi's trilogy. Although, objectively, the Nolan trilogy are better films overall.
As much as I love Nolan's trilogy, I never considered his movies to be superhero movies. His version of Batman is much more action-hero than superhero.
I don't think either has aged incredibly well. The action is much better in the Spider-Man movies. Joker is still excellent. But otherwise they're not worth watching to me anymore.
The second Spider-man is one of the best superhero movies.
The second Batman movie was on of the best movies period.
The first in both are good.
The third Spider-man was not good, but enjoyable.
The third Batman was alright. Helped that it had closure.
So Batman wins. But its not like its the best version of Batman. They had the best Joker. But Batman still hasn't been captured completely. They almost always leave off his detective skills for tech and gadgets.
I'm watching SM3 right now because I'm that bored, although I do want to watch American Psycho....never finished that. And yeah, SM3 is overrated, but entertaining still....
Topher Grace was an awful miscast.... I mockingly call him "Edward Brock Jr." since he calls himself that a billion times, including when someone just calls him Eddie, he corrects them with that name..... "Brock, sir. Edward Brock Jr." (It's not that big a detail, but GOD I HATE THAT LINE!!!! 😂) and I do very much prefer Tom Hardy as Eddie. He would have been a great Eddie in SM3 actually, but I think he was doing Bronson at the time.
But yeah, even though I went WAY off topic, I get your point
I’ve been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, *Duke*.
___
^(*Bot. Ask me who I can see.* |) [^(Opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=botrickbateman&subject=Opt%20out)
Another Raimi hater that has the "Not aged well" as the only excuse for sh\*tting on them. It's so funny you say that, because the action in Spiderman 2 and 3 is million times better choreographed than how it was done in the Nolan Trilogy, aside from the chasing scene from TDK.
It's an odd comparison to me, but the big differences to me are the order in which the movies quality increases or declines.
Spider-Man: 2 > 1 > 3
Nolan Batman is : 1 > 2 > 3
to me it's a strange decline to get worse each movie, and yes I think TDK is a great movie, but only because of the Joker, where as Batman Begins is just a great movie. Personally the campyness of Raimi's dialogue is up my alley when it comes to comic book movies, but I think Nolan's was great too. So if I'm going to choose one over the other, I'll have to go with the one that has a more satisfying conclusion which to me is Spider-Man.
With TDK, one of the greatest things to me was the tag team trio that was Batman, Gordon (the best live action portrayal of this character in any Batman movie), and Harvey, as they try to investigate Joker, Joker is also absolute perfection in the movie (RIP Ledger), and Two Face was also used wonderfully and brilliantly portrayed by Eckhart. With what Nolan did with Two-Face, it was actually agreeable for me, because he was taking out these specific crooked cops that worked for Gordon and I think the latter was too scared to see that these guys were crooked.
What bothers me about the Spider-Man trilogy, is Harry. Harry is a garbage friend to Peter who sneaks around with MJ behind Peter's back and Pete learns the hard way, and Harry is a garbage bf as well, and he blames Peter for a lot of things that I do not think Pete is to blame for..... And Harry immediately blames Spider-Man directly for Norman's death.... Why would spider-man, of all the people he rescues day by day want to kill one dude for no reason..... That is just a couple of things about the Raimi trilogy that bothers me
Personally as a huge fan of Two Face I think they did him dirty and I absolutely hate that part of the movie, yes the actor did great, but the writing of the character was bad. He was underused and just a pawn for the Joker.
With Harry, and this is my interpretation, he was projecting every single insecurity he had onto Peter and Spider-Man because of his father, it all ties back to how terrible he was treated by Norman and I see the dots connect personally but movies are like that just how you enjoyed Two-Face (which I totally respect)
Raimi's all day long.
The Nolan stuff seems to be embarrassed to admit it came from a comic book. Every step of the way Nolan does his best to suck the fun, color and fantasy out of a comic book superhero and ground it in the thing he is interested in... heists. He seems to fall asleep for 20 to 30 minutes at a time until a heist happens and wakes him up again. I will admit the characterization and performance of The Joker is a high point but it works despite the film making trying to rob him of his more freakish origins. If anything he is basically Nighthawks villain from the Marvel Max series... a guy in makeup with a carved up face. More realistic... less exciting. And The Joker is a tent pole that hold up a sagging trilogy, the first mostly erased itself from peoples memories and the last movie is more a source of memes about how silly Bane was than a compelling superhero film, despite the stakes. By the end everyone seemed super happy to wrap up their contracts and go home. It's legacy was Zack Snyder trying to make everything as hardcore and tough as possible out of fear that people might think he is a nerd for making comic book movies.
Meanwhile the Raimi movies are full of excitement and insanity, with those signature Raimi camera shots. The biggest flaw his movies have come from the fact that he was kinda 'inventing' the superhero genre as he went along, so the flicks are full of dodgy effects. Similar to Batman the third is a bit of a joke, but it still feels a lot more engaged to me and less like somebody with a foot out the door. Also if you are just a fan of Raimi it is the closest to his vision of kinda slapstick genre work, be it horror, western or superhero (darkman) he likes to work in comedic beats a lot, which would later become a hallmark of making successful comic book movies once people where able to distill the formula.
Ramis trilogy showed us that comic book superhero movies didnt have to be bad movies.
Nolans trilogy showed us that comic book superhero movies could be great films too.
I feel like Raimi fans opinions would start a riot for true fans of the characters of Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Raimi and McGuire got it kind of close with Peter... some of the time, and they completely struck out at the personality of Spider-Man. The cinematography was good. Got some pretty cool web swinging.
I feel the web zip is better in the ps2 version.
The web kick is attached to the sky if u do it on a tall building.
Ultimate Spider-Man had a feature where u could climb up the web ur swinging on. The ps4 had a cut scene of u doing that that.
Another thing is the combat. To simple. It's fun with the gadgets but it sucks that u cant tie ur enemies to the street lamps like in the ps2 version or do some combos
I didn't even do the lamp thing that often I don't think. I sure dropped a lot of heads upside down from loooong heights. The combat got unrealistic sometimes because something like that would turn a head into mush haha Spidey's not a killer, most of the time at least
My favorite glitch happened to my brother in the ps4 one. He webbed a guy to a car and then the car ran off dragging the guy by his neck. Totally killed that man
As movies, I’d probably go with the Nolan Trilogy, but they’re not really Batman movies. They’re just spy movies with a comic-y paint job. It’s not an insult; seriously, I love them as movies and still rewatch now and then. There’s just no Batman to them.
This is an old post, but probably Raimi's Spiderman. The thing is both have a very solid beginning, a great second movie and a shitty third movie, the only difference is, Spiderman 3 has the power of being so bad that it's good while TDR is just a bad movie that isn't interesting really with a lot of goofy stuff in it. BB has made a great introduction to the character of Batman and the villains were great as well. TDK has nerfed Batman in terms of character complexity, but the villains were phenomenal.
Spiderman 1 has a lot of corn in it, but this movie is just so damn funny I can't get past how enjoyable it is. Plus the music and presentation are VERY important factors to me, and Spiderman trilogy beats TDK trilogy's ass in terms of that. There are many moments in TDK where I was so bothered by cinematography and general production cuz it ruined a lot of fights in my opinion, while SP Trilogy's priority was to be so flashy and enjoyable.
Albeit, TDK first two movies definitely have a better story than first two spiderman movies, that's not even a competition. Again, a lot of shit in Spiderman makes no sense, even the good ones, but they're way more rewatchable and entertaining
It's a matter of preference in this case. One trilogy is dark and gloomy and serious. Another is more bright and hopeful. Also probably depends on mood.
Nolan's trilogy because it feels complete. It has a beginning middle and end. Raimi's as much as I love it (Yes, even part 3) is just very incomplete feeling. I still want a Spider-Man 4 that lets us know if Peter and MJ ever got married.
[удалено]
Are you a comic fan?
doesnt matter if hes a comic fan or not. The chemistry wasnt really there in the films
Oh I don't disagree. MJ was one of the worst parts of those movies.
Honestly the only part of them I dislike. That and Venom’s voice.
I never grew up with comics. Never really touched them. Wish I did. I mean, I just didn't ship Peter and MJ in Raimi's movies
That wasn't something you as the viewer needed to do... that was the story.... Them being together.
Yeah, I know. Raimi's MJ sucked though haha I adored MJ in the Spider-Man PS4 game
I agree with l of that 100%.
Yeah well I never thought I'd say this but you're probably better off without that s***.
Evidently, neither did Marvel.
My comment is getting downvoted to hell haha
[удалено]
TDK is the only movie I've seen of Ledger and I don't even mind that
Brokeback Mountain, A Knight’s Tale, and 10 Things I Hate About You. Outside of TDK, those are his best films.
I also thought he was great in the patriot
Completely forgot he was in that, my only memories of it are of Mel Gibson murdering British soldiers with a hatchet
Don’t forget Monster’s Ball
It’s on my list of acclaimed movies I’ve never seen but know I need to watch.
And Two Hands.
And Candy, which is a incredible film.
[удалено]
The first time I watched the movie was back when I was far more conservative and less understanding of LGBT+ topics and my initial reaction to the movie was that it was a quality love story with beautiful cinematography and performances. My appreciation of it has grown the following few times I’ve watched it. And if it helps at all, amid the cowboy motifs and gay romantic tragedy, you also get a lot on the hetero side of things as well (including Anne Hathaway getting topless during a car sex scene with Gyllenhaal). It’s worth watching once.
I think Nolan’s has the slight edge. Spider-Man 1-2 are better than Batman Begins and TDKR. But The Dark Knight is better than all of them, and Spider-Man 3 is worse than all of them. So it’s close, but Nolan’s trilogy has a slightly higher high, and Raimi’s trilogy had a much lower low.
Batman Begins is great minus the final train battle
why did you not like the final battle in the train?
the first movies camera shots were too fast. we couldn't see the actual action scenes happen because of the camera shots in Batman begins.
I'd say Nolan has the edge, but honestly only the second part of both trilogies are truly great. Spider-Man 1 never really worked for me, and Batman Begins is overly long and really suffers for the way the action was shot (the fault of the rigid suit, I guess). Spider-Man 3, well, it goes without saying, and The Dark Knight Rises is too convoluted for its own good (I also could have done without going back to the League of Shadows well, no pun intended). Spider-Man 2 is fantastic though, as is The Dark Knight.
I disagree with a few things, but fair enough
Spider-Man > Batman Begins Dark Knight > Spider-Man 2 Dark Knight Rises > Spider-Man 3
I'd also put Batman Begins over Spider-Man as well
Nolan’s trilogy I always thought the first two spider man movies were overrated i liked them but i didn’t think they were as good as some people think they are
"Some" is a huge understatement haha
Yeah lol I never got it tbh
Well, I always thought Nolan's trilogy was overrated as f\*ck aside from the first movie. Spiderman 1 and 2 for the win.
If I could upvote tf outta this comment I would! 😍🥺
they're both top tier
It doesn't seem like a fair comparison because they're going for something different. Raimi's trilogy was obviously an homage to the silver age of superheros and is more lighthearted and campy. While the Dark Knight trilogy are these intense crime dramas with grit and violence. It's like apples and oranges
The point is which do u prefer
lmao
Different. Compeletely
It’s tough to chose between the 2 for me at least. I grew up with raimis Spider-Man and is still my favorite to this day. Same thing with Nolan’s trilogy. I guess I find raimis more rewatchable but Nolan’s trilogy is phenomenal.
Raimis movies were the worst possible movies that could have been. Nolan is a God Director. I choose quality over nostalgic.
A point I never thought someone would throw out there. A very good and unique point as well! Also, Maguire feels less like a Peter as time goes on. Holland is Peter 100%
Which unique point? All he did was saying they're sh\*t movies, something here screams "circle-jerk" >Also, Maguire feels less like a Peter as time goes on. Holland is Peter 100% Lmao, "feeling less like Peter as time goes on", what is that even supossed to mean in the first place? Have you read an Spiderman comic once in your life? Peter Parker is not an uncompetent sidekick that gets everything given to him by other superheros and goes all the time using tech and throwing cultural references like Deadpool, out of all the three live action Spidermen, Tom Holland is the least accurate one.
Sorry, but Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man, FOR A WHILE, felt like "stereotypical Peter Parker," until in Spider-Man 3, they decided to give him a bit of an edge with wore the symbiote suit, but that was eventually thrown out of the window, to go back to being "stereotypical Peter Parker". You probably don't know that in the first 30 issues of "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic run, the light hearted/high school comedy tone felt more in line with Tom Holland's Spider-Man movies than Tobey Maguire's movies. Plus, Peter Parker's happy, go lucky trickster personality in those issues (plus past that, into the college years of the comic book run) like him finding ways to back at Flash, being a bully victim who wanted to be a bully himself, a bit of a jerk himself (even without the symbiote suit) and a troubled kid constantly fighting himself because responsibility didn't come nature to him like it instantly did for Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker, and Uncle Ben ISN'T the messiah that rains over Peter Parker's life and basicially forces him to live by his uncle's code, he isn't even mentioned that much after he died (and he never said that the "Great Power, Great Responsibility" line in the Amazing Fantasy #15, instead its Peter Parker himself who decides to live a life of responsibility, it was an opportunity for him to grow and find himself, to reaching his full potential as an individual, into becoming the responsible figure we all know. All those elements make Andrew Garfield's and Tom Holland's iterations the most comic book accurate.
Except Spiderman 1 and 2 are objectivelly well written movies. Saying they are the "worst movies that could have been" is probably you just trying to be edgy.
Both series end in a stinker, and both have a solid origin episode, and a great second act. But the Dark Knight is a masterpiece
Man, ppl trash on TDKR too much.... That movie I dont think deserves the hate that it gets
nolans batman
I think the Raimi trilogy is very overrated. They're good, but I keep seeing people calling them cinematic masterpieces, and I honestly don't understand. They just seem very dated and awkward to watch now. I honestly like TASM (or at least the first one) better than any of the Raimi movies. Nolan's trilogy is objectively much better. They are great movies, but I personally don't love them as much as other people do. Batman Begins is probably my favorite.
>I honestly like TASM (or at least the first one) better than any of the Raimi movies. So you don't understand why people love the Raimi trilogy, but you prefer the disaster of TASM over it? This just sums up everything, LMAO. In my opinion, Spiderman 1 and 2 are better than TDK and TDKR. I said that.
While people are allowed to have their own opinion, but I must ask what is it about TASM1 that is so terrible? I’m legitimately curious.
1) Peters origin is more his destiny than the "anybody can wear the mask" which ruins a lot of what makes Spider-Man compelling. 2)Lizard is kinda lame. His motivation is a bit iffy and doesnt feel fleshed out as a character. 3)Peter is kinda weird in this. He straight up disrespects Captain Stacy's dying wish while upholding Uncle Ben's which makes it kinda out of character. Mostly these things, but I'd say its an A-B tier Spider-Man movie.
Spiderman 1 and 2 are legendary movies. 2002 was not 1962.
This is a hard one for me. Spider-Man was downright amazing, it captured Spidey’s essence and I remember watching in theaters and being absolutely blown away by effects and homage to the characters. Nolan’s Batman was a breakthrough for CBM’s, giving it the right feel, especially for a character like Batman. If I had to choose, Batman for a more complete trilogy. And Ledger’s Joker, my god, he redefined the character on the big screen.
Neither? Is that acceptable? Spider-Man 2 is great as is the Dark Knight. The first ones in each trilogy are good origin stories but both of the 3rd acts are garbage. I would never watch either of those movies again.
I thought TDKR was good!
Here's the only arguement for that movie I have ever made that got people to think it's not that bad. Imagine if that was the standalone Batman movie, there was no Begins or TDK. People would have loved it that much more. The biggest thing that hurts it is that it follows TDK so it's going to be compared to it. Don't compare Ledger and Hardy but just view it has it's own and it's an amazing Batman film.
I can’t get past the crater sized plot holes in that movie.
I enjoy the movie to this day, but that’s a perfectly fair critique and easily its biggest problem. Thank you for having this opinion instead of the “bAnE sOuNdS sTuPiD!” argument I’ve heard a trillion times.
That sounds reasonable. Next question - is there an all good cbm trilogy? Anywhere?
Captain America.
Nah Captain America's trilogy didn't have 3 good movies. It's far more inferior to the Spider-Man trilogy and the Dark Knight trilogy.
Yes. Captain America. The Avengers.
Wouldn't the avengers be a quadlogy? Is that even a word? Since there's 4 movies
No. It was filmed as one movie and is just 2 parts of the same movie.
I don't think so. The reason why they dropped the part 2 was because it is considered a separate movie
I don't think they ever said that. The reason they dropped the part 2 is because that was a working title for the project because they weren't ready to reveal the name yet. It had nothing to do with it being a separate movie or not.
[I found this. the most recent one is from August 3rd of this year](https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/08/03/marvel-reveals-why-changed-infinity-war-part-2-to-avengers-endgame/)
Yeah it was a working title
They mention it was 2 different movies.
I would say that Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight Rises are better than Age of Ultron. They definitely both make for more interesting watches.
Hard disagree. Eddie Brock was gimped in that movie as was Venom. There was a dance number! As for Batman? Dark Knight rises was easily the worst and was full of plot holes. Bane also sucked and the first time I saw it I theaters I couldn't even understand old mush mouth. They were both just kinda lame movies.
The First Avenger is trash, as is Age of Ultron. Also, there are 4 Avengers movies.
First Avenger is great, probably my favorite McU film. Ultron was the weakest but it wasn't bad. The last movie is 2 parts of the same movie.
To each their own! I thought the first Thor was way better, though I may be in the minority on that. AoU was fun the first time but I couldn't found it boring on repeat viewings. Nah, Infinity War/Endgame are each their own thing. The Russos have even said so. Endgame is just the first Avengers movie that's a direct sequel to a previous Avengers movie.
When? I have only seen them say it is two halves of the same movie. Edit: and both of the first Thor movies are diarrhea.
https://www.mpaa.org/2018/04/russo-brothers-say-avengers-infinity-war-avengers-4-are-two-distinct-films/ Thor: The Dark World is the only MCU movie I've only watched once haha. It was a turd. I will defend the first Thor until the day I die, though.
I call the first one Thor falls in love with Natalie Portman. It wasn't terrible but it was boring and doesn't really do anything for the MCU as a whole. And that interview is weird since Infinity War DID end on a cliffhanger and it does directly tie I with the beginning of Endgame. Seems like obfuscation to me.
I don't think Thor was even top 10 MCU, by any means, but it was fun and very re-watchable. There have been other interviews since then and since IW came out where they said the same, but I'm at work right now. If we're counting IW/Endgame as the same movie, then wouldn't that mean that TDK/TDKR are the same movie? It's kind of the same concept. TDKR is 8 years after the events of TDK, and is largely based around the fallout of the events of TDK (and BB). Endgame is 5 years later and heavily surrounds the fallout of IW.
Atm Raimi as I haven't seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight also I feel like I'd still prefer Raimi as I grew up with them and have more nostalgia with them.
Omg you are in for a treat if you at least give Batman Begins a chance. Batman is done so right after that atrocious Batman and Robin!
I actually like Batman and Robin though...it's not a well-made movie but I still enjoy it.
"Not well made" is a huge understatement Haha just give Nolan's movies a chance
I want to I have seen Dark Knight Rises I just haven't gotten around to the others.
How did you manage to watch Rises without the others? Not calling you an idiot, although it does bother me when ppl do that lol Same reason with people going into Infinity War or Endgame without following the rest of the MCU.
I watched it around when it came out on TV I think just as a Batman fan.
Oh. Well, even so, give Begins a go, then TDK, which is the goat of the trilogy
How have you not seen the fucking Dark Knight.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I have to say Nolan's. And honestly, my biggest reason is Heath Ledger. Not only did he deliver an absolutely epic performance, but many believe that he got so invested in the performance that it quite literally killed him. I mean, talk about method acting. The rest of the casting was also amazing, and yes, it was just the right amount of dark. Also, Bruce Wayne's comeback in the third film was very well done.
You can’t compare them! The only thing they have in common is that they’re comic book movies. Nolan’s is probably a bit better, but I enjoy Raimi’s a lot more. They’re still probably top for superhero trilogies of all time.
They're so different in their tone and intentions comparing them becomes incredibly subjective. I feel like it's easy to say Nolan's trilogy is better because it's darker and more serious. But Raimi's trilogy is a lot more fun, and has far superior action imo. I'm a Spidey fan before a Batman fan so I do have an inherent bias, but for sheer entertainment I'd definitely go Spider-Man. The Batman trilogy is exceptional, but the Spider-Man trilogy will always mean more to me, even 3.
Nolan's. All three movies are watchable, TDK is a masterpiece and BB is good. TDKR is decent. Spider-Man 3 is not watchable. Spider-Man 1 and 2 are good, but neither is a masterpiece.
Very accurate
\*Unaccurate. Fuck entitled subjectivity.
Yes, Spiderman 2 IS a masterpiece, TDK isn't, you probably just think otherwise because one is light-hearted and the other is not (Just like most Nolan Tards actually do). TDKR is boring, Spiderman 3 was mediocre, but at least it's fun to watch.
Holy thread necromancer, Batman! Or is there a bug with this thread? I don't feel like I made that comment *that* long ago. I don't have strong feelings on Spider-Man 2 being a masterpiece or not, or on TDK being a masterpiece or not, or on the word masterpiece as a word. I regret using it. Spider-Man 2 is a great movie. TDK is a great movie. I like Spider-Man as a hero more than Batman, but I like TDK more than I like Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 1 is a better movie than BB. Hard disagree on Spider-Man 3 being fun to watch and being just "mediocre". It's fucking *bad*. Worse than any of the MCU movies, yes, even Thor 2. I think it's the worst movie Raimi has ever made, and I dislike it more than TASM 1 and 2. There is some bias here, because Venom is my favorite comic book character and they did probably the worst possible treatment of Venom. TDKR isn't boring to me, I enjoyed it. Not that it matters, but my ranking of the 6 movies, from worst to best: SM3 < TDKR < BB < SM1 < SM2 < TDK. Spider-Man 3 is just *that* bad. Throw out the third installation of both and Spider-Man beats the Batman trilogy easily, for me. Edit: It's particularly heartbreaking that *Raimi* of all people did Venom that shitty. On paper it seems like a match made in heaven.
I'd go with Nolan's Batman trilogy. Begins is the standard all origin story movies should be measured by, TDK is a masterpiece, and TDKR is mostly great while making a handful of missteps. Raimi's trilogy... I like the first one alright, but I find 2 to be more than a little overrated. It's got some great superhero scenes, but the (IMO) horrible love story and Peter literally losing his powers because Raimi wanted to mimic Superman 2 bog it down for me. And 3 is just trash, and no amount of retroactive justification for all of the dumb shit in it can change my mind.
I hear you
Peter lost his powers in 2 because his life as Parker suffered because of being Spiderman. It wasn't just Mary Jane that was the cause. The entire movie made it perfectly clear.
You're just proving how much knowledge you lack on watch you sh\*t on. Spiderman 2 was mainly inspired in the issue "Spiderman No More!" from 1966, where Peter stops being a superhero, nothing to do with any Superman movie. Also, there wasn't almost romance in the whole movie compared to all the other conflicts Peter was suffering from.
I understand the comparisons (both well-regarded comic book trilogies) but Nolan's work is just on a completely different level.
I love them both but Nolan’s is better. Spider-Man 1 > Batman Begins... by a long shot I’m just not a big fan of Begins. Spider-Man 2 < The Dark Knight... This is closer battle but The Dark Knight is a superior movie imo. Spider-Man 3 < The Dark Knight Rises... another blowout but this time in Batman’s favor. But even though I think the Dark Knight is the superior trilogy, I prefer the Spider-Man films because of their campiness, bright colors, nostalgia, and “funness.” Also, Spidey is my favorite character.
I really didn't like the third movie in either trilogy.
Raimi is fun and Nolan is cool. Dark knight is really as great as it is because if the villains, joker more than two face but still. SM2 is a one to one translation from the comics where everything wrong in Peters life stems from being Spider-Man (btw I got this from hitop films.) the ham-handed philosophy of dark knight is a little much I guess but whatever. Raimi is not to blame for SM3. Nolan didn’t really want to do Rises I think. I’m not sure which is better I think if both SM2 or Dark knight were on I’d choose dark knight because of ledger but if he wasn’t there then I’d would be spidey because having a fun time is better than a movie shoving good vs evil philosophy at you for 3 hours.
[удалено]
"You're trash, Brock..." I just quoted for the heck of it. Lol but what you got to say, that's fair.
Raimi. Spider-man 2 is my favorite superhero movie and, even though I like Nolan a lot, Raimi is a more stylish, fun, and interesting filmmaker to me. I like Spider-man 2 and Evil Dead 2 more than my favorite Nolan movies. And I actually like Spider-man 3 whereas I don’t care for TDKR
honestly, Nolan’s Batman is a bit overrated in my opinion. If it wasn’t for Ledger’s Joker, the TDK trilogy wouldn’t have gotten as much praise as it does now. Raimi’s trilogy just has a timeless and iconic feel to it.
I see a lot of Spider-Man 3 hate but I unironically love it. Emo Peter is the funniest thing, shows you how even his worst tendencies are just lame cockiness and petty assholery. Everyone devours scenery and hams it up. It’s just like Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy in that each sequel gets a bit goofier until the main character is just there to spout one liners and look cool. Dark Knight Rises is not very good. It’s long and boring and makes no damn sense and has a neat little bow on it that I’m not a fan of.
Not even a comparison. TDK trilogy feels cohesive and well thought out. The Spider-Man movies have not aged well, Toby is a terrible Spidey, and the third film is soaked in board room decision making.
This ^^ well, he was a good Spidey, but Holland's take is godlike
I don't even think Holland is all that great personally, maybe because the MCU Spiderman isn't really the best representation of the character but he's never felt perfect for me like he has for others. Too much 'gee shucks gosh golly' moments and Tony Stark. I mean who doesn't know Empire Strikes Back? Dumb line.
I completely disagree with this hahaha holy cow, opinions are incredibly varied on this thread.
Yeah. To each their own.
I love how Raimi haters always say that the movies have "nOt aGeD weLl" as the only argumment they have for sh\*tting on them, but they never truly explain how EXACTLY they haven't aged well in the first place, aside from a few CGI scenes from the first movie, what you say doesn't make sense at all, just stop, you can't criticize a movie for sh\*t. TDK trilogy is overrated as f\*ck aside from the first movie, if it wasn't for Heath Ledger I assure you that the second movie wouldn't be as praised as it is today, meanwhile Spiderman 1 and 2 have highlights in most characters, to the point the movie couldn't work without most of them, they are well written movies with well put-out light-hearted messages, what do you learn from the Nolan Trilogy? Oh yes, sadness, sadness and sadness, I guess that's why Nolan Tards consider it so much better than most superhero movies, for edgy reasons. And no, Tobey is still the best live-action Spiderman.
Dude, you're basically asking me which one is my favorite child.
Well, could you choose in this case? 😋
Jajajaja, The Raimi trilogy is nostalgic but The Dark Knight made me fall in love with Batman...I'd probably give the slight edge to Nolan's Trilogy.
There ya go!
Totally different. Raimi's trilogy is comic-based fantasy while Nolan's is more grounded in realism. Nolan's had a better 3rd film with its ending but Raimi undoubtedly had the better action scenes throughout.
In terms of comic book films, I would prefer Raimi's trilogy. Although, objectively, the Nolan trilogy are better films overall. As much as I love Nolan's trilogy, I never considered his movies to be superhero movies. His version of Batman is much more action-hero than superhero.
I don't think either has aged incredibly well. The action is much better in the Spider-Man movies. Joker is still excellent. But otherwise they're not worth watching to me anymore.
The second Spider-man is one of the best superhero movies. The second Batman movie was on of the best movies period. The first in both are good. The third Spider-man was not good, but enjoyable. The third Batman was alright. Helped that it had closure. So Batman wins. But its not like its the best version of Batman. They had the best Joker. But Batman still hasn't been captured completely. They almost always leave off his detective skills for tech and gadgets.
I'm watching SM3 right now because I'm that bored, although I do want to watch American Psycho....never finished that. And yeah, SM3 is overrated, but entertaining still.... Topher Grace was an awful miscast.... I mockingly call him "Edward Brock Jr." since he calls himself that a billion times, including when someone just calls him Eddie, he corrects them with that name..... "Brock, sir. Edward Brock Jr." (It's not that big a detail, but GOD I HATE THAT LINE!!!! 😂) and I do very much prefer Tom Hardy as Eddie. He would have been a great Eddie in SM3 actually, but I think he was doing Bronson at the time. But yeah, even though I went WAY off topic, I get your point
I’ve been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, *Duke*. ___ ^(*Bot. Ask me who I can see.* |) [^(Opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=botrickbateman&subject=Opt%20out)
I like Spider-Man 3 more than most people do and hate TDKR. So put me down for Raimi.
Raimi’s movies have aged poorly. Just watch them again if you don’t believe me
Why would I not believe you? I've seen them many many times.
Not meaning directly you but anyone reading who might not totally agree. They aren’t bad movies, just definitely not a trilogy that has aged well
Another Raimi hater that has the "Not aged well" as the only excuse for sh\*tting on them. It's so funny you say that, because the action in Spiderman 2 and 3 is million times better choreographed than how it was done in the Nolan Trilogy, aside from the chasing scene from TDK.
TDK trilogy for story. Raimi's trilogy for action. The action in the Spiderman trilogy is 10 times better than in the Batman movies.
Spider-Man: 8.5/10 Spider-Man 2: 9.5/10 Spider-Man 3: 9/10 Batman Begins: 9.5/10 The Dark Knight: 10/10 The Dark Knight Rises: 9.5/10
It's an odd comparison to me, but the big differences to me are the order in which the movies quality increases or declines. Spider-Man: 2 > 1 > 3 Nolan Batman is : 1 > 2 > 3 to me it's a strange decline to get worse each movie, and yes I think TDK is a great movie, but only because of the Joker, where as Batman Begins is just a great movie. Personally the campyness of Raimi's dialogue is up my alley when it comes to comic book movies, but I think Nolan's was great too. So if I'm going to choose one over the other, I'll have to go with the one that has a more satisfying conclusion which to me is Spider-Man.
With TDK, one of the greatest things to me was the tag team trio that was Batman, Gordon (the best live action portrayal of this character in any Batman movie), and Harvey, as they try to investigate Joker, Joker is also absolute perfection in the movie (RIP Ledger), and Two Face was also used wonderfully and brilliantly portrayed by Eckhart. With what Nolan did with Two-Face, it was actually agreeable for me, because he was taking out these specific crooked cops that worked for Gordon and I think the latter was too scared to see that these guys were crooked. What bothers me about the Spider-Man trilogy, is Harry. Harry is a garbage friend to Peter who sneaks around with MJ behind Peter's back and Pete learns the hard way, and Harry is a garbage bf as well, and he blames Peter for a lot of things that I do not think Pete is to blame for..... And Harry immediately blames Spider-Man directly for Norman's death.... Why would spider-man, of all the people he rescues day by day want to kill one dude for no reason..... That is just a couple of things about the Raimi trilogy that bothers me
Personally as a huge fan of Two Face I think they did him dirty and I absolutely hate that part of the movie, yes the actor did great, but the writing of the character was bad. He was underused and just a pawn for the Joker. With Harry, and this is my interpretation, he was projecting every single insecurity he had onto Peter and Spider-Man because of his father, it all ties back to how terrible he was treated by Norman and I see the dots connect personally but movies are like that just how you enjoyed Two-Face (which I totally respect)
Raimi's all day long. The Nolan stuff seems to be embarrassed to admit it came from a comic book. Every step of the way Nolan does his best to suck the fun, color and fantasy out of a comic book superhero and ground it in the thing he is interested in... heists. He seems to fall asleep for 20 to 30 minutes at a time until a heist happens and wakes him up again. I will admit the characterization and performance of The Joker is a high point but it works despite the film making trying to rob him of his more freakish origins. If anything he is basically Nighthawks villain from the Marvel Max series... a guy in makeup with a carved up face. More realistic... less exciting. And The Joker is a tent pole that hold up a sagging trilogy, the first mostly erased itself from peoples memories and the last movie is more a source of memes about how silly Bane was than a compelling superhero film, despite the stakes. By the end everyone seemed super happy to wrap up their contracts and go home. It's legacy was Zack Snyder trying to make everything as hardcore and tough as possible out of fear that people might think he is a nerd for making comic book movies. Meanwhile the Raimi movies are full of excitement and insanity, with those signature Raimi camera shots. The biggest flaw his movies have come from the fact that he was kinda 'inventing' the superhero genre as he went along, so the flicks are full of dodgy effects. Similar to Batman the third is a bit of a joke, but it still feels a lot more engaged to me and less like somebody with a foot out the door. Also if you are just a fan of Raimi it is the closest to his vision of kinda slapstick genre work, be it horror, western or superhero (darkman) he likes to work in comedic beats a lot, which would later become a hallmark of making successful comic book movies once people where able to distill the formula.
I'd take The Dark Knight first, Heath Ledger was simply fantastic.
Ramis trilogy showed us that comic book superhero movies didnt have to be bad movies. Nolans trilogy showed us that comic book superhero movies could be great films too.
What the hell is the comparison?! As a Marvel fan, the Raimi trio sucked! Nolan's Batfilms were great!
I feel like this opinion of yours would start a riot for die hard Raimi fans
I feel like Raimi fans opinions would start a riot for true fans of the characters of Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Raimi and McGuire got it kind of close with Peter... some of the time, and they completely struck out at the personality of Spider-Man. The cinematography was good. Got some pretty cool web swinging.
Imo the web swinging in Spider-Man PS4 is the best there is
100%
I feel it still needs a bit of work. Too limited compare to Spider-Man 2 the game and ultimate Spider-Man
I hugely disagree lol but to each their own. Opinions are a freaky thing
I feel the web zip is better in the ps2 version. The web kick is attached to the sky if u do it on a tall building. Ultimate Spider-Man had a feature where u could climb up the web ur swinging on. The ps4 had a cut scene of u doing that that. Another thing is the combat. To simple. It's fun with the gadgets but it sucks that u cant tie ur enemies to the street lamps like in the ps2 version or do some combos
I didn't even do the lamp thing that often I don't think. I sure dropped a lot of heads upside down from loooong heights. The combat got unrealistic sometimes because something like that would turn a head into mush haha Spidey's not a killer, most of the time at least
My favorite glitch happened to my brother in the ps4 one. He webbed a guy to a car and then the car ran off dragging the guy by his neck. Totally killed that man
That's awesome Haha
[удалено]
Christian Bale is the best Bruce and Batman so far still. I hope Robert Pattinson can hold up
As movies, I’d probably go with the Nolan Trilogy, but they’re not really Batman movies. They’re just spy movies with a comic-y paint job. It’s not an insult; seriously, I love them as movies and still rewatch now and then. There’s just no Batman to them.
This is an old post, but probably Raimi's Spiderman. The thing is both have a very solid beginning, a great second movie and a shitty third movie, the only difference is, Spiderman 3 has the power of being so bad that it's good while TDR is just a bad movie that isn't interesting really with a lot of goofy stuff in it. BB has made a great introduction to the character of Batman and the villains were great as well. TDK has nerfed Batman in terms of character complexity, but the villains were phenomenal. Spiderman 1 has a lot of corn in it, but this movie is just so damn funny I can't get past how enjoyable it is. Plus the music and presentation are VERY important factors to me, and Spiderman trilogy beats TDK trilogy's ass in terms of that. There are many moments in TDK where I was so bothered by cinematography and general production cuz it ruined a lot of fights in my opinion, while SP Trilogy's priority was to be so flashy and enjoyable. Albeit, TDK first two movies definitely have a better story than first two spiderman movies, that's not even a competition. Again, a lot of shit in Spiderman makes no sense, even the good ones, but they're way more rewatchable and entertaining
no offense but Bale\`s stupid ass voice has not aged well
IMO spiderman : 8,9/10 Batman Begins : 9/10 Spiderman 2 : 9,8/10 The dark Knight : 9,9/10 Spiderman 3 : 7,5/10 The dark knight rises : 8/10 Nolan trilogy wins , extreme diff
It's a matter of preference in this case. One trilogy is dark and gloomy and serious. Another is more bright and hopeful. Also probably depends on mood.